mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 These 3rd class citizens must work, if they want to eat or have a roof over their head. If they work for a year continuously, they do become eligible for benefits and social housing, but up until then, they will get no help whatsoever. I've been looking at migrating to Australia recently, and I have to say, as a prospective migrant to their country they have their system spot on. If I were to move out there, I could not expect any welfare payment for at least two years. Migrants must have enough funds to support themselves. They also publish a list of in-demand skills that work in tandem with a points based entry system I believe. If you don't possess any skills that they want, don't expect to get in. That seems perfectly sensible, rather than pitching up speculatively for any job. Some people will see this as a good thing, some people will see it as a bad thing. I suppose it depends upon whether or not you want to drive wages down. Many would argue the presance of some skilled migrants has driven down wages because they have been undercutting local labour, though I'm not sure how true that is, I only have the word of local trades people to go by. With no social safety net, these people have been forced into low paid employment and drove down wages. Big business has profited with a little helping hand from the government. Nobody forces them into low paid employment. If they're unskilled, they have to take low paid unskilled work. If they skilled and have a trade, they'll get paid more. If they're highly skilled like surgeons, they'll be paid handsomly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What this story illustrates is the laxity of our immigration rules. Most of the ones in the non-EU category should not be here in the first place and there is now a good case for reviewing the 'freedom of migration' law within the EU, given the huge disparities in wealth between the EU member states (and given that labour is qualitatively different from other factors of production). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What this story illustrates is the laxity of our immigration rules. Most of the ones in the non-EU category should not be here in the first place and there is now a good case for reviewing the 'freedom of migration' law within the EU, given the huge disparities in wealth between the EU member states (and given that labour is qualitatively different from other factors of production). No chance of reviewing it, we'd have to leave the EU to regain control of our borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No chance of reviewing it, we'd have to leave the EU to regain control of our borders. I know very well what the legal position is. In one sense, it has already been reviewed, de facto, because of the moratorium imposed by many EU states on worker migration from the CEECs in 2004. However, the seven year moratorium migration from the CEECs imposed by France, Germany, Italy, Austria is on its way out, meaning that there might be big influxes from the CEECs into these countries. The freedom of movement principle, enshrined in EU law, was formulated when the EU was very different to what it is now. Migration is now a big issue in both France and Germany and, has been shown on several occasions, the French and Germans are quite willing to ignore or overturn sacred EU principles when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/care-and-support/eu-migrants-face-destitution/6513117.article 3rd class citizens from Eastern Europe, specifically the 10 nations classed as A2 and A8, face destitution, research carried out by Wandsworth council has revealed. This is not a surprise, for you see this special group of immigrants are a different kind of citizen. They are 3rd class citizens. Where an asylum seeker would be provided housing and subsistence payments, the A2 or A8 national gets nothing. Even a dog would get housed and fed! These 3rd class citizens must work, if they want to eat or have a roof over their head. If they work for a year continuously, they do become eligible for benefits and social housing, but up until then, they will get no help whatsoever. Some people will see this as a good thing, some people will see it as a bad thing. I suppose it depends upon whether or not you want to drive wages down. With no social safety net, these people have been forced into low paid employment and drove down wages. Big business has profited with a little helping hand from the government. I may be wrong but the UK requires anyone who takes up residence in the country to work for a year before receiving benefits. Not just people from other EU countries but from the likes of USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 it makes no sense to leave your country and go to another where you will be just as bad off ,at least at home they survived until leaving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No chance of reviewing it, we'd have to leave the EU to regain control of our borders. it would be quite possible to review the free movement of people across the EU. Whether there is the political will or not is a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 it would be quite possible to review the free movement of people across the EU. Whether there is the political will or not is a different matter But could we actually do it at national level? Wouldn't it have to be an EU review, which would be dependant on the co-operation of the other EU states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 But could we actually do it at national level? Wouldn't it have to be an EU review, which would be dependant on the co-operation of the other EU states? As i said earlier, the UK is not the only EU country affected by, or concerned about, mass immigration. Several EU states decided in 2004 to ditch the dogma of freedom of movement and imposed their moratorium for seven years. The Commission was not happy about it, but in fact there was nothing they could do. As for unilateral action, less than a year ago the French deported large numbers of Roma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 As i said earlier, the UK is not the only EU country affected by, or concerned about, mass immigration. Several EU states decided in 2004 to ditch the dogma of freedom of movement and imposed their moratorium for seven years. The Commission was not happy about it, but in fact there was nothing they could do. As for unilateral action, less than a year ago the French deported large numbers of Roma. How do some of these other EU states get away with stuff like that when we constantly have rulings against our government on the grounds of human rights? I don't pretend to know how/why these discrepincies occur, but I think if we did something like that and went against EU conventions, we'd be singled out by the rest of the EU states and get hammered for it. Perhaps the UK give too much credence to these EU laws whilst the other EU states don't give a fig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.