Inconvenient Truth - Labour covered up Immigration Reports

[mj.scuba]

It is obvious to most people that immigration control is a joke. My personal view is to keep and train the people already here to a level where they can return home with good jobs and experience to pass on to their fellow countrymen when they all return home in 3-5 years and make the commonwealth grow to include our new ambassadors.

 

Places like Libya, Pakistan and Somalia would then become safe nations.

 

That's a very noble attitude to take, and the issue of more advanced economies sucking skilled people away from less well off countries, draining them of their skilled people like nurses, has been contentious for a long time. I too would like to see us upskill our own people and train more of our own to do the jobs we need so we are less reliant on importing labour.

[Mister M]

Although I'm not in favour of untrammelled (im)migration I do think that we benefit in ways we probably don't appreciate as a nation - I mean having a pool of very low paid workers and unemployed mean that wage inflation is low. If there were just British workers then there would almost certainly be pressure for higher wages.

In general I do find many people who have come to Britain tend to be polite and pleasant, and given the horrendous experiences that some have had in their home country it puts some British born people to shame.

[Wildcat]

Prior to the General Election in 2010, the Labour government commissioned and received three reports on immigration. Those reports cost £100,000+ of tax payers money to produce, but were not released to the public. Until now.

 

Why was that, why would they keep it out of the public eye, away from the press and public scrutiny? Of course, we know the answer, because they didn't like what the reports said, and it showed how wrong they'd got it on immigration.

 

Migrant cover-up: Reports kept secret by Labour show mass immigration cut wages, raised tensions and that too many stayed too long

 

Labour accused of covering up warnings about immigration

 

 

Just yesterday, by sheer coincidence ahead of this coming to light today, Ed Miliband admits immigration DID lower wages.

 

So far as I can see the reports don't tell us anything we didn't already know from reports released under Labour.... ones like this one for example released January last year a few months before the election.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/17/eastern-european-immigration-hits-wages

 

Or here in 2007

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/30/immigrationandpublicservices.pay?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

The impact on low paid work, primarily work undertaken by earlier migrants was well documented, already.

 

The idea this were covered up, makes no sense when the information was readily available and in the public domain thanks to reports commissioned and released under Labour.

 

The BBC reports Tory Minister's are the ones making accusations of a coverup. Considering the baselessness of their accusations. I am wondering what it is they are trying to hide?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12609601

[Mecky]

You need to look beyond the work of the border agency. UKBA don't make policy, they only enforce it, the human interface at the border.

 

No, they make policies

[Mecky]

It is obvious to most people that immigration control is a joke. My personal view is to keep and train the people already here to a level where they can return home with good jobs and experience to pass on to their fellow countrymen when they all return home in 3-5 years and make the commonwealth grow to include our new ambassadors.

 

Places like Libya, Pakistan and Somalia would then become safe nations.

 

You mean educate them and send them home so they can set up businesses, exploit cheap foreign labour (their own nationals) and put even more UK industry to the sword?

[Michael_W]

Amongst those who paid into the system were people who came from Carribean and Asian countries who after WW2 worked as lowly paid employees in transport jobs, the NHS and cotton mills too.

I also think you missed out in your criticism the fact that business, both large and small have benefitted greatly from having people who come from the world over to do low paid jobs, often without trade union representation.

 

I am not on about people coming here after WWII am I, please read the part that said 'New Labour', and don't be so defensive, you'll be playing the bloody race card next, like the rest of them who think like you

[Tony]

There are 3 choices for the future that will come to pass over the next 10 - 20 years.

 

1. We import more people to pay taxes. Labour tried this, it failed with consequences as per the OP.

 

2. We expect our children to pay more tax than we can possibly imagine. This is a vote loser.

 

3. We all come to rely less on the state and do more for ourselves and each other. This is the Big Society,

 

It's a stark choice but that's it. It cannot be changed. There is no option other than eventual euthanasia of the people who are in their 40's now.

[Mecky]

There are 3 choices for the future that will come to pass over the next 10 - 20 years.

 

1. We import more people to pay taxes. Labour tried this, it failed with consequences as per the OP.

 

2. We expect our children to pay more tax than we can possibly imagine. This is a vote loser.

 

3. We all come to rely less on the state and do more for ourselves and each other. This is the Big Society,

 

It's a stark choice but that's it. It cannot be changed. There is no option other than eventual euthanasia of the people who are in their 40's now.

 

Pity 3 won't work as people have already pointed out and more people are finding out every day.

[Tony]

Well just take your pick from the other two, which ever you like unless you prefer option 4 euthanasia.

[Wildcat]

There are 3 choices for the future that will come to pass over the next 10 - 20 years.

 

1. We import more people to pay taxes. Labour tried this, it failed with consequences as per the OP.

 

2. We expect our children to pay more tax than we can possibly imagine. This is a vote loser.

 

3. We all come to rely less on the state and do more for ourselves and each other. This is the Big Society,

 

It's a stark choice but that's it. It cannot be changed. There is no option other than eventual euthanasia of the people who are in their 40's now.

 

1. The Op linked to Telegraph and Daily Mail headlines.... I really doubt that there is much we can learn about immigration from them the number of times they have distorted and misrepresented the evidence to support their xenophobic editorial stances. It is far from clear immigration was an overall failure, it contributed greatly to the economy and national prosperity.

 

2. Pay more tax, is not a vote loser in High tax economies like the Nordic states. They do rather well out of it.

 

3. By Big Society you mean a 19th century conception of charity as providing for the poor, whilst our democratic institutions sit back and say not our problem? (Or like with Westminster Council - banning charity to the poorest).

 

None of these options are mutually exclusive and there are additional other alternatives.

 

A positive duty to pay tax on businesses as the LibDem's favour would be one large step forward towards solving our financial problems.