Reply to: White British minority in "vibrant" and "diverse" London

[vetran]

The correct way to resolve ICT & Highly skilled is to set minimum wage at 95th percentile of all wages all taxable from day one, no double taxation, no tax reclaim or access to public funds.

That way they stop it being about cost. These are supposedly exceptional workers so they should be in top 5% of earners.

[vetran]

If you followed the discussion, Robinho is concerned with immigrants as a whole, not just the visa-holding kind (mostly with the 'cleaner' types of EU workers). In the grand scheme of all things immigration/EU movement, the number of company sponsored visas is clearly a non-issue.

is it?

Cleaners etc are probably tax neutral, there is so little tax take (most UK cleaners would qualify for tax credits anyway)we should be glad of any money they spend here. ICT level jobs traditionally are likely to provide £10,000+ of tax per person.

They drive the wages down for other similar jobs so we are probably seeing tax take reductions from that as well.

Also remember this is per year, renewals aren't in these figures. They can last 5+ years and naturalise.

It is also 10% of immigration, which doubles to 20% + if you consider spouses etc.

EU we missed the boat we could have held off for 7 years the government decided not to.

Illegals we are slowly starting to close the borders but there are so many

[Robinho]

Are you now proposing that the highest bidder pays for their visa retrospectively? After they earned it back in the UK? Or should they just get into debt over their application?

There are many ways to finance things. I've not specified any as of yet.

Are you actually under the impression that the best jobs always go to the best people? And how would they know that in advance? How would that spoilt, inexperienced, just-out-of-uni kid of wealthy parents anticipate that there's a chance they may not end up in a particularly great job over here? Yet this is another category of people who'd easily make it in through your auction, yet may not be part of that highly productive workforce you really want.

But this is the case in the real world anyway, there's no way of getting round this. However, it will still skew the immigrants coming into the UK to more skilled workers.

Not a whole lot of employers sponsor visas at the moment. Adding massive additional costs through an auction system,

There aren't many sponser because there are so many immigrants (too many). Cost will never be onerous because it will be an auction. Nobody is going to bid for a visa for a price that makes no economic sense so the price will stop going up.

but it's also likely to cause a skills-gap in certain industries.

No it won't. Here's the dynamics, skill shortage >> jobs in that industry pay more due to low supply >> salaries reach a price where it's economical to get a visa.

The UK isn't currently handing 'them out to anyone'.

They effectively are via the EU.

Your creative misinterpretation of my point is what's idiotic here. A lot of what you've attempted to paraphrase here bears no resemblance to what I've actually written. Your reading skills are really unimpressive.

Here's what you said...

"But you seem to think that this would be helped by creating a barrier that essentially encourages the corrupt ones and discourages the honest (but not wealthy) hard-worker."

Catching and prosecuting them retrospectively, once they're in, is quite a considerable tax-drain.

Maybe you should reclarify your position if you think i've got it wrong.

I give up. Just keep thinking that your little idea (alongside leaving the EU of course) will magically fix everything you think is wrong with immigration at present.

What i think is wrong with immigration is that too many people are coming in vs going out and the population is swelling, if you think auctioning off a set amount of visas isn't going to cure that, and if you can't see how it would skew it to higher skilled workers, tbh, you are mentally retarded.

[formant]

BBC News - Company migrants to UK outnumber skilled worker visas

If you followed the discussion, Robinho is concerned with immigrants as a whole, not just the visa-holding kind (mostly with the 'cleaner' types of EU workers). In the grand scheme of all things immigration/EU movement, the number of company sponsored visas is clearly a non-issue.

[vetran]

Not a whole lot of employers sponsor visas at the moment. Adding massive additional costs through an auction system, is going to reduce that number even further, meaning even more employers won't bother with foreign residents at all. That may be a 'win' for the type of person that's of the opinion that immigrants are 'stealing' our jobs, but it's also likely to cause a skills-gap in certain industries.


The UK isn't currently handing 'them out to anyone'.

BBC News - Company migrants to UK outnumber skilled worker visas

Firms using the intra-company transfer (ICT) scheme brought in 29,700 non-European staff in the 12 months to September 2011.

The number of entrants to the UK via ICT per million of the population was "substantially higher for the UK" than for comparable countries such as the US, Spain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany and Ireland.

One firm alone, which is a major manufacturer in Britain but also has a consultancy arm, brought in 4,000 migrant workers alone last year, Prof Metcalf said.

- That would be Tata then.

not sure where you are getting your opinions from but they need reviewing.

[amcdonald]

Light brown babies?

As long as they're not Gordon Brown babies eeek

[formant]

You are still completely missing the point. It's almost fascinating.

Hard working underpaid people will want to come to the UK because they are the ones that could benefit the most. If they can massively increase their salary then some of that can cover visa costs and they'll still be up.

Are you now proposing that the highest bidder pays for their visa retrospectively? After they earned it back in the UK? Or should they just get into debt over their application?

Alternatively, if an average worker with a lot of wealth comes to the UK, they won't be able to get a job that will offset the cost of the visa and will make a loss.

Are you actually under the impression that the best jobs always go to the best people? And how would they know that in advance? How would that spoilt, inexperienced, just-out-of-uni kid of wealthy parents anticipate that there's a chance they may not end up in a particularly great job over here? Yet this is another category of people who'd easily make it in through your auction, yet may not be part of that highly productive workforce you really want.

Ultimately it's likely that employers would cover the costs of a visa if the candidate accepts a lower salary, meaning many will be chosen completely on merit. Much like how some niche-industry employers cover the cost of training at the minute.

Not a whole lot of employers sponsor visas at the moment. Adding massive additional costs through an auction system, is going to reduce that number even further, meaning even more employers won't bother with foreign residents at all. That may be a 'win' for the type of person that's of the opinion that immigrants are 'stealing' our jobs, but it's also likely to cause a skills-gap in certain industries.

That depends on the ability to get visas here, if we handed them out to anyone, obviously that would not change.

The UK isn't currently handing 'them out to anyone'.

No it's not, your point is idiotic, you're basically arguing that rich people are a net loss to the treasury because there is such a high level of corruption. Which is of course, ludicrous. Additionally you have already suggested that rich people can get around the visa overheads anyway or don't even need a visa, so really, all the oligarchs that want to come to the UK are probably here anyway and we aren't going to see many or any more.

Your creative misinterpretation of my point is what's idiotic here. A lot of what you've attempted to paraphrase here bears no resemblance to what I've actually written. Your reading skills are really unimpressive.

I give up. Just keep thinking that your little idea (alongside leaving the EU of course) will magically fix everything you think is wrong with immigration at present. Phew, am I glad that you're not actually in a position to influence policy on this or any topic.

[lilelvis2000]

He really doesn't. I do love the idea that I should have to provide evidence of islamic terrorism. Hilarious. When was the last Islamic terrorist plotter convicted? Oh yes, just last week wasn't it?

Accountancy graduate jailed for having terrorist material on her phone - Court - London news, sport & events - London24

You've gone from "Pakistani and Bangladeshi" are culturally inclined to terrorism, to "Muslims" and to "Islamic". Muslims and Islamic are not ethnicities so really your point was "All terrorists are Muslims". Why didn't you just say that instead? Presumably there's little difference in your head so you use the terms interchangeably.

BTW the woman in the link was deemed not to be a terrorist herself. So your description of her as a "plotter" was incorrect.

[xoggoth]

He really doesn't. I do love the idea that I should have to provide evidence of islamic terrorism. Hilarious. When was the last Islamic terrorist plotter convicted? Oh yes, just last week wasn't it?

Accountancy graduate jailed for having terrorist material on her phone - Court - London news, sport & events - London24

[DodgyAgent]

So where's your evidence then? As you're the one making the claim. Lets see it.



So its okay to be racist then because you might face a backlash for being racist.

Educationally, I don't think any one race is smarter than any other. Culturally, in some parts of the world education is seen as a waste of time. Far better to get a young kid at work then have him sitting "idle" at school. A family might be able to afford to send one child - but not all.

Muslims haven't been here all that long..the trend is upward so in the next 20-30 years they'll match everyone else. In fact a few muslims schools are now amongst the top performing in the country.

So at least some out there are working to improve the situation, rather than just moan about it and think "hey if there were less of them".

You don't do logic do you?

[lilelvis2000]

Really??? YOU haven't seen any? Well, that settles it. The CIA and MI5 and all the other security organisations must be wrong then, why are they wasting our money?

So where's your evidence then? As you're the one making the claim. Lets see it.

Nobody would seriously deny that racism is a factor, the comparison of white and ethnic graduates finding work is 56% and 66% respectively according to this, although as I said, it is a complex issue. It is the unaddressed actions of some who raise predudice against others. I suspect too that some people are fearful that will not be free to discipline those from ethnic minorities without being accused of racism. Hand any group of people a chance to blame others and some of them will take it.

So its okay to be racist then because you might face a backlash for being racist.

Educationally, I don't think any one race is smarter than any other. Culturally, in some parts of the world education is seen as a waste of time. Far better to get a young kid at work then have him sitting "idle" at school. A family might be able to afford to send one child - but not all.

Muslims haven't been here all that long..the trend is upward so in the next 20-30 years they'll match everyone else. In fact a few muslims schools are now amongst the top performing in the country.

So at least some out there are working to improve the situation, rather than just moan about it and think "hey if there were less of them".

[Robinho]

That was my point. Now how easily do you think these people would outbid others with money from less legitimate or honorable sources in a visa auction? You're creating a hurdle particularly for the hard-working underpaid (those with a damn good reason to come over here). You're not creating a hurdle for those with family money (which says little about their individual productivity) or those with illegitimate means of obtaining the necessary funds. The 'cleaners' are already not getting visas, so that's not something that needs fixing.

Hard working underpaid people will want to come to the UK because they are the ones that could benefit the most. If they can massively increase their salary then some of that can cover visa costs and they'll still be up. Alternatively, if an average worker with a lot of wealth comes to the UK, they won't be able to get a job that will offset the cost of the visa and will make a loss. Ultimately it's likely that employers would cover the costs of a visa if the candidate accepts a lower salary, meaning many will be chosen completely on merit. Much like how some niche-industry employers cover the cost of training at the minute.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the level of immigration is actually the key problem - simply stepping out of the EU and having all those currently free-moving people apply for visas would already drastically reduce immigration (particularly of 'cleaners' and other 'unskilled' workers).

That depends on the ability to get visas here, if we handed them out to anyone, obviously that would not change. Hence the need to curtail them. A pricing solution, is simple, reflective of market demands and creates a stream of revenue at the same time.

It's one of the key flaws in your argument - I'm not surprised you don't want to hear it.

No it's not, your point is idiotic, you're basically arguing that rich people are a net loss to the treasury because there is such a high level of corruption. Which is of course, ludicrous. Additionally you have already suggested that rich people can get around the visa overheads anyway or don't even need a visa, so really, all the oligarchs that want to come to the UK are probably here anyway and we aren't going to see many or any more.

[formant]

What are you talking about? There are tons of foreign cleaners, i don't know the last time i met an English cleaner.

They're unlikely to hold visas and work permits, they're generally EU citizens. I'm not sure what your issue with cleaners is in general, as particularly because not enough English people want to do that type of work, you'd end up with quite a shortage if you cut out all the Europeans coming over to work as cleaners. Those willing to work as cleaners rarely end up unemployed.

If you look back you'll notice i am in favour of leaving the EU and allocating all immigration visas in this fashion.

Yeah, that's the bit I'm not even going to bother discussing. If you think leaving the EU is a great idea, you're a lost cause in my book.

I think you know full well people in Indians are on considerably less money than people in the UK. At the last gig i was at even the Polish IT department were paid half of what we were.

That was my point. Now how easily do you think these people would outbid others with money from less legitimate or honorable sources in a visa auction? You're creating a hurdle particularly for the hard-working underpaid (those with a damn good reason to come over here). You're not creating a hurdle for those with family money (which says little about their individual productivity) or those with illegitimate means of obtaining the necessary funds. The 'cleaners' are already not getting visas, so that's not something that needs fixing.

Never the less reducing the level of immigration is the whole point in the auction as i have explicitly outlined in previous posts (population control).

Aside from the fact that I don't think the level of immigration is actually the key problem - simply stepping out of the EU and having all those currently free-moving people apply for visas would already drastically reduce immigration (particularly of 'cleaners' and other 'unskilled' workers). Your auction idea is completely unnecessary if you also want the UK to leave the EU.

The benefit is not only a source of revenue but also an assurance that the people who come here will be the people that want it the most (by putting their money where their mouth is) or indeed employers that want a candidate the most.

Handling visa applications is quite a costly affair in itself, so a lot of that revenue would probably go into its own administrative processes.
You won't get the people who 'want it the most', you're more likely to get the ones who come 'because they can' instead.

Please stop pushing this embarrassing line of argument. It is beyond flawed.

It's one of the key flaws in your argument - I'm not surprised you don't want to hear it.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Ah, I see. It's just that on CUK one benefits claimant apparently doing quite well means that they're all living in the lap of luxury, or one immigrant committing a crime means that they're all a bunch of violent crooks, and many other examples; so I assumed I could also adduce the case of a single person and it would be accepted as proving a general point.

My mistake; clearly that technique is only valid in cases where it reinforces prejudices, not where it challenges them.

top lad.

[Robinho]

You've gone from talking about increasing the numbers of wealthy, job-creating immigrants coming in through your visa auctioning to attracting more programmers rather than cleaners. Well, newsflash, the latter is already the case. The average cleaner does not have an easy time obtaining a visa under the current arrangement.

What are you talking about? There are tons of foreign cleaners, i don't know the last time i met an English cleaner. If you look back you'll notice i am in favour of leaving the EU and allocating all immigration visas in this fashion.

You should also consider that moving across the world doesn't normally come cheap, so you've got a pretty decent filter there already. What your one-off fee may reduce however, is how many highly skilled programmers actually make it over, as they'd have little interest in moving to the UK if they were already on £50k in their home country.

I think you know full well people in Indians are on considerably less money than people in the UK. At the last gig i was at even the Polish IT department were paid half of what we were. Never the less reducing the level of immigration is the whole point in the auction as i have explicitly outlined in previous posts (population control). The benefit is not only a source of revenue but also an assurance that the people who come here will be the people that want it the most (by putting their money where their mouth is) or indeed employers that want a candidate the most.

Chances are they're underpaid there and still not the ones to come up with a larger lump-sum as easily as someone with ties to corruption.

Please stop pushing this embarrassing line of argument. It is beyond flawed.