British immigration cap deal ‘strikes right balance’
Not so much a cap as a colander, by the sound of it. But legal immigrants are not the problem so it probably does not matter much either way
A compromise deal on the government’s flagship immigration cap policy will be signed off by the cabinet on Tuesday, after Vince Cable agreed that it struck the right balance between addressing the worries of the public and safeguarding the interests of business.
The business secretary’s fears about the economic impact of the cap have been eased by David Cameron’s promise to exempt many “intra-company transfers”, which allow multinationals to bring staff in from overseas offices.
Theresa May, home secretary, was still working on the final announcement on Monday night, which will be unveiled to parliament on Tuesday. But people involved in the talks said they expected companies would be free to transfer staff from overseas if they earn more than £40,000 a year.
It is expected that those earning less than £24,000 a year will be banned from the transfer route, as the government seeks to stem the flow of Indian IT workers entering the country by this means. Those earning £24,000-£40,000 may only be allowed into the UK for a year. The issue of company transfers had emerged as one of the most contentious parts of the policy to restrict the number of work permits given each year to people from outside of the European Union. The Japanese embassy said its companies would have cut investment and withdrawn from the UK if they were stopped from transferring staff.
Ms May is thought to have accepted many of the recommendations made last week by the independent Migration Advisory Committee on how to implement the cap, including lifting required earnings and educational standards across most categories.
David Metcalf, head of the committee, recommended that the limit on skilled and highly skilled non-EU workers be set at 43,700 next year, down from 50,000 in 2009. However, people involved in the talks said the final figure would be different because the committee’s calculation did not take into account Mr Cameron’s exemption for transfers and other factors.
Ms May will also announce a consultation period ahead of implementing deep cuts to the number of foreign visas issued to non-EU students each year. The Home Office says the route is abused by people looking to come to Britain to work. But ministers such as Mr Cable and David Willetts, university minister, want to make sure the restrictions do not damage legitimate universities or hinder bright students.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Jessica Vaughan on Fox & Friends (Video)
2. Jessica Vaughan on fine of Fenway Park vendor (Video)
3. A Case Study: Violating and Enforcing the Immigration Law (Blog)
4. Where is President Obama's 'Yes, We Can' on the Border? (Blog)
5. Some Examples of Clumsy Censorship Within USCIS (Blog)
6. Do Foreign Students Contribute Billions to U.S. Economy, or Take from It? (Blog)
7. Attrition Works, Yet Again (Blog)
8. Illegal Immigration Is a Crime That Breeds More Crime: A Typology (Blog)
9. California Supreme Court Backs Illegal-Alien Tuition Break (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment