Liberal claim that migrant cap would harm the British economy is rubbished
Liberal Democrat claims that the Government’s controversial cap on immigration would harm the economy were rubbished yesterday. There is ‘no evidence’ the policy is harming business, said Professor David Metcalf, the Home Office’s most senior adviser on migration.
He also revealed that just half of the work permits available under the cap – which limits the number of visas available to non-EU skilled migrants to 20,700 each year – are being taken up.
The intervention is a blow to Business Secretary Vince Cable and his Lib Dem colleagues. Along with business groups, they repeatedly argued the policy would harm Britain by leaving firms short of skilled labour. If anything, the figures suggest the cap could be made stricter. Mr Cable is now likely to face ridicule if he makes any attempt to further water down the cap.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘There is growing evidence that business has been crying wolf over immigration controls.’
Professor Metcalf, who was appointed independent chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee by the last Labour government, made his remarks at the launch of the latest list of so-called ‘shortage occupations’, which means British workers do not have the skills to fill them.
Non-EU workers qualified to fill these jobs are the ones most likely to be allowed in under the cap. He said that, in the 12 months to June this year, 8,900 non-European Economic Area skilled workers came to Britain – less than half of the total number allowed. The permits are made available on a monthly basis and half are going unused.
Asked if there is any evidence of harm to the economy, Professor Metcalf replied that he had ‘not seen any’. He added: ‘Those concerns have not manifested themselves.’
He published a list of 29 job titles which he says can no longer justify recruitment from outside the EEA. It includes vets, biology teachers, consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology, and orchestral musicians.
The committee recommends that 70,000 jobs in occupations where there is a UK shortage should no longer be open for migrant workers to apply for. Instead, they could only be filled by UK citizens or workers from the EEA countries. If approved, the number of posts covered by the shortage occupation list would be reduced from 260,000 to 190,000.
As recently as 2008, one million jobs were open to migrants via the list. They are not all jobs which will be taken by a non-EU worker, but only posts for which they will be allowed to apply.
Maths teachers are being recruited from abroad because British graduates are heading to the City
One of the reasons why there is so little demand for the visas is that the economic recovery is sluggish.
During tense negotiations over the level of the cap, Mr Cable repeatedly claimed it was bad for business. His party is known for being strongly pro-immigration. At one stage, he said: ‘We have now lots of case studies of companies which are either not investing or just not able to function effectively because they cannot get key staff – management, specialist engineers and so on – from outside the EU.’
He was also said to have privately described the idea of a tight limit as ‘crazy’ when Britain is trying to boost trade.
SOURCE
Australian conservative leader stalls on bid to legalise Malaysia "refugee" deal
He is right. On Nauru, the illegals would remain under Australian control so there is no basis for a legal challenge
THE Coalition insists an Abbott government could sends asylum seekers to Nauru without amending the Migration Act in a sign it will take a hardline approach to Labor's demands for legislative change.
As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott refused to say whether the Coalition would back Labor's amendments to the Migration Act, Ms Bishop rejected Immigration Department advice given to the Coalition that Nauru could now be on shaky legal ground. "I don't believe that we need amendments to the Migration Act for us to reopen the detention centre on Nauru and for it continue to work as it has in the past," she said. "We believe that the fact that Nauru is now a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees is an important factor."
Ms Bishop said a "desperate" Ms Gillard was talking down the Nauru option for her own purposes. "It would be the final humiliating admission for her that she has been wrong on every aspect of her border protection policies," she said.
Labor has challenged the Coalition to back its changes to the Migration Act designed to place offshore processing beyond doubt following a High Court ruling declaring the Malaysia refugee swap unlawful. Labor says the changes would allow the Malaysian Solution to go ahead, while ensuring a future Coalition government could process asylum seekers on Nauru if it desired.
Mr Abbott said he wanted to see Labor's amendment's to the Migration Act before agreeing to support the government. "I'm not going to pre-empt the government and I'm not going to give them a blank cheque," the Opposition Leader said.
Mr Abbott reiterated his support for offshore processing, but maintained his political attack on the Malaysia deal. "I make the point that it's bad policy," he said.
"I mean, a five-for-one people swap is just a bad deal and sending people to a country where they're caned is hardly a fair deal."
The Greens a strongly opposed to the offshore processing of asylum-seekers, which leaves Labor needing Coalition support to ensure it can proceed with its Malaysian swap deal.
SOURCE
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