Economist article: UK immigration and the economy

Economist article on UK immigration:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/ ... N=35091503

Excerpt:
"In truth, most immigration to Britain is out of any government's hands. EU citizens, who make up nearly 30% of net immigration, may come and go as they please. (Numbers will increase when Romanians and Bulgarians are given the right to work in Britain, which must be granted before 2014.) Asylum-seekers are entitled by UN conventions to a fair hearing, and the government cannot stop its citizens from marrying foreigners and having children with them.

Such folk account for half of Britain's annual immigration. Of the remainder, the majority are students, prized because they pay hefty tuition fees. The only category left to play with is skilled workers from outside the EU, who make up just one-fifth of all immigrants; and some of them (from American bankers to Brazilian footballers) are among the most useful. Cuts in immigration look on the cards, but it is unlikely they will be substantial."

global gypsy wrote:Economist article on UK immigration:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/ ... N=35091503

Excerpt:
"In truth, most immigration to Britain is out of any government's hands. EU citizens, who make up nearly 30% of net immigration, may come and go as they please. (Numbers will increase when Romanians and Bulgarians are given the right to work in Britain, which must be granted before 2014.) Asylum-seekers are entitled by UN conventions to a fair hearing, and the government cannot stop its citizens from marrying foreigners and having children with them.

This is the kind of thinking that will not necessarily be accepted by the public. It is I would suggest inevitable that if immigration on the existing scale continues then immigration control will be reimposed on EU nations, irrespective of the consequences for British citizens in other EU countries.

As for spousal immigration, it is unlikely that there would be a complete bar but there is plenty of scope for restrictions.

Such folk account for half of Britain's annual immigration. Of the remainder, the majority are students, prized because they pay hefty tuition fees.

A highly questionable comment. There is no real evidence that having a large student population benefits anyone, other than the "education industry".

With the exception of those admitted to top-tier institutions, there is an argument that student visas should be limited to established exchange programs.

The only category left to play with is skilled workers from outside the EU, who make up just one-fifth of all immigrants; and some of them (from American bankers to Brazilian footballers) are among the most useful. Cuts in immigration look on the cards, but it is unlikely they will be substantial."

There is plenty of scope to impose a quota on "skilled immigrants" and provide exceptions in certain categories, eg inter-company transfers.

"With the exception of those admitted to top-tier institutions, there is an argument that student visas should be limited to established exchange programs. "


What? Who will subsidise the British students if visas are restricted to the category you propose? Would any country seriously forego billions generated by foreign students in the UK? What abou the goodwill generated by educating foreign students in the UK? Do you not think that educating elites from overseas may one day translate into trade and investment opportunities in the future?

JAJ wrote:This is the kind of thinking that will not necessarily be accepted by the public.

I agree. There are a lot of latent xenophobe sentiments around, and putting the numbers in a certainly light can certainly trigger these. And as the least integrated of the European countries, the UK is always in a difficult position. You cannot lead from the back, and the UK population is not happy to be lead by other nations.

It is I would suggest inevitable that if immigration on the existing scale continues then immigration control will be reimposed on EU nations, irrespective of the consequences for British citizens in other EU countries.

Maybe, but I think there are a lot of ifs and puts first. The UK economy may take a turn for the worse (it already seems to do so), and the economy in Poland may pick up. A lot can happen before 2014. But if European immigrations continues to grow, I would not be surprised of a political backlash. The BNP is just waiting for an opportunity.

There is only one problem: the EU treaties have no exist clause. To the UK can only leave if all other EU countries agree, which seems hardly plausible. And would the government really resort to unilateral action? Who knows.

As for spousal immigration, it is unlikely that there would be a complete bar but there is plenty of scope for restrictions.

There are always the European human rights, but the UK is certainly raising the bar as much as possible. I think families are the main losers of the whole development.

Such folk account for half of Britain's annual immigration. Of the remainder, the majority are students, prized because they pay hefty tuition fees.

Still, I think changes are overdue. So many students are motivated mainly by the visa and the off chance of getting ILR some way or another. Sure they are wealthy, and they pay the high fees, but they also get a lot out of it. I would not be surprised if the government decides to cash in on students. Maybe they will also increase the cap on student fees to keep the "industry" happy.

The only category left to play with is skilled workers from outside the EU, who make up just one-fifth of all immigrants; and some of them (from American bankers to Brazilian footballers) are among the most useful.

When the game is to lower the numbers, these will certainly feel the wind. Useful or not is a detail easily lost in broad political swings.

There is plenty of scope to impose a quota on "skilled immigrants" and provide exceptions in certain categories, eg inter-company transfers.

Since the UK likes to adopt everything that is done in the US, I would not be surprised to see a cap like for the H1B visas.

Tom

Hernancortes wrote:"With the exception of those admitted to top-tier institutions, there is an argument that student visas should be limited to established exchange programs. "


What? Who will subsidise the British students if visas are restricted to the category you propose? Would any country seriously forego billions generated by foreign students in the UK? What abou the goodwill generated by educating foreign students in the UK? Do you not think that educating elites from overseas may one day translate into trade and investment opportunities in the future?

If the government was able to ensure the appropriate funding priorities for UK (and EU) students then universities would not need to assume that they need to rely on international students to maintain a stable income. The current government's policy is to increase the number of British students who go on to university to 50% (1 in 2 young people), yet they have introduced policies on fees which saw them increase from about £1,150 to £3,000 per year.

So, actually, the right funding priorities, coupled with more scholarship opportunities (such as full scholarships for PhD students in certain degrees, such as in the STEM fields) would see more people go on to, and stay in, higher education.

As for educating elites from other countries - why is that goodwill? If the UK wishes to develop a competitive workforce and increase R&D in the STEM fields, they need to start providing funding opportunities to British students and stop complaining about a "skills gap" (more science graduates in country A than in the UK, etc), because it is not that there is no talent in the country, it is the lack of appropriate policies/funding.

sakura wrote:If the government was able to ensure the appropriate funding priorities for UK (and EU) students then universities would not need to assume that they need to rely on international students to maintain a stable income. The current government's policy is to increase the number of British students who go on to university to 50% (1 in 2 young people), yet they have introduced policies on fees which saw them increase from about £1,150 to £3,000 per year.

I could not agree more. The core problem is that the government does not want to spend any money on education. That's why they call education an "industry", that's why they say it is "mature". But education is not an industry, education is about the future of the country. And private funding (read: students paying for it) is not going to solve the issue.

So, actually, the right funding priorities,

Sure, but it is all about the money, and therefore it is not going to happen. Look at the states, and you can get an idea what it will be like.

Tom

sakura wrote:The current government's policy is to increase the number of British students who go on to university to 50%

Which is a thoroughly stupid and ill thought out policy.

thsths wrote: There is only one problem: the EU treaties have no exist clause. To the UK can only leave if all other EU countries agree, which seems hardly plausible. And would the government really resort to unilateral action? Who knows.

Any international treaty can be abrogated unilaterally and Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act anytime. So if a future British government were to decide it had had enough of the EU there would be nothing the EU could do about it other than a. a trade embargo or b. launch a military invasion. The latter option is unlikely anytime soon.

All that said, leaving the EU would be a difficult process for all but if the British government and public are pushed far enough, it may well become the only solution.

"So, actually, the right funding priorities, coupled with more scholarship opportunities (such as full scholarships for PhD students in certain degrees, such as in the STEM fields) would see more people go on to, and stay in, higher education."

This funding issue is one huge problem all over Europe. The reality is, unless taxation goes up(unlikely, particularly income tax), then we will be faced witha situation where foreign students will subsidise home students.
It is unrealistic for the government to bear the cost of educating so many home and EU students fully. Thus, the role of foreign students becomes clearer. Expenditure on such a scale is unjustifiable without huge borrowing by the government which would add to the deficits we already have.


"AS for educating elites from other countries - why is that goodwill? If the UK wishes to develop a competitive workforce and increase R&D in the STEM fields, they need to start providing funding opportunities to British students and stop complaining about a "skills gap" (more science graduates in country A than in the UK, etc), because it is not that there is no talent in the country, it is the lack of appropriate policies/funding."


The person who is educated here and takes their skills back home, will always, in most cases, remember fondly their time spent in the UK.
This can have positive outcomes for the country e.g. in business.

As for postgrad science students, unless you are prepared for tax hikes, you are gonna get the education you pay for. The reality is unless we go the American way i.e. private universities and tax free donations to alma mater, we will always have funding shirtfalls which cannot compete financially with their counterparts across the pond.

Another Economist article on UK immigration:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... d=11332497

Excerpt:
What is still not clear—and what the boffins themselves have not yet decided—is how badly an industry ought to suffer before it is allowed to import the workers it needs. How ropey and expensive should the national ballet be allowed to become for the sake of employing British dancers? And how many Chinese take-aways ought to be allowed to close before they are allowed to import chefs?

The difficulties of employers that depend on immigrant workers may have more of an impact when it becomes apparent how many industries are likely to be affected. Henry Brosi, a London chef, predicts big problems if his cooks don't make it onto the panel's list. “About 40% of my staff are from outside Europe. When we advertise a job, six out of 10 applications are from India,â€