Brexit better for non-EU migrants

secret.simon wrote:Can I suggest that you write a short piece, with relevant links, explaining what Metock is and how it would impact EEA migrants and those on the SS route.

I think a reasonable summary is my post of 1st March in the thread "New EU deal: Free-movement rights gone?".

secret.simon wrote:To the best of my knowledge, the UK-EU deal plans to get around Metock by issuing what it calls a legally binding decision of the European Council.

I don't see how you deduce that. The relevant text relating to Metock is on p35 of that document (the 36th page in the PDF document), where it says

European Commission wrote:The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to the third country national.

As far as I understand, that enactment will require the approval of the European Parliament.

secret.simon wrote:To overrule Metock, which is a judgment on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC, an equivalent judgment or a new directive would be needed. The first is unlikely, while the second would need to be drafted by the European Commission and cleared by both the Council of the European Union (relatively easily done, given that the European Council has approved the document linked to above) and the European Parliament, which would take a while (given that its President is quite hostile to the whole deal). So, it ain't gonna happen in a hurry.

And the amendments aren't simple to draft. The declaration doesn't specify the precise changes that will be made. The most natural aim should be that free movement should essential be for movement between member states. It may be rather like Surinder Singh, but applied to all EU citizens, not just citizens of the host country, and starting the process will be rather more difficult. For the initial immigration, a requirement such as "the sponsor shall be settled" is rather discriminatory given the current UK definition of 'settled', and that may need to be addressed. If the amendment doesn't address it, I think the ECJ will, eventually.

The pre-Metock defences of the UK relied on keeping non-EEA family members away from the UK border. At present, rail and ferry links with the continent are a weak point; people have learnt how to reach the UK border in France and get an 'EEA Regulation stamp'.

Richard W wrote: In the longer term, the interests of migrants already here are best served by keeping the UK a place worth living in.

That's what the Brits have been doing and look where that got them - a victim of their own success - with the mass migration and all the problems that causes a country. Lets face it, unless we came to do a UK jobs shortage, then we are part of the problem. There are just too many doing what we did.

Things won't get better for non-EU people wishing to immigrate after Brexit. They will get much, much worse.

People voting to Leave expect really huge reductions in numbers. The government promised "tens of thousands", and will be held to it. Currently non-EU immigrants are around net 270,000, so even if all EU immigration ended (won't happen) the government will still have to reduce the rest by 2/3rds.

Spouses, parents and other unprofitable people will be very far down the list in whatever system they pick. Fee-paying students and workers with in-demand skills will be first, particularly as services like the NHS depend on them to function. And of course, EU immigrants will be added to the waiting list.

I wrote to Jacob Rees-Mogg about this, since he was one of the first to suggest that leaving would improve the situation for people with family trying to immigrate. He was unable to give a convincing argument as to how it would work, other than to claim that people would be satisfied by the reduction from reduced EU migration and not mind an increase in non-EU migration. That seems extremely unlikely to me, it's more likely that Anything less than a very significant drop won't be tolerated.

I thank God for being able to know truth from shamble. If anyone said Brexit will favour non EU that is a big joke in a million time,do you all think the law makers didn't know what they are doing to put restrictions in all the route for any country outside EU. Obviously it is to reduce them from coming inside the UK and also to listening to people that was making a huge noise on especially NHS that most workers there are from non EU.

Again, most politician they speak what people want to hear to get what they want from anyone at anytime and when they get it there will be a new song track in policies.

Like one of the moderator which i always love to read his comment said "British love their economy prospect than anything" as British is a capitalist country who's very good at it. If any non EU already not settled in UK know that you're from commonwealth country the best thing is to be in employment and vote. The so call referendum has really exposed everything that we all need to know about where we all found ourselves and it's up for the wise to buckle up.

EU HAVING THE SAME ENTRY REQUIREMENT WITH NON EU IS NOT POSSIBLE, UNLESS THE ENTIRE BRUSSEL WILL ALLOW IT FOR ANOTHER POLITICAL INTEREST IN UK AS POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT GIVE AND TAKE.

GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE.

ryuzaki wrote:Currently non-EU immigrants are around net 270,000

Can I ask for the source of those figures?

The ONS's Migration Statistics Quarterly Report for May 2016 states that for for the year ending December 2015;

Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000).

Given that the report is based on the nationality of the applicants and not the law (UK or EU) that they come under, atleast some of the non-EEA migrants are here under the EEA Immigration Route and would be affected by a Brexit.

So, in theory, a Brexit would lead to a halving of immigration overnight.

ryuzaki wrote: I wrote to Jacob Rees-Mogg about this, since he was one of the first to suggest that leaving would improve the situation for people with family trying to immigrate. He was unable to give a convincing argument as to how it would work, other than to claim that people would be satisfied by the reduction from reduced EU migration and not mind an increase in non-EU migration. That seems extremely unlikely to me, it's more likely that Anything less than a very significant drop won't be tolerated.

I may not abide by his policies, but Jacob Rees-Mogg is certainly one of the MPs I admire, if only because of the erudite nature of his conversation.

I completely agree with your argument. I am not under any illusions, and I hope people reading this are not under either, that Brexit will mean more non-EEA immigration. Indeed, the downwards pressure on immigration will continue.

What a Brexit will mean is that the pressure will be more evenly spread. Currently the force of any downward pressure falls entirely on the non-EEA immigration population. Leaving the EEA (it won't be a case of just leaving the EU) will allow that pressure to be spread wider and thus likely easing the downward pressure on just one section of net migration.

Wise wrote:I thank God for being able to know truth from shamble.

That is indeed a divine miracle, given that the truth has eluded almost all of us.

Wise wrote:Like one of the moderator which i always love to read his comment said "British love their economy prospect than anything" as British is a capitalist country who's very good at it.

I agree that a Brexit is unlikely. But the debate has made very clear the direction of travel of the public mood, especially on immigration.

Wise wrote:EU HAVING THE SAME ENTRY REQUIREMENT WITH NON EU IS NOT POSSIBLE

That is the point of the debate about the referendum, whether we want to be in such an EU.

Wise wrote:POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT GIVE AND TAKE

If politics is about "Give and Take", then nothing should be impossible in the EU, which is, after all, a political beast.

Mark Field, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, just said on the radio that it is "far far easier" to get family members from the Indian subcontinent or the West Indies than for EU migrants!!!
Anybody care to correct him?

Link to the Westminster Hour, that Mark Field was speaking in yesterday. The quote occurs at 25 minutes into the programme.

Interesting thread... I haven't made up my mind on which way I would vote.

However at this stage...

1. Status quo (vote to remain) seems like tackling a known beast. At least I know that I'm dealing with recently tightened Tier 2 visa rules, etc. I know what I need to do or how much salary I need to earn to remain in the UK or for ILR.

2. Vote to leave - I understand the concept and logic that EU and non-EU people will be (or may be) treated with the same PBS brush and it becomes fair for everyone. However, if Brexit happens, there may always be concessions to EU companies/people to avoid major economic uncertainty (my assumption/speculation). Also, the PBS rules will be changed in one way or the other (some rules tightened and some relaxed) and again I need to go back to the drawing board to plan my future/career to ensure I meet the rules, etc. If rules get relaxed, then fine...but what if they get tightened further?

Again, if Brexit happens the Scotland referendum will most likely come back adding more uncertainty for a number of months/years to come?

Any thoughts?

PBS rules may change regardless of a Brexit. They have been tightened considerably in the past even without a Brexit referendum on the horizon.

And it could work both ways. It is possible that in the event of a Remain vote, the rules may be tightened to the point where T2 is practically closed, just to try to meet the net migration target.

Some things to reflect on before deciding how to cast your vote.

Is your company likely to relocate if there is a Leave vote?

Are you sufficiently settled in the UK and do you feel confident about survival in the UK economy if a Leave vote causes a recession? You may or may not be entitled to benefits.

Have you made provision to bring your spouse to the UK if you plan to marry abroad?

Likewise do you intend to bring your parents to the UK in the long term? At the moment, the EU Surinder Singh route is the only way to accomplish that.

secret.simon wrote:Mark Field, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, just said on the radio that it is "far far easier" to get family members from the Indian subcontinent or the West Indies than for EU migrants!!!
Anybody care to correct him?

Good joke of the day. I have seen many debates about brexit and those who were involving in these debates clearly had no ideas about immigration rules for EU or NON EU otherwise they could bring solid argument and counter arguments to support their campaign.

secret.simon wrote: Likewise do you intend to bring your parents to the UK in the long term? At the moment, the EU Surinder Singh route is the only way to accomplish that.

But govt is tightening the criteria anyways, so whatever the decision is, this route is going to be closed in near future. isn't it?

UKBALoveStory wrote:But govt is tightening the criteria anyways, so whatever the decision is, this route is going to be closed in near future. isn't it?

The Surinder Singh route arises from a decision of the European Court of Justice interpreting the Treaties that form the EU. As long as we vote to Remain, the UK government can tinker around the edges and make it somewhat harder, but it can't get rid of SS.

Assuming we stay in the EU, closing the SS route down completely would take the ECJ/CJEU reversing its own judgment or the Treaties being amended, neither of which is very likely.

secret.simon wrote:

UKBALoveStory wrote:But govt is tightening the criteria anyways, so whatever the decision is, this route is going to be closed in near future. isn't it?

The Surinder Singh route arises from a decision of the European Court of Justice interpreting the Treaties that form the EU. As long as we vote to Remain, the UK government can tinker around the edges and make it somewhat harder, but it can't get rid of SS.

Assuming we stay in the EU, closing the SS route down completely would take the ECJ/CJEU reversing its own judgment or the Treaties being amended, neither of which is very likely.

A lot depends on the wording of the reversal of Metock. As presented, the proposed reversal says nothing about parents, so the SS route may remain open. On the other hand, simply restoring the requirement for prior lawful residence in an 'EEA state' would make the initial step of SS depend on the generosity of the host nation's laws.

The discussion has mostly been about people using SS to bypass the UK citizen's requirements (income/savings), but what about people wanting to bypass the non-EU spouse's/parent's requirements, such as the English language test?

It seems like even if we stay, it's likely that the non-EU citizen will need to find an EU country that will allow them to immigrate and gain the right to stay under their normal immigration rules. If we leave, it seems likely that any points based system will discriminate against spouses and parents to a rather extreme level, especially if their language skills are poor. The promise to get numbers down to the "tens of thousands" mean there will be many, many people will in-demand skills or money (i.e. students) at the head of the queue.

To me it seems to remaining in the EU would be the better option, as it ensures that even if the rules are tightened there is still a route available, and the "tens of thousands" promise is impossible to deliver on.

secret.simon wrote: What a Brexit will mean is that the pressure will be more evenly spread. Currently the force of any downward pressure falls entirely on the non-EEA immigration population. Leaving the EEA (it won't be a case of just leaving the EU) will allow that pressure to be spread wider and thus likely easing the downward pressure on just one section of net migration.

I really, really doubt that. Consider the groups wishing to immigrate:

- Workers with in-demand skills, like nurses and doctors, engineers, staff from international companies invested in the UK etc.
- Fee paying students
- Refugees and others applying for asylum
- Family members

Demand for skills and income from students who pay much, much more than UK citizens do will remain high and be supported by extensive lobbying from industry and universities. Those people will have the most points under a points based system, and make up the bulk of those immigrating.

The situation with people claiming asylum is hard to predict but is unlikely to get better if we leave. I can't see us doing much more than we already do to reduce numbers, especially if the rest of the EU is less inclined to help.

And then we have family members, at the bottom of the queue, with the huge pressure to get numbers down to "tens of thousands" on them. Only now it will be even easier for the Home Office to wield their "denied" rubber stamp and simply try to win a war of financial and mental attrition against applicants, since SS won't be an option any more if we quit the Single Market.

The best way to ensure there is some way for family members to immigrate to the UK is to ensure that the EU still offers one, because the UK government has already committed to preventing it.

ryuzaki wrote:If we leave, it seems likely that any points based system will discriminate against spouses and parents to a rather extreme level, especially if their language skills are poor. The promise to get numbers down to the "tens of thousands" mean there will be many, many people will in-demand skills or money (i.e. students) at the head of the queue.

To me it seems to remaining in the EU would be the better option, as it ensures that even if the rules are tightened there is still a route available, and the "tens of thousands" promise is impossible to deliver on.

Agreed. While cutting immigration levels in this way will no doubt hit both the economy and infrastructure (NHS, building trade etc) hard, one thing it's also going to do is cut non EU immigration drastically. The target is less than half of current non EU immigration and less than a quarter of overall current immigration.

Family members of qualified immigrants of any sort - especially if family members are economically unproductive and don't have useful skills including a good grasp of English - will be at the very back of the queue.

Noetic wrote: While cutting immigration levels in this way will no doubt hit both the economy and infrastructure (NHS, building trade etc) hard, one thing it's also going to do is cut non EU immigration drastically. The target is less than half of current non EU immigration and less than a quarter of overall current immigration.

You need to lose the 'EU citizens help the UK' attitude. We don't, not unless we are doing a job on their skills shortages. I understand why we all want to live in the UK, but mass migrtion does not help a country.

The UK has/had a low skilled visa called Tier 3, that they don't use anymore since low skilled immigrants flooded the UK using the EU route.

If the UK votes to leave, then they can use the Tier 3 visa again and this will mean low skilled non EU citizens can also apply for these visas, but the UK will be able to control these numbers. There won't be a shortage of low skilled immigrants wanting those visas and a chance to make a new life in the UK.

This Tier 3 visa would also ensure that the UK then only gets those they want and those who will work hard as they will not be able to claim UK benefis for 5 years. Whereas now, those using the EU route cost the UK billions in benefits, to the point where for the first time, the welfare state cost more than the government take in income tax!

The benefits called Tax Credits and Housing Benefit (for those that don't keep their own familes) are now at staggering amounts. It's no wonder they have had to bring in a welfare cap - the more that claim benefits, the less the paymets will be. Fortunate perhaps that EU citizens just lost their case agains the UK in the European courts, to make the UK pay for their children (give them Tax Credits and Child benefits) when they are move to the UK to look for work. The UK's welfare pot will now only stretch so far.

Petaltop wrote: You need to lose the 'EU citizens help the UK' attitude. We don't, not unless we are doing a job on their skills shortages. I understand why we all want to live in the UK, but mass migrtion does not help a country.

Where precisely did I display such an attitude?

And as for skills shortages - I'm looking forward (not really) to the anti-immigration lot being stranded in filthy hospital beds and care homes that lack unskilled cleaners, porters or carers; fruit and vegetable harvests rotting in the fields due to a lack of seasonal migration workers picking them; streets filling with dirt for a lack of bin men and so forth - all because there aren't any unskilled labourers there to take on the jobs the Brits are "too good" to take...

I have already explained my thoughts on the pressures on non-EU migration in the event of a Bremain and I will not repeat them.

It may be worth pondering on the thought that if we are required to keep the EEA route open for family members, that may become the only way open. It is not impossible that the spousal and family members route under the UK Immigration Rules is narrowed to a point of irrelevance on the grounds that British citizens can bring their spouses in through the EEA route anyway.

That will have a detrimental effect on non-EEA citizens living in the UK because they would not have any options open to them under the EEA Regulations.

I would be extremely chary about espousing the views expressed by ryuzaki in the past few posts, because they validate the Brexit point of view pretty exactly. As I understand it, he is offering the EU as a system of governance which is an alternative to the one in Westminster. if you do not like a UK law, appeal to the EU to create a parallel law that overrides it. That is pretty much the crux of the Brexit side of the debate, that we can not legislate for ourselves because a federal EU can currently override us by creating a parallel system.

And it is not that we have not seen this in action already. The Greek people voted against austerity and guess what, the EU overrode them. The EU is currently threatening to strip Poland of its vote in the European Council and the Council of the European Union because of the changes the newly elected government made to that country's Constitutional Court. Whether that is merited or not, essentially, the EU is attempting to override elected governments of individual nation-states and that is something that should worry us.

Remember that the pendulum can swing the other way too. In 1975, it was Labour that was split on staying in the EU, while the Conservatives backed it wholeheartedly, because then it was seen as an open market that would drive down costs and wages. Since 1992 and the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has had a centre-of left centre of gravity, but that can change and it is not impossible that in a few years, the left-wing and pro-immigration Bremaineers would rue they day they cast their vote on the basis that an EU would mean open borders.

A Bremain would not be the end of the debate. Thommot stated in another thread;

thommot wrote:Oh, the Tories are already planning another round of bitching to destroy the remains of free movement left from the previous round.

And it seems that Tom Watson and some senior figures from Labour are suggesting the same and backing the PM on this point.

The UK presidency of the Council of the European Union is coming up in July 2017 (and lasts till December 2017), after the French presidential elections and with the German Bundestag elections in that period too. It is not inconceivable that in the event of a Bremain, the UK would use its presidency to have an EU wide debate on free movement and the outcome of that may be distressing to those who vote for Bremain assuming that nothing will change.

Irrespective of the outcome of this referendum, as regards the effect of having this referendum on UK politics, having lost Scotland, we may just see the end of Labour in the North of England. Its voters in the north, which is strongly Euro-sceptic, could swing to UKIP. Thus we will be effectively guaranteed a Tory government for years to come, with a possible UKIP or SNP opposition.

A quick comment and clarification on PetalTop's post, which was posted while I was in the midst of my earlier post.

Petaltop wrote:The UK has/had a low skilled visa called Tier 3, that they don't use anymore since low skilled immigrants flooded the UK using the EU route.

Tier 3 was never activated because given the volume of EEA migration, there was no need to attract non-EEA migrants for low-skilled immigration.

It is worth reflecting that most non-white people in the UK today arrived on the basis of low-skilled immigration. Both Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for BIS, and Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, are sons of migrant bus drivers.

To respond to Noetic's respone to PetalTop, I think that in the event of a Brexit, Tier 3 would be activated and would of course be open to EEA citizens as well. It is just that it won't be automatic, as it is at the moment. It will, like all non-EEA migration at the moment, be regulated and controlled.

And like other workers under the UK Immigration Rules, there would be no access to benefits. It would be worth seeing if citizens from A8 and A2 countries would still flock to pick our fruits and vegs and staff our hospitals if they have no access to benefits to send back home.

I can imagine that it is not impossible that benefits would be slashed further in the hope that British citizens take up jobs that are infra dig.

Finally a few news links that suggest that the debate on Brexit is being noticed across the globe.

Why South Africans living in the UK could swing it for Brexit - Broadly endorsing my earlier point that non-EEA Commonwealth citizens are likely to swing for Brexit.

Israel watches nervously as Brexit vote looms

Who said the Commonwealth was dead? (PS-it is not the Commonwealth, stupid, it is the economy) - Brexit becomes Australian election issue

What might a ‘Brexit’ mean for the Anglosphere – and Australia?

Australia isn't immune to the Brexit debate

secret.simon wrote:And like other workers under the UK Immigration Rules, there would be no access to benefits. It would be worth seeing if citizens from A8 and A2 countries would still flock to pick our fruits and vegs and staff our hospitals if they have no access to benefits to send back home.

The UK is free to change its benefits system and deny access to benefits without previous contribution. I'm all for a complete revision of the benefits system tbh. Other EU countries manage it just fine. Benefits for children not living in the UK, winter fuel payments for pensioners living abroad etc, housing benefits that balloon the cost of renting to beyond affordability in many areas - silly.

But the suggestion that the changes the UK will see after Brexit will somehow benefit non-EEA immigrants still seems daft. The kind of people who will be in power and in charge of the Home Office if Cameron resigns will work very hard to achieve those net migration targets, and since the targets equate to about half of current non-EEA immigration, even if nobody from the EU ever migrated here again, the amount of non-EEA immigrants would still be cut by half.

Noetic wrote:The UK is free to change its benefits system and deny access to benefits without previous contribution. I'm all for a complete revision of the benefits system tbh. Other EU countries manage it just fine. Benefits for children not living in the UK, winter fuel payments for pensioners living abroad etc, housing benefits that balloon the cost of renting to beyond affordability in many areas - silly

At the moment, the UK can't have a benefits system exclusively aimed at its own citizens. The benefits must be extended to all EEA citizens living in the UK (though the recent CJEU decision may make a minor impact on this point).

A Brexit would allow for an approach more targeted towards British citizens.

As regards a contributory model, there are certainly positives in that option, but that is unlikely to be a popular option. It would certainly be a courageous decision to go down that route (controversial decisions lose you votes, courageous decisions lose you elections )

Noetic wrote:But the suggestion that the changes the UK will see after Brexit will somehow benefit non-EEA immigrants still seems daft. The kind of people who will be in power and in charge of the Home Office if Cameron resigns will work very hard to achieve those net migration targets, and since the targets equate to about half of current non-EEA immigration, even if nobody from the EU ever migrated here again, the amount of non-EEA immigrants would still be cut by half.

Conversely, given the volume of EEA migration, non-EEA migration would have to be shut down completely to get close to the immigration target.

The devil and the deep blue sea.

secret.simon wrote:At the moment, the UK can't have a benefits system exclusively aimed at its own citizens.

No but it is entirely free to aim its benefits system at people who have contributed to the system for X amount of years. Many European countries including Germany have more contribution-based systems that don't just give out free housing and benefits to people who haven't previously contributed. (Except in cases of illness, disability, domestic violence etc)

The EU just requires the UK to treat legal EEA residents (exercising treaty rights) the same as UK citizens, it's the UK's choice to piddle away money on generations from the same family who've never worked in their lives.

Noetic wrote:The EU just requires the UK to treat legal EEA residents (exercising treaty rights) the same as UK citizens, it's the UK's choice to piddle away money on generations from the same family who've never worked in their lives.

The converse argument to that is that it should be the UK's choice to decide whom to pay its benefits to and not the EU's. The UK should have the choice as to whether to exclude EEA citizens from its benefits system on the same basis as that of non-EEA citizens.

Noetic wrote:

Petaltop wrote: You need to lose the 'EU citizens help the UK' attitude. We don't, not unless we are doing a job on their skills shortages. I understand why we all want to live in the UK, but mass migrtion does not help a country.

Where precisely did I display such an attitude?

In your last past and in all this below.

Noetic wrote:And as for skills shortages - I'm looking forward (not really) to the anti-immigration lot being stranded in filthy hospital beds and care homes that lack unskilled cleaners, porters or carers;

Again, , the UK had Tier 3 visas for these low skilled and these could be opened again, to non-EU citizens too. The difference being that those on these low skilled visa have to work hard as they are not allowed benefits for 5 years The same would then apply to EU citizens too on these low skilled visas, as they can no longer claim benefits from the UK. This would reduce the UK's welfare bill and the control of migration can then put upward pressure on wages.

Noetic wrote:fruit and vegetable harvests rotting in the fields due to a lack of seasonal migration workers picking them;

The key word there is seasonal. How do you think the UK managed before the eastern Europeans arrived? Where I used to live, all the university students did these jobs. In fact, the arrival of hoards of eastern europeans put downward pressure on these wages, and increased the welfare bill as they claimed benfits from the UK too. The students, who are not allowed to claim benefits, had to look for other work. This is not good for the UK.

Noetic wrote:streets filling with dirt for a lack of bin men and so forth - all because there aren't any unskilled labourers there to take on the jobs the Brits are "too good" to take...

Again how do you think the UK managed before the eastern europeans arrived. These are not jobs on the shortages list and we really aren't needed by the UK unless we are on their shortages list. You must learn to accept that.