Tories want 'best' migrants in UK

Source: BBC

The Conservatives would launch a drive to get more highly qualified migrants to come to the UK, shadow minister Damian Green has said. It would cut low skilled migration but push for more high grade workers.

"We want to attract more than our fair share of the brightest and the best," he told a Tory conference fringe meeting in Manchester. Mr Green said he wanted to achieve an immigration system as close as possible to the Australian system, which as well as having quotas for some professions also set targets for highly qualified migration.

But he said the Tories aimed to get immigration under control to "reduce the threat of social tension", arguing that people will feel "more welcoming" and "relaxed" about immigration if they have evidence it is not threatening their local services.

This was particularly important because despite the recession there had been no reduction in immigration and "actually the numbers are still rising and all the pressures are still there". He also expressed concern about the government's earned citizenship scheme, which among other things encourages people to volunteer for activities, including helping political parties.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8293812.stm

---

Since this guy is a "shadow minister", it is likely that he will be in the Cabinet if the Conservative party wins the next election, so his views on immigration may be influential. He seems to want to attract qualified professionals while excluding others to "reduce the threat of social tension".

.

This is Tory speak for non-white migrants.

However, I wonder if this will help me - I'd love to get an unlimited residency permit in the UK, but right now I can't - why? Because one of the metrics that measures how many "points" an applicant has (points are used to determine who is eligible) is how much money one has earned recently. Another is whether or not you have a doctorate from a UK institution. Both having UK degrees and making a lot of money garner many points. However, I have no way of making money because I'm in a full time PhD program - even if I could somehow work a job while here time-management-wise, I couldn't because a student visa limits a person to 20 hours/week.

Somehow immigration laws do have to change in this country (the UK, that is). However, I imagine the torries' immigration policy will boil down to "no darkies" and change nothing else. Maybe they see this as a way of cornering what would otherwise be BNP votes.

I think it's more about religion than color.

Local issues tend to be East Europeans jumping waiting lists for council housing and national issues being New Labour welshing on their policy of British jobs for British people.

there are major issues in a lot of places between the local people and newcomers from eastern europe...

Pandering to the RW base, and trying to make sure that not too many of them vote for UKIP or worse.

non Muslim. They'd be happy to bring in more Indians and Chinese with degrees, talent, or money.

They are quite happy to have Muslims of any nationality as long as they
have degrees/talent/money. They just don't want more of any religion (or none)
if they are uneducated/untalented/moneyless (= unskilled economic migrants).

So, in short, you are even wider of the point than you thought.
:hi:

> It would cut low skilled migration but push for more high grade workers.

Sounds fine to me.

:shrug:

:shrug:

.... is the policy that would win my vote.

living.

It will make corporatists soooo happy!

It's seems like there are plenty to go around and they would most likely integrate much more smoothly in Europe than the Muslims have.

The question stymies her. She doesn't understand how the EU having open borders with Mexico will lower wages here in the US, so she's not interested.

unify the continent of Europe. That is the reason that the now-27 member countries have joined the EU. In that sense I suppose their vision is quite "limited" in that they are only concentrating on their own continent. Hence, Mexico is not about to be admitted to the EU. (Of course, neither are the US nor Canada.)

The EU has opened its borders to countries as poor as Mexico by admitting Bulgaria and Romania. The EU's expansion into countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which are poorer than the Western European member countries that constituted the EU prior to 2004, has gone very well, even though the "rich" countries were opening their borders to "poor" ones.

http://ec.europa.eu/news/economy/090220_1_en.htm

""At the time, some of the 15 existing EU countries were worried about the impact the new members would have on their economies and social systems. But five years later a study by the commission shows that those fears were unfounded and that expansion has been a win-win situation for member countries new and old."

"The expansion has contributed to significant improvements of living standards in new member countries, to modernisation of their economies and to more stabilised institutions and laws. It has also created new investment and export opportunities for enterprises in old member countries. And the whole EU has benefited from increased trade between members, becoming more competitive."

for former European colonies like Mexico to be excluded from the EU.

And geography is obviously not the limiting factor, as the countries of Northern Africa are not being invited to the EU, either. :hi:

And whether you agree with their purpose or not, the EU's goal is to unify the continent of Europe, so geography obviously is a limiting factor. North Africa and Mexico are not on the European continent, which makes it difficult to argue that they should be included in an effort to unify the continent.

Now if in the future you or I get to run the EU, we could try to convince the member countries that they should invite North African countries (because they are close) or North American countries (because they were colonies before) to join (though we might have to suggest a tweek to the name European Union). :)

"the EU's goal is to unify the continent of Europe"

The USA's goal is to unify the States. :hi:

is an example of rich countries opening their borders to immigration and trade with some of their poorer neighboring countries with the result that they helped the people in the poorer countries without hurting themselves (a win-win situation according to the study I cited). Not something that most other rich countries have done. Could they do more? Sure, but I'll give them credit for what they have done.

That's what you're stumbling for--you feel like Europe is a project that is defined by racial identity; your arguments about geography are nonsensical.

perhaps you've got a little subconscious projection going on here. Apparently you feel that Europe is defined by racial identity, as you are the one who came up with the "European Union is based on racism" theory. (BTW, not only has the EU not extended an invitation to any non-white, non-European countries, they have not extended invitations to any white, non-European countries either.)

I do get a kick out of your repeated (repeat it enough times it must be true, right?) assertions that my arguments about geography are nonsensical. I am not arguing that the European Union was established to unify Europe in order to promote peace and prosperity on the continent, I am stating that as a fact. All you have to do is study the history of the EU. Europe is a continent, so the effort to unify has a geographical basis.

If you wish to hang on to your "EU as racist organization" theory, good luck with that.

Do you really mean for us to believe it all down to tectonic plates? It's not a credible argument. :hi:

the continent of Europe if it so desires. :)

no real justification--a "because it can" argument. And yet not the point of your advocacy at all... :shrug:

:shrug:

People remember what you've posted in the past. :hi:

What does that have to do with your post 43? :shrug:

But here's a measurement we can be precise about: Bulgaria to Greece = 0 miles. They have a border.

Vidin Bulgaria (NW corner of Bulgaria) to Dover, England (SE corner) 1114 miles
Bizerte Tunisia (N tip of Tunisia) to Dover, England 1045 miles

Via this site: http://www.mapcrow.info/

I'm amused you thought you had put forward an argument. But please go ahead and explain it. Why is the distance to one side of the EU somehow relevant? I just wanted to correct your geography.

"I'm amused you thought you had put forward an argument"

I've noticed that you are easily amused. The point was obviously that, if the people of the UK have a special bond/moral responsibility to Bulgarians, it must necessarily be based on something other than geographical proximity, since nations that are geographically proximate to EU members are not therefore eligible for admission into the EU.

And not to be rude, but the poster who I was addressing understood the point perfectly, as evidenced by the discussion that continued below. :hi:

It's the whole membership, so bringing in distances from one particular existing EU member really is irrelevant. As far as distances go, Bulgaria was on the EU border when it joined.

There are many other reasons Tunisia wouldn't get in the EU at the moment - lack of proper democracy, for instance. I doubt the guy who's been in charge for 22 years has even contemplated resigning so that any application to join could go ahead.

The other poster seems to completely ignore the distances you claimed, to me.

the goal to unify it so that member nations would be better off economically, in terms of national security, etc.? If the former, then the member nations were dolts to spend so much time and money on a relatively pointless exercise. If the latter, then they should do whatever improves their economic situation, national security, etc. And, if the latter, then saying simply that the goal of the EU was to unify Europe is not a complete answer to anything.

I focused on the geographical aspect of European unification in response to a post questioning why the EU did not admit Mexico or countries in North Africa.

You are right that continental unification for its own sake is pointless, if it does not lead to peace and prosperity for citizens of the countries involved. Given Europe's history of nationalism and war, progressives there believe that opening national borders on the continent to immigration and trade is the way to accomplish this.

Mexico's. As a member of the EU, the UK will be opening its border to immigrants from those, and other Eastern European countries, which are similar to Mexico in socio-economic terms.

(waits for smoke to come out of the OP's ears...) :hi:

Go figure. Maybe that's modern day progressive Europeans for you. They just don't have the global "vision" that their counterparts from a few centuries ago had. ;) Today they concentrate on their own continent and let the rest of us fend for ourselves.

Heck, if they start admitting all the ex-colonies of European countries, they'll have to change their name to the Global Union or something, since there aren't many countries that weren't colonies of European powers at one time.

(There's a nice breeze here today, so it didn't take long for the smoke to clear.)

The British going to the Euro or the Americans going to the Amero.

The British resistance to the euro will pale in comparison to Americans resistance to the amero (if it ever happens).

I will never get how you can be part of the EU and not use the Euro.

If you're going to argue that former European colonies should be admitted to the EU, that covers a lot more than Mexico. Why not South Africa, the Congo, or Zimbabwe? All former colonies. It's kind of like arguing that Britain, France and Spain should be admitted to a hypothetical North American Union on the basis of historical ties.

I wonder what's the difference? :shrug:

That seems fairly self-evident...

(Also remember that the OP claims to "care about all the workers of the world the same amount.")

When taken all together, the OP seems to suggest that we (that is, we in the USA) should have more of a responsibility to Mexico than does the EU, say.

I would like her to define the basis of this obligation, since she loudly denies having any special obligation to her fellow Americans.

(I hope that you are able to cut and paste and don't have to retype the same thing over and over. :) )

I did not say that either the US or the EU has a "responsibility" to Mexico. We haven't established the institutional framework in North America to pursue continental unification that Europe has in the European Union which exists precisely to unify their continent. So in that sense, "we" do not have any institutional or legal obligation to the open border with Mexico (or Canada). Something else we agree on :).

The EU has proven that opening borders with poorer countries can be a win-win situation for the rich and the poor countries. I believe that the same would be true if we opened the border with Mexico, but you're definitely on the winning side with this one, because it ain't gonna happen. We have no obligation to do anything like that in North America, so you can rest easy.

"I did not say that either the US or the EU has a "responsibility" to Mexico."

Not being willing to articulate your agenda is not a virtue. Nor is moral incoherence.

(I would not accuse you of having not an "agenda" since that would imply that you have no beliefs, which I know is not true. You are an example of someone who is true to his beliefs (agenda).

You are entitled to differ, but I feel that I have articulated my agenda (beliefs) as well as I can. If it does not meet the Romulux standard of articulation that causes some dismay, but life goes on. ;)

I state that ""I did not say that either the US or the EU has a "responsibility" to Mexico." You neither admit you were wrong nor point out where I did actually say that. Instead you come back with a "Not being willing to articulate your agenda is not a virtue. Nor is moral incoherence" blast. In what way does my not stating that we have a "responsibility" to Mexico represent moral incoherence? (I've already addressed whatever articulation problems on my part that you perceive.)

"I would not accuse you of having not an "agenda" since that would imply that you have no beliefs"

I am asserting (not implying) that you are not being honest about your true motivations for presenting this thread.

"You neither admit you were wrong nor point out where I did actually say that."

I remember your own posts to this board, which are of an extremely narrow focus. You aren't entitled to a discussion divorced from context. And at any rate, why the sudden shame at admittedly what most who follow these threads already know? You are an avowed globalist, and one who professes to have no specific moral responsibility to your countrymen. I asked you to reconcile this stated belief with your advocacy for a North American Union.

I can understand why you'd prefer to feign outrage, of course. It's difficult to advocate against the interest of working people while framing this advocacy as somehow progressive. Today your efforts have been especially unimpressive. :hi:

Indeed, Mexico is not the US (something we can agree on :) ) just as, Romania and Bulgaria are not Germany or France. However, we share a continent with Mexico, just as Germany and France (and the rest of the EU) share a continent with Bulgaria and Romania.

The European Union opened its borders to immigration and trade with Romania and Bulgaria. The result has been positive for the poor countries that joined the EU and for the rich ones that invited them in.

One difference between European progressives and some American progressives is that the Europeans believe that opening borders (even with poorer countries) to trade and immigration is good for everyone's peace and prosperity. (I know your response may be that they have limited their expansion to European countries - and that is a good distraction from a discussion of how well they have spread peace and prosperity through the continent by gradually opening more and more borders to trade and immigration.)

I've told you before that our border with Mexico won't be open in my lifetime. Heck, we don't even have an open border with Canada (Europeans must really find that hilarious), how can we ever open it with Mexico. Americans (including some progressive Americans) are just too afraid of what Mexicans would do to the US and that's not likely to change any time soon regardless of the success Europe has with opening borders. (I suspect there were some Europeans who felt the same way about Romanians, Bulgarians, and other Eastern Europeans, but there were not enough of them to stop the progressive movement to expand the EU into poorer countries.)

Do you posit that geographic proximity imposes a greater moral responsibility to one's fellow man, or do you not? Or, again, is our responsibility to care for one another down to tectonic plates? Because the latter argument speaks for itself.

And how do you square any of this with your avowed belief that you have no special responsibility to your fellow Americans? :hi:

to promote peace and prosperity on the European continent by opening European national borders to immigration and trade with each other.

You raise a good question as to whether they created the EU because "geographic proximity (at least in the sense of a presence on the European continent) imposes a greater moral responsibility to one's fellow man" or because they read their own history of nationalism and war and decided that, for the purely selfish reasons of avoiding war and achieving economic prosperity, unifying the continent would be a nice goal. My guess is the latter particularly soon after WWII, as the organizations were created that led to the EU, when avoiding another war was particularly critical.

One could make an argument for the "moral responsibility" clause of your post with respect to the EU expansions in 2004 and 2007, since those involved allowing in poorer countries in central and eastern Europe. These expansions were unlikely to provide an economic bonanza for the richer countries of western Europe that were already in the EU and would likely be a good deal for the poorer countries.

Now that I've gotten the EU out of the way, on to what I believe.

I have a moral responsibility for all people. Do I have a "special responsibility" for my family, friends, and others close to me? Sure. Most of them live fairly near to me (geographic proximity :)), but some live quite far away and that distance does not affect how I feel towards them. I try hard not to let things like race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and nationality affect my feeling of responsibility towards others, as they are characteristics that one is born with. (Politics and other "acquired "characteristics are another matter. ;))

I would like to think that we (progressives) feel a moral responsibility for everyone. Naturally the degree to which we feel this will decline to some extent as we go from our family to our friends to the people we work with to others more and more removed from us. Of course, among non-progressives there are plenty of people who feel no responsibility (indeed much worse than that) for people of the "wrong" race, gender, age, sexual orientation or nationality.

Progressives, on the other hand, would never let any of these characteristics affect their sense of moral responsibility for another human beings - except for the last one which some find an acceptable distinction. I do not posit that anyone is "wrong" to feel that way (we all have different experiences that affect what we believe and we can't agree on everything), though I am quite sure that you "know" that I am "wrong" (given your penchant for posting it). :)

"I would like to think that we (progressives) feel a moral responsibility for everyone. Naturally the degree to which we feel this will decline to some extent as we go from our family to our friends to the people we work with to others more and more removed from us. Of course, among non-progressives there are plenty of people who feel no responsibility (indeed much worse than that) for people of the "wrong" race, gender, age, sexual orientation or nationality."

There is no logical distinction between what you post and what I've been saying all along: namely that you posit that you have no special responsibility to your fellow Americans. Why the histrionics before admitting this? You obviously object to the framing, but the two phrases are precise logical equivalents.

"though I am quite sure that you "know" that I am "wrong" (given your penchant for posting it)."

Funny that I never used the word "wrong". Your position is logically (not to say morally) incoherent--you simply can't keep straight from whence flows the obligation for your version of a "progressive" to act one way or another.

You obviously admire the EU, for example, and yet it is obviously formed based on some sort of (imagined?) shared cultural/racial characteristics--certainly not the credo you've just enunciated of "care for all the same"! So where is the basis for your admiration?

Moreover, you've in the past advocated for a North American Union modeled after the EU, and you've specifically argued that the EU's treatment of Poland, Bulgaria and others should be our model for our treatment of Mexico. Again, this is morally confused. If we care for all the same, why not a union consisting of the US, Ghana, and Sri Lanka? Is it back down to geography? What exactly principle is at play? :shrug:

Finally, I will put time into responding to you (as in this post) when you drop the charade and simply admit to what everyone knows. Snark is reserved for your "too cute" posts, such as the ones in which you pretend you haven't advocated for a NA Union. Again, you aren't entitled to limit the context of discussion to whatever you're willing to admit at the moment. :hi:

(I'll be dead long before that, but we'll all have to have dreams, right? It beats the other end of the spectrum of dreaming that each country has high walls and nothing to do with any other country.) If I seem inconsistent because I propose opening borders with neighbors first rather than with distant countries, my rationale is that it represents a short term strategy to reach a long term goal. The European Union has no such grandiose goal, but they are at least opening borders with their neighbors so they are heading in the right direction.

If such an opening with Mexico proved beneficial to them and us, as it has with the rich EU countries opening up with their poorer neighbors, Romania and Bulgaria, then it would be logical to consider openings with other countries in the future. The EU imposes strict qualifications for countries who want to join: democratization, rule of law, controlling corruption and many other requirements. They don't just let in countries "as is", not should we. There are countries in Europe now that want to join, but have not undertaken the changes that the EU demands to allow them in. The same should be true of any similar effort on the part of the US, so that Mexico (not to mention Ghana and Sri Lanka) would have to meet criteria similar to those met by Bulgaria and Romania.

I have never specifically advocated for a NA Union, because it is a hypothetical concept that everyone (left and right) can adorn with their greatest fears. If you would stipulate that a hypothetical NA Union would be run like the EU then I'll advocate that. (Where did I indicate otherwise?) They've proven that open borders to trade and immigration with your neighbors (rich and poor) works for everyone.

"There is no logical distinction between what you post and what I've been saying all along: namely that you posit that you have no special responsibility to your fellow Americans." Nor do I have a "special responsibility" to whites, women, straights or older people. I have a "special" responsibility for my family, friends, and others close to me. I have a responsibility for everyone else whether they were born a different color or gender or sexual orientation or in a different year or in a different country than me. I don't believe in nationalism as much as you do, so someone being American does not make my responsibility to them any more "special" than they're being white, female, straight or my age would. I trust you support my statement that some progressives view a person's nationality as one birth characteristic that provides a morally acceptable basis for discriminatory treatment and, as such, is different from race, gender, age, and sexual orientation - characteristics on which no progressive would justify discrimination.

economy than the US. Doing the sensible thing even though ignorant conservatives afraid of people of different backgrounds don't like it.

which provides a better base on which their economy can grow. When people feel that somebody "has their back" they are not as afraid to take a bit of a chance by inviting in people of different backgrounds and economic status. It is ironic that Europe (the "old country" for many American immigrants) is expanding and becoming more prosperous because, thanks to the progressive societies on the continent, their citizens can afford not to be afraid of people with different backgrounds.

or that the mexican people think of themselves as european either....

the hatred that is held is more between ethnic groups, religions etc, i can guarentee you that the majority of europeans would rather have a mexican living next door than someone from the other ethnic group that they have been at odds with for years...

I am a skilled worker. I'd love to get an EU passport and move to Europe.

Suppose they want any 50+ year old college professors?

edit = typo

Labour has already started this "immigration reform", so it's not really true that it's only the Tories behind this type of thing. It's just a matter of degree really.

General Highly Skilled Migrant Points Calculator

http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier-system/tier-1/general-highly-skilled-migrants/points-calculator-initial.htm

Obama should implement the same policy.

If you want to immigrate here from most any country its difficult-to-impossible unless you have skills that are in demand, and a few grand.

I don't know that things have been any easier in Great Britain, but I wouldn't look for racism in the issue.