58 bodies in the back of a Dutch truck.

[TomH]

I think that talk of altruism or of allocating resources tends to reinforce the notion that immigrants are necessarily a drain on our economy. That is not my view.

I’m not arguing that we should give indefinite leave to remain to everybody who manages to make it into the country, but that if somebody wants to immigrate into the UK for economic reasons, and they are capable of working, supporting themselves and paying taxes, then I think we should let them. Provided that they can demonstrate that they are capable of supporting themselves.

What I am not suggesting is that we should allow economic migrants in simply to claim benefits. The notion that migrants are necessarily a drain on our resources is reinforced by the current legislation which prevents highly-skilled people from working, and requires them to subsist on state handouts while their asylum claims are settled.

Turn the question around: If somebody wants to come here from Albania to work, pay taxes and settle in the UK, what is the reason for not allowing him to do so? There are only two arguments I can think of that are generally advanced here:

1. that he will dilute our homogenous Anglo-Saxon culture; and

2. that he will displace a resident national worker.

The first argument is ignorant garbage (even William Hague thinks so). To the second, I think the response is that if somebody straight off the boat from Tirana can compete successfully in the labour market with resident nationals who have all the benefits of being first-language English speakers, having domestic qualifications (or having had the opportunity to acquire them), etc, then bloody good luck to him.

the basic necessities of life in Bangla Desh are different from those in more successful economies like the UK

Yes and no. Things like adequate food, shelter and health care are basic necessities of life wherever you are and in any event (as I said) I don’t think you need to agree on exactly what they are for my point to stand (hence my reference to Rawls, who makes a good argument about access to social primary goods without ever defining them precisely).

Aren’t you buying into the dangerous game played by the Tories and tabloids by mixing genuine Human Rights abuses with those seeking economic gain?

No. I was rebutting the argument you offered that we should make a prima facie assumption that asylum seekers from China are not genuinely fleeing political persecution.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by TomH *
What I am not suggesting is that we should allow economic migrants in simply to claim benefits. The notion that migrants are necessarily a drain on our resources is reinforced by the current legislation which prevents highly-skilled people from working, and requires them to subsist on state handouts while their asylum claims are settled.

But there lies the rub, Tom. For my sins, I moved a while ago to the fringes of London – not close to but near enough to experience some of what happens as economic migrants are processed at Croydon (Croydon being the home of applications and also close to the M25 / M2 where economic migrants tend to surface from the back of trucks, out of bushes, etc. in surprisingly large numbers). I have come across a number of them.

The problem is that very few speak English at all and none have any First World employment skills. These are, typically, simple, rural people seeking a better life and they are unemployable in any conventional sense. What then happens is that (this is for some of them) they work for other economic migrants who can speak English – almost any building site in London has teams of labouring Kosovans exploited by fellow migrants who ‘know the ropes’ and speak a little English.

The alternative is to continue to claim social security and stick to Plan B - which is to get the children educated. The children will eventually supplement the family’s social security income.

Most migrants do not have even basic education so even the learning skills we take for granted are absent.

Also (in London, anyway), they tend to get housed in the roughest estates in flats that have been empty for some while. Aside from damp, squalor and less than friendly neighbourhoods, this is the very housing we are in the process of eradicating from the housing stock (but no longer can) because, in our terms, it is inhabitable.

I’m sorry Tom but, in my experience, most are simply chancers who understand that if they have someone scrawl ‘asylum’ on a scrap of paper for them, they’ll get basic housing and enough to survive on while they tap into the local migrant employment network and start working the system. That is the reality - bereft of high minded idealism - and I wish it were different.

No. I was rebutting the argument you offered that we should make a prima facie assumption that asylum seekers from China are not genuinely fleeing political persecution. **

It’s a game, Tom, and as the deaths at Dover demonstrate a dangerous one. Genuine asylum seekers arriving in the UK do not get rejected. However, if you take a look at the document submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee (see my previous post), you’ll see the idea is to stem the flow of economic migrants (Jack Straw wants to place the burden of proof on them).

[TomH]

As I said, I don’t think we should open our doors to people who only want to claim benefits and work in the black economy. If you’re talking about people who are essentially unemployable, then I’d agree that there is a good case for restricting entry to those people who are fleeing persecution. But even for skilled people, who speak good English, it is inordinately difficult to gain legitimate access to the UK.

The problem is that very few speak English at all and none have any First World employment skills. These are, typically, simple, rural people seeking a better life and they are unemployable in any conventional sense … Most migrants do not have even basic education so even the learning skills we take for granted are absent.

All of us who live in London have some contact with migrants and while I don’t deny that some of them fit this description – just as some British people fit this description – I remain to be persuaded that the majority do.

most are simply chancers who understand that if they have someone scrawl ‘asylum’ on a scrap of paper for them, they’ll get basic housing and enough to survive on while they tap into the local migrant employment network and start working the system.

That is exactly my point. There is no way for these people to enter the country other than as asylum seekers because successive “reforms” of the immigration laws, beginning with the Thatcher Government bu continued by Major and Blair, have made it virtually impossible for legitimate economic migrants to enter the country at all, under any circumstances.

It’s a game, Tom, and as the deaths at Dover demonstrate a dangerous one.

I’m not sure I would describe it as a game. You need to look at the extraordinary risks these people take to get into the country. As you know, as well as the deaths at Dover we have recently had people coming in under Eurostar trains and in the landng gear of aircraft. Ask yourself what your situation would have to be in order for you to take risks like that.

Genuine asylum seekers arriving in the UK do not get rejected.

This is either a tautology or it is false.

[London_Calling]

I’m sorry Tom, I just don’t understand that there is any moral obligation to take in economic migrants because they want to come here – whether or not they can speak English. The only circumstances it seems acceptable is when it suits the host country because of that country’s own economic circumstances (as I mentioned is the case with Germany). IMHO, that works for the entire international community, my house and everything in between.

To have any other policy – policy being the key word – would lead to an open door and total madness. Why wouldn’t we have 10,000’s of Third World economic migrants camping out in Hyde Park and queuing for their vouchers ?

I don’t accept the concept of legitimate economic migrants – I’m open to idea’s but it seems, on face value, an oxymoron (to repeat my point: International accepted practice is to help people help themselves in their own country’s. It’s the only way to prevent an open door and sounds reasonable to me.) ??

I agree they are motivated to extremes by something – usually the desire for what they perceive to be a better life. I can’t blame them for wanting more, I just don’t see the moral obligation of offering them more here. And that’s without taking into account the implications of EC membership as well as domestic economic, social and political consequences.

I answered your question as to whether I knew what happened to Chinese migrants refused asylum as best I could (it seems that most simply disappear into the black economy) and on the rest, I think, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.