UK needs immigrants to increase stagnating productivity. this has been the case for decades and it's why no government has done, or will do anything serious to curb it.
Note that to the best of my knowledge, these numbers don't include the Afghan resettlement scheme which would further lower the proportion of employment driven visas.
Assuming these numbers are relevant and correct, there is a reason why qualified migrants prefer other countries.
If you were a French or a German doctor or an engineer, would you spend 3 months fighting with the Home Office for the questionable privilege of earning £50K per annum in a country where a half decent flat costs £2500 a month?
That chart is almost useless because it doesn't break down by settlement/non-settlement visa types.
Study visas do not have a pathway to settlement. Students paying through the nose for the privilege of staying for a few years to study and then leaving (or getting work visas like everyone else) is hardly a bad thing.
Somewhat annoyingly, this is the definition of long term immigrant per UN definitions cited in the report includes students:
"The use of the UN definition of long-term immigration means that whether someone should be counted as an immigrant or emigrant (and hence contribute to the net migration statistics) only becomes evident after 12 months.... Currently, the ONS publishes provisional estimates with a 5-month lag"
The discussion of international students is less relevant to employment related concerns, but still contributes to other aspects of population growth like rental housing demand or water consumption.
I always find funny how the new, supposedly progressive, arguments in favor of mass immigration run so close to the ones given against when slavery was abolished, that society can only exist with cheap,exploitative, labor.
Also it seems a teensy bit unfair to rob the developing world of its skilled workers so that we don't have to bother training them ourselves (plus they'll accept lower pay than natives).
Why do they have a young population? What happens to the old people who live in those countries? Why would that not happen in the receiving countries if enough people are imported?
It's because the arguments ultimately originate from the same place as they did back then: the elites who benefit greatly from the existence of said cheap, exploitative labor.
The sorts of "progressives" who unconditionally support mass immigration are just useful idiots being used as tools by said elites to enforce their narrative. Just have to push the idea that "disagreeing with this is racist" and they'll all support it without question.
I mean I support what could be termed "mass immigration" and hold no biases as to what kinds of work they would do. I see no reason they wouldn't find work in all sorts of fields. But one of the most common talking points against this kind of immigration is that because they're "unskilled" they won't find work and be a burden on our welfare programs and social services or whatever. So then you start to list jobs that are positive value to society and don't require specialized training—that even if I accept the (admittedly racist premise) that immigrants won't seek education and skilled positions that we will still be fine.
Its because both the left and right argue for extremes which are just the same energy with different wording.
I do not distinguish the far-left from far-right as they equally polarizing and extreme, and only seeks to pull people in the center towards them through violence, censorship and intimidation.
People in the center seeks a balance between the extremes. Some industries require immigration of labor force but it can't come with delusional ideologies that seek to manipulate the wages.
You should probably differentiate between those things, because they have almost nothing in common. Even the commonalities you listed are extrinsic qualities (i.e. They are qualities of how people respond to the thing and not of the thing itself).
This is a far-right talking point that ignores the other concerns of progressives that are bundled up in the argument.
Progressives (in the US at least) generally support immigration with protections and fair wages. They also recognize, rightfully, that systems built for decades upon exploitative practices (low wages, no protections) if removed overnight will cause mass disruption of those systems.
Neither of these is in any way supportive of slavery, modern or otherwise. The first - suggesting that immigrants be treated civilly and paid a living wage - has been fought tooth and nail by 'free market' literalists. The second - that there will be disruptions in social and economic systems when an entire workforce is suddenly removed from the systems that it has propped up for decades - is common sense and historically founded.
You're conflating these things to try to justify a talking point that was just created three months ago.
The fact remains that UK (or US) is well below the replacement rate. If your progressive society can continue to exist only because oppressed women elsewhere keep supplying the human material, then it's not that progressive after all.
Nothing in this talking point is remotely „far right“. Words have lost all meaning. You also haven‘t answered his argument one bit. In the end, all you say with your smart words is that indeed, someone has to pick the cotton and it won‘t be you.
The "far-right" propaganda comes in when we try to argue that actually the right cares about immigrants, and they want to deport them because they just care so damn much.
Like, come on now. Give me a break. This type of reasoning is so caked with bullshit I don't think anyone on the right even buys it.
Sure, we can say maybe the left is arguing for exploitation, but certainly the right aren't champions of human rights. I mean, what's the big picture here? "Don't exploit the immigrants! Instead, violate their rights and force them into camps!"
We can solve the immigration problem overnight, if anyone cares. Just say that if you're found hiring undocumented people, you go to prison. I garauntee you, the problem will solve itself with such expedition it will leave you in awe.
But nobody on the right actually proposes this. Because they don't actually care about immigration. They care about populist messaging. They want you to believe there's an enemy within causing all your problems, and they they alone are the solution.
But no - they, too, directly rely on the exploitation. They won't ever patch it. It will always be lip-service, propaganda, and populist messaging.
Canada has legal immigration pathways for nurses, I don't see why any other country couldn't if there was strong demand. Gambling on illegal (and dangerous) border crossings to fill those sort of roles seems deeply irresponsible.
The US doesn't really have any interest in fixing the problem. Both parties benefit from the mess we have now.
That's what pisses me off about the whole thing. People buy the crap the politicians are feeding them and the immigrants are the ones that pay for it. You'd think people would have realized after decades of this crap that neither party is going to do a damn thing.
The only employment related categories on that report are the skilled worker visa and the health & care worker visa. I presume nurses would come under the latter.
For cleaners it's a little less clear which employment visa they'd have been more likely to use. Potentially either depending on the specifics of their job, their income and the precise definition of skilled worker.
How does immigration boost productivity? It's labor-saving automation and machinery investments that boost productivity. I would expect these to be driven mainly by labour scarcity. Growing the labour pool seems like it would drive exactly the opposite. As two examples, Japan has low immigration and an aging population and despite that its productivity has never been higher. By contrast Canada has had extremely high immigration and rapid population growth, and its productivity has flatlined since 2019.
At the end of the day, you still have to have humans to both carry out certain labor tasks and consume the outputs of that labor. For example, having the ability to manufacture a car with minimal human intervention doesn't mean that you can ship steel to the stamping plant without human intervention, and it doesn't mean that the robot used to weld the car will buy one after it's built. And since "real" Americans/Canadians/Brits/etc. haven't made the babies to do the labor and consumption demanded by capital for almost 60 years now, the labor and consumption must be brought in some other way.
Ultimately you have to balance the incoming immigration with the demands that produces, and that's where a lot of countries fall short. For being as similar as they are, Americans and Canadians have radically different experiences and opinions on immigration from India, for example. Why? Americans mainly think of them as either business owners providing needed services (even if it's just as the stereotypical convenience store owner) or people working in cutting-edge and important industries, because that's who American immigration policy allows in from India. Canadians have far less charitable views, because over the last decade or so, Canadian immigration policy has been far less discriminatory. Whether it should or not, this produces social friction with people who have roots in the society that receives the immigration.
I don't think that should be the be-all and end-all overriding the natives qualms but regardless.....Is it increasing productivity? In nearby mainland European countries that doesn't appear the case.
We have had more immigration every year since 97 than almost anyone could imagine prior to that, peaking at a million a year, productivity remains shit.
It's not about productivity, it's about the gross GDP numbers (and initially new labour were 100% OK with a demographic transformation project at the same time)
I remember when Gordon Brown promised "An end to boom and bust economics." I didn't that meant realise no more booms.
In the 90s in the UK, skilled working class tradesmen making huge amounts of money was such a stereotype that there was even a comedy character about it. I can't imagine seeing that happen again.
Welcome to the sticking plaster economy. This may be the economic orthodoxy, but it completely ignores the root causes of poor productivity - and ultimately leads to the state of xenophobia you're seeing today in Britain.
See figure 1.3a - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisor...
Note that to the best of my knowledge, these numbers don't include the Afghan resettlement scheme which would further lower the proportion of employment driven visas.