Close Menu
    Vereinigtes Königreich

    Sir Keir Starmer versucht, die Migrationsänderungen nach der Gegenreaktion der Abgeordneten abzuschwächen


    Sir Keir Starmer versucht, die Migrationsänderungen nach der Gegenreaktion der Abgeordneten abzuschwächen

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/sir-keir-starmer-looks-to-water-down-migration-changes-after-backlash-from-mps-5HjdWWD_2/

    Von pppppppppppppppppd

    View 17 Comments

    17 Kommentare

    1. Gold_Motor_6985 on

      There are many sides to this story so I won’t leave an opinion, but I think it’s worth pointing out one fact. Temporary worker visas tied to an employer generically lead to worse quality of life for the visa holders and others.

      The reason is that workers tied to an employer tend not to negotiate higher pay, not to unionise, and not to push for better work conditions in general.

      So one benefit of having more workers (above some threshold of pay) on indefinite leave to remain rather than limited visas is that it avoids the above.

      Actually maybe an opinion I would have is perhaps they need to introduce some sort of time limited, „definite“ leave to remain, not tied to a particular employer. Again, above some threshold of pay.

      Edit: Here is the research [https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/case-loosening-closed-visa-programs](https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/case-loosening-closed-visa-programs) . Honestly interesting stuff.

    2. JosephStalinho on

      The MPs need to stop being pricks and realise this is what the country wants and more importantly what the country needs.

    4. Calactic1 on

      Hmm yes, successive governments have been elected for over a decade on almost the singular mandate of being tougher on immigration only for the opposite to occur. Let’s piss off the British public even more!

    8. coffeewalnut08 on

      I feel like applying the changes to visa holders already here was too harsh. Apply rules to future newcomers is understandable because they know what they’re getting into, but there should be transitional arrangements for those here. Especially those who are very close to getting settlement status.

      It’s also worth mentioning that immigration has declined by more than 75% since 2023. The numbers aren’t an issue anymore: [Net migration falls 78% in two years returning to pre-Brexit levels](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/). The far-right only keep talking about immigration because they have nothing else worthy to talk about.

    9. M6Df4 on

      It’s incredibly obvious how few people actually read these articles on here. This is nothing but a long-winded way of saying proposed policy is out for consultation, some MPs disagree, so now there’s a debate…. So government is working as it’s supposed to?

      Plus ILR is only one piece of overall immigration policy, which sits far down the immigration pipeline and mostly only impacts people who have spent years in the country paying taxes already anyway. Whether that’s 5 or 10 years is just a small piece of what impacts the net migration numbers.

      It’s really a non-story, and the only reason this is even being discussed is it’s tangentially related to the broader migration numbers, any discussion of which will generate clicks.

    10. goonercaIIum on

      Every change they’ve walked back on has been to the detriment of the country. Sadly with all of that, they have no chance at the next election. Unbelievable this time it seems to have been kick-started by the thickest MP I have ever seen in office too.

    11. Separate_Trainer_513 on

      These backbenchers are going to be the reason we’ll get a reform government next election. Get a fucking grip, stop being so idealistic, you’re not in opposition anymore.

    12. Weak-Property4908 on

      I mean it isn’t suprising, applying new ILR rules retrospectively was a terrible thing to do, no wonder they’re facing backlash.

      Applying it to new applicants is the sensible thing to do, it allows them to atleast know beforehand that they’ll be waiting a long time for ILR, and might choose to live in another country.

      If I moved to another country, submitted my application that says I would get ILR in 5 years, and then 4 years later, they change it to 10-15 years, i’d also be annoyed. I wouldn’t have bothered going if I had to wait that long.

    13. Tasty-Explanation503 on

      The turkeys are actually voting for Christmas, this is incredible.

    16. Clbull on

      ISTG that you could harvest Sir Kid Starver’s u-turns as a renewable energy source at this point. May solve part of the looming Iran crisis…

    17. LicketySplit21 on

      This thread has proven to me that anti-immigration loonies really live in a wholly different dimension.

    Leave A Reply