The UK refuses to afford immigration.

We're even cutting back on qualified British Sign Language staff for lesser trained- whilst this seems OT it isn't similar cuts were made to interpreters during the last parliament. All these things further alienate people who rely on such services when liaising with the state, judiciary, and even the electorate. Cases get thrown out of court, employment can't be sought, people get stuck, benefits are claimed or aren't in some cases.

I don't get what the end game is, I refuse to believe it's (net migration reductions, EU ref.) nothing more than politicians appeasing the fears of those who feel threatened by immigration and getting their vote in the long run- or is it? Plus it means the tories can make very complicated issues as simple as the "people have spoken" and ignore them when they see the chasm they've helped create in society.


tl;dr: don't bother, it's not verbose enough.

You still need to maintain a baseline of translators, but yeah I kind of agree. I'm in favour of non-EU nationals having to achieve a proficiency in English before becoming "citizens" so to speak- essentially what happens in Holland IIRC. But the waters are less clear when it comes to refuges and asylum.

Let them all in everywhere, life's too short.

From an education POV, spikes in immigration are an absolute nightmare. Educational funding (secondary for me) has been obliterated over the last 5 years and the staff, knowledge, expertise and funding aren't there to adequately support new (relatively) non-speaking migrants into the education system. Ordinarily students join the school, have 1-2 weeks of EAL support and then are flung into the classroom. The expectation is on the class teacher to deliver a lesson that will cater for their needs as well as the other 25-28 individuals in the class. 

In some classes you may be differentiating for 10+ different nationalities/languages. As well as this you need to differentiate to the academic abilities of all 25-28. At our place, all translation websites are blocked (for staff as well) as students were using them to bypass security settings and get onto Youtube etc. Meaning that staff have to produce additional resources at home/elsewhere. Whenever I get a new migrant student I worry about whether the content I'm delivering to these children is good enough. My ordinary focus is on content delivery and analytical skills; yet I concern myself with how I'm developing the student's literacy skills and whether I'm making the lesson accessible enough. You often get to the end of the lesson dejected, feeling you've utterly failed to facilitate the migrant child's understanding. 

I can fully understand the likes of UKIP latching onto the issue and making it a poisonous one.  But, "Your kid suffers whilst the teacher has to explain basic concepts to the newly arrived child" neglects to understand how compliant newly arrived students are, how they have a thirst for success and a drive to improve their understanding and literacy. EAL kids invariably outperform their target grades and have considerable success at GCSE. The first year is an exercise in frustration but then you tend to see a vast improvement. 

As such, ensuring migrants can speak English prior to moving here would make a world of difference to their progression and introduction to the education system. But, it shouldn't be a prerequisite. It wouldn't even be a bone of contention if education budgets hadn't been slashed as much as they have.

We can always find new countries to bomb. And, if not, we can sell precision munitions to the wealthy to bomb the poor here.

Swimming the Channel ffs.

Oh this is actually relevant now.

I've always said that there should be restrictions on the immigration of people with criminal convictions, especially people guilty of violent or sexually motivated crimes.

I assumed that was referring to serious fraud, if so I'd be inclined to agree.

I'd steal if I was desperate. Violence is another matter. But even then we're judging a past in a country that probably has major corruption issues, amongst other things. Fresh start and all that.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

I'd steal if I was desperate. Violence is another matter. But even then we're udging a past in a country that probably has major corruption issues, amongst other things. Fresh start and all that.

Clearly the validity of the criminal justice system of the country of origin would have to be assessed, but I don't think we are talking asylum seekers fleeing persecution here, more financial immigrants.

I agree in principle, but if they have a history of serious criminal behaviour why should we take the risk?

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Most immigrants that come here come for a better life. If that includes financial ones that's fine by me.

That implies that some are coming here hoping for a worse life.

It could be a problem trying to judge.

"It says here you're violent and incite disturbance."
"Yes, I was persecuted by the government. They arrested me after I protested that they had been beating me."
"Are you sure? That doesn't sound like something General Uzuma would do. He always seems so happy."

The main problem with the immigration debate is it's mainly based on fear, and that's not an emotion I like hanging around. Bloody evolution shite.