Who next for Tory Leader/PM?

[Delayed 461]

On 29/07/2019 at 10:22, L00b said:

Can I take it that you are in favour of this 'new Australian-style' PBS visa system proposed by Johnson?

 

If you are, then would you mind explaining to me, how this differs from the existing UK PBS visa system of the last 11 years (tweaked as it has been since 2010, by Theresa May's "hostile environment" policies)?

Don't confuse the two. The current PBS system and the 'hostile environment' (which is a term getting watered down with every mention) are very different.

 

PBS is for people wishing to enter or remain on valid visas. The hostile environment was implemented to make it difficult for those on the UK illegally to continue to do so. 

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

36 minutes ago, Delayed said:

The hostile environment was implemented to make it difficult for those on the UK illegally to continue to do so. 

As well as many people who have been living here legally for almost their entire lives, including those who have served their country in the armed forces.

[Delayed 461]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

As well as many people who have been living here legally for almost their entire lives, including those who have served their country in the armed forces.

Yes but again that has nothing to do with the current PBS visa system

[L00b 441]

10 hours ago, Delayed said:

Don't confuse the two. The current PBS system and the 'hostile environment' (which is a term getting watered down with every mention) are very different.

 

PBS is for people wishing to enter or remain on valid visas. The hostile environment was implemented to make it difficult for those on the UK illegally to continue to do so. 

I have one word in reply to this, which best summarises what would otherwise take paragraphs and paragraphs for explaining how wrong you are : Windrush.

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by L00b

[L00b 441]

12 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

As I am not in government and very much a Brexiteer I have no idea at all how the point based system will work if Boris were to introduce it for the UK. I can only say that having relatives who moved to Aus, and having relatives who worked in Aus under their system, and had to return when their visa expired, the Aus system seems to work ok. Or do they simply Police it better than the UK has ever done. After all as Anne Widdecome said, if you get onto our soil, it is virtually impossible to remove you..  Hence Boris's idea of an amnesty for the hundreds of thousands who are here I suppose, as we have a snowflake in hell's chance of ever removing them.

 

Angel1.

Thanks for taking the time, Angel.

 

So for your information, the existing UK PBS was introduced by Labour in 2008, and based on substantially the same system as Australia's (tiered system incentivising high-skilled / de-incentivising low-skilled, very high non-skill thresholds to qualify (eg £14k savings in bank), short term renewable visas rather than long ones, etc). May then ramped up the criteria significantly during her tenure at the Home Office, as one of her many ways to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" (remember her speeches from then?)

 

But for the processing and removal of illegals (illegally entered, or overstaying an expired visa), Magilla above was right, the problem lies, and always did, with UK enforcememt policies and, crucially, resources: HM Police and HM border agency and associated immigration services ever more under-resourced and -staffed for years, no compulsory ID carrying to check IDs on the spot ("producer" approach instead, which lets illegals back into the wild, to maybe get caught again in months/years), insufficient police stations with insufficient holding cells (for storing illegals, if the "producer" system was removed), shambolic handling of illegals in custody, and so much more.

 

And after all that, guess what?  Absolutely none of the above has anything whatsover to do with the EU, and never did: non-EU immigration into the UK, to which the above UK PBS applies, has at all times been 100% under the full and sole control of the UK. Not a sight or whiff of Brussels anywhere there.

 

And after all that, guess what, for bonus points? Non-EU immigration into the UK, to which the above UK PBS applies, has for years been at least equal to, and for the past few years has reliably exceeded, EU immigration.

 

Ironic, huh? 

Edited July 31, 2019 by L00b

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

12 minutes ago, L00b said:

Thanks for taking the time, Angel.

 

So for your information, the existing UK PBS was introduced by Labour in 2008, and based on substantially the same system as Australia's (tiered system incentivising high-skilled / de-incentivising low-skilled, very high non-skill thresholds to qualify (eg £14k savings in bank), short term renewable visas rather than long ones, etc). May then ramped up the criteria significantly during her tenure at the Home Office, as one of her many ways to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands" (remember her speeches from then?)

 

But for the processing and removal of illegals (illegally entered, or overstaying an expired visa), Magilla above was right, the problem lies, and always did, with UK enforcememt policies and, crucially, resources: HM Police and HM border agency and associated immigration services ever more under-resourced and -staffed for years, no compulsory ID carrying to check IDs on the spot ("producer" approach instead, which lets illegals back into the wild, to maybe get caught again in months/years), insufficient police stations with insufficient holding cells (for storing illegals, if the "producer" system was removed), shambolic handling of illegals in custody, and so much more.

 

And after all that, guess what?  Absolutely none of the above has anything whatsover to do with the EU, and never did: non-EU immigration into the UK, to which the above UK PBS applies, has at all times been 100% under the full and sole control of the UK. Not a sight or whiff of Brussels anywhere there.

 

And after all that, guess what, for bonus points? Non-EU immigration into the UK, to which the above UK PBS applies, has for years been at least equal to, and for the past few years has reliably exceeded, EU immigration.

 

Ironic, huh? 

Most interesting, thank you for the response.

 

Angel1.

[altus 533]

3 hours ago, L00b said:

I have one word in reply to this, which best summarises what would otherwise take paragraphs and paragraphs for explaining how wrong you are : Windrush.

They are on to the sequel now Windrush 2: The Chagos Islanders.

 

Having forcibly removed people from their homes 50 years ago so the US could build an air base on Diego Garcia and having rejected their campaigns to return ever since, the UK government are now telling them to go home. They don't actually mean "go home" of course, they mean go to a place 500 miles from your home.

[Delayed 461]

5 hours ago, L00b said:

I have one word in reply to this, which best summarises what would otherwise take paragraphs and paragraphs for explaining how wrong you are : Windrush.

 

 

Windrush had nothing to do with PBS either

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, Delayed said:

Windrush had nothing to do with PBS either

Wrong. Same legislation and evidential threshold: Windrushers were convicted of being illegal immigrants and deported, no differently to visa non-holders and holders of expired visas (illegal immigrants in either case), under the same immigration legislation and legally-qualifying thresholds. Most such Windrushers, long retired on state pensions, failed the visa-qualifying savings and earnings tests comprehensively.

 

Expect the exact same treatment for Costas-living Brit retirees on low-ish pensions, unless Spaniards feel generous and replicate Germany's recent magnanimity (Bundestag voted an unconditional residency right in Germany for resident UK immigrants today).

 

I'm in the market for a holiday pad somewhere nice and warm, could really do with the Spaniards not feeling generous and crashing the local ex-Brit-owned real estate a bit 

Edited July 31, 2019 by L00b

[Delayed 461]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Wrong. Same legislation and evidential threshold: Windrushers were convicted of being illegal immigrants and deported, no differently to visa non-holders and holders of expired visas (illegal immigrants in either case), under the same immigration legislation and legally-qualifying thresholds. Most such Windrushers, long retired on state pensions, failed the visa-qualifying savings and earnings tests comprehensively.

 

Expect the exact same treatment for Costas-living Brit retirees on low-ish pensions, unless Spaniards feel generous and replicate Germany's recent magnanimity (Bundestag voted an unconditional residency right in Germany for resident UK immigrants today).

 

I'm in the market for a holiday pad somewhere nice and warm, could really do with the Spaniards not feeling generous and crashing the local ex-Brit-owned real estate a bit 

You are confusing family routes and windrush with PBS. 

[L00b 441]

4 hours ago, Delayed said:

You are confusing family routes and windrush with PBS. 

Hardly. The Windrush scandal is rooted in the misapplication, under hostile environment policy upgrades, of rules governing British residents' "leave to remain" status. "Leave to remain" is assessed by reference to length of residence, financials (earnings/savings), and skills/employment status for people of working age.

 

Family route (reunification, ie the procedure for family members/dependents, young and/or old, to obtain the right to immigrate into the UK) is only assessed for legal immigrants with valid visa/leave to remain. And, accessorily, the UK's is one of the toughest regimes in the world on that front. I should know, I've taken my British sister-in-law through it twice, she waited 3 years to be reunited with her US husband. Took 3 attempts.

 

Pretty despicable how you continue to try and defend the indefensible, tbh. But go on, defend as you wish: I'm done entertaining your one-line falsehoods. Enjoy learning about self-medication under your new Prime Minister's "new Australian-style PBS"

Edited July 31, 2019 by L00b

[Delayed 461]

15 hours ago, L00b said:

Hardly. The Windrush scandal is rooted in the misapplication, under hostile environment policy upgrades, of rules governing British residents' "leave to remain" status. "Leave to remain" is assessed by reference to length of residence, financials (earnings/savings), and skills/employment status for people of working age.

 

Family route (reunification, ie the procedure for family members/dependents, young and/or old, to obtain the right to immigrate into the UK) is only assessed for legal immigrants with valid visa/leave to remain. And, accessorily, the UK's is one of the toughest regimes in the world on that front. I should know, I've taken my British sister-in-law through it twice, she waited 3 years to be reunited with her US husband. Took 3 attempts.

 

Pretty despicable how you continue to try and defend the indefensible, tbh. But go on, defend as you wish: I'm done entertaining your one-line falsehoods. Enjoy learning about self-medication under your new Prime Minister's "new Australian-style PBS"

Not despicable at all.

 

You are just confusing Students/Sponsored Workers and Highly-Skilled Migrants (whom would have valid LTR as such under the current Points-Based System) with the Windrush scandal which mistakenly resulted in British Citizens (and those eligible for British Citizenship) being issued with notices to leave the UK.