Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:12 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Who did that?

'Leaguefan' above.

In my opinion we don't need a new debate on immigration at all. Immigration was too high, now it's coming down. It's just about striking the right balance between those immigrants who will benefit our society and those who will be a drain on our resources. I don't think immigration will be a big debating point at the next election between the main parties, although no doubt they will be drawn into talking about it by UKIP. Are Labour and the Tories very far apart on the issue at the moment? Not sure they are.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:10 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

'Leaguefan' above.

In my opinion we don't need a new debate on immigration at all. Immigration was too high, now it's coming down. It's just about striking the right balance between those immigrants who will benefit our society and those who will be a drain on our resources. I don't think immigration will be a big debating point at the next election between the main parties, although no doubt they will be drawn into talking about it by UKIP. Are Labour and the Tories very far apart on the issue at the moment? Not sure they are.

No they aren't, but there is a HUGE amount of paranoia gabbled about immigration "on the street" aided and abetted by some of the printed media, so its bound to become an election issue and you'll get much the same option from the three major party's because they don't want a fourth major party.

The truth about EU immigration and the right to work across the union could be seen in this weeks episode of the series about London Transport which featured Victoria Coach Station this week where three Polish coach operators now have a permanent base bringing Polish nationals into, and out of the country - the coaches being just as full when leaving the country as they are when arriving (after a 17 hour journey).

They interviewed three young Polish men who were going home and asked why they had come here, the answer was "to find work", they had stayed for three weeks and when asked why they were going home replied "because we couldn't find any work", or more likely they found as many are finding, that the job agencies who mop them up like sponges are generally offering thousands of minimum wage warehouse jobs which do not exceed what they could be earning back in Poland, couple that with a much higher cost of living here and its not surprising that the coaches leaving Victoria are full of Poles who came, looked, and found it wasn't worth it.

That is the EU purpose, you take on countries that need investment, you invest in them, raise their standard of living so that tax revenue increases, then tax them - its very simple capitalism and a long term strategy that the likes of UKIP and some blinkered far right politicians just will never understand.

Re: Immigration - A New Debate ? : Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:33 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

As much as many on this forum will hate to admit it, rich people can have many things poor people can't. Big houses, expensive cars, private education etc... Ultimately most things in life will come down to one thing - money. It is not unreasonable to expect people to put a few £££ down if they are serious about coming to this country, or inviting someone to come to this country. My sister wants to go to Aus for a year. She has been asked for a £3,000 bond. No bond, no stay.

It is very easy to get a Tier 5 youth migration visa. Which is what she was on. The UKBA website suggests you cannot convert this to any other type of visa to stay in the UK, whilst you are in the UK. So our only real option seemed to be for her to go home and then we apply for the unmarried partner or married partner options. Both require you to show a 2 year relationship, with co-habitation being a key test.

She will have known that she couldn't convert that visa when she got it, or she should have. You want them to ignore the conditions of her 2 year work visa and convert it to something because she met you and liked you.

You are the one wanting unreasonable things, not the IA.

They have deliberately engineered a situation where it is fiendishly difficult to meet there criteria. No doubt it is done to discourage non EU nationals from coming to the UK.

No it's not. They're just not got to convert a non-convertible visa on the back of a six month relationship that you and her don't have faith in anyway.

She could have come on a tourist visa, but even then I think there are limits as to how long she could have stayed. And, by not working, she would not have been earning. Which would have made her poor. And only rich people are allowed to play the overseas relationship game, remember?

When me and my wife did it she could stay here 6 months on a tourist visa and I could stay in the US for 3 on a tourist visa.

Me and my wife decided the relationship was worth it. You and your lady didn't. TBH, I think you and your lady were right.

That said, I really don't see how you can claim to quantify what the relationship was, or was not, worth. We looked at various options ourselves , consulted 2 immigration solicitors, and decided decided it was unworkable.

If you and your gf had decided that you were both destined to be together you'd have made it work. You both chose not to. It was you and your gf who decided not to carry it on, no one else.

Said girl is now back in Canada and leading a happy life. I spend much of my time working abroad but my new squeeze is a 25 year old doctor who lives in London. Needless to say, she scrubs up well too.

Glad to hear it. Let's hope that you squeeze doesn't grow to mind you being abroad too much, because then you'll be back here claiming that the your employment conspired against you like you're claiming the govt did.