As an immigrant myself, this seems like a vastly superior system compared to most others in the world.<p>Pretty mcuh every country's immigration system falls into one of the following buckets:<p>1) Market based. Companies "bid" on foreign workers, either directly by paying for the visa, or indirectly using the worker's wage. Some form of quote exists, and the highest bidders win.<p>2) Lottery. Set a minimum qualifications, which is pretty lenient, and a quota that is significantly lower than the number of qualified applicants. Use a lottery system to decide who gets in and who doesn't.<p>3) Central planning. Some government agency decides which professions and industries are most important to the country, and need foreign workers the most. Politics, special interests lobbying and/or government incompetence in judging market needs, all figure prominently.<p>4) Some government bureaucrat, who reads through your life story, and spends 30 minutes meeting with you, gets to arbitrarily decide who stays and who doesn't.<p>4 scares the hell out of me. 2 is just stupid. I don't have any trust in the government's ability to effectively conduct 3. 1 is the least of all evils unfortunately.
My sister works as a primary teacher in the London area. She's Canadian, and can't find a job in Ontario (we pay our teachers very well, so there's rarely a shortage). But the British don't pay their teachers very well, meaning that talented teachers like her who are working hard to contribute to Britain's future for fairly paltry wages would be kicked out of the country under this plan.<p>If Britain can't meet it's demand for teachers at the wages it wants to offer without immigration, how do they expect to do it when they kick all the immigrants out? In essence, it's going to mean that British taxpayers have to foot the bill for the higher wages needed to get British teachers, or else some schools will simply have not enough teachers at all.<p>It saddens me that such a fantastic country would be so short-sighted.
£35K is not unreasonable. However if you ask me it should be £35K outside of London and £38.5K within. It far too easy to find a London job that pays £35K, even a lot of entry positions are in the high 20s (27-28K).<p>That being said, while it is fine for workers, what the UK government have tried to do to people on family visas is very immoral. And has caused a lot of families to be separated.<p>- To sponsor a spouse you must make: £18,600<p>- To sponsor a spouse and one child you must make: £22,400 (+£2,400 for each additional child).<p>For reference the medium salary in the UK is around £22,044, the average is around £26,500 but neither tell the whole story, the UK has a wide salary disparity (in particular London Vs. elsewhere), and some charities project that the above rules preclude over a third of the population from bringing in their family.<p>Can you imagine being separated from your spouse and child because you don't make enough? Even if that spouse is perfectly able to work? And the worst part is that a lot of people get caught in a poverty trap, where they don't make enough to pay for the skills that they would need to escape it.<p>The problem is these types of rules come from London where wages are much higher and from very affluent individuals who came from money. They typically impact the poorest parts of the UK, but as they say "out of sight out of mind." Who cares if someone in north England cannot see their family for years... Certainly not Westminister.
My first thought was that's going to have a big impact on the NHS and the care industry:<p>"Metcalfe says there will be temporary exceptions for people with skills such as nursing, because there is a shortage in the U.K."<p>Presumably central government has perfect information about the job market and will be able to make all the exceptions required in every industry?
> non-Europeans on skilled worker visas — known as Tier 2 visas
So it only applies to people that were allowed in the country because they are "skilled workers". This kind of visa already has a minimum wage requirement. I read somewhere that they are applying the same rules to stay that they applied to give the visa.
Still a change, but not what it looks like in the title.
35K GBP is an odd number. To be honest, most numbers in the UK are.<p>In London, with that salary, you will not be able to buy a studio apartment anywhere within commuting distance of the centre. You'd need to triple it to even think about owning an actual home.<p>In many cities in the north, 35K will get you a home, in cash, in <5 years.<p>How does that work, then? Do we deport people who fully pay off homes and retire because they're not earning 35K?<p>Very odd. Frankly, most of the UK's capital/income thresholds are odd for this exact reason. They end up being piffling amounts in the South East and obscene values in the North.
So I've read multiple places that low-income immigrant labor does NOT reduce the demand for local workers, and results in a general increase in wages overall. (which would mean that most countries immigration policies are based on inaccurate fears)<p>I'm totally willing to believe this. But I don't understand it. Is it that some portion of low-income local workers are qualified for more skilled work but there isn't the demand? Something else? Can someone give me the simplified version of events that explains this?
"Come April, she will very likely have to leave her British life partner"<p>If I was in that position I would push for a green card marrige. Or perhaps just a normal marrige? not familiar with the dynamics of a life partnership.
Great idea. But why limit it to just Foreign workers? Just think how Uber they would be if they would just encourage anybody to use their EU passport and move to Elbonia if they don't pull down $50k.
How about the following:<p>1) All countries drop their borders.<p>2) All countries begin taxing especially international companies (Amazon, Apple!) fairly and impose sanctions upon countries currently acting as tax heavens. Also, criminally obtained and stashed profits e.g. of (former) dictators or corrupt officials, gets seized and redistributed.<p>3) Rich(er) countries use this money to actually improve the conditions in the countries where migration originates, no matter if due to poorness, wars, climate change etc.<p>As a planet we cannot longer extract and privatize profits from poor regions and people. It is simply not sustainable (and never has been, tbh).