Loading Notifications...

Johnson a changed man?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Only a few weeks ago our so-called Prime Minister came out of hospital with fulsome praise for the people who saved his life (his words). He’ll be a changed man, they all said. He’ll never be the same again, they said.

His life was saved by immigrants, one from New Zealand, the other from Portugal (an EU country - how shameful to be saved by Freedom of Movement!) Yesterday, Johnson refused to remove the swingeing taxes which PM May imposed as part of the Hostile Environment being created for immigrants. It is hard to believe that this country thinks it fair and proportionate to demand special surcharges to be paid by vital workers just because they aren’t UK citizens. After all, these people are already subject to the same taxes as you and me. It is beyond satire and irony that the very people who are keeping the NHS afloat and saving lives by their loyalty and commitment (not to mention sheer bravery which one couldn't  imagine the PM ever showing) are having to pay extra taxes IN CASE THEY NEED TO USE THE NHS!

And Johnson’s reasons for maintaining this ludicrous situation? It raises quite a lot of money. Johnson a changed man? No, just same old same old …

12
 Ciro 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko: 

What a surprise! The Tories are ideologically opposed to the NHS, it's unfortunate for them that recent events have raised the profile of the service and those that staff it, but the people who vote for them will soon forget. 

Aided, of course, by blaming the scientists and the medics for the government's failure to take the necessary steps to contain the virus.

11
 coinneach 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

He’s definitely changed 

He’s become invisible!

2
In reply to coinneach:

Almost! Thank goodness for PMQs. A weekly comparison with Keir Starmer can only help.

1
 mondite 21 May 2020
In reply to coinneach:

> He’s become invisible!

Thats not a change. Think back to the election where he was pretty much invisible.

 cpowell 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

I particularly dislike the disingenuous quote of raising £900 million from the 'surcharge'.  That number is over 4 years so it suddenly sounds 4x worse than £225 million a year.

Plus that £225 million is for all immigrants, not just those in healthcare roles.

Assuming half of immigrants work in healthcare (a number plucked straight out of thin air I would warn) we are talking about 0.1% of the total NHS budget, or 0.1p in every pound. It is less than half the amount his red magic money bus would raise for the NHS every week!

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

>It is beyond satire and irony

I agree, only surrealism can comment adequately on our current situation:

Ceci n'est pas une government.

Post edited at 12:03
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> His life was saved by immigrants, one from New Zealand, the other from Portugal (an EU country - how shameful to be saved by Freedom of Movement!) Yesterday, Johnson refused to remove the swingeing taxes which PM May imposed as part of the Hostile Environment being created for immigrants. It is hard to believe that this country thinks it fair and proportionate to demand special surcharges to be paid by vital workers just because they aren’t UK citizens.

Disgusting but perfectly in line with post-brexit ideology: foreigners are only tolerated as a disposable economic resource for the exclusive benefit of native, and do not deserve equal treatment.

This has been going on for years and years but people keep voting Tory, so what can you do. This is impacting a minority of people many of whom cannot vote so politicians and voters don’t really care.

Post edited at 12:37
3
 PaulJepson 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

So one of the nurses who kept him alive could catch the disease off of him, and then be charged for the treatment she received from her colleagues and he doesn't see anything wrong with that.....

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those of his ilk. 

4
Pan Ron 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Your and Ciro's responses exhibit the sort of bigotry you accuse Johnson of. 

The Tories are opposed to the NHS?  Really, or is this just a claim you like to throw at an entire party and millions of supporters regardless of accuracy?  Boris's prior to his experience would not praise immigrants?  Based on what?  It's not fair charging fees for the privilege of a work visa?  Why not?

55
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Your and Ciro's responses exhibit the sort of bigotry you accuse Johnson of. 

> The Tories are opposed to the NHS?  Really, or is this just a claim you like to throw at an entire party and millions of supporters regardless of accuracy?  Boris's prior to his experience would not praise immigrants?  Based on what?  It's not fair charging fees for the privilege of a work visa?  Why not?

It’s not a visa fee, they already pay a visa fee (which is usually thousands of pounds). It’s a surcharge they have to pay on top of the already exceedingly high visa fees to be able to use the NHS, even though they are working and paying taxes just as everybody else (in fact, more, on average)

Post edited at 12:44
3
 fred99 21 May 2020
In reply to :

I wonder what his reaction would be if every single foreign worker in the NHS or Care Homes handed in a joint letter to their bosses stating that if their contracts weren't altered so that such fee were to be paid by their bosses then they give an immediate notice of resignation.

Might be a bit like holding a gun to their heads but so what, what Bojo is doing is just plain nasty and vindictive - I wonder if either of those two nurses just wish they'd introduced an air bubble into any intravenous drip that he had, or just switched off the ventilator ?

For that matter this increase of fee will affect others that we depend on - agricultural labourers for example.

Looks like he really is going after a "British only" attitude.

6
In reply to DaveHK:

> only surrealism can comment adequately on our current situation:

> Ceci n'est pas une government.


La trahison des gens de droite.

Post edited at 13:42
2
 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The Tories are opposed to the NHS?  Really, or is this just a claim you like to throw at an entire party and millions of supporters regardless of accuracy?  Boris's prior to his experience would not praise immigrants?  Based on what?  It's not fair charging fees for the privilege of a work visa?  Why not?

According to a despicable bunch of lefties, the surcharge (not a visa fee, as you incorrectly have it) could "rightly be perceived as mean spirited" and “immoral and monstrous”.

These particular lefties are Roger Gale (Tory MP for North Thanet) and Chris Patten, former Tory party chairman. Gale has also said “I strongly believe that the £400 charge should be waived for those immigrants currently working in health and care services and saving lives.”

Other pinkos have said on the subject:

"I’m very proud of my party but this is not its finest hour. These people have saved lives, then we give them a bill.”

“We should absolutely look at this – we don’t require the NHS surcharge for people who have done national service for this country.”

Still, you're quite right to whinge about anyone who dares criticise Johnson and he ludicrously inept Government. Oiks should know their place. 

2
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> I wonder what his reaction would be if every single foreign worker in the NHS or Care Homes handed in a joint letter to their bosses stating that if their contracts weren't altered so that such fee were to be paid by their bosses then they give an immediate notice of resignation.

It wouldn’t work because if you are on a work visa and resign you would lose your visa and be asked to leave the U.K, so it would be a completely empty threat.

Foreign workers on work visas have very little leverage.

 neilh 21 May 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Does anybody on here actually know how this charge applies? For example does it apply to EU citizens where there is currently recipricoal rights in any case?

Post edited at 13:50
1
 gravy 21 May 2020
In reply to coinneach:

Not as invisible as the home secretary whatever her name is...

 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Does anybody on here actually know how this charge applies? For example does it apply to EU citizens where there is currently recipricoal rights in any case?

No, it doesn't apply to EU citizens. It is applied to all migrants from outside the EEA. 

Doctors, nurses and paramedics are currently exempt from paying the charge for one year, but this exemption has not been extended to the most poorly paid care workers, such as porters and cleaners. 

L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Does anybody on here actually know how this charge applies? For example does it apply to EU citizens where there is currently recipricoal rights in any case?

Broadly speaking, it applies to anybody coming to work in the U.K. with a work visa, but some other categories are included as well.

EU citizens currently living the U.K. are protected against this type of discriminatory treatment by the withdrawal agreement, so it doesn’t apply to them, but it will apply to EU citizens who come to the U.K. for work after the transition period is over.

Post edited at 13:59
1
 neilh 21 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

When you say it is discriminatory, do you know what happens in other countries for Uk citizens working there?

 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

What happens elsewhere is of no concern to those poorly paid yet vital workers on whom the NHS depends. It is particularly unfair that the surcharge has been lifted to doctors, nurses and paramedics, but not for those who can least afford it. 

1
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Never mind, at least Johnson is not going to be prosecuted for spending £120K of tax payers money putting his johnson where it had no right to be.

So all is well with the world.

 neilh 21 May 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Well it might be a concern if you are a UK citizen living overseas and you are hit with a local charge for similar rights

I am pointing out that it is can be more complicated that it first appears.

Its the sort of PR own goal that the Torie shoot themselves in the foot on, but there is also an argument when you look at it in more detail suggesting it is widespread practise globally with recipricoal rights etc waiving charges and so on.

3
 Ian W 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

Its discrimination in that one country (the UK) treats people different on the basis of their country of origin or occupation. If a country, wherever it is located, treats everyone the same, whether or not that treatment is better or worse than any other country, then it is not discrimination.

 Andy Johnson 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

People don't change, and neither do ideologies. They want to keep this measure because treating "foreigners" harshly sells well to their supporters. It's no more complicated than that.

Post edited at 15:27
2
 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Well it might be a concern if you are a UK citizen living overseas and you are hit with a local charge for similar rights

The plight of UK citizens is not relevant to the plight of the poorly paid migrants here. 

> I am pointing out that it is can be more complicated that it first appears.

No, it's not. The Government should be doing the right thing by these people, regardless of what happens elsewhere. 

2
 fred99 21 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> It wouldn’t work because if you are on a work visa and resign you would lose your visa and be asked to leave the U.K, so it would be a completely empty threat.

> Foreign workers on work visas have very little leverage.


Do you honestly think that either the NHS or Care Homes could carry on without foreign workers ?

I really do think that whichever union they do (or could/should) belong to should get their act together and start pushing for this to be paid by employers - or are the unions also only interested in "British" workers ?

1
In reply to neilh:

I'm with Ian W, that treating people differently on the basis of country of origin or career is a problem.  It's not a fair or right thing to do, regardless of what other nations may choose.

 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> I really do think that whichever union they do (or could/should) belong to should get their act together and start pushing for this to be paid by employers - or are the unions also only interested in "British" workers ?

There are some NHS Trusts which will pay the surcharge for their migrant workers, but this is not enacted uniformly, and does result in the Alice in Wonderland situation of the Government giving money to the Trust which then gives it back to the Government. Better by far to do away with it completely. 

Care homes sit outside the NHS and are run on thin margins. Some have struggled to manage the costs of increases in the minimum wage, so I am sure many would struggle to pay these surcharges for their staff. 

Unions are certainly interested in migrant workers;

https://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/big-issues/hostile-environment-nhs/the-health-surcharge/

1
 fred99 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Well it might be a concern if you are a UK citizen living overseas and you are hit with a local charge for similar rights

If I retire somewhere ( and that is what most Brits moving abroad do, to a less expensive and warmer climate) that is one thing - I would factor in matters such as this. Now just as we as a country really are in the sh*t up comes an increase which may well affect the less well paid immigrant workers financial ability (and will) to work here, plus this country NEEDS these people, otherwise many people are screwed.

> I am pointing out that it is can be more complicated that it first appears.

Why ? They pay tax, which is more than the lazy b*st*rds who collect their dole money but do bugger all (except complain) do.

> Its the sort of PR own goal that the Torie shoot themselves in the foot on, but there is also an argument when you look at it in more detail suggesting it is widespread practise globally with recipricoal rights etc waiving charges and so on.

Why not arrange reciprocal ? This bigoted government doesn't care and is driving us down an ideological cul-de-sac at high speed without brakes, regardless of how thick the stone wall at the end is.

1
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Do you honestly think that either the NHS or Care Homes could carry on without foreign workers ?

I don’t think so.
But let’s be real, it’s very difficult for someone whose right to stay in the U.K. hangs on a work visa to ask for anything from their employer, the incentive is to shut up, keep your head down and don’t make any waves.

L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to neilh:

> When you say it is discriminatory, do you know what happens in other countries for Uk citizens working there?

Yes, pretty much. And you’d be hard-pressed to find any place which charges immigrants twice for healthcare.

In most of the world, healthcare is covered by mutual insurance or is private, so immigrants might be asked to contribute through the said system. Still, overall, they would pay roughly the same as natives in a similar situation.

The UK is unique in the sense that it’s free at the point of use system paid through taxation.

So in the U.K., they pay twice for the same thing. Once through their taxes and then again with the surcharge. That’s why it’s called it’s a surcharge.

It has nothing to do with healthcare, and it doesn’t go in any healthcare pot immigrants can draw from later on when they need care, it’s just a cruel way to squeeze an extra billion pound out of immigrant, make the country as hostile as possible to immigrants to reduce numbers, and please the core Tory electorate. The history of this surcharge supports this, it was introduced to silence the bullshit claims by Farage and co that immigrants were swamping the country to abuse the NHS.

I don’t think there is any other country that has such an immigration health surcharge. I don’t know about every single country on earth, but I’m quite sure it doesn’t exist (yet) in any of the leading destinations for Brits.

In any case, even if it happened somewhere else, it doesn’t make it less discriminatory. If that was the case, you could always have a reciprocal approach.

Post edited at 16:53
2
 thomasadixon 21 May 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Every country that has an immigration system (ie every country) does this.  The alternative to discrimination is that everyone in the world is entitled to NHS care.

11
In reply to Rog Wilko:

BBC reporting a u-turn!

 fred99 21 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> I don’t think so.

> But let’s be real, it’s very difficult for someone whose right to stay in the U.K. hangs on a work visa to ask for anything from their employer, the incentive is to shut up, keep your head down and don’t make any waves.


The way this country is going, it will soon be in their interests to leave and return to their own countries, which will be out of lockdown, back into reasonable working, and starting to function (reasonably) normally again - as opposed to our country which is "going to hell in a basket" due to the incompetent lying bunch of a**holes running the place.

Particularly if they are working in a vulnerable occupation, with at best questionable PPE, a government that sh*ts on them, a (racist) section of the population which looks down upon them as "damn foreigners", and a low wage with zero prospects.

Post edited at 16:57
1
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Every country that has an immigration system (ie every country) does this.  The alternative to discrimination is that everyone in the world is entitled to NHS care.

You don’t understand what this surcharge is, or even how access to NHS works. It is completely false to say that “everybody in the world” would be entitled to NHS care without it.

L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> The way this country is going, it will soon be in their interests to leave and return to their own countries, which will be out of lockdown, back into reasonable working, and starting to function (reasonably) normally again. Particularly if they are working in a vulnerable occupation, with at best questionable PPE, a government that sh*ts on them, a (racist) section of the population which looks down upon them as "damn foreigners", and a low wage with zero prospects.

The problem is that there is an endless supply of people in poorer countries who still bet on the hope of being able to live in the U.K.
A lot of them don’t necessarily realise in advance that they will be ripped a new arsehole financially by the home office and have in fact very little hope to achieve settlement.

Post edited at 17:07
1
 fred99 21 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> .... But as long as it works with the electorate, it will continue.

The big problem with universal suffrage - idiots, morons and complete scumbags are entitled to vote. Unfortunately that's exactly what this government has appealed to (and got in with a MINORITY vote).

4
 hang_about 21 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

Are the Tories opposed to the NHS?

Previous health secretary Jeremy Hunt wrote this book published in 2005

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Replace the NHS with an insurance model - seems like solid evidence to me that someone with those views would be appointed to that post in 2012.

1
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> The big problem with universal suffrage - idiots, morons and complete scumbags are entitled to vote. Unfortunately that's exactly what this government has appealed to (and got in with a MINORITY vote).

I disagree, the issue is in fact the lack of universal suffrage.
 

Post edited at 17:11
 Harry Jarvis 21 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Every country that has an immigration system (ie every country) does this.  The alternative to discrimination is that everyone in the world is entitled to NHS care.

Could you explain that please? As I understand it, the surcharge under discussion is a surcharge imposed on migrant workers (not visitors) who are employed (i.e. not seeking work) and have a work visa. That is some way off the open door you seem to be suggesting. 

And I wonder if, in defending the surcharge, you might care to comment on the fact that some workers in the NHS have been exempted from the NHS, while others have not. Most notably, it's the most poorly paid who have not been exempted - those who can least afford it. This seems a strange way to recognise their contribution. 

 IceKing 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Seems Boris has had another deep think and has reversed his decision once he realised it was making him look bad, erm I mean when he realised he had some compassion /s. I never used to heed the "all Tories are b*stards" meme but this bunch really take the biscuit.

And speaking of biscuits, Pan Ron being triggered by some perceived unfair slur on politicians instead of manning up and admitting this policy was totally indefensible takes a whole packet of hob-nobs. Quite noticeable he hasn't been back to discuss.

Post edited at 17:27
3
L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to IceKing:

> Seems Boris has had another deep think and has reversed his decision once he realised it was making him look bad, erm I mean when he realised he had some compassion /s. I never used to heed the "all Tories are b*stards" meme but this bunch really take the biscuit.

Deep think my arse, they still have the knack to come out and say that the surcharge will remain and be increased for non-NHS worker. I quote the government:

 
“it is fair to expect people arriving in the UK to work in non-health roles who might use the NHS to make a contribution,” a government source said.”

FFS they are already making a contribution they pay their taxes just like everybody else. You are just making them pay twice you bunch of twats.
 

Post edited at 18:31
1
In reply to IceKing:

Is Johnson lurking on this site somewhere?

 mondite 21 May 2020
In reply to IceKing:

>  I never used to heed the "all Tories are b*stards" meme but this bunch really take the biscuit.

In fairness several senior tories pointed out it was less than desirable behaviour.

Bit rich for Hunt to go against it now though considering he introduced it.

1
 IceKing 21 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

It's the cabinet really, as I said I didn't pay any heed to the 'all Tories are' thing but the cabinet really is stacked full with the worst of them. Don't mind Patton or Clarke for example but this shower seem to be without scruples. 

2
 thomasadixon 21 May 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

It got wider - it being discrimination to treat people differently based on being non nationals - pretty quickly.  It is discrimination, it’s also standard practice to discriminate on that basis.  And if we didn’t everyone would have access - my access to the NHS has nothing at all to do with whether I pay tax.

I didn’t defend the surcharge...but it’s easy enough to defend that difference - we need doctors more so they get extra perks, ie market forces require us to do that.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Evidence is stacking up that Johnson is one of the undead. 

Recent comments on obesity suggest he casts no reflection. 

His europhobic nature stems from his dislike of garlic and adverse reactions to the crucifixes liberally displayed in Catholic countries.

Frequently seducing young maidens. 

Our PM is a vampire, I tell you! 

L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I didn’t defend the surcharge...but it’s easy enough to defend that difference - we need doctors more so they get extra perks, ie market forces require us to do that.

It isn’t an extra perk they are getting it’s a discriminatory practice they are being exempted from because the NHS is a political cult and it’s become too embarrassing.

Post edited at 20:34
 wintertree 21 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Given that most healthcare costs come at the start and end of life, surely people who come here as fully trained adults should get a rebate for the money saved by not being here for birth, infancy or childhood?

1
 Ridge 21 May 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Given that most healthcare costs come at the start and end of life, surely people who come here as fully trained adults should get a rebate for the money saved by not being here for birth, infancy or childhood?

Maybe it's swings & roundabouts to an extent. Some fully trained adults may well have kids after arrival and use the NHS for childbirth and schools for education before moving on to, say, the USA. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it's probably more than offset by those who don't, but it may not be as clear cut as everyone who comes here to work is a nett contributor.

Thst said a surcharge, particularly one targeted at the lowest paid, stinks.

 Ian W 21 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Every country that has an immigration system (ie every country) does this.  The alternative to discrimination is that everyone in the world is entitled to NHS care.


You'll have to explain this to me as well; we aren't talking about overseas residents; just those resident / domiciled in the UK.

L KriszLukash 21 May 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> Maybe it's swings & roundabouts to an extent. Some fully trained adults may well have kids after arrival and use the NHS for childbirth and schools for education before moving on to, say, the USA. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it's probably more than offset by those who don't, but it may not be as clear cut as everyone who comes here to work is a nett contributor.

It’s been worked out and academics have done the sums, even being totally unfair and attributing all the costs associated to future kids they are still overall net contributor to the system. (That’s before you even consider any health surcharge and other extortionate fees they are forced to pay)

Post edited at 21:43
2
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Deep think my arse,

The '/s' is a sarcasm indicator...

 nufkin 21 May 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

>  Our PM is a vampire, I tell you! 

I'm not sure any self-respecting vampire could bring themselves to emulate the Johnson persona, even as a ruse. 
The sensible money's on JRM

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

It’s a perk compared to others on visas.  We can agree on one thing, the reason Boris changed it today is because the NHS is an obsession and it looks bad.

The basis of the charge is that extra people are a cost to infrastructure, and so we charge those extra people for that extra cost.  Other countries charge in other ways, re health it’s common to require you to have insurance so you don’t burden the state system.  Practically that doesn’t work here, hence the surcharge - it’s basically the state charging a bit extra for health insurance in addition to taxes.  It’s not charged to citizens, but then we get free healthcare regardless of whether we pay tax, and at the level it is it’s not the cost of health insurance elsewhere, it’s a small fraction.

This is of course discrimination, but just like all immigration questions the charge that it is therefore wrong is nonsensical.  The whole basis of the immigration system is discrimination.  We need money to cover the cost of extra people, this gets us a bit extra, just like visa fees.  They get to live and work here in return.  Can’t see the problem.

Ian W - getting rid of discrimination based on nationality means anyone can move here of course, and we’re talking about people who have chosen to move here.

Ridge - it is not targeted at the low paid, or healthcare workers, it’s targeted at immigrants, who are generally higher paid than average.  They have to be to fit visa requirements.

5
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The basis of the charge is that extra people are a cost to infrastructure

Which they pay through income tax. Like the rest of us.

This is about working visas; for people with jobs, paying income tax. Not visitor or student visas.

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

We’re born with much of it, and tax certainly doesn’t cover replacement cost.  Tax covers some upkeep and improvement.  We have a shared scarce resource that we’re giving people access to, and we’re charging for that access.  We are not charged for it, whether we pay tax or not, because we already have it.

I’m well aware that we’re talking about working visas.

6
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
  • In reply to thomasadxon:

> The basis of the charge is that extra people are a cost to infrastructure, and so we charge those extra people for that extra cost.  Other countries charge in other ways, re health it’s common to require you to have insurance so you don’t burden the state system.  Practically that doesn’t work here, hence the surcharge - it’s basically the state charging a bit extra for health insurance in addition to taxes.  

The above doesn’t even make sense and you know it. We pay for the NHS as part of our taxes. They pay them too.

We ask then to pay something extra on top even though they basically use NHS a lot less, just because they are foreign and we can.

> This is of course discrimination, but just like all immigration questions the charge that it is therefore wrong is nonsensical.  The whole basis of the immigration system is discrimination.  We need money to cover the cost of extra people, this gets us a bit extra, just like visa fees. 

No, Thomas, discrimination isn’t the basis of the immigration system.

Having an objective criteria on entry and get people to pay a processing fee in one thing, exploiting them and screw them once they are in is another. 

> They get to live and work here in return.  Can’t see the problem.

You wouldn’t see the problem with a state of apartheid.  In fact you would welcome it.

Post edited at 07:23
In reply to thomasadixon:

What many people don't realise - maybe you're one or perhaps it doesn't suit your prejudices  - is that immigrants are on average not a burden to the country. This is because they are self selected go-getters with high work ethic and they are also in the most productive and least-demanding-of-services-and-benefits age range of 16 - 45 years. 

If you don't like living in a country which attracts lots of migrants perhaps you should try living in a country where all the "best" people are leaving.

1
 Ian W 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s a perk compared to others on visas.  We can agree on one thing, the reason Boris changed it today is because the NHS is an obsession and it looks bad.

> The basis of the charge is that extra people are a cost to infrastructure, and so we charge those extra people for that extra cost.  Other countries charge in other ways, re health it’s common to require you to have insurance so you don’t burden the state system.  Practically that doesn’t work here, hence the surcharge - it’s basically the state charging a bit extra for health insurance in addition to taxes.  It’s not charged to citizens, but then we get free healthcare regardless of whether we pay tax, and at the level it is it’s not the cost of health insurance elsewhere, it’s a small fraction.

> This is of course discrimination, but just like all immigration questions the charge that it is therefore wrong is nonsensical.  The whole basis of the immigration system is discrimination.  We need money to cover the cost of extra people, this gets us a bit extra, just like visa fees.  They get to live and work here in return.  Can’t see the problem.

> Ian W - getting rid of discrimination based on nationality means anyone can move here of course, and we’re talking about people who have chosen to move here.

No it doesn't. You are confusing immigration and discrimination. And dont forget that this whole argument is about those people who actually provide the service. They ARE the infrastructure. If they weren't here, putting your additional burden on it, the NHS would be in a very bad way.......

> Ridge - it is not targeted at the low paid, or healthcare workers, it’s targeted at immigrants, who are generally higher paid than average.  They have to be to fit visa requirements.

So how come so many immigrants work in low paid health care jobs? also be careful with your assertion that immigrants are higher paid than natives - its not generally true.

https://fullfact.org/news/do-uk-immigrant-workers-have-higher-average-earnings-uk-born-workers/

 Trevers 22 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> What many people don't realise - maybe you're one or perhaps it doesn't suit your prejudices  - is that immigrants are on average not a burden to the country. This is because they are self selected go-getters with high work ethic and they are also in the most productive and least-demanding-of-services-and-benefits age range of 16 - 45 years.

Well said. Our diversity and the fact that our country has hitherto been so attractive to foreigners should be a source of great pride for our society. The fact that its been seen as a source of shame and a burden points to a sickness at the heart of our society. This depraved Johnson government and the wanton destruction it is wreaking to our society, economy, politics and reputation is the result of this sickness.

1
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> No it doesn't. You are confusing immigration and discrimination. And dont forget that this whole argument is about those people who actually provide the service. They ARE the infrastructure. If they weren't here, putting your additional burden on it, the NHS would be in a very bad way.......

Requiring visas is discriminating in favour of nationals vs non nationals, I’m not confused at all.  The surcharge is aimed at all immigrants, not NHS workers - doctors and nurses, which we do need, were already excluded.  Are you really saying that people, not roads, buildings, etc are infrastructure!?  Bloody weird use of the term, not what I was referring to of course - try a dictionary if you’re not clear ;).

> So how come so many immigrants work in low paid health care jobs? also be careful with your assertion that immigrants are higher paid than natives - its not generally true.

The surcharge applies to those who require visas.  Look at those, not EU workers as in your link, and it is true.

7
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> What many people don't realise - maybe you're one or perhaps it doesn't suit your prejudices  - is that immigrants are on average not a burden to the country. This is because they are self selected go-getters with high work ethic and they are also in the most productive and least-demanding-of-services-and-benefits age range of 16 - 45 years.

I’ve said as much myself already...on a day to day basis.  An extra million people are a burden on infrastructure, they do not pay enough extra tax to create a new city to house them.

> If you don't like living in a country which attracts lots of migrants perhaps you should try living in a country where all the "best" people are leaving.

Quite happy here thanks, no idea why you’d think I’m not.

6
 Ian W 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Requiring visas is discriminating in favour of nationals vs non nationals, I’m not confused at all.  The surcharge is aimed at all immigrants, not NHS workers - doctors and nurses, which we do need, were already excluded.  Are you really saying that people, not roads, buildings, etc are infrastructure!?  Bloody weird use of the term, not what I was referring to of course - try a dictionary if you’re not clear ;).

NHS staff are part of the healthcare infrastructure. Without the immigrant element of that infrastructure, it would collapse. Even / especially at the lower pay levels.

> The surcharge applies to those who require visas.  Look at those, not EU workers as in your link, and it is true.

It applies to both EU and non EU. The link breaks down the overall picture into its constituent parts.

L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> If you don't like living in a country which attracts lots of migrants perhaps you should try living in a country where all the "best" people are leaving.

That's where you got it slightly wrong. People like Thomas don't have a problem with having immigrants around, but that is as long as they are treated as inferior, don't have equal rights, and are only here as a disposable economic resource you can exploit for the sole purpose of maximising the economic benefit to natives.

I suspect it was the main grief people had with EU free movement, not that it let in too many people, but that by law, the state could not discriminate against them.

If you look at the conservatives policies on immigration they actually go in that direction. The new policies are likely to increase the numbers coming into the country, however, those coming in will have fewer rights. Basically what they want is a pliable and compliant cheap workforce you can exploit and then send back.

The irony is that but using immigration this way you end up making it way more likely to undercut the wages of natives.

Post edited at 11:43
In reply to thomasadixon:

'An extra million people are a burden on infrastructure, they do not pay enough extra tax to create a new city to house them.'

You're going to have to run that past me again, I don't think immigrants get free housing do they? If they need accommodation they pay for it. Yes additional school places will be required, but the EXTRA taxes and rates they pay must cover that, surely? Problems will occur if local authorities get the extra cash and DON'T spend it on the extra resources required because they are already skint, but that can't be happening, surely?

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

They’re also useful as Dad in my experience.

People like you are prejudiced idiots, you can’t think so you just attack stereotypes.

5
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'An extra million people are a burden on infrastructure, they do not pay enough extra tax to create a new city to house them.'

> You're going to have to run that past me again, I don't think immigrants get free housing do they?  If they need accommodation they pay for it.

They compete for it with others, and cause a need for extra housing to exist.  Remember the housing shortage?  You’re presumably aware that government subsidises new house building?

> Yes additional school places will be required, but the EXTRA taxes and rates they pay must cover that, surely?

Why on earth do you think that?  Taxes do not pay enough to replace everything, they rely on being able to use existing infrastructure.

3
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They’re also useful as Dad in my experience.

So on top of everything, you are an hypocrite. Not surprising.

> People like you are prejudiced idiots, you can’t think so you just attack stereotypes.

No, I’m attacking your ideology that says that robbing foreigners blind and treating them as inferior beings is perfectly OK.

Post edited at 12:34
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They compete for it with others, and cause a need for extra housing to exist.  Remember the housing shortage?  You’re presumably aware that government subsidises new house building

 

You are completely off on your facts, as usual. housing shortage are alleviated by immigration, the vast majority of the population growth comes from births, and the construction industry is heavily dependent on foreign labour. As for government subsidies, they come from tax, and foreigner are paying a disproportionate amount of them.

Basically, the housing shortages would be worse without immigration.

> Why on earth do you think that?  Taxes do not pay enough to replace everything, they rely on being able to use existing infrastructure

Existing infrastructure was built on the back of taxes, a disproportionate amount of it paid by immigrants.

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

Like I said, prejudiced idiot attacking a stereotype.  My Dad is not inferior, and as far as I can see was never treated as inferior.  He was treated as a non-citizen, he had to apply for citizenship.  He had to pay for it too, but it's hardly being robbed blind when you're told about the costs and you can simply choose not to come here in the first place.  Horrifyingly when they moved to his country my Mum had to pay to apply for citizenship too.

What's your alternative to this?  No immigration system at all?  Have you even vaguely thought this through or are you just ranting?

5
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Like I said, prejudiced idiot attacking a stereotype.  My Dad is not inferior, and as far as I can see was never treated as inferior.  He was treated as a non-citizen, he had to apply for citizenship.  He had to pay for it too, but it's hardly being robbed blind when you're told about the costs and you can simply choose not to come here in the first place.  Horrifyingly when they moved to his country my Mum had to pay to apply for citizenship too.

The cost of applying for citizenship has increased by 400% since 2005, your parents benefited from a system that treated people relatively fairly.

This has completely changed with the hostile environment.

> What's your alternative to this?  No immigration system at all?  Have you even vaguely thought this through or are you just ranting

The alternative ? simply make people pay for their visa what it costs to process them, don’t make them pay extra taxes, give them the same access to the justice system as everybody else, allow them to settle and / or apply for citizenship once they have lived long enough in the country, and don’t give the home office absolute power over their lives.

Basically broadly as the system was before the tories came to power. It was a good balance.
Now it’s going towards creating a Dubai-style state of semi-apartheid for foreign workers.

Post edited at 13:04
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> The cost of applying to citizenship has increased by 400% since 2005, your parents benefited from a system that treated people relatively fairly.

It's become more expensive to apply for citizenship...so?  It did not treat my Dad the same as my Mum, it charged him money and not her.  My Mum moved less than a decade ago.

> This has completely changed with the hostile environment.

As I understand it the hostile environment applies to those illegally here, it would never have had any effect on my parents.  It doesn't affect those on visas either.  It's not relevant.

> No, simply make people pay for their visa what it costs to process them, don’t make them pay extra taxes, and then once in the country treat them as equals. 

So you increase the population by a huge amount, and those already here just have to take a share of the cost?  That's hardly fair.

Treat them as equals as soon as they're in - so scrap visas then, grant citizenship straight away?  It's not equal to return them if they commit crimes or lose their job, it's not equal to ask them to comply with visa requirements.

6
 fred99 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> I disagree, the issue is in fact the lack of universal suffrage.


Not in this country. Apart from criminals in jail, plus the insane (also locked up), everyone over 18 has the right to vote.

Now if only a few more of the younger voters had actually got off their backsides and walked into the election halls instead of moaning "I won't make a difference" we probably wouldn't have this shameful crew in charge (or Brexit looming for that matter) .

L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It's become more expensive to apply for citizenship...so?  It did not treat my Dad the same as my Mum, it charged him money and not her.  My Mum moved less than a decade ago.

> As I understand it the hostile environment applies to those illegally here, it would never have had any effect on my parents.  It doesn't affect those on visas either.  It's not relevant.

The hostile environment has nothing to do with illegal immigration in practice. It impact legal migrants.

And yes, it would just likely have had a huge effect on your parents. For starter they would have had to pay way more than they did, and most likely they wouldn’t have been able to even settle and get citizenship in the first place.

> So you increase the population by a huge amount, and those already here just have to take a share of the cost?  That's hardly fair.

There is no cost for them, it’s a benefit. Again. Facts.

> Treat them as equals as soon as they're in - so scrap visas then, grant citizenship straight away?  It's not equal to return them if they commit crimes or lose their job, it's not equal to ask them to comply with visa requirements

Completely off the mark. Nobody says that applying immigration restrictions on entry is discriminatory.


What is discriminatory is to frustrate their access to the justice system, the health system, make make them pay extortionate and unjustified fees, ask them to give up their right to data protection, give them no right to settlement after a period of residence, or just fine right persecute them and ruin their lives fir political ends (windrush).

L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Not in this country. Apart from criminals in jail, plus the insane (also locked up), everyone over 18 has the right to vote.

No, most foreigners (except commonwealth) who represent about 12% of the population, cannot vote in general elections.

No right to vote to non-citizens is defensible when they represent a small percentage, but when it’s more than one person out of ten living in this country that are being electorally disenfranchised, I would argue that it doesn’t fit the definition of “universal suffrage” anymore.

If they had the right to vote governments would be a lot less likely to screw around with them, their interest would be represented.

Post edited at 13:37
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> The hostile environment has nothing to do with illegal immigration in practice. It impact legal migrants.

Think you’ll find it hard to convince me it would have affected my parents.  Can’t see why it should affect those legally here to remove those not legally here.

> And yes, it would just likely have had a huge effect on your parents. For starter they would have had to pay way more than they did, and most likely they wouldn’t have been able to even settle and get citizenship in the first place.

They’d have had to pay a bit more, yes.  Marginal.

> There is no cost for them, it’s a benefit. Again. Facts.

Not facts, an unsupported unlikely claim.  Extra people who largely do not work in construction = extra houses and infrastructure!  Do they build the houses for free?  Where do they get the land?

> Completely off the mark. Nobody says that applying immigration restrictions on entry is discriminatory.

Yes they do...and it is discriminatory.

> What is discriminatory is to frustrate their access to the justice system, the health system, make make them pay extortionate and unjustified fees, ask them to give up their right to data protection, give them no right to settlement after a period of residence, or just fine right persecute them and ruin their lives fir political ends (windrush).

To treat them differently is discrimination, yes, that’s the definition.  As said - scrap visas then?  Instant citizenship is the only way to have equal treatment.  Windrush was a screw up, not intended.

4
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Think you’ll find it hard to convince me it would have affected my parents.  Can’t see why it should affect those legally here to remove those not legally here.

Because, under the hostile environment, what’s, the home office will look at every possible reason they can find to refuse your settlement application, hit you with all sorts of non-refundable fees you’ll have pay again abd again, ask you to provide documentation that’s impossible to provide, and if they can’t find a reason to reject you, they will try to make one up,

> They’d have had to pay a bit more, yes.  Marginal.

Not marginal. The fees have gone out of control.
An Indian friend of mine paid £16,000 in total in various visa fees and surcharges in the space of three years. They are completely unjustified, and are just there to squeeze people.

> Not facts, an unsupported unlikely claim.  Extra people who largely do not work in construction = extra houses and infrastructure!  Do they build the houses for free?  Where do they get the land?

> Yes they do...and it is discriminatory.

> To treat them differently is discrimination, yes, that’s the definition.  As said - scrap visas then?  Instant citizenship is the only way to have equal treatment.  

Again, you are completely missing the point, nobody is saying scrap visa, we are simply saying treat the people you have allowed to live in the country, temporarily or permanently, the same as everybody else, instead of making them a class of sub-citizens who can be exploited by the government and employers.

Either you let people in, or you don’t let them in, but don’t create a new class of semi-slaves. That’s all.

> Windrush was a screw up, not intended.

Windrush wasn’t a screw up, it was the result of deliberate policy.

In reply to thomasadixon:

 Windrush was a screw up, not intended.

I didn't know UKC reached as far as the planet Zog. How's the weather over there?

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Because, under the hostile environment, what’s, the home office will look at every possible reason they can find to refuse your settlement application, hit you with all sorts of non-refundable fees you’ll have pay again abd again, ask you to provide documentation that’s impossible to provide, and if they can’t find a reason to reject you, they will try to make one up,

Amazing given this that so many manage to get in really, especially since we cannot be forced to let anyone in.

> An Indian friend of mine paid £16,000 in total in various visa fees and surcharges in the space of three years. They are completely unjustified, and are just there to squeeze people.

Well I’ve no idea the details of that person so can’t comment, but the charges are there to get money from those who can afford it, and those who benefit from it.  Obviously he could and thinks paying was worth it.

Edit - I should say obviously there are cases where things go wrong, and should be fixed.  They generally are, and individual cases going wrong doesn’t mean the system is wrong.

> Again, you are completely missing the point, nobody is saying scrap visa, we are simply saying treat the people you have allowed to live in the country, temporarily or permanently, the same as everybody else, instead of making them a class of sub-citizens who can be exploited by the government and employers.

> Either you let people in, or you don’t let them in, but don’t create a new class of semi-slaves. That’s all.

How exactly do you do that without scrapping visas?  You realise visas have conditions and expiry dates?

> Windrush wasn’t a screw up, it was the result of deliberate policy.

No, it was a screw up.  That’s why they apologised for it.

Post edited at 15:20
4
 fred99 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> No, most foreigners (except commonwealth) who represent about 12% of the population, cannot vote in general elections.

> No right to vote to non-citizens is defensible when they represent a small percentage, but when it’s more than one person out of ten living in this country that are being electorally disenfranchised, I would argue that it doesn’t fit the definition of “universal suffrage” anymore.

> If they had the right to vote governments would be a lot less likely to screw around with them, their interest would be represented.


My apologies, I forgot that except for Eire, non-UK citizens were not entitled to a vote.

Perhaps what should happen is what they fought for to create the USA - no taxation without representation - the Tories would soon give you a vote then. (But it'll never happen )

Post edited at 15:36
 fred99 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No, it was a screw up.  That’s why they apologised for it.

They only apologised because they got caught.

Pan Ron 22 May 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> According to a despicable bunch of lefties, the surcharge (not a visa fee, as you incorrectly have it) could "rightly be perceived as mean spirited" and “immoral and monstrous”.

It's no less a visa fee than NI is tax.  You pay it (as our staff have been doing for some time now) along with your visa expenses.

If the visa costs were simply increased £400 then that would be fine, but calling it an NHS surcharge makes it “immoral and monstrous"?  Or is any increase “immoral and monstrous"?

And why waive it just for NHS workers?  The NHS is massive.  Anyone working for it in any capacity gets let off?  Potentially those with zero exposure?  Or is everyone a hero these days?  Meanwhile shelf stackers at Sainsburys and delivery drivers are lumbered with it?

3
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Amazing given this that so many manage to get in really, especially since we cannot be forced to let anyone in.

It’s relatively easy to get in if you pay, very hard to settle. That’s the big scam. People come in and work in the U.K. thinking that if they pay all the fees and do everything by the book, they can eventually settle and apply full citizenship.

When they finally get there the cost of settlement has increased by 10x, ir the rules have changed, and even if they can afford it the home office then does everything it possibly can to reject them, very often unlawfully.

But yes, incredibly the system manages to be totally infective at reducing immigration whilst being completely unfair and cruel.

That is because the intention was never really to reduce immigration, the intention was to use immigrants as cash cows and as cheap labour force with less rights.

Just like Dubai. That’s basically their model.

The problem with this model is that the very talented people increasingly don’t bother with the UK, what you are get is desperate people with false hopes instead.

> Well I’ve no idea the details of that person so can’t comment, but the charges are there to get money from those who can afford it, and those who benefit from it.  Obviously he could and thinks paying was worth it.

The charges are there to exploit people financially.

> Edit - I should say obviously there are cases where things go wrong, and should be fixed.  They generally are, and individual cases going wrong doesn’t mean the system is wrong.

It isn’t isolated cases going wrong, it’s a systematic approach.

> How exactly do you do that without scrapping visas?  You realise visas have conditions and expiry dates?

Nobody is saying you scrap conditions of stay or expiry date. Stop the whatabouteries.

> No, it was a screw up.  That’s why they apologised for it

They apologised for it because they were forced too, but made absolutely zero changes to the policies causing it (in fact they just made things worse) as a result it’s still a massive problem.

Post edited at 17:37
1
L KriszLukash 22 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It's no less a visa fee than NI is tax.  You pay it (as our staff have been doing for some time now) along with your visa expenses.

> If the visa costs were simply increased £400 then that would be fine, but calling it an NHS surcharge makes it “immoral and monstrous"?  Or is any increase “immoral and monstrous"?

The visa and settlement costs have already become immoral and monstruous, but making them pay extra and pretend it’s for covering healthcare cost is an outright lie.

You are right to point out that it isn’t rational to remove this charge only for NHS workers. The introduction of the surcharge was pure demagoguery, and so is it’s removal for NHS workers.

Post edited at 17:31
 krikoman 22 May 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Sadly you're correct I think.

I hoped against hope, he'd come out a changed man, but he obviously hasn't.

In reply to thomasadixon:

> As I understand it the hostile environment applies to those illegally here, it would never have had any effect on my parents.  It doesn't affect those on visas either.  It's not relevant.

As per usual, and it should come to no surprise to anyone who has ever read your posts here, you absolutely do not understand it at all. The hostile environment is a system of presumption of guilt when it comes to the Home Office dealing with any foreign national in the country. Once one of their minions decides that you should be out, you are screwed. They will clamp you down to the point where you will not even have the financial assets to appeal. In some cases (see: EU settlement scheme) you have *no right* to appeal. You could have lived in the country for 50 years (see: Windrush) and be dragged out kicking and screaming because of a problem in *their* record keeping. So, kindly, do f*ck off.

Post edited at 21:37
Pan Ron 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> People come in and work in the U.K. thinking that if they pay all the fees and do everything by the book, they can eventually settle and apply full citizenship.

That's never guaranteed.  Laws change.  Prices change.  The idea that the government has an obligation to leave requirements for residency unchanged from the point someone arrives in the country to the point where they apply for citizenship is unreasonable.  Especially when there is excess demand

And the exact problem here is that people didn't do things by the book.  I'm a migrant to the UK and I made damn sure I went above and beyond with my paperwork.  Nothing was a given, nothing guaranteed, and even where guidelines were unclear I was sure to keep records more detailed than that which seemed required.  That is common sense and until such time as I had my naturalisation certificate and passport in my hand I operated under the presumption I could be sent packing at any time.  

My attitude would be the same if I went to any other country, many of which have far stricter arrangements than the UK.

6
 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> It’s relatively easy to get in if you pay, very hard to settle. That’s the big scam. People come in and work in the U.K. thinking that if they pay all the fees and do everything by the book, they can eventually settle and apply full citizenship.

They look at the visa and think it equals automatic citizenship?  Not very good at reading I guess.  There is no right to settle, there is no right to citizenship.  It is not pretended that there is.  They get the right to live and work here for as long as they comply with conditions, that’s a benefit.

> The charges are there to exploit people financially.

You mean to make money.  Yes, of course they are.  In return those paying them get something they want.

> Nobody is saying you scrap conditions of stay or expiry date. Stop the whatabouteries.

You have repeatedly on this thread said that non nationals should be treated the same as nationals.  How you do that and keep visa conditions (you know, rules that by nature don’t apply to nationals) or indeed any kind of immigration system, I don’t know.  You haven’t explained.  Basic logic says it’s impossible.

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Alkis:

> Insult and some made up stuff that I assert is true.

As per usual on these things, personal attacks are common and actual substance lacking.  Once one minion decides then you're out, and that's it!  Except for all those (like the Windrush cases) where those decisions were overturned, which prove you completely wrong.  Hostile environment is/was aimed at illegal immigrants, not legal ones here on visas.

5
In reply to thomasadixon:

Oh, yeah? What's made up then? That the EU settlement scheme has no appear process? Or that people were dragged out of the country to places they have literally never been to since they were toddlers? Or that once the Home Office closes in they literally lock your financial assets? Or that, more recently, they landed a guy who spent *10 years* serving this country in the armed forces with a £27k NHS bill because they effectively changed the rules without giving him guidance when leaving the forces?

Do tell. Be specific.

Post edited at 21:35
In reply to Pan Ron:

There is a name for your defence of this system. It is called Stockholm Syndrome.

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Alkis:

I was specific, try reading.

4
In reply to thomasadixon:

Oh, so the Windrush cases being overturned *after* people were deported from the country through no fault of their own, *after* it made it to the media to *massive* public backlash, *after* a minister was forced to resign even though all of those cases happened while the then PM was at the helm of the Home Office somehow makes me wrong. Interesting.

Post edited at 22:22
In reply to Rog Wilko:

I've just made the ?mistake of reading this whole thread, and I must say that thomasadixon's stream of bilious, bigoted drivel is one of the most unpleasant things I've ever seen on the UKC forums.

 thomasadixon 22 May 2020
In reply to Alkis:

Hostile Environment is simply not what you say it is, you made that up.  It’s aimed at removing those illegally here - should we not do that?  Is trying to enforce immigration rules just wrong in principle?

If not then you’re going to get edge cases and you’re going to get mistakes.  And on that, your claim that once some official targets you you’re screwed is nonsense, given that decisions are overturned/changed all the time.

5
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Hostile Environment is simply not what you say it is, you made that up.  It’s aimed at removing those illegally here - should we not do that?  Is trying to enforce immigration rules just wrong in principle?

I made it up. Alrighty then. The intention might be to deter illegal immigration. To get there, it triggers any time the home office reckons your stay in the country is no longer legal. You basically get a letter that tells you to prepare to leave or face deportation. If you want to appeal, which you're not going to be able to do because your assets are frozen, you have to leave the country and then appeal.

Unless you are an EU citizen, according to the law you have no right of appeal then. 

> If not then you’re going to get edge cases and you’re going to get mistakes.  And on that, your claim that once some official targets you you’re screwed is nonsense, given that decisions are overturned/changed all the time.

You cannot appeal an immigration decision from within the country. You have to leave THEN appeal. Good luck appealing having lost access to your funds, any paperwork that you have in the country, everyone you know, basically your life, potentially to a country where the last person you knew died 30 years ago.

Plus, again, as an EU citizen you have no right to appeal *according to the law*. How will you get a case overturned if it can never be heard by a court, exactly?

Post edited at 23:47
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm certainly adding to the list of people I wouldn't want to spend any time with.

 jkarran 23 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> It wouldn’t work because if you are on a work visa and resign you would lose your visa and be asked to leave the U.K, so it would be a completely empty threat.

> Foreign workers on work visas have very little leverage.

Collectively they have a massive lever, one they realistically can't use because of the threat to others rather than themselves. 

Jk

 jkarran 23 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> You are completely off on your facts, as usual

There's no point arguing. Thomas and his ilk won, what, we have yet to see but this is their country now. For better or worse, we at least get to test their ideas, they have a committed government with an untouchable majority, we get to see them deliver the better brighter Britain they promised over the coming decades. Populist nativism is here to stay and a global economic crash is only likely to entrench it once our brief flush of new love for the NHS and its immigrant heart passes.

Jk

Post edited at 01:12
L KriszLukash 23 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They look at the visa and think it equals automatic citizenship?  Not very good at reading I guess.  There is no right to settle, there is no right to citizenship.  It is not pretended that there is.  They get the right to live and work here for as long as they comply with conditions, that’s a benefit.

Yes, many people who come here are under the illusion that this is a country that treats foreigners relatively fairly.  They often find their illusion shattered.

> You have repeatedly on this thread said that non nationals should be treated the same as nationals.  How you do that and keep visa conditions (you know, rules that by nature don’t apply to nationals) or indeed any kind of immigration system, I don’t know.  You haven’t explained.  Basic logic says it’s impossible.

No, It's just you making the absurd argument that because we don't ask British people to fill in a visa application to live in their own country, it justifies doing whatever the f*ck we want to foreign workers.

Pushing your absurd logic to its absurd conclusion, you might as well say foreigners have no right to sue you if you steal their property or put them in jail without a right to a fair trial. Ho wait, we actually do that already...

L KriszLukash 23 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> That's never guaranteed.  Laws change.  Prices change.  The idea that the government has an obligation to leave requirements for residency unchanged from the point someone arrives in the country to the point where they apply for citizenship is unreasonable. 

It is completely unreasonable to move the goalposts substantially, tell people they can legally stay in the country and 50 years later freeze their asset, put them in a detention centre without trial, and then send them to a country they don't know.

L KriszLukash 23 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> we get to see them deliver the better brighter Britain they promised over the coming decades.

They are doing great so far, economy totally f*cked,  loads of people dying. Great job guys, off to a great start.

 thomasadixon 23 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Yes, many people who come here are under the illusion that this is a country that treats foreigners relatively fairly.  They often find their illusion shattered.

To you fairly = get far more than what was promised and be far more generous than anywhere else in the world.  To me fairly = get what you were promised.

> No, It's just you making the absurd argument that because we don't ask British people to fill in a visa application to live in their own country, it justifies doing whatever the f*ck we want to foreign workers.

All I’ve justified is having an immigration system and a small extra charge in return for free access to healthcare (something they wouldn’t get anywhere else in the world).  The rest is just your hyperbole.

Found any evidence for your wild claims yet?  Any explanation for how we treat non nationals the same as nationals while keeping visa conditions?

3
L KriszLukash 23 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> To you fairly = get far more than what was promised and be far more generous than anywhere else in the world.  To me fairly = get what you were promised.

You mean like the people we promised they could stay indefinitely and then summarily jailed, deported, assets frozen, lives ruined ? 

> All I’ve justified is having an immigration system and a small extra charge in return for free access to healthcare (something they wouldn’t get anywhere else in the world).  The rest is just your hyperbole.

For the nth time, in Britain healthcare is funded though taxes, and free for all. You don’t want foreigners who are living legally in the U.K. to have the same access, even though they pay their taxes like everybody else.

That is unequal treatment.

You don’t see a problem with treating foreigners as inferior. That is your right. But don’t try to make up false reasons for it.

1
 Harry Jarvis 23 May 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> If the visa costs were simply increased £400 then that would be fine, but calling it an NHS surcharge makes it “immoral and monstrous"?  Or is any increase “immoral and monstrous"?

You'll have to take that up with that pinko Chris Patten, since they're his words, former Tory party chairman and renowned leftie that he is. Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if he reads the Guardian, which would presumably disqualify him from commenting in the eyes of some here.  

> And why waive it just for NHS workers?  The NHS is massive.  Anyone working for it in any capacity gets let off?  Potentially those with zero exposure?  Or is everyone a hero these days?  Meanwhile shelf stackers at Sainsburys and delivery drivers are lumbered with it?

I would be very happy if the NHS surcharge were scrapped entirely. 

 fred99 23 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> There's no point arguing. Thomas and his ilk won, what, we have yet to see but this is their country now. ...

Hopefully the next time there is an election the other (our) side will win.

When that does happen then I for one will not listen to the pleas of "we mustn't descend to their level" or "we must show how good we are".

Instead I want full and meaning justice. Purges of anyone involved in this who did anything remotely illegal. Imprisonment of the racists and con merchants, in a proper jail, not an open prison, fines that mean sequestration of their assets whether here or abroad. And also bringing Northern Ireland into the 20th and 21st century regarding social, sexual and religious freedom - rather than the bribery that they received to prop up these b*st*rds that shored up their bigotry.

Some might call this revenge - I neither agree nor care, these sh*ts need to be dealt with and we need to return to the sanity, equality and decency that we USED to have a reputation for.

3
 thomasadixon 24 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> You mean like the people we promised they could stay indefinitely and then summarily jailed, deported, assets frozen, lives ruined ?

I’ve no idea who you’re talking about, this was about the surcharge.  If we actually promised people they could stay without conditions then we should certainly abide by that promise.

> For the nth time, in Britain healthcare is funded though taxes, and free for all. You don’t want foreigners who are living legally in the U.K. to have the same access, even though they pay their taxes like everybody else.

It’s free for all citizens that live here, and access is not linked to who pays tax.  If you’re destitute you get treatment, if you’re loaded you get treatment.  Tax pays for it of course, tax pays for everything.

> That is unequal treatment.

Of course it is.  Non citizens aren’t like any other citizen, they’re not citizens.  It’s unequal to charge tourists for treatment too.  Sensible though.

> You don’t see a problem with treating foreigners as inferior. That is your right. But don’t try to make up false reasons for it.

I don’t see that treating people differently is the same treating them as inferior.  We split the world into discrete blocks because that is the only way that works to run things, and with that comes citizenship, a concept shared the world over.  I don’t get free healthcare in Australia, they don’t get free healthcare here, it’s perfectly normal.  No idea what these false reasons are - because we can and because it makes us money seems pretty likely.

L KriszLukash 24 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I’ve no idea who you’re talking about, this was about the surcharge.  If we actually promised people they could stay without conditions then we should certainly abide by that promise.

We haven’t.

> It’s free for all citizens that live here, and access is not linked to who pays tax.  If you’re destitute you get treatment, if you’re loaded you get treatment.  Tax pays for it of course, tax pays for everything.

Exactly and all residents should have exactly the same access. Or you set up a contributory system and then only those who contribute get access, regardless of citizenship. 

> Of course it is.  Non citizens aren’t like any other citizen, they’re not citizens.  It’s unequal to charge tourists for treatment too.  Sensible though.

I think the above says it all. You consider non-citizens resident the same as you would consider a visitor. They’re basically not a part society in your book.

> I don’t see that treating people differently is the same treating them as inferior.  We split the world into discrete blocks because that is the only way that works to run things, and with that comes citizenship, a concept shared the world over. 

No, Thomas, abusing freely non-citizens residents isn’t a concept shared the world over. 
Pushing your argument to the absurd we might as well treat non-citizens as slaves and it would be perfectly acceptable.

It is perfectly acceptable for me decide to not invite someone from outside your family to my Christmas dinner.

However when I do, common human decency is to treat them the same as everybody else, and give them a roughly equal serving of the turkey, especially when they have brought the cake and the wine.

Post edited at 20:35
 thomasadixon 24 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Exactly and all residents should have exactly the same access. Or you set up a contributory system and then only those who contribute get access, regardless of citizenship.

We should change our whole system to be “fair” to immigrants!?  Ridiculous.  I don’t think you’ll find much support for scrapping the NHS.

> I think the above says it all. You consider non-citizens resident the same as you would consider a visitor. They’re basically not a part society in your book.

Visitors can be part of society if they stay long enough, or if they keep returning.  People can be temporarily part of society too of course...what’s wrong with being a visitor?

> No, Thomas, abusing freely non-citizens residents isn’t a concept shared the world over.

Abuse = charging some money!?  People are certainly charged the world over. 

> Pushing your argument to the absurd we might as well treat non-citizens as slaves and it would be perfectly acceptable.

Slaves have no freedom!  Half the point is that people are told the charges and can choose not to pay them.  No one is obliged to come here.

> It is perfectly acceptable for me decide to not invite someone from outside your family to my Christmas dinner.

> However when I do, common human decency is to treat them the same as everybody else, and give them a roughly equal serving of the turkey, especially when they have brought the cake and the wine.

They didn’t bring the cake and the wine (or at least no more than anyone else), that’s your unsubstantiated assertion again.  Let’s go with that example though - if they’re rude or throw food on the floor I might kick them out.  I won’t kick out my kids and I have no right whatsoever to kick out my wife whatever she does, it’s her house.  When it’s bedtime visitors go home, or they might stay a night or two, with permission of course.  They don’t get a share of the house, they don’t get to take whatever they like from the cupboards or pick the new colours for the walls.  They’re not treated the same as everyone else, they’re treated as visitors.

4
In reply to fred99:

You're right. But justice isn't really revenge (or shouldn't be). Justice is justice.

L KriszLukash 25 May 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> We should change our whole system to be “fair” to immigrants!?  Ridiculous.  I don’t think you’ll find much support for scrapping the NHS.

No, you could simply make the NHS free for everybody legally resident in the country, just like it always was, before these nonsense surcharges.

> Visitors can be part of society if they stay long enough, or if they keep returning.  People can be temporarily part of society too of course...what’s wrong with being a visitor?

There is nothing wrong with being a visitor, but someone working and living in the UK is not a visitors, they are resident.

> Abuse = charging some money!?  People are certainly charged the world over. 

> Slaves have no freedom!  Half the point is that people are told the charges and can choose not to pay them.  No one is obliged to come here.

So you are ok with treating people as slaves as long as they’ve come voluntarily. That’s what I thought, you do consider then as inferior.

Post edited at 09:15

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.