Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205114)

That's what the policy says. It's why I linked the actual draft legislation she introduced to make it clear that is what they are proposing. There is no exemption for previously EU citizens, nor pensioners, nor people who've been here 'x' amount of years. It's only receiving a salary in excess of £38,000 and not getting any benefits that allows you to stay.

Now, I don't think they'll do it either because it's unpopular and unworkable.

But that is what the proposal is. They like to signal one thing to one group, i.e telling the more radical right they want to do what the bill as introduced says, whilst then pretending it's liberal scaremongering when challenged on it.

It's not a healthy place to be when politicians are proposing wildly radical ideas, and we simply think they won't actually do it.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205104)

As I said, I don't think it will happen. It would cause havoc domestically as you tried to actually implement it. When people actually see the stories of pensioners having their pension taken away and told to leave, families split up, e.t.c, then it's not so easy to defend, and people will object. Not to mention how practically difficult it would become.

Internationally it would cause problems too. There are Brits in Europe with their equivalent of Leave to Remain who might be worried they would get the same treatment back.

I think they're only doing it to appeal to the Online right, the ones who spent a great deal of time judging other people's Englishness. Other than the polling, I have looked for right-wing reactions otherwise of X but could only find an article in The Spectator condemning it.

Still, it's a published policy from the party of the opposition so something to take seriously.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205142)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36205155)

I’m not sufficiently anorak to know for certain, however I suspect if the actual intention is to grant the SoS power to decide tougher rules on who can remain in the country, then the prior 7 clauses are entirely redundant in the main body of the act and would probably be deleted during the legislation’s passage through parliament. They belong in the accompanying Immigration Rules, which are variable by order of the SoS. Which rather calls into question why they’re even there in the draft Bill.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205162)

The way I read the bill is that these are the initial criteria by which it can be revoked, and then they can change it. It doesn't seem better for Parliament to leave it up to the SoS on who'll get their ILR revoked. I would say that's even worse, but since the initial reasons are so broad - anything earning less than £38,000 for more than 6 months - then I am not sure how much worse it could be.



Well, it almost certainly is because this wouldn't work in practice.



Then those reasons should be specified at the time of ILR being implemented. If it can be taken away, those who receive it should be told how that could happen. They might make different decisions if they were.

We're talking about people who have built their lives here based on an agreement they had with the British Government, which told them they could do so. Had careers, families, purchased homes and even then retired. In several cases, this might now be the only home and community they have.

That is why, even if we're all agreed this is unlikely to happen, it's still a cruel thing to play with for political stunts. We're talking of millions of people who, in theory, have been told they're one election away from getting the boot. People who were told this was their home and had the legal agreement to back that up.



I don't think we've become a country that supports mass deportation, but I don't like that it's the Conservative Party proposing it. I think that itself is a significant moment. The lives of millions of people in this country have become an abstraction to the point that the Tory Party can throw the idea of deporting them with the main pushback people that they probably won't actually do it because it's too difficult. The fact that today these people and their families might be concerned about their future is just seen as a complete irrelevance. The vast majority of them will have done nothing but what we asked of them.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36205153)

The country is fine with EU nationals.

It’s the North African, and Middle Eastern backward cohort of Islamic “doctors and engineers” we would like removed.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36205166)

I'd like to see an economic assessment of the Conservative Party's proposals with all that spending power taken out of the country.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205138)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205142)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205191)