UK statement to the house - net migration measures - did I hear right? Family visa financials doubled, NHS charge up 66%?

[MicroB]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's actually "Health Care" that is exempt.

 

The wording is "may be exempt". If you have medical qualifications, you will certainly be exempt, because you will likely have a tier 2 visa anyhow. You need to work for or be "engaged by" the following organisations:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-health-surcharge-applying-for-a-refund/immigration-health-surcharge-guidance-for-reimbursement-2020#annex

 

Nothing in the private healthcare sector is listed.

 

Notably, you are not eligable if "you will not be eligible if you were unemployed or had unpaid leave for more than 28 days during the last 6 months". Contractors, in general, are entitled to leave, but not paid leave".

 

An agency nurse might not get exemption is they don't have sufficient hours with the NHS, and end up with Spire, Nuffield etc. Which is ironic, because the private health sector in the UK has been effectively nationalised since COVID. The NHS contracts the private sector for beds and operating theatres, and then will do NHS referrals, and are billed at the NHS rate. The surgeons are salaried by both the NHS and private sector. The theatre nurses not.

[MicroB]

21 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Immigration to the UK is out of control and needs to be sorted out, Whether it is cheaper to live in the UK than certain parts of Europe is nothing to do with that.   

I have no confidence in the current UK government and even less in a labour government, but every attempt at controlling the numbers is opposed by the lefty liberal types.  Something has to give, and if they are unable to deport the illegals turning up everyday on the small boats then other easier targets will have to be found.  For example is there really any reason why a foreign "student" needs to bring a relative or two with them? Of course not

Government ministers are moved from job to job on a regular basis, todays  minister for education could easily be tomorrows transport minister. It is not necessary for the home secretary to have specific legal training, that is what the hoards of advisors are for.

The UK could learn a lot from Thailand when it comes to immigration, I doubt 17,000 illegal immigrants here have simply vanished

 

One of the papers outlined a real world example. A UK PhD student met a partner from Australia. The PhD student's stipend exceeded the £18,600 requirement. Their partner came to the UK on the partner visa and found a job paying £26,000 a year. All fine. However when the renewal comes up in January 2025, they will not be eligable for renwal. The rules disregard university stipends if there is less than 12 months left. So the only income considered will be her Australian partner's income. So her partner will have to return to Auastralia. After a PhD, one embarks on a postdoctoral career. Postdoc positions in the UK won't pay more than £36k for the first 3 years or so. Which is below the threshold for her partner to obtain another visa. With a PhD, the UK person is in high demand around the world, so will likely leave the UK, probably for Australia, where she is probably on a list of occupations in high demand, and will be welcomed. PhDs, unlike undergraduate degrees, are entirely funded  by the State, to the tune of £60,000 in stipends t the student, but at least that again in fees to the university. On top of that, many PhDs in the applied subjects, may attract additional UK industry funding. The net result is an enormous financial loss to the UK, in order to rid an economically inactive immigrant.

 

 

[MicroB]

18 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

 

 

 

So I feel for you guys, this is a scary time, where if you are considering taking your family back to the UK, it 'why didn't I do it sooner' I'm sure is in your head right now

 

 

Its an unusually uncertain time. The governing party has a large majority, which ought to mean they can control the agenda. There is the House of Lords which can shoot down legislation, but if that happens, the the Parliament Act is invoked, where the Lord's vote it nullified because of the supremacy of Parliament. What usually happens though is the Lords will moderate/waterdown contentious legislation, and often this leads to sensible improvements that a government will accept.

 

But this is a government with a large majority, who cannot count on the support of its own MPs. Events of the last few years show the Whips can't do anything. The threat to take away the whip is an empty thresat for someone who's decided they've had enough and won't be standing agai. Now the Conservatives are split between the One Nation tories (the largest caucus, around 100 MPs) who generally aren't happy with the 5 point plan, and risk of breaking international law (international law largely created by the UK), government loyalists, and a grouping headed by the New Conservatives, who think the legislation doesn't go far enough.

 

In yesrs gone by, the Conservative Leader would be chosen through a secret ballot process among the MPs. There would be backroom deals, secret agreements. Not very democratic. But it got a leader that most of the MPs would agree they could work with, and "get things done".

 

David Cameron decided to add the party membership (people like me) into the voting process. MPs would produce a shortlist of two, then the membership votes. Its the wrong way around. The membership can vote on some sort of shortlist, then the MPs vote.

 

I can imagine circumstances where this becomes a vote of confidence, and the tories voting themselves out, preferring to take a chance at the ballot box, perhaps palling up with the Reform Party. Electoral rules mean that its more likely Labour will win, with a sweeping majority.

 

The Conservative Party has become ideological, where the ideology overcotion policies merely to smes common sense. So two home secretaries and a Prime Minister, all of whom second generation Britons, pushing for quite contentious immigration policies, all to seemingly satisfy a section of the electorate who, ironically, doesn't want their sort in positions of power anyhow. The whole Brexit debate became like that; originally, it was based on logic (the cost of membership), then it became points of principle, with ministers supporting the act saying it will be great in 50 years time.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by MicroB

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

One of the papers outlined a real world example. A UK PhD student met a partner from Australia. The PhD student's stipend exceeded the £18,600 requirement. Their partner came to the UK on the partner visa and found a job paying £26,000 a year. All fine. However when the renewal comes up in January 2025, they will not be eligable for renwal. The rules disregard university stipends if there is less than 12 months left. So the only income considered will be her Australian partner's income. So her partner will have to return to Auastralia. After a PhD, one embarks on a postdoctoral career. Postdoc positions in the UK won't pay more than £36k for the first 3 years or so. Which is below the threshold for her partner to obtain another visa. With a PhD, the UK person is in high demand around the world, so will likely leave the UK, probably for Australia, where she is probably on a list of occupations in high demand, and will be welcomed. PhDs, unlike undergraduate degrees, are entirely funded  by the State, to the tune of £60,000 in stipends t the student, but at least that again in fees to the university. On top of that, many PhDs in the applied subjects, may attract additional UK industry funding. The net result is an enormous financial loss to the UK, in order to rid an economically inactive immigrant.

 

 

look , you can stop producing these fictional scenarios I am not in the least bit interested.   Lets just keep them out

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

One would not argue against removal of "illegals". Nothing in the recent policy announcements will significantly address that. The only impact will be the reduction in legal immigration.

 

Illegals, by definition, are not a drag on the state until they become discovered, then their status changes. Illegals get zero state benefits. A refugee might, but some consider that all refugees are illegal.

 

Actually some of the plans suggested might make things worse. It might make things worse if a place where you have your favourite country walk is suddenly a fenced camp with watchtowers (the former Home Secretary is calling for that). Or if parts of the country become new transit centres for the fleets of ex-Thai A380s to load up enroute for Africa. Or, as part of the deal, Britain now starts receiving A380s full of refugees from Rwanda, without a cap. Some suggestions are that each illegal removed will cost the UK taxpayer £1 million. So we are looking at costs of £80bn a year, although, these costs might decline, if, as you suppose, this becomes a deterrance to anyone on the other side of the world who is a regular Telegraph reader (how does someone like that even know of changes in UK policy).

so we should just let them all in then?  Would that make you happy?

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

Some might be. There is a significant minority of Muslims from the Crimea region. In addition, Hong Kong people aren't all Chinese. There are significant numbers of people who are Indian and Malay diaspore. It was an issue during the handover to China, as many became Stateless, since Chinese citizenship is based on ethnicity.

 

It shouldn't make any difference what one's faith is or is not.

Of course it makes a difference,  you appear to be blinded by wokeness.  Muslims hate us its the very essence of their religion, if you think otherwise you are living in cloud cuckoo land

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

One would not argue against removal of "illegals". Nothing in the recent policy announcements will significantly address that. The only impact will be the reduction in legal immigration.

 

Illegals, by definition, are not a drag on the state until they become discovered, then their status changes. Illegals get zero state benefits. A refugee might, but some consider that all refugees are illegal.

 

Actually some of the plans suggested might make things worse. It might make things worse if a place where you have your favourite country walk is suddenly a fenced camp with watchtowers (the former Home Secretary is calling for that). Or if parts of the country become new transit centres for the fleets of ex-Thai A380s to load up enroute for Africa. Or, as part of the deal, Britain now starts receiving A380s full of refugees from Rwanda, without a cap. Some suggestions are that each illegal removed will cost the UK taxpayer £1 million. So we are looking at costs of £80bn a year, although, these costs might decline, if, as you suppose, this becomes a deterrance to anyone on the other side of the world who is a regular Telegraph reader (how does someone like that even know of changes in UK policy).

Its a multi million pound industry for these people they know more about it than the likes of you or me, of course they are aware of changes in UK policy

[Bday Prang]

4 hours ago, MicroB said:

I didn't call you a knuckle dragger. At the last GE, my vote went the same way as those Red Wall Knuckle Draggers. So you are not a professional, when you referred to "Lefty Liberal types"

I have not claimed to be a professional,    you have claimed to be a doctor, yet refer to knuckle draggers,  

[stuandjulie]

People are entitled to their opinions, it is a mystery why these opinions, especially the send em to Rwanda brigade are so ill informed, it seems their opinion is not based on fact but merely a dislike of Jonny Foreigner, even more ironic is the fact that on this site people pontificate about the UK Immigration whilst sitting on a bar stool in Nakhon Sri No-where.

It has been proved over and over that immigrants are NET CONTRIBUTORS to the economy, not the financial drain the fevered minds the little Englanders imagine. There are many studies that set this out, you won't find details in the Daily Mail or Express of course.

A link to just one of these studies The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

[Nick Carter icp]

51 minutes ago, stuandjulie said:

People are entitled to their opinions, it is a mystery why these opinions, especially the send em to Rwanda brigade are so ill informed, it seems their opinion is not based on fact but merely a dislike of Jonny Foreigner, even more ironic is the fact that on this site people pontificate about the UK Immigration whilst sitting on a bar stool in Nakhon Sri No-where.

It has been proved over and over that immigrants are NET CONTRIBUTORS to the economy, not the financial drain the fevered minds the little Englanders imagine. There are many studies that set this out, you won't find details in the Daily Mail or Express of course.

A link to just one of these studies The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

 

  The main objection is to illegal immigrants , those that ignore all the visa rules and just sail across from France in dinghies

  We all have visas , illegal immigrants are the same as overstayers and they are not liked either

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, MicroB said:

you will not be eligible if you were unemployed or had unpaid leave for more than 28 days during the last 6 months". Contractors, in general, are entitled to leave, but not paid leave".

 

 

That is about the refunds for those on other visas who work withing health care and have paid the surcharge.

 

My wife works in health care in the private sector, paid the NHS surcharge as part of he visa process and now applies every 6 months for a partial refund.

[brewsterbudgen]

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Of course it makes a difference,  you appear to be blinded by wokeness.  Muslims hate us its the very essence of their religion, if you think otherwise you are living in cloud cuckoo land

So you have no Muslim friends, colleagues, neighbours?  Have you ever visited or lived in the south of Thailand or Malaysia/Indonesia?  Perhaps you should leave your cloud cuckoo land and join the real world!  

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

So you have no Muslim friends, colleagues, neighbours?  Have you ever visited or lived in the south of Thailand or Malaysia/Indonesia?  Perhaps you should leave your cloud cuckoo land and join the real world!  

No i do not have any muslim friends, neither do I want any  thank you very much,  I am perfectly happy in cloud cuckoo land, the real world looks a little dangerous to me what with  ISIS , Hamas, Hezbollah etc. You may find it hard to understand , but  beheadings, being burnt alive, and FGM  don't really attract me, or my wife for some reason. 

Maybe you should lead by example and spend some time in Iran, Saudi, Arabia, Iraq, or Yemen  let me know how you get on, particularly if you try to preach a bit of the Gospel or dare to listen to some western pop music.

  If that is a bit much even for you, you could try one of the "lighter" versions of islam by going to Dubai, and see what happens when you hold hands with your wife in public, or if you are not actually married, try booking a double room with your girlfriend.

Bon Voyage, and don't forget to send us all a postcard

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Bday Prang

[Bday Prang]

12 hours ago, stuandjulie said:

People are entitled to their opinions, it is a mystery why these opinions, especially the send em to Rwanda brigade are so ill informed, it seems their opinion is not based on fact but merely a dislike of Jonny Foreigner, even more ironic is the fact that on this site people pontificate about the UK Immigration whilst sitting on a bar stool in Nakhon Sri No-where.

It has been proved over and over that immigrants are NET CONTRIBUTORS to the economy, not the financial drain the fevered minds the little Englanders imagine. There are many studies that set this out, you won't find details in the Daily Mail or Express of course.

A link to just one of these studies The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

Another lefty who obviously has little or no knowledge what they are talking about. Last I heard the UK was spending £8 million per day housing thousands upon thousands of these people.  I would be very very interested to learn,,, how illegal immigrants who are not allowed to work , can contribute anything to any economy, (except to the profits of  the  people traffickers and human rights lawyers ) 

The very essence of the UK's culture is being destroyed and people like you ( their enablers) are too blind to see it

Why don't you tell us how julie would feel having to wear a burka whilst standing in a queue, waiting for the old woman to arrive with a  rusty razor blade  to purify her with a bit of good old FGM

Your analogy to expats living legally and supporting themselves here (or anywhere else) and contributing to the economy is truly pathetic, and insulting to our intelligence,

Wake up and smell the coffee

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 12/5/2023 at 6:27 PM, Doctor Tom said:

This is just one more, of many, examples that the Tories just don't get it.  People are not upset about legal immigration, to employment that adds to the UK economy, and in the case of the Heath service, keeps it functioning.  A fully trained Nurse from say the Philippines, probably can't now make the cut.  And yet, the real problem of illegal immigration that the government over funds with benefits, goes on, unchecked.  They are too incompetent to be in Power. 

 

Health service professionals coming to work in the UK are not affected by these new requirements. It is clearly stated in the video. 

[Mr Meeseeks]

11 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  The main objection is to illegal immigrants , those that ignore all the visa rules and just sail across from France in dinghies

  We all have visas , illegal immigrants are the same as overstayers and they are not liked either

 

Yeh, it is ironic as one of the reasons Thailand remains a great place to live is Thailand's strict immigration policies, which keep out most of the undesirables. 

[Bday Prang]

Just now, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Yeh, it is ironic as one of the reasons Thailand remains a great place to live is Thailand's strict immigration policies, which keep out most of the undesirables. 

I am wondering if those who are advocating mass uncontrolled immigration are familiar with the term "invasive species"    There is a good reason why anything or anybody entering the UK is , at least in principle subject to regulation and control

A simple example of that which should be easily understood by even the dumbest lefty liberal would be that of the grey squirrel !   Do any of these neo marxists think we should be importing any more of them.?   The answer,sadly, is probably a resounding "yes" as the extinction of the indigenous red squirrel population is not much different to what they wish for the indigenous population. 

I am genuinely jealous of the Thai people, who are allowed and even encouraged to be patriotic, they genuinely have a deep rooted pride in their country, This is being eradicated in the west where the word "patriotic" has been replaced, incorrectly with "xenophobic"

 

[Bday Prang]

19 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Yeh, it is ironic as one of the reasons Thailand remains a great place to live is Thailand's strict immigration policies, which keep out most of the undesirables. 

And add to that , a genuine love of their own country.  I recently returned here from the UK and whilst killing time in Dubai airport I could not help noticing how genuinely happy all the Thais were to be returning home, smiles everywhere.  Compare that to the miserable hang dog expressions on the faces of those waiting to fly back to the UK and other western countries. 

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

No i do not have any muslim friends, neither do I want any  thank you very much,  I am perfectly happy in cloud cuckoo land, the real world looks a little dangerous to me what with  ISIS , Hamas, Hezbollah etc. You may find it hard to understand , but  beheadings, being burnt alive, and FGM  don't really attract me, or my wife for some reason. 

Maybe you should lead by example and spend some time in Iran, Saudi, Arabia, Iraq, or Yemen  let me know how you get on, particularly if you try to preach a bit of the Gospel or dare to listen to some western pop music.

  If that is a bit much even for you, you could try one of the "lighter" versions of islam by going to Dubai, and see what happens when you hold hands with your wife in public, or if you are not actually married, try booking a double room with your girlfriend.

Bon Voyage, and don't forget to send us all a postcard

 

How do you know you don't have any Muslim friends, colleagues or neighbours?

[Bday Prang]

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

How do you know you don't have any Muslim friends, colleagues or neighbours?

Your user name does you proud,      I don't need to own a venomous snake to know that its bite can kill me!

Edited December 9, 2023 by Bday Prang

[Bday Prang]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

How do you know you don't have any Muslim friends, colleagues or neighbours?

You have no muslim friends either. Despite what you may think.   

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, Bday Prang said:

You have no muslim friends either. Despite what you may think.   

I don't know.

 

When I meet people I don't ask what religion they are. 

[Bday Prang]

43 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Yeh, it is ironic as one of the reasons Thailand remains a great place to live is Thailand's strict immigration policies, which keep out most of the undesirables. 

It's beyond me how anybody would consider using the laughing emoji in response to the above comment.

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

It's beyond me how anybody would consider using the laughing emoji in response to the above comment.

Because it doesn't keep out undesirables. There are many such like in Thailand.

[Mr Meeseeks]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Because it doesn't keep out undesirables. There are many such like in Thailand.

 

Not in my experience. 

 

When non-Thais are deemed undesirable, caught in criminal acts or if they step out of line, they are immediately locked up and deported.

 

Another immigration policy which Thailand is to be commended for. 

[Bday Prang]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Because it doesn't keep out undesirables. There are many such like in Thailand.

And that makes you happy?  

No immigration policy is 100% effective but Thailand is very pro active regarding the removal of those they don't want here. 

Many of the undesirables you refer to live in the south, they were unfortunately born here and cannot be deported

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

And that makes you happy?  

No immigration policy is 100% effective but Thailand is very pro active regarding the removal of those they don't want here. 

Many of the undesirables you refer to live in the south, they were unfortunately born here and cannot be deported

You've clearly never been to the seedy parts of Bangkok or Pattaya.

 

Your hatred for an entire faith clearly clouds your judgement.

[Bday Prang]

12 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

That is about the refunds for those on other visas who work withing health care and have paid the surcharge.

 

My wife works in health care in the private sector, paid the NHS surcharge as part of he visa process and now applies every 6 months for a partial refund.

"health care in the private sector"   is that a posh way of saying "granny farm"

[youreavinalaff]

11 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Not in my experience. 

 

When non-Thais are deemed undesirable, caught in criminal acts or if they step out of line, they are immediately locked up and deported.

 

Another immigration policy which Thailand is to be commended for. 

What about the many that have the police in their pockets?

 

Should Thailand be commended for that too?

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

"health care in the private sector"   is that a posh way of saying "granny farm"

No. It isn't.

 

Why do you think only old people need health care?