This is relevant to /r/neoliberal as it is indicative of the immigration policies which will be pursued by the expected next Prime Minister of the UK.
Official /r/neoliberal dogma supports open borders, but Burnham is reportedly in favour of making most immigrants wait 10 years for permanent residency and the associated legal rights which promote integration.
Some migrants working in “unskilled” roles, such as care homes, would need to wait 15 years. Those who have qualified for human rights exceptions allowing them to claim benefits, such as after a cancer diagnosis, would need to wait 20 years. High earners would however be fast tracked, either staying at the current 5 year wait or qualifying even sooner in the case of very high earners.
Current policy intent is to apply these changes “retrospectively” to all non-permanent resident immigrants currently in the UK, as well as future arrivals. Labour ministers have justified this as necessary to ward off the threat of Nigel Farage’s Reform party, who wish to strip all permanent residents of their status and make them apply for new time limited visas under stricter terms, in a move they hope will lead to mass deportations.
This story comes of the back of Burnham and his allies endorsing other tenets of Starmer’s government and policies, such as maintaining the current level of distance from the EU, the FPTP voting system, and the “fiscal rules” of chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Topics for discussion may include but are not limited to:
1. How much different would a Burnham premiership actually be from what we have now? How much policy change, if any, is required to justify a change in leadership?
2. Is there any hope of the UK returning to a more sensible, centrist, neoliberal friendly form of immigration policy if even supposed succs like Burnham are endorsing a strong rightward shift?
3. When, if ever, is it acceptable to abandon marginalised or underrepresented groups in the pursuit of electoral gain? Is it sometimes necessary to act as “the lesser of two evils”, partially conceding in certain policy areas, in the hope of keeping true extremists out of power?
!ping UK
fredleung412612 on
Great, the last glimmer of hope for Labour on my part just vanished. Both the Greens and the Lib Dems are unserious in their own ways. Who is left??
2 Comments
**Submission Statement**
This is relevant to /r/neoliberal as it is indicative of the immigration policies which will be pursued by the expected next Prime Minister of the UK.
Official /r/neoliberal dogma supports open borders, but Burnham is reportedly in favour of making most immigrants wait 10 years for permanent residency and the associated legal rights which promote integration.
Some migrants working in “unskilled” roles, such as care homes, would need to wait 15 years. Those who have qualified for human rights exceptions allowing them to claim benefits, such as after a cancer diagnosis, would need to wait 20 years. High earners would however be fast tracked, either staying at the current 5 year wait or qualifying even sooner in the case of very high earners.
Current policy intent is to apply these changes “retrospectively” to all non-permanent resident immigrants currently in the UK, as well as future arrivals. Labour ministers have justified this as necessary to ward off the threat of Nigel Farage’s Reform party, who wish to strip all permanent residents of their status and make them apply for new time limited visas under stricter terms, in a move they hope will lead to mass deportations.
This story comes of the back of Burnham and his allies endorsing other tenets of Starmer’s government and policies, such as maintaining the current level of distance from the EU, the FPTP voting system, and the “fiscal rules” of chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Topics for discussion may include but are not limited to:
1. How much different would a Burnham premiership actually be from what we have now? How much policy change, if any, is required to justify a change in leadership?
2. Is there any hope of the UK returning to a more sensible, centrist, neoliberal friendly form of immigration policy if even supposed succs like Burnham are endorsing a strong rightward shift?
3. When, if ever, is it acceptable to abandon marginalised or underrepresented groups in the pursuit of electoral gain? Is it sometimes necessary to act as “the lesser of two evils”, partially conceding in certain policy areas, in the hope of keeping true extremists out of power?
!ping UK
Great, the last glimmer of hope for Labour on my part just vanished. Both the Greens and the Lib Dems are unserious in their own ways. Who is left??