Mediaboss Marketing

The latest net migration statistics published on 27 May are a much-delayed snapshot of England and Wales. The Office for National Statistics notes that new data from the year up to June 2019 should be viewed with some caution as Covid impacted its data collection.

Nonetheless, these new figures raise serious questions about the future plans for immigration reform announced by the government earlier this week.

The latest data shows drops in all areas from EU and non-EU citizens alike. Visits to England or Wales for work or study for three months to a year fell from 160,000 in June 2018 to 100,000 by June 2019. The only category where migration rose was in British citizens seeking work abroad. This doubled from 30,000 to 60,000 over the same period.

The picture being painted is clear. Most did not see England and Wales as a place welcoming global talent, with a greater number of citizens looking elsewhere for opportunities. The trend continues in estimates up to this spring, where work-related visas were down by over one third on last year, with more than two thirds due to falls in intra-company transfers.

While there should be some caution regarding these estimates, they show that in the run-up to 1 January 2020, those seeking work and study opportunities were looking elsewhere and this was before the pandemic arrived. It seems all but certain that this is the start of an unfortunate trend that the government may want to address urgently.

Since 2010, the Conservatives have made election manifesto promises to cut net migration to the tens of thousands. One regular criticism is that net migration has not, in fact, been higher than under the Tories. This highlights how their rhetoric does not match reality. Talking tough has not translated into results.

A second frequently raised concern is about the use of net migration for setting policy. Net migration counts all individuals entering or leaving over the year regardless of their nationality and mostly estimated using passenger data, making it more guesswork than science.

It has been noticeable for years that net migration would actually be higher if British citizens who are more likely to leave for abroad than return were discounted from the figures.

Earlier this week, home secretary Priti Patel vowed to strengthen the UKs digital border and introduce greater accuracy, avoiding hypothetical guesstimates of how much migration is actually happening. It is a shocking indictment that it has taken the Conservatives more than a decade to finally commit the government to getting a more accurate count, although no such system will be in place until 2025.

Paradoxically, the Tories have said they will not make any promises on migration reductions as they strive towards better accounting. This comes after making promises to cut numbers when the figures were known to be problematic for policy making.

This move towards improved accuracy is a part of Patels new plan for immigration, which sets out how she will fix the broken immigration system that her government has overseen for 11 years. While Patel wont say whether the new plan would lead to more or less immigration, it is clear she wants to position these plans as radical and positive changes. But in short, does it matter?

Her plans include a much-heralded points-based system. What Patel leaves out is that the new system was actually already in place since 2008, when launched by New Labour. Patels plans mean that the already complex and confusing system will be changing for the worse.

For example, there is no one size fits all approach to a minimum salary needed. Instead, what is required and the number of points earned will depend on what occupation someone is in and the latest annual report on what the average salaries happen to be at that time, subject to regular changes that will cause major confusion in calculating whether someone can or cannot apply.

Given that the system was already in place for non-EU citizens in 2019, these changes do not appear likely to encourage global talent to work in the UK.

Patel also plans to reform the appeal process for rejected applicants. While she cites too many repeated unmeritorious appeals and claims as justification, Patel is silent on the large number of successful appeals against the Home Office.

If the home secretary wants a fairer and more transparent system, she can start by ensuring her department does a better job at enforcing their own rules in the first place. This proposal is also unlikely to lead to any beneficial changes. The latest figures for this spring show a drop of more than 40 per cent in grants of asylum, mostly because far fewer applications have been processed, leading to a record-level rising backlog.

Finally, a major aim of the new plan is to reform the UKs asylum and refugee policy. Patel proposes to cut numbers by diverting some to apply on new economic migration pathways, which simply involves counting the same individuals, but in a different way.

None of these proposals address the core issues. Global talent is mobile, but the government fails to make a case for why more of the most talented should choose to relocate to a country where its immigration laws are becoming more complex, confusing, too often wrongly applied and in a continuous state of flux, where policies are aimed at making headlines and not evidence-led.

A more thorough, publicly engaged review is needed to ensure the system is fit for purpose and has public confidence. Until then, Patels plans may only fuel the unfortunate trend we see in these latest migration statistics. It will be yet another failed government strategy, that leaves us all worse off.

Thom Brooks is dean of Durham Law School and Professor of Law and Government at Durham University

Read more:
Priti Patels immigration reform is a confusing mess that will leave us worse off - The Independent

Significant divides remain between Democrats and Republicans about United States immigration policy priorities, but significant divides also exist between two types of Republicans: Those more loyal to the party and those more loyal to former President Donald Trump.

This is among the findings of new national research by Morning Consult and the Bipartisan Policy Center. The polling was conducted in April and May 2021.

There are a few areas where Democrats and party-loyal Republicans could find agreement, the data show, if both sides are willing to work together. However, the new poll also found that Democrats are more likely to be willing to compromise to get immigration reform passed than are Republicans.

The new poll also found that Democrats are more likely to be willing to compromise to get immigration reform passed than are Republicans.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said publicly that he is 100% focused on stopping the entire legislative agenda of President Joe Biden, a pledge similar to one he made when attempting to block then-President Barack Obama from any legislative success. Because immigration reform is a high priority for Democrats, McConnell could lead the Senate to blockade any proposed bills.

If he does so, however, that will happen against the will of a majority of Americans, who generally favor key pieces of immigration reform, including creating a pathway to citizenship for those already illegally in the country.

Previous polling by Public Religion Research Institute found American public sentiment more closely mirrors priorities of the Biden administration than those of his America First predecessor or the Republican Party. For example, 66% of Americans favor allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status and 64% favor allowing all immigrants living in the country illegally a path to citizenship provided they meet certain requirements.

Congress seldom votes along the lines of majority public opinion, however, falling into ideologies favorable to each elected officials base of voters. And currently, Republicans in both the House and Senate tend to skew more toward supporting Trump rather than the party apart from Trump.

The new polling dug into what differentiates Trump-focused Republicans from party-focused Republicans. It found that 64% of Republican respondents said they identify more with the party than Trump, while 31% said they identify more with Trump.

Party-aligned Republicans place greater importance on immigration policies granting temporary and permanent economic visas than Trump-aligned Republicans.

And party-aligned Republicans also place greater importance on allowing temporary or permanent refuge to those living in the United States for many years after fleeing persecution.

Trump-loyal Republicans are more likely than party-loyal Republicans to prioritize preventing immigrants not authorized to enter the U.S. under current laws from migrating at the border. They also are more likely to prioritize removing all immigrants already in the U.S. without authorization.

There are at least two areas where Democrats and party-loyal Republicans but not Trump-loyal Republicans rank their priorities in a similar manner. These are not necessarily the top priorities for either side but are areas where both sides express similar levels of interest.

Reforms that focus on legal immigration could be a pathway for bipartisanship, the pollsters reported. While Democrats and Republicans seem divided on many immigration issues, some consensus exists on less controversial matters such as legal immigration that supports the U.S. economy.

Reforms that focus on legal immigration could be a pathway for bipartisanship.

Among the issues where Democrats, independents and Republicans are more likely to compromise is providing visas for immigrants supporting the U.S. economy by filling positions where companies cannot find U.S. workers.

There is more room for policymakers to work together on this issue since none of the parties are unwilling to compromise on this particular policy, the pollsters said. Another possible area of working together is on providing visas for immigrants investing in research and innovation for future growth of the U.S. economy.

On the issue of compromise, however, the poll found Republicans are less willing to accept Democratic priorities than to drop one of theirs to get to compromise. Although neither Democrats nor Republicans were likely to compromise on their highest priorities, Republicans were less likely to accept a Democratic priority than to drop one of their own at the negotiating table.

Practically speaking, the authors said: If Republicans want to pass legislation that would increase economic-based visas for foreign workers, they will find that a majority of Democrats are willing to drop one of their own policy priorities as part of a compromise. Across the aisle, however, for Democrats to pass legislation that would provide legal status to the unauthorized and a means to earn citizenship under certain conditions, less than half of Republicans are willing to compromise and drop one of their priorities to move the reforms ahead.

Related articles:

What would happen if immigration policies were based on majority opinion in the U.S.?

Coalition of evangelical Christians advocates third way on immigration reform

Biden administration rushing to strengthen DACA, official says

A bipartisan immigration bill has been introduced, but will it garner bipartisan support?

Panelists debate how to normalize immigration after ill effects of Trumpism

Original post:
New polling finds three views on immigration: Democrats, party-loyal Republicans or Trump-loyal Republicans - Baptist News Global

President BidenJoe BidenPutin backs up Belarus's Lukashenko amid international pressure Biden administration to reimpose sanctions on Belarus over diverted flight Senate passes resolution urging probe into COVID-19 origins MORE is under mounting pressure from both the left and right on immigration, the issue on which his polling numbers are worse than any other.

Progressives and human rights groups want to see Biden move faster to dismantle the last vestiges of former President TrumpDonald TrumpNY, NJ rail project gets key federal approval Senate meltdown reveals deepening partisan divide DHS formally bans family separations for illicit border crossings MOREs approach particularly in relation to a controversial measure that allows U.S. authorities to turn back would-be refugees on public health grounds.

But Republican politicians and conservative media are branding a sharp increase in attempted crossings of the southwestern border as Bidens border crisis. They say that the presidents approach is encouraging illegal migration attempts and thus ceding control of the nation's frontiers.

When Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro MayorkasAlejandro MayorkasBiden aims to speed review for families seeking asylum in US Mayorkas says TSA ready for Memorial Day travel: 'People will see lines' DHS secretary: 'We're taking a very close look at' vaccine passports MORE testified before the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday, he came under a hail of critical questioning from GOP lawmakers.

Rep. Chuck FleischmannCharles (Chuck) Joseph FleischmannThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration Biden official defends Trump-era immigration policy Rep. Adriano Espaillat tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (R-Tenn.) asked Mayorkas whether the Biden administration was sending the message to one and all that this country will not enforce its immigration laws?

Rep. Steven PalazzoSteven McCarty PalazzoThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration Ethics watchdog: 'Substantial' evidence GOP lawmaker improperly spent funds, misused position to help brother READ: The Republicans who voted to challenge election results MORE (R-Miss.) claimed that the White House had rolled out a big welcome mat for anyone who wanted to cross the border.

Mayorkas disputed both those claims. But there is little doubt that immigration has become a serious vulnerability for the administration.

A new Quinnipiac University pollreleased Wednesday found that just 35 percent of adults approve of how Biden is handling immigration issues. Fifty-two percent disapprove.

Those figures pose a startling contrast to Bidens marks for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. On that topic, 65 percent approve and 30 percent disapprove.

The immigration ratings are also way below his overall job approval score 48 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove of his performance so far.

The polls more granular findings show more red warning lights for Biden. Independent voters break decisively against him on immigration, with 52 percent disapproving of how he is handling the issue and just 29 percent approving. His disapproval from Republicans on the topic is sky-high at 91 percent. And more than1 in 5 Democrats, 22 percent, also disapprove.

It seems likely that Republicans and independents believe Biden is taking too lenient an approach, but some Democrats might well hold the opposite objection.

One key point of contention for liberals is called Title 42.

Title 42, which dates back to a 1944 law, allows authorities to deny refuge to asylum-seekers, or migrants, on public health grounds. It was invoked by Trump during the early days of the pandemic, purportedly to slow the spread of COVID-19. Its deployment is closely identified with Trump adviser Stephen MillerStephen MillerThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration USDA to start loan forgiveness for thousands of farmers of color in June Federal judge says Biden restaurant fund discriminated against white male MORE, known for his ultra-hawkish attitude on immigration.

The Biden administration has not yet ceased to use Title 42 in the same way to the growing exasperation of liberals.

It was a concocted policy by Stephen Miller to close the border using the pandemic as cover, complained Frank Sharry, the executive director of Americas Voice, an organization that advocates for liberal immigration reform.

Sharry added: Whatever justification the White House feels for keeping Title 42 in place, given the political pressures they have come under, is behind us. More than 50 percent of the country is vaccinated, the level of infection is way down. The idea that this is a public health imperative is at this point losing its credibility.

Sharry insisted the administration ought to move with alacrity to discontinue the use of Title 42.

It is not the first time Biden has irked progressives. Just a few weeks ago, a decision to maintain a Trump-era cap on the number of refugees the nation would admit sparked furious backlash. The White House made a swift U-turn on that question.

The administrations jumpiness on the topic is one sign that it is feeling serious political pressure.

The latest figures from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show a huge spike in attempted crossings in the southwest.

The agency noted that encounters on the border numbered more than 170,000 in both March and April. Those numbers represent an increase of about 70 percent from 2019. (The numbers from 2020 were smaller still, though that is generally attributed to the effects of the pandemic.)

Conservatives complain that the shift in rhetoric from Trump to Biden has emboldened would-be migrants. Their ire is stoked further by reports like one which appeared in The Washington Post on Wednesday regarding ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The Post noted that ICE had 6,000 officers but that they currently average one arrest every two months. The story also stated that there were fewer than 3,000 deportations carried out by ICE last month, which it termed the lowest level on record.

Mayorkas, at his Wednesday appearance on Capitol Hill, said he did not believe the average arrest statistic was correct.

Still, conservatives believe Biden is in practical terms acceding to the lefts desire to abolish ICE without explicitly admitting he is doing so. The Republican National Committee sent reporters an email on Wednesday asserting, Joe Biden is functionally abolishing ICE.

I dont know what else he can do to handcuff and shackle immigration enforcement, said Ira Mehlman, the media director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which supports stricter immigration laws and enforcement.

Mayorkas has basically said he doesnt want them to do very much, Mehlman added. If you have 6,000 officers averaging one arrest every two months, they become the equivalent of the Maytag repairman.

The politics of the immigration issue are fiercely complicated.

Polls show a clear majority of Americans favor legalizing the status of people brought to the United States as children without authorization the so-called Dreamers.

An ascendant left in the Democratic Party has pushed for greater liberalization generally, including decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings and providing government-run health insurance to people in the country illegally.

But those positions are far less popular than support for the Dreamers.

Meanwhile, immigration is a subject that garners enormous coverage from conservative media outlets and is at least perceived to help motivate GOP voters to turn up at the polls.

Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist in Texas, said that for conservative voters in particular, without a doubt, border security is right up there [in importance] nationally, right behind jobs and the economy.

Politically, he added, I think it just does motivate the border security, enforce the law side more. It is more of a top issue and it moves them. On the progressive side of the Democratic Party, they worry about the humanitarian side in particular but they have other issues that are a little bit more important to them.

Leftists, for their part, lament that Democratic moderates are too resistant to trying to recast the underlying terms of the debate.

The duty of progressives is not simply to push for change on the details of the policy. It is to really articulate a different message and different vision of who immigrants are, said progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini. Progressives should believe in open borders. Immigrants have never been the threat that politicians want to portray them as. They have been used as a cover for bad economic policies that have nothing to do with immigration.

The White House is far away from even grappling with those questions.

For now, Biden would surely be content to thread the needle between the competing political pressures he faces.

So far, its proving extremely hard for him to do so.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Read more:
The Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration | TheHill - The Hill

The Democratic legislative locomotive is now moving uphill. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

There was a time a few months ago when much of the talk in Washington was about the breakneck speed with which the Democratic Congress was dealing with President Joe Bidens legislative agenda. As spring begins to yield to summer, such talk has been replaced with headlines like this one from Politico: Dems sweating a pileup of big votes on Bidens agenda.

Yes, Biden and company can take great pride in the size, scope, and partisan unity underlying the COVID-19 relief and stimulus package he signed on March 11. But moving progressive legislation outside the justification offered by the pandemic and its economic fallout has been predictably difficult. Biden and key centrist Senate Democrats hope to enact at least part of the administrations agenda via bipartisan negotiation and regular order (i.e., not budget reconciliation, which allowed them to pass the stimulus package without fears of a Republican filibuster). This has introduced a set of interlocking strategic issues that must be resolved before Congress can get moving again.

Here are the roadblocks congressional Democrats are facing, and the likeliest timeline for enacting their ambitious agenda.

Biden put forth two massive spending proposals this spring: the American Jobs Plan, which focuses on infrastructure, and the American Families Plan, which aims to expand access to education, improving access to child care, and reduce child poverty.

But recent events have made several other legislative initiatives top priorities for most Democrats. For instance, lawmakers hoped to seize on momentum from the Derek Chauvin verdict to enact police reform, and Biden indicated that he wanted a bipartisan deal by May 25 anniversary of George Floyds murder. (Obviously, they missed that deadline, and the two two parties remain divided over Democratic demands to remove qualified immunity for police officers.) The state-level Republican drive to restrict voting opportunities in the wake of Donald Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election results has made federal voting rights a more pressing concern. And theres the messy fight over Democratic proposals to create, and Republican efforts to evade, a formal commission to investigate the January 6 Capitol riot.

Theres also renewed interest in addressing several perennial issues. A spate of high-profile mass shootings this year increased pressure for bipartisan gun safety legislation. And 2020 Democratic losses among Latino voters have fed demands that comprehensive immigration reform measures.

Meanwhile, there is one complicated legislative package with interest in both parties, which is likely to see action as it is a signature initiative for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: the Endless Frontier Act, a bundle of science and technology investments and provisions aimed at countering Chinas economic challenge.

Figuring out what to move when, and in what legislative form, has enormously complicated the congressional agenda for Biden and Democrats as the year has proceeded.

It was exciting news for Democrats in early April when Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough agreed with Schumers suggestion that a revised budget resolution could trigger a second budget reconciliation bill in any given fiscal year. That opened the prospect of at least two more reconciliation bills in calendar year 2021 (a second FY 2021 bill, and a first FY 2022 bill) that could evade a Senate filibuster.

These reconciliation bills remain subject to various limitations, like the Byrd Rule germaneness requirement, and any second FY 2021 reconciliation bill must be completed by September 30. Plus, the parliamentarian is likely to rule that immigration, gun, and voting-rights legislation is ineligible (just as a $15 minimum wage was struck from the COVID-19 bill).

But otherwise, the composition of any reconciliation bill is entirely flexible. So, for example, its possible that both the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan could be part of one massive bill, along with tax offsets. Or they could be broken into two bills that will equally benefit from a filibuster exemption and pass with 50 Senate votes. Democrats have yet to decide how theyll proceed.

There has been bipartisan interest in an infrastructure bill dating back to the Trump administration, though the Biden administration seems to be more serious about its effort to reach a deal based at least loosely on its $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan. A segment of the infrastructure agenda looks well on its way to enactment via regular order, in the form of a five-year, $300 billion highway-reauthorization bill that was recently agreed to by key Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Beyond that, the two parties are far apart on the scope and price tag for an infrastructure package, and for the revenue offsets necessary to pay for it.

Biden had set a tentative Memorial Day (May 31) deadline for reaching an infrastructure deal with Republicans. Its not looking good at all. Part of the problem is that Republicans know any elements of the American Jobs Plan not included in a bipartisan bill can be moved separately in a reconciliation bill, over which they will have no control. So they are likely trying to secure agreements barring subsequent provisions along with a major paring-back of Bidens economic proposals, particularly those involving climate change, wages, collective bargaining, and other items that dont involve bricks and mortar.

Its not just Bidens campaign talk about bipartisanship or the support poll respondents show for cooperation across party lines even as more and more of them vote straight tickets that is forcing negotiations before Democrats move on to the inevitable second and third reconciliation bills. Using reconciliation requires Democratic solidarity (or less plausibly, Republican defections), and certain centrist Democratic senators notably West Virginias Joe Manchin are insisting that maximum efforts be made to involve Republicans in the crafting of legislation wherever it is possible.

It is unclear at this stage how many concessions to Republicans Manchin will demand, and whether if they are unsuccessful he will support reconciliation as he did with the COVID-19 bill. But it appears Manchin wants to give negotiators plenty of time, and thats slowing down the entire process.

Aside from the self-imposed deadlines set by the White House and congressional leaders, there is one objective-reality deadline: the imminent breaching of the public-debt limit. If you havent heard about the debt limit in a while, its because it was suspended in the Bipartisan Budget Act enacted in August of 2019, which successfully put off the traditional crisis over debt-limit increases for the remainder of the Trump administration. On July 31, the suspension ends, and getting the votes to extend or to increase the limit wont be easy, as the Washington Post explains:

The suspension of the debt limit ends after July 31, and Congress will need to either raise it or suspend it again around that time to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debt. Doing so triggered some of the most bitter fights in the Obama administration between the former president and congressional Republicans, and GOP lawmakers are signaling similar warfare in the coming months.

It normally takes some concession for any administration to get the debt-limit increase, warned Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of the Senate GOP leadership. I dont know what that looks like yet, but I dont think youll get a debt limit without working with our side on some things wed like to see.

The Posts reference to the Obama administration is instructive: Voting against a debt limit increase would be an almost perfect opportunity for Republicans to symbolically express their return to fiscal hawkishness now that their free-spending 45th president is no longer in office. But there are two factors that could decisively limit Republican leverage on this subject. First, the Treasury Department has in its arsenal a variety of temporary measures to finance debt and avoid breaching the limit, which has the effect of postponing any debt limit cliff for several months. And second, a debt limit increase (or even the more radical approach of abolishing the debate limit altogether) can be included in a reconciliation bill, and Democrats do plan to have another one this summer or at the latest this fall.

Still, wrangling over the debt limit will absorb time and energy, while augmenting Republican messaging about the radical socialist Democrat agenda, allowing the GOP to score points about Biden initiatives in the aggregate that they cannot score on individually popular items.

Fiscal Year 2021 ends on September 30. While this years big legislative fights are over mandatory spending and taxes rather than discretionary spending, there are a number of emergency-assistance provisions set out in the last two COVID-19 relief and stimulus bills that run out just before or on that deadline. And appropriations do have to be renewed by September 30, with or without the usual expedient of temporary continuing resolutions that give negotiators more time to reach agreement. These deadlines do create pressure points that Republicans might exploit, or that give them leverage in broader negotiations.

It is part of Washington lore than nothing significant gets done in even years because of election-year pressures, and the extremely narrow margin of Democratic control in both chambers could lead vulnerable Democrats to resist another big reconciliation bill next year. By the same token, however, the strong odds of a Republican midterm takeover of the House (and possibly the Senate as well) could spur Biden and the Democratic congressional leadership to get as much of their agenda done as quickly as possible.

Its also far from certain that Democratic unity across ideological and regional lines will be sustainable. There are constant potential fault lines in the details of the tax legislation that will be needed to finance Bidens plans (e.g., over the restored SALT deductions that well-placed lawmakers representing upper-income citizens in high-tax states are insisting on). And Bidens apparent unwillingness to go as far as progressives would like on health care policy (particularly a public option within Obamacare) and climate change could be problematic.

Any precise timetable for legislative activity in 2021 is impossible to lay out at the moment. A lot will depend on how much time Democrats devote to bipartisan negotiations that may or may not produce actual legislation. But once they give a green light to one or more reconciliation bills, things can move pretty quickly, as the COVID-19 relief and stimulus legislation showed: Congress passed the first FY 2021 budget resolution on March 8, and then the subsequent reconciliation bill in just over a month.

So if Democrats decide to load the American Jobs Plan and the American Family Plan into one giant reconciliation bill, they could start and finish the process this summer, and then decide what to throw into a third reconciliation bill before buckling down for the midterm election stretch drive. Alternatively, Democrats would likely need to pass two reconciliation bills by the end of the year. In either event, that would require avoiding a debt limit or year-end appropriations crisis, and spending a minimum amount of time on non-reconciliation matters (e.g., immigration, guns, and election reform). This will be tricky given the important constituencies invested in these measures, and unpredictable factors like how many delays Manchin demands to give Republicans a chance to cooperate.

Biden has already accomplished a lot, and Democrats have been more unified than anyone had reason to expect. But audacious plans loudly announced, and potentially a short window of Democratic control, mean that expectations will remain high throughout this fateful year. This may be a relaxed and celebratory summer for Americans as a whole, but their representatives in Washington will have to fully earn their pay.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

See the original post here:
When Will Congress Move on Bidens Agenda? - New York Magazine

Under the reforms travellers will have to have an ETA before entering the country. Ministers have said that the fully digital system will be operational by the end of 2025.

Our new plan will make it easier to identify potential threats before they reach the border

It is hoped the use of ETAs will make the UKs immigration system more secure by automatically checking for criminals from other countries and allowing more accurate statistics.

This year, we will end the use of insecure ID cards for people to enter our country and we will apply tougher UK criminality rules, said Patel during a speech at a conference organised by think tanks Bright Blue and British Future.

We are working on further reforms, including Electronic Travel Authorisations, as part of a simpler and more secure, universal permissions to travel requirement.

Our new plan will make it easier to identify potential threats before they reach the border, through targeted and effective interventions from co-ordinated multi-agency operations.

Patel said that the UKs new digital border will provide the ability to count people in and count people out of the country.

We will have a far clearer picture of who is here and whether they should be and will act when they are not, she added.

The home secretary said that there will be wholescale reform of the UKs immigration system.

She said that anything short of this would not meet the demands of the British people.

They want a new system that works for the law-abiding majority and against those who abuse our hospitality and generosity.

One that welcomes those most in need of sanctuary and one that slams the door on dangerous criminals, she said.

Patel acknowledged that the UK government still wants to attract top talent from around the world.

Yes, we want employers to train and invest in our domestic workforce. But we know that they always need access to global talent.

This is why the system is designed to keep the UK at the forefront of innovation. We are introducing bespoke routes to enable more students, scientists, academics, investors, and entrepreneurs to come here, she said.

Patel claimed that the UKs global talent route for leaders in science, engineering, digital technology, medicine, humanities, arts, and culture is already thriving.

She noted that recent reforms mean that prestigious prize-winners can fast-track the endorsement process and make a single visa application.

See the original post:
UK: Immigration reform will see creation of "fully digital border" - The PIE News