The reality would be good.

The reality that I see (and I deal with payroll and HR) is that many businesses would struggle really hard to exist were it not for the agencies who provide European labour on short term no-commitment contracts.

Thats not to say that the employee does not have a commitment from the agency, they do most of the time, but it also often suits that labour to be flexible about the hours they work and to be able to move on at any time.

The workplace has changed dramatically over the past ten years - I recall a large plant grower towards the east of this country taking on Eastern European labour ten/twelve years ago from an agency that we did business with, that agency in turn relied on gang masters from various former soviet bloc countries who literally were like the Mafia, most of the labour they supplied were non-English speaking, record keeping was rudimentary, cash was king and eventually they didn't need us to record anything about the sites at all - that agency eventually walked away from those contracts because what was going on was blatently illegal.

It isn't like that now (thankfully).

The problem is that most stories in the written media feature very minority cases of fraud and corruption (like it used to be) and then portray that as the norm, when the truth is that eastern european labour is not cheap for the employer, but it is very flexible, which is a major requirement - when did you ever see or hear of that being emphasised in a documentary ?

An example of poor quality written media reporting - check how many immigrants there have been from Romania and Bulgaria since Jan 1st, or how many additional flights and buses have been arriving here - then look back at what was being speculated and lied about in the newspapers back in December and wonder why they haven't bothered with the story since.

Would other countries want to get control over there's and send the expats back?

And there we go...the discussion collapses before it even gets started.

You, spouting meaningless tripe like that, are part of the reason immigration can not be discussed constructively.

Other countries and how they handle British ex-pats are absolutely nothing to do with how the UK handles its immigrants.

i sincerely hope not.
we don't deserve that.

Don't we have agreements with other countries? If we changed our side of the agreement wouldn't they change theirs?

If the UK tightens immigration laws and other countries go tit-for-tat that's for them and potentially for ex-pats to worry about.

Shouldn't we discuss it with them first in case they also stopped trade? Or do we just stop everyone, apart from their highly trained people, and worry about the repercussions later?

If there was the slightest chance they might stop trading with the UK, perhaps, But they won't in a million years, so the suggestion is irrelevant.

In fact one might even suggest some countries might welcome a reduction in the export of workers to the UK - a few years ago some colleagues in Europe began to talk of a shortage of skilled Polish workers in some trades, leading to other nationalities going into Poland...for higher wages than the departed indigenous workers. This has in turn led to some Poles returning home to take advantage of said higher wages. Ironic?

Not really, people will also go to other countries to make more money. My Dad worked in South Africa before I was born for 4 years and returned with 50% of a house deposit.

It's supply and demand.

Just out of interest what would you do to stop/regulate immigration?

Its already regulated - you may not agree with the level to which its controlled, but there isn't, despite what the newspapers would have you believe, an open door policy in the UK.

She's enough to put a man off his three shredded wheat of a morning.

I agree. It's actually pretty tough already.

Try telling companies who can't get decent British/EU staff and also can't get workers from outside the EU or the thousands of British citizens who can't have their partners join them in the UK, solely because they don't earn enough (nothing to so with sham marriages) that there is an open door policy.

It would help if the Home Office were a bit more fit for purpose, but with this lot in charge, inaccuracy is the keyword. It now takes over 6 months to challenge a Home Office decision at the Tribunal, because there are so many appeals in the system, but also because HO policy is to ignore representations and let things go to appeal.

It really is a crazy, inefficient, ineffective system we have right now, but its a long way from an open door.

You're welcome to try.

I started a thread some time ago – without any connection to a TV programme – and tried to post a thoughtful OP.

I got about two replies.

And neither of those were from the 'immigrunts are killing ower kulture' fraternity or the 'you're being racist even using the 'I' word' one either.

One point that has not, this time around, been raised thus far: why is that so many of those who rail most loudly against immigration/migrant workers also claim to believe in freedom of choice etc, when they appear not to believe that that should include the freedom to move between countries to search for work/a better life?

And for the sake of clarity, I am not saying that uncontrolled migration/immigration would be perfection. But it is also equally right to bring up migration the other way, and pretending that it isn't part of the same subject is errant nonsense.

That, right there, is the prime reason that it's so difficult to have a proper discussion.

There's a reason that the [iDaily Mail[/i is currently facing a legal threat over its fantasy claims about Romanians from late last year. And unfortunately, far too many people unquestioningly accept what that and other rags publish.