Illegal immigrants

[Dod101]

We in Scotland and obviously elsewhere in the UK are very short of fruit pickers from now until September. Growers would like to import Labour from the EU and I assume elsewhere. Why are we not employing illegal immigrants? They are costing us a lot of money to accommodate them so why not make them help pay for it? There has to be a positive answer to this with a bit of imagination surely. It is just bizarre not to.

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

As I recollect it, folks from ex-communist EU countries (headed by Poland) have been heading home as the economic gap between our countries narrowed. Brexit didn't start that trend, but it did accelerate it.

In jobs like seasonal fruit picking, ISTR they were getting replaced by folks from further east, headed by Ukrainians. Until lockdown disrupted everything.

I'm sure there are Brits who would be happy to do the work if the benefits system didn't penalise them brutally for any short-term work they might find.

[dealtn]

We in Scotland and obviously elsewhere in the UK are very short of fruit pickers from now until September. Growers would like to import Labour from the EU and I assume elsewhere. Why are we not employing illegal immigrants? They are costing us a lot of money to accommodate them so why not make them help pay for it? There has to be a positive answer to this with a bit of imagination surely. It is just bizarre not to.

Dod

Who is this "we"? I would imagine, but could be wrong, that the farm/land owners on which this fruit is growing (and unpicked) are private individuals. It's unclear to me how they could employ (legally) those deemed to be illegal immigrants.

From a government perspective I imagine it would be difficult to be deterring those seeking such illegal entry whilst concurrently appearing to offer and condone employment opportunities.

Economically I sense those growers would like to employ them (or anyone) but can't make the business case for doing so. Consumers would be unwilling to pay the price for the end product required. That's how market economics works. Ultimately those growers will need to be deciding how they adapt their business, or exit from it, if they require a profit.

[Dod101]

We in Scotland and obviously elsewhere in the UK are very short of fruit pickers from now until September. Growers would like to import Labour from the EU and I assume elsewhere. Why are we not employing illegal immigrants? They are costing us a lot of money to accommodate them so why not make them help pay for it? There has to be a positive answer to this with a bit of imagination surely. It is just bizarre not to.

Dod

Who is this "we"? I would imagine, but could be wrong, that the farm/land owners on which this fruit is growing (and unpicked) are private individuals. It's unclear to me how they could employ (legally) those deemed to be illegal immigrants.

From a government perspective I imagine it would be difficult to be deterring those seeking such illegal entry whilst concurrently appearing to offer and condone employment opportunities.

Economically I sense those growers would like to employ them (or anyone) but can't make the business case for doing so. Consumers would be unwilling to pay the price for the end product required. That's how market economics works. Ultimately those growers will need to be deciding how they adapt their business, or exit from it, if they require a profit.

I have no answer but am simply posing the question. We have an established fruit growing industry that is crying out for seasonal fruit pickers and a whole lot of illegals sitting twiddling their thumbs in hotels etc paid for by the UK tax payer. Surely putting the two together cannot be that difficult.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. The fruit has always been picked by human hand. There should be no increase in costs whether it is picked by migrants on temporary visas or by illegals sitting doing nothing. Believe it or not I know how market economics work.

Dod

[Lootman]

The US has such a programme - the H-2 visa system.

This is geared towards seasonal agricultural workers. In practice they are all from Central and South America.

The work is particularly grueling in the US because of the extreme heat in much of the heartland. Not many Americans would want that work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-2A_visa

How or whether it works with aliens who are already in the US illegally, I don't know. But it doesn't seem like a terrible idea.

[dealtn]

Who is this "we"? I would imagine, but could be wrong, that the farm/land owners on which this fruit is growing (and unpicked) are private individuals. It's unclear to me how they could employ (legally) those deemed to be illegal immigrants.

From a government perspective I imagine it would be difficult to be deterring those seeking such illegal entry whilst concurrently appearing to offer and condone employment opportunities.

Economically I sense those growers would like to employ them (or anyone) but can't make the business case for doing so. Consumers would be unwilling to pay the price for the end product required. That's how market economics works. Ultimately those growers will need to be deciding how they adapt their business, or exit from it, if they require a profit.

I have no answer but am simply posing the question. We have an established fruit growing industry that is crying out for seasonal fruit pickers and a whole lot of illegals sitting twiddling their thumbs in hotels etc paid for by the UK tax payer. Surely putting the two together cannot be that difficult.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. The fruit has always been picked by human hand. There should be no increase in costs whether it is picked by migrants on temporary visas or by illegals sitting doing nothing. Believe it or not I know how market economics work.

Dod

My last paragraph is merely stating that growers can employ anyone legally available to do this. That some aren't suggests the economics of this aren't working to allow a profit. If it were profitable to sell fruit and pay workers £100 an hour to pick it then presumably we would be seeing this. I am far from the area geographically but it isn't obvious to me that is happening. So the price of labour required to satisfy the supply of that labour appears to be at too high an equilibrium currently for fruit growing to work profitably. Just because it has been picked by human hand "always" doesn't mean it can now, or in the future. The same transition and process has affected multiple industries over many years. Fruit picking, and farming generally, can't expect to be immune to this.

[Tedx]

Oh yeah, robot fruit pickers are coming - 24 hours a day, solar battery charging during daylight hours, no holidays, breaks, going sick etc.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... telligence

[monabri]

Extend the scheme to include litter picking, removal of so called wall 'art' daubed on any surface in our towns and cities.

[Dod101]

I have no answer but am simply posing the question. We have an established fruit growing industry that is crying out for seasonal fruit pickers and a whole lot of illegals sitting twiddling their thumbs in hotels etc paid for by the UK tax payer. Surely putting the two together cannot be that difficult.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. The fruit has always been picked by human hand. There should be no increase in costs whether it is picked by migrants on temporary visas or by illegals sitting doing nothing. Believe it or not I know how market economics work.

Dod

My last paragraph is merely stating that growers can employ anyone legally available to do this. That some aren't suggests the economics of this aren't working to allow a profit. If it were profitable to sell fruit and pay workers £100 an hour to pick it then presumably we would be seeing this. I am far from the area geographically but it isn't obvious to me that is happening. So the price of labour required to satisfy the supply of that labour appears to be at too high an equilibrium currently for fruit growing to work profitably. Just because it has been picked by human hand "always" doesn't mean it can now, or in the future. The same transition and process has affected multiple industries over many years. Fruit picking, and farming generally, can't expect to be immune to this.

I know what you are saying and it is the sort of perfectly logical and 'correct' reply that I would expect from you (that comment is in no way intended to be disrespectful) Unfortunately it is the sort of logic that has devastated so much of our smaller industries, and I include farming in that. We are in the main speaking here of small family run businesses which can for at least six months of the year be run by the family or extended family but for the other months needs lots labour. It is not unpleasant work and nowadays a lot of it is sheltered in polytunnels (hence the extended cropping period) The solution is not merely to pay enough. It is finding the labour prepared to work at almost any price. When I was young I used to do it in the school holidays as did many of my fellow pupils, so I know what is involved. Nowadays they have managed to mechanise potato picking later in the year but for most soft fruit it does not lend itself to robots or other mechanical means.

It just seems to me that we have all these asylum seekers sitting around at our expense and a desperate need for unskilled labour. Can someone not use some imagination and match the two?

Dod

[didds]

... and a whole lot of alleged illegals sitting twiddling their thumbs

FTFY

[UncleEbenezer]

Extend the scheme to include litter picking, removal of so called wall 'art' daubed on any surface in our towns and cities.

Wot, like this?

[Arborbridge]

It just seems to me that we have all these asylum seekers sitting around at our expense and a desperate need for unskilled labour. Can someone not use some imagination and match the two?

Dod

I'm sure they could, but current theory by those in power does not permit of that logical course. The Tories believe it is a bad thing to import cheap labour for these jobs because they say they support a high wage economy. Oddly, they also think our own people should be paid very little and forced into taking up these non skilled jobs. Presumably while they are waiting for high skilled jobs to come along. Or maybe they just meant a high wage economy for themselves.

It's a topsy turvy world and I don't really believe anyone in charge really knows what they are doing. A fine example was the Truss disaster where a man who ought to know the way the market works (being closely asociated with fund managers etc), drove a nail through the tyre of the economy and let the air out by making a rudimentary mistake. Half of these people are clowns the other half a ideologs who won't listen to sages who know how the cogs fit together.

We have a bunch of amateurs, several of whom appear to be in it for what they can get out of it.

Arb.

[servodude]

It just seems to me that we have all these asylum seekers sitting around at our expense and a desperate need for unskilled labour. Can someone not use some imagination and match the two?

Dod

I'm sure they could, but current theory by those in power does not permit of that logical course. The Tories believe it is a bad thing to import cheap labour for these jobs because they say they support a high wage economy. Oddly, they also think our own people should be paid very little and forced into taking up these non skilled jobs. Presumably while they are waiting for high skilled jobs to come along. Or maybe they just meant a high wage economy for themselves.

It's a topsy turvy world and I don't really believe anyone in charge really knows what they are doing. A fine example was the Truss disaster where a man who ought to know the way the market works (being closely asociated with fund managers etc), drove a nail through the tyre of the economy and let the air out by making a rudimentary mistake. Half of these people are clowns the other half a ideologs who won't listen to sages who know how the cogs fit together.

We have a bunch of amateurs, several of whom appear to be in it for what they can get out of it.

Arb.

There is also the aspect that if these people are seen to be people and allowed to contribute to society in such a visible way they lose a lot of their utility as a vote winning bogeyman; "coming over here and helping me with my business" doesn't quite have the required ring to it.

[Dod101]

I'm sure they could, but current theory by those in power does not permit of that logical course. The Tories believe it is a bad thing to import cheap labour for these jobs because they say they support a high wage economy. Oddly, they also think our own people should be paid very little and forced into taking up these non skilled jobs. Presumably while they are waiting for high skilled jobs to come along. Or maybe they just meant a high wage economy for themselves.

It's a topsy turvy world and I don't really believe anyone in charge really knows what they are doing. A fine example was the Truss disaster where a man who ought to know the way the market works (being closely asociated with fund managers etc), drove a nail through the tyre of the economy and let the air out by making a rudimentary mistake. Half of these people are clowns the other half a ideologs who won't listen to sages who know how the cogs fit together.

We have a bunch of amateurs, several of whom appear to be in it for what they can get out of it.

Arb.

There is also the aspect that if these people are seen to be people and allowed to contribute to society in such a visible way they lose a lot of their utility as a vote winning bogeyman; "coming over here and helping me with my business" doesn't quite have the required ring to it.

They could be assigned to these jobs without it having any effect on their immigration status I would have thought. As far as I understand it few of them are deported anyway. I doubt very much that any politician has really thought of it at all. They are certainly not a vote winning bogeyman as they are.

Dod

[servodude]

There is also the aspect that if these people are seen to be people and allowed to contribute to society in such a visible way they lose a lot of their utility as a vote winning bogeyman; "coming over here and helping me with my business" doesn't quite have the required ring to it.

They could be assigned to these jobs without it having any effect on their immigration status I would have thought. As far as I understand it few of them are deported anyway. I doubt very much that any politician has really thought of it at all. They are certainly not a vote winning bogeyman as they are.

Dod

Really?
I am continually amazed by the way that people waiting to have their asylum requests assessed are protrayed by the press and politicians.
If there is no political capital in it why is this done?

[Dod101]

They could be assigned to these jobs without it having any effect on their immigration status I would have thought. As far as I understand it few of them are deported anyway. I doubt very much that any politician has really thought of it at all. They are certainly not a vote winning bogeyman as they are.

Dod

Really?
I am continually amazed by the way that people waiting to have their asylum requests assessed are protrayed by the press and politicians.
If there is no political capital in it why is this done?

Taking up space at government expense in hotels all over the country/ in former RAF bases, etc etc. You call that a vote winning formula?

Anyway it is away from my main point which I would rather we concentrated on.

Dod

[WrenChasen]

Philip Johnston writes about this very subject in today's Telegraph. For non-DT subscribers, his view is if the Government would just "encourage" able-bodied folk living on benefits to get out there and work there would be no need for migrant labour. (I'm sure I've heard that opinion before.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... s-britain/

[stevensfo]

Philip Johnston writes about this very subject in today's Telegraph. For non-DT subscribers, his view is if the Government would just "encourage" able-bodied folk living on benefits to get out there and work there would be no need for migrant labour. (I'm sure I've heard that opinion before.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... s-britain/

But weren't the rules tightened up years ago, making it more difficult for benefit claimants to refuse work?

So what would happen if they received a letter informing them that they were being offered 2-3 months work on a local farm earning more than their benefits? Could they refuse?


Steve

[Lootman]

Philip Johnston writes about this very subject in today's Telegraph. For non-DT subscribers, his view is if the Government would just "encourage" able-bodied folk living on benefits to get out there and work there would be no need for migrant labour. (I'm sure I've heard that opinion before.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... s-britain/

But weren't the rules tightened up years ago, making it more difficult for benefit claimants to refuse work?

So what would happen if they received a letter informing them that they were being offered 2-3 months work on a local farm earning more than their benefits? Could they refuse?

I suspect that the claimant can always find a doctor who will sign him off based on some vaguely undefined "back problem".

Isn't the real problem that benefit handouts are too high, relative to minimum wage? If I wanted to stamp out the workshy entitlement culture I would have frozen benefits back in 2010. Welfare should be a minimal safety net and not a viable lifestyle option.

[UncleEbenezer]

Philip Johnston writes about this very subject in today's Telegraph. For non-DT subscribers, his view is if the Government would just "encourage" able-bodied folk living on benefits to get out there and work there would be no need for migrant labour. (I'm sure I've heard that opinion before.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... s-britain/

But weren't the rules tightened up years ago, making it more difficult for benefit claimants to refuse work?

So what would happen if they received a letter informing them that they were being offered 2-3 months work on a local farm earning more than their benefits? Could they refuse?

(a) For how many claimants would their farm earnings exceed their benefits? Perhaps only a claimant with neither rent to pay nor any dependents.
(b) Whatever sanctions the benefits office might apply have to be weighed against the substantial losses associated with moving on and off benefits.

That's the "poverty trap" created by our benefits system. The encouragement the government should offer is a system where the claimant gets a net financial benefit from working, even where that work is short-term and low-paid. Failing that, at least take away the risk of a net loss!