Image 01 Image 03

UK: New policy restricts entry of non-English speaking and unskilled foreign workers

UK: New policy restricts entry of non-English speaking and unskilled foreign workers

Nigel Farage: “The days of employing cheap labor are finished.”

The British government has announced an overhaul of immigration policy, restricting the entry of non-English speakers and unskilled foreign workers. The new immigration rules, based on the Australian-style points system, is part of a post-Brexit overhaul.

“UK borders will be closed to non-skilled workers – and all migrants will have to speak English,” the left-wing Guardian newspaper lamented, summing up the new policy.

The new rules, expected to come into effect on January 1, 2021, aim to put an end to the import of cheap labor from abroad. The immigration reform will help create a “wage, high skill, high productivity economy” in the United Kingdom, a government statement said.

The immigration rules are also meant to end the “free movement” of people as dictated under the EU regulations.

“For too long, distorted by European free movement rights, the immigration system has been failing to meet the needs of the British people. Our approach will change all of this,” the statement added.

The BBC reported the UK government’s post-Brexit immigration plan:

Low-skilled workers would not get visas under post-Brexit immigration plans unveiled by the government.

It is urging employers to “move away” from relying on “cheap labour” from Europe and invest in retaining staff and developing automation technology.

The Home Office said EU and non-EU citizens coming to the UK would be treated equally after UK-EU free movement ends on 31 December.

Labour said a “hostile environment” would make it hard to attract workers.

But Home Secretary Priti Patel told BBC Breakfast the government wanted to “encourage people with the right talent” and “reduce the levels of people coming to the UK with low skills”. (…)

The government wants to bring in a “points-based” immigration system, as promised in the Conservative election manifesto.

Under this, overseas citizens would have to reach 70 points to be able to work in the UK.

Speaking English and having the offer of a skilled job with an “approved sponsor” would give them 50 points.

More points would be awarded for qualifications, the salary on offer and working in a sector with shortages.

The criticism came from left-wing opposition parties and leading business lobby groups. The “new policy drew immediate criticism from employers, particularly over the addition of waiters, waitresses, and “elementary” agriculture and fishery workers to the list of low-skilled workers,” The Guardian reported.

“Jobs the government considers ‘low-skilled’ are vital to wellbeing and business growth,” claimed the head of the UK the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.

According to the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, the proposed changes in the immigration policy were “based on xenophobia.” The Labour Party also played the racism card, with Diane Abbott — Jeremy Corbyn’s close ally — claiming that making English a criterion for immigration amounted to “dog-whistle politics.”

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage welcomed the announcement, saying that “the days of employing cheap labor are finished.”

He also slammed the big business lobbying for cheap migrant labor.

“These same employers have always wanted cheap labour. They could not care less about the impact of it on the lives of ordinary working men and women and the communities in which they live,” the Brexit Party leader said.

It is worth noting that the Labour Party’s insistence on the EU-style immigration policy alienated the party’s traditional working-class base. In the December 2019 election, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives flipped many long-held Labour seats, giving them their most significant victory since the days of Margaret Thatcher. By tightening immigration rules, Johnson is fulfilling his election promise of “taking back control” of UK borders.

The Sun: ‘Boris Johnson’s tough new post-Brexit immigration system explained.’

[Cover image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is the “consequences” part of being “woke” that your commie professors don’t tell you about. Should have taken that basic economics course.

History will not view kindly those who supported human trafficking for cheap labor and the sex trade.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to elle. | February 21, 2020 at 5:12 pm

    Hasn’t that made English speaking people in the UK and the U.S. a minority?

    snark – but not much……

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to elle. | February 21, 2020 at 5:14 pm

    Seriously though, it has come to my attention that our financial institutions are complicit in that trafficking.

    Without them handling the monies, the trafficking would be cut down greatly.

    No airline tickets, no bus tickets, etc…….

buckeyeminuteman | February 21, 2020 at 7:27 am

Make Britain Great Again!

What about the thousands/millions that are already there, with their grooming gangs and no-go areas?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Rusty Bill. | February 21, 2020 at 9:22 am

    Maybe the UK can show us how to clean existing riff raff out.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Rusty Bill. | February 21, 2020 at 5:18 pm

    Europe developed the solution at the end of WWII.


    Think they’ll have to do it for all the years that the illegal and evil EU government was dictating everything.

Nice to see some sanity returning to Britain.
However, they have a long, long way to go in dealing with the “migrant” and islam problem.

    Whitewall in reply to lc. | February 21, 2020 at 8:52 am

    Yes, these people have to be dealt with along with the pols and bureaucrats etc that made it all possible.

thalesofmiletus | February 21, 2020 at 8:59 am

Great. Now they need to deport the ones who are already there.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to thalesofmiletus. | February 21, 2020 at 9:30 am

    Same here, may I trot out my 20,000 semitrailer human cannons for quick and inexpensive deportations?

    And a companion TV show featuring the funniest-most tragic, launch-flight-landings?

    Once started, those who leave on their own can take their assets, minus 20%, those who have ro be rounded up lose all assets.

This move will accelerate the departure of other countries who didn’t want to be first to make a bold immigration statement.

The Labour Party also played the racism card, with Diane Abbott — Jeremy Corbyn’s close ally — claiming that making English a criterion for immigration amounted to “dog-whistle politics.”

It’s a funny sort of racism that excludes Norwegians but welcomes Indians and Nigerians.

Canada has a similar idea; they want immigrants who are self-reliant, educated, ready to work, and ready to be Canadians. When my progressive friends talk about “reforming” American immigration, I always smile and say I want one like Canada’s. As soon as they figure out where I’m going, they become unhappy.

    “”I want one like Canada’s””

    They feel the same way about Mexico’s.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to stevewhitemd. | February 21, 2020 at 1:57 pm

    Yet Canada allowed a ton of Muslims in, and as a result crime went up a great deal.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to stevewhitemd. | February 21, 2020 at 5:23 pm

    Back in the mid-90s you have to pay Canada about $2200 just for them to accept the immigration paperwork. And of course prove you had lots of money.

    Well that is if you were not one of their Favored TERRORIST immigrants.

Curious how the same folks who rail at Walmart for costs they lay off on “society” by “under-paying” their employees, have nothing to say about the costs ill-fitting immigrants lay off on the society they enter.

If “we” have to subisidize education, remedial education, health care vaccinations and epidemic control, multi-lingual signage instructions n training … maybe not such a net gain for “society.”

Their position n supporting arguments are inconsistent.

Myself, I think that’s a poor frame of reference for addressing the situation: “societal” costs in aggregate for granular, individual decisions rolled up by weak grouptings. You get the street lamp search problem, twice.

To drunk: “If you dropped your keys over there, why are you looking for them here?”

Drunk: “Well, there’s light here to see with.”

Casual “impacts” and similarly easy “groups” don’t necessarily have anything to say about the situation simply because they’re easy.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to BierceAmbrose. | February 21, 2020 at 5:26 pm

    Leftists are Liars by nature, so we should make them bear the full costs of their un-wise, and un-educated actions.

Nice idea, but for the millions they’ll let in as “refugees”, and the millions already there, who will in short order conquer England without firing a shot.