Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Law ( British Law) Essay

Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Law ( British Law) - Essay Example Additionally, the population of Britain is rising for the first time because the number of those who stay minus those who leave is positive and the trend is going to continue. Green claims that Britain already has "a severe congestion" (1). Because the density of population is higher than in India and in some places out measures the Netherlands. Moreover, the system of immigration is hugger-mugger by letting in all the kinsfolk and "quadruple [icating] the number of works permits" (Green 2). According to him migration has no limits and "the character of our society, and especially our cities, is being radically alerted." (2). Green also mentions that immigrants have been seeking to influence Britain's political parties; consequently Government should use severe policies to curb migration. Although Green is right worrying about the loss of national identity he overlooks very important facts as to why the migration is useful to Britain. The migration has always existed and will exist and "in both directions is natural and welcome" (Green 1). The fear to lose national identity is somewhat worth considering, but it depends on citizens themselves if they want to uphold the traditional country's values. Great Britain was the only country, which didn't impose any restrictions for the new EU members and it now is clearly seen that it has been the opportune policy. However, in this case the world-wide migration will not be considered because migration between European Union countries is more appealing to us as the competent citizens. One of the most appreciable pluses of immigration is that "the greater mobility of labour which comes with EU enlargement is beneficial to [Britain's] economy" (Clark 1). Migrants are not only useful for country's economy but also better, cheaper and harder- working. They come here to feel the free-market economy and are not spoiled as British, "who treat their workplace more as a social club" (Clark 1). Moreover, it is useful because the labour force from the new EU countries tend to stop the gap of British labour market. According to Tony McNulty, the Immigration minister: "Workers are contributing to our economy, paying tax and national insurance and filling key jobs in areas where there are gaps. We estimate registered workers contributed approximately Pounds 500 million to the UK economy between May 2004 and March 2005." Consequently, Britain will economically benefit; however the British workers may lose their jobs too. In addition to that, creating boundaries for the new EU co untries is disadvantageous and irrational because it "prolong[s] economic stagnation" (Rossant 1). Great Britain is the only one country which can improve the economic growth of the region, regenerate aged and spoiled workers and ensure the right of the promised free mobility. Closing door policy is also irrational because "continental economics can't respond flexibly to macroeconomics shifts" (Rossant 1). It means that in nowadays world we can't rely only on our countries' economy and the economy should be integrated world-wide. To sum it up, Green is right that immigration worries local people but they should understand the fact that it is useful for the economy and that's why they are able to live better. Green also asserts