International visas are currently not harmonised. The UK is and has been free to run a regime that is as liberal or as hostile as it wants. Non-EU migration is not the fault of the EU.

Intra-EU migration is tied (politically) to the single market. The EU is currently making this clear to Switzerland. The cost of stopping intra-EU migration is leaving the single market, which is potentially a huge cost.

And then there's the real problem: a lot of people who the public considers to be "immigrants" are actually local nationals with nonwhite skin. All of the Bataclan killers were French nationals! There's no immigration policy that could have made a difference here without also having a time machine.

Once you realise that people complaining about "immigrants" also mean "non-white local nationals", suddenly there's no solution. Then you realise that people promising a solution are at the top of the slippery slope leading to the Final Solution, the very thing the EU was set up to prevent ever happening again.

And that's why MP Jo Cox was murdered a few days before the vote.

Yes, immigrants who have been accepted are all UK nationals and they belong there now. Now have we asked the country side UK people whether they want to distribute more visas in 2017 to non-EU, highly skilled, foreign workers, followed by a passport in 10 years? I'm being specific here because liberals tend to conflate xenomurderers with people who want a honest discussion about visa quantities.

Same thing in France. We are still allocating tens of thousands of visas to non-skilled non-refugee immigrants: "Family" visas - aka get your brother in, and all your family can immigrate. We also have the free hospital policy and we've made mistakes with massively accepting people for medical tourism. I have nothing against existing French nationals and I have been the first one to protest aside them against police/administration racism. But we haven't succeeded the battle of the ideas and, as you mention, we have created terrorists out of native French citizen who were exposed to racism. Whether it's the school which isn't free enough, or there university which isn't free enough, or the taxes for the poor which aren't low enough, or specific language/culture classes which don't transmit or values, there is a failure in our integration process. And until we guarantee that we integrate newcomers with our values, I want to postpone non-mandatory immigration as long as there's not enough budget for their teachers.

One of our values is that you, as a French person of 2nd generation, teach your kids to not burn the flag of the country you're in. Another is that we've fought for a century so our women are free, so there will be no sign of submission in women (and the church needs to align too). Another one is, if you're in, don't swap your PhD for smuggling 10k€ of illegal goods after 3 years (which I've seen). Another one is that school is free, so your son better work hard before you complain about racism.

Oh and before you complain more about racism, if I invite you home for programming lessons, don't touch my 8-year old niece (which I've seen). The guy didn't even go to jail, he was merely told off in a police interview with his parents (he's 16). I didn't want to say there's an anti-white movement, but when that happened, in 2015 and together with the two Paris attacks, I started wondering. And it's time we reset equal rules for everyone.

So there is a political question to answer, in every country, about how many visas we issue in each category, how we proceed to integrate everyone, and still make it fair for countryside people. And as long as the liberal answer is "Welcome everyone, all criticizers are racists!", then the answer will be... racism.

No, being an intra-EU migrant under EU free movement does not automatically make you a UK national. You retain your original nationality unless and until you go through the naturalisation process, which few have bothered with because it costs >£1500 and until now does not convey much benefit.

This is why people are worried about the Conservative party leadership candidates refusing to rule out expelling EU nationals - millions of people, some of whom have been here for years, are potentially affected.

> Now have we asked the country side UK people whether they want to distribute more visas in 2017 to non-EU highly skilled foreign workers, followed by a passport 10 years later?

No we haven't, but that's nothing to do with the EU? Generally the pressure has been to reduce "immigration", so the non-EU visa rules have been made more onerous, especially spousal visas.

Good, because I wasn't talking about those, slight misunderstanding. "Immigrant who have been accepted" = visa holder who is now a citizen = for example a ultra-highly-skilled newly-UK-national born in India.

> but that's nothing to do with the EU?

Absolutely nothing, and that's the problem: The English haven't been asked whether they wanted to increase visas, but their intelligencia did it anyway. So next time they had an opportunity to vote, be sure they voted against whatever the intelligencia wants, whatever it cost. Brexit was a vote against both their governing class and against their upper economic class (London). Yes, the cost is huge, but what other choice were they given?

That's why I said putting all "immigration" into a single category is that it conflates so many different things. The Brexit vote can only affect EU free movement immigration.

> So next time they had an opportunity to vote

Next time? What time period do you think this covers? People have been complaining about immigration since the Empire Windrush in 1948. The 'rivers of blood' speech was in 1968. This conversation about immigration has been happening my entire lifetime.

There's a handy graph widget here: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc123/i... which any reasonable eyeballing suggests that immigration has been in the hundred-thousands for about two decades across three Labour governments and two Conservative ones.

I was exxxxtremely specific in my last post about one very detailed type of immigration, and you are conflating "all types of immigration" AGAIN. You did systematically misunderstand and conflate everything that was misunderstandable in my speech, I don't know whether that's on purpose or not. That English people have been accepting or refusing immigration in the past is no question. The question is whether they want to add 1 million people in London in the next 10 years (it was the London plan before Brexit), and the English people didn't get to vote on that.

But you, and all the Remain camp together with you, make a full, complete denial that it is possible to discuss immigration quantities, although the visa bureaus exist in every country. And it's to break stubborn people like you that the People of England was required to break your toys, England, and Europe at the same time. Thank you for your stubbornness, here is the bill, please don't do the same in France and accept to discuss immigration quantities.

No, he isn't.

> In the longer term the only way the EU can work is by giving everybody the right to relocate to wherever they want

and about non-EU immigration:

> I feel it is only responsible [...] to deal with the large influx [associated with] the destabilization of the region just outside it.