PDA

View Full Version : Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution'


Flap 5
5th Nov 2013, 05:54
BBC News - Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467)

'Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011'

I would have thought they would be 100% less likely if we had a proper system for accepting immigrants? For example Australia has a points system where a person has to be able to support themselves in a profession or job and not have to rely on the state to look after them.

Why would any person arriving in Britain be acceptable in claiming benefits?

Andu
5th Nov 2013, 05:56
For example Australia has a points system where a person has to be able to support themselves in a profession or job and not have to rely on the state to look after them.Unless they sidestep the normal immigration process and "self invite". Then they get handouts immediately and in many cases, it would seem, for life.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 07:34
And WTF does that mean!?It means that if you were to take a random sample of immigrants and a random sample of indigenes then ~3% fewer of the immigrants would be in social housing. Seems fairly obvious to me.
Why would any person arriving in Britain be acceptable in claiming benefits?Because people who are productive themselves often have people who are not productive with them: their families, for example, who might receive child benefit among other things. What the data appears to show (and I've not looked closely so I am running off what the headline means to me) is that on a per-head basis the immigrants produce more and use less of the UK tax "pot" than the indigenous population.

That's not to say that benefits tourists don't exist: I'm sure they do, in the same way as some of the indigenous population are living a benefits lifestyle. It most likely means that the proportion of them compared to the hard-working is smaller for the immigrants than for the indigenous.

Cacophonix
5th Nov 2013, 07:44
PTT

Not wishing to suck your big toe, but it is a pleasure to have a reasoned statistical analysis from a poster on these threads rather than some of the more irrational knee jerk ideologically based opinions that seem to masquerade as facts on so many subjects here...

Keep posting.

Caco

sitigeltfel
5th Nov 2013, 08:04
Unless they sidestep the normal immigration process and "self invite". Then they get handouts immediately and in many cases, it would seem, for life.

Even better than that..........

Piss boiling time (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10426604/Taxpayers-foot-10000-bill-for-failed-asylum-seekers-flying-lessons.html)

:ugh:

bosnich71
5th Nov 2013, 08:06
The Telegraph, this morning, is saying that immigrants into Britain are 20% more likely to claim working tax credit than British .... the native ones that is.

bosnich71
5th Nov 2013, 08:10
Sitigeltfel .... and he's illegal ! And some people on this site wonder why the natives are getting restless .... the British natives that is.

maliyahsdad2
5th Nov 2013, 08:17
Don't worry, they are only here to do the jobs that "lazy Brits" don't want to do.
It makes a lot more sense to import someone to do the job and let him bring his family so they can be educated, use the health service etc, whilst he is paying tax on his minimum wage earnings (which will never ever cover what the services he and his family uses) AND pay the "Lazy Brit" to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle, instead of just forcing the "Lazy Brit" to do the work in the first place by not paying him money to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle.

Thomas coupling
5th Nov 2013, 08:28
My view is this: Modern immigration (post Blairite period) has changed significantly. Prior to this, people arrived on these shores and became subsumed by the communities they settled into. They became yorkshire folk, dorset folk, londoners.
NOW - they arrive here, earn their fair salary BUT then ship most of it home and out of the country, whilst NOT being assimilated into the surrounding society. The GBP is being whittled away and spent elsewhere and NOT here.

Why: (a) cheap air fares to and form their homeland. (b) the internet allowing them to "stay tuned" with their ideals back home.

All of the above was exacerbated by Blair 'inviting' them over here (making it very easy / lucrative) to prop up his financial woes regarding demographics and pensions.

StressFree
5th Nov 2013, 08:28
Hmmm, difficult one this.

However let me share with you a small tale.

My local village shop was badly failing, the owner was a miserable old sod and not interested at all, on some days he couldn't be bothered to even open.

Then a couple of years ago a newly arrived family from India took it over, now its open all hours and is very well stocked plus they are the most polite and charming people you could ever meet. Its very touching to see how the whole family get involved in running the shop, they are hard working decent people so I'm very glad that they chose to come to the UK, they've made a very positive impact on the village and are contributors to the nation.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 08:44
NOW - they arrive here, earn their fair salary BUT then ship most of it home and out of the countryDo you have any evidence of this at all? The article quoted in the OP suggests that they make a net contribution, meaning that even if some is shipped out of the UK they are still paying more than they are taking compared to the indigenous population.

dead_pan
5th Nov 2013, 08:46
NOW - they arrive here, earn their fair salary BUT then ship most of it home and out of the country

What's wrong with that? Its their business what they do with their money. Anyway, foreign remittances are a vital source of funds for many developing nations (Ghana & the Philippines, for instance).

On this basis, I assume you're against British ex-pats sending a couple of quid to their grand-kids for Christmas, or Brits shipping their money out to offshore tax havens?

dead_pan
5th Nov 2013, 08:59
Then a couple of years ago a newly arrived family from India took it over, now its open all hours and is very well stocked plus they are the most polite and charming people you could ever meet. Its very touching to see how the whole family get involved in running the shop, they are hard working decent people so I'm very glad that they chose to come to the UK, they've made a very positive impact on the village and are contributors to the nation.

Nice story.

Just last weekend I was having an espresso in my local Costa when I overhead a fascinating conversation between what transpired to be a Russian and Pole. Both were middle-aged blokes with families, who were both running their own businesses. Turns out the Pole had moved to the UK to give their kids a decent education. Now I know what some of you are thinking "How dare they, coming here and denying one of our born & bred a place at their local school!" - he was in fact sending his kids to one of the local independent schools. Just ordinary, hard-working people, trying to do what right for their families.

dead_pan
5th Nov 2013, 09:03
Not wishing to suck your big toe, but it is a pleasure to have a reasoned statistical analysis from a poster on these threads rather than some of the more irrational knee jerk ideologically based opinions that seem to masquerade as facts on so many subjects here...

Wot's JB coming to, people coming here and raising the tone of the debate?

racedo
5th Nov 2013, 09:39
The Telegraph, this morning, is saying that immigrants into Britain are 20% more likely to claim working tax credit than British .... the native ones that is.

Because they take the low paying minimum wage jobs that are insufficient to survive under.

Reality is people seek to move up and out of WTC at a decent level.

Issue here is willingness of businesses to pay low wages and allow state support peoples wages.

racedo
5th Nov 2013, 09:48
NOW - they arrive here, earn their fair salary BUT then ship most of it home and out of the country, whilst NOT being assimilated into the surrounding society]

HOW DARE THEY..............

Perhaps you should take umbrage at the millions of natives who holiday abroad each year spending BILLIONS in buying foreign property and spending their money on holidays and things.

Yeah its the foreigners earning minimum wage, doing long hours, sacrificing luxuries to send some of their income home who are the source of all the problems :ugh::ugh::ugh:

dead_pan
5th Nov 2013, 10:27
I say 'useless' advisedly because those who work give an excuse to our indigenous useless sods to remain out of work and claim benefits.

Its not like they need an excuse. I'm sure many/most would prefer to be on benefits than do an honest days work, pretty much regardless of how well paid it is.

bosnich71
5th Nov 2013, 10:33
With regard to immigrants sending money home ....
in the Harold Wilson years of government anyone wishing to holiday abroad was only allowed to take a certain amount of British currency with them. From memory about 25 quid or so per annum, maybe wrong, but it wasn't a great amount. At a certain RAF training establishment, at the time, which used civilian labour to service the airyplanes there were a few Indian and Pakistani workers. Without fail every Friday lunchtime they would visit the Station Post Office and send some of their wages to the folks back home, probably a lot more than the allowed 25 pound per annum for the rest of us. Good on them? Yes, but it still used to p**s the locals off.

vulcanised
5th Nov 2013, 11:26
The figures have already been shown to have a selective bias, and are worthless.

Smeagol
5th Nov 2013, 12:25
As an 'ex-pat' worker for almost half my working life, I always considered myself to be a valuable earner for the country by bringing 'foreign' money INTO the UK to pay my mortgage' live when I was here on holiday and invest (and get taxed on!). At the same time neither myself or my family were using the public services here (but I did have to pay full council tax on my property here!).

Thus, I find it difficult to believe that most migrants are 'net contributors'. It would seem (from personal observation, news reports and similar info in the public domain) that most EU immigrants are here to make enough money to 'go home' and have a much improved standard of life over that would be possible by remaining permanently in the country of origin (just as I did!). They save as much as possible, spend as little as possible and generally take as much as the law allows in terms of services and allowances.

Blacksheep
5th Nov 2013, 12:38
The statistics being bandied about in this thread are not those which were discussed around the table on the news channel at 05:45 this morning. They are highly selective extracts of what were already selective data. At the early morning discussion it was said that EU immigrants made a net contribution, while commonwealth immigrants were a net drain, taking more out in benefits than they paid in tax.

As to the total contribution of immigration to GDP, naturally more people churning more money must increase GDP - that's why we have seen immigration encouraged by successive governments. GDP rises are supposed, like rising property prices, to be a "Good Thing".

In the same way that inflation increases the per-capita figures ... :rolleyes:

OFSO
5th Nov 2013, 13:03
Of course they are "net contributors."

Without them, half the people dealing with social security handouts would be out of work.

darkroomsource
5th Nov 2013, 13:27
Earlier it was asked why someone should be allowed to immigrate if they were not going to contribute.

Well, that's because we're a part of the EU.
Anyone, anywhere in the EU can come to the UK, whether or not they are going to contribute.

Without going too far off about the EU membership, let me just state that there are numerous rules which are detrimental to the UK which we are forced to live by, but very few (if any) that are advantageous to the UK, as far as I can see.

An example...
To register and be a Pharmacist in the UK, if you were born here, you must prove you speak English, and you must have one additional year of education and one year of internship after a 4-year university degree.
If you were born in another country, outside the EU, are married to someone born in the UK, have a Masters or even PhD in Pharmacy, are registered in the EU with experience, you must prove you can speak English, and do an additional 1 year of university and 1 year of internship.
But, if you were born in another EU country, and don't speak English, have zero experience as a Pharmacist, but have a 4-year university degree, you can register and be a Pharmacist.

Then there are the rules and regulations with respect to flying, but let's just not go there.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 14:20
What 'WTF does that mean!?' means is that 3% is a sod all reduction in the number of useless immigrants in housing paid for by the working taxpayers.I think that perhaps you are misunderstanding the statistic. It means that per working, taxpaying immigrant there are fewer "useless" ones than there are "useless" indigenes per working, taxpaying indigene. In short, were we to ship out all the indigenous population the proportion of "useless" people would go down. Not by much, but still...
The figures have already been shown to have a selective bias, and are worthless.Got a link? I'd be interested to see the figures themselves tbh.
"Selective bias" is a claim to be made carefully. Any sample which doesn't include the entire population has, by definition, biases. The key is (as ever) context: what does the bias do to the figures, and is there a way to account for it?

Cacophonix
5th Nov 2013, 14:35
I think that perhaps you are misunderstanding the statistic.


I was discussing statistics and their use and misuse with a colleague who is both an actuary and a psychologist yesterday. As she put it, some people just don't get numbers and will try and misuse them for their own ends whatever the diligent statistician does. Trying to correct this wayward numeric tendency is about as useful as trying to teach a baboon to play the piano! ;)

Caco

radeng
5th Nov 2013, 14:53
I find it interesting that many of the doctors that I have seen in the last 6 years are immigrants - although definitely not recent ones, and they all speak excellent English. Iranian, Indian, Libyan, Pakistani and a German, married to Englishwoman. Then there's also the New Zealander dentist - all contributing both to NHS and the tax system.

In fact, without immigrants, the NHS would grind to a halt.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 16:36
some people just don't get numbers and will try and misuse them for their own endsThe ones who simply don't get it I can forgive, to an extent: misunderstanding something is fair enough. The worst ones are those who do understand them but still misuse them. Those are the ones for whom the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics" was coined.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 19:00
The report itself, for those more interested in the facts than the politics, can be found here (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf).

They are very clear on their data sources. Their main source was the British Labour Force Survey (http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=2000026), a now-quarterly report on about 60,000 UK households. They are also very clear that this is UK-centric.

This is a rather telling statement:Thus, between 1995 and 2011, EEA immigrants contributed to the fiscal system 4% more than they received in transfers and benefits, whereas natives’ payments into the system were just 93% of what they received. Our estimates also show that immigrants from non-EEA countries have made a negative fiscal contribution overall, when considering all years between 1995 and 2011. This is partly explained by their demographic structure – non-EEA immigrants have had more children than natives, and we have allocated educational expenditure for children to immigrants (ignoring that immigrants arrived with their own educational expenditure paid for by the origin country).
However:
Between 2001 and 2011 recent EEA immigrants contributed to the fiscal system 34% more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about 22.1 billion GBP. In contrast, over the same period, natives’ fiscal payments amounted to 89% of the amount of transfers they received, or an overall negative fiscal contribution of 624.1 billion GBP. At the same time recent immigrants from non-EEA countries made a net fiscal contribution of 2.9 billion GBP, thus paying in the system about 2% more than they took out.So it seems that while longer-term immigrants from non EEA countries could be accused of milking the system, more recent non-EEA immigrants cannot, and have overall contributed more than they took out.

I found table 2A in the data particularly interesting, detailing the different educational standards. Immigrants are, on average, far better educated than the natives. One can't even blame that on them taking advantage of the school system: they're net contributors to the tax pot.

Table 2B gives figures on employment. While there is a larger proportion of EEA immigrants in work than both natives and non-EEA immigrants they tend to be at a lower wage, and while there is a smaller proportion of non-EEA immigrants in work than both natives and EEA immigrants they tend to be at a higher wage. The non-EEA immigrants do tend to have more children, but since they are net contributors to the tax pot it seems they can afford it without state assistance: something the natives cannot boast.

The final thing worth noting in this report is the following statement:when faced with an option about alternative ways of allocating fiscal costs to immigrants we have chosen throughout the paper to calculate a "worst case” scenario, from the immigrants’ standpoint, in the sense that the net fiscal impact of migrants is most likely to be more positive than our estimates suggest. In other words, this is a pessimistic report. Chances are that they contribute more.

Given the above, I'd like to know how the claims of selective bias from vulcanised are justified.

@ BlacksheepThey are highly selective extracts of what were already selective data. At the early morning discussion it was said that EU immigrants made a net contribution, while commonwealth immigrants were a net drain, taking more out in benefits than they paid in tax.Only true of older commonwealth immigrants. More recent ones are contributors.As to the total contribution of immigration to GDP, naturally more people churning more money must increase GDP - that's why we have seen immigration encouraged by successive governments.Not sure about the last bit, but the data presented was a revenues to expenditure ratio. The only grouping for which that is consistently below 1 is for natives, with recent immigrants from non-EEA countries dropping below 1 since 2007 (dipping in the same manner as everyone else, in fact).

Thomas coupling
5th Nov 2013, 19:00
Calm down calm down.

PTT: You need to understand exactly what is being stated in this report.
First the bit about net fiscal income from the immigrants:
The statistic actually shows that the amount of TAX they pay is greater than the amount of money they take from benefits. Result: net FISCAL income to the treasury. Tick.

What the stats don't say is that after tax is paid, their take home pay, does just that: it goes straight home: Sri Lanka, romania, poland, latvia, belarus etc.
So the money they have left after tax which in the dim and distant past (as we knew immigration then) no longer gets ploughed back into the British economy, it vanishes forever.
On top of that NET CHANGE in circumstances, another NET CHANGE is that immigration is up 10 fold even since the early 90's := 50,000/yr then Vs 500,000 per year now. So the net flow of monies out of the UK is further exacerbated.
And finally - another stat for you to chew over:
Immigration doesn't negatively affect the middle classes. Why? Because they actually benefit from immigration. Firstly they see rising immigration as an antedote to their pension requirements in the not too distant future (demographics). Secondly they see immigrants as cheap labour (cleaners, gardeners, household staff). Their 'quality of life' in this regard is atleast safeguarded if not improved.
What it does affect is the working class and the young because the immigrants are actually taking their job opportunites away from them, hence the high level of youth unemployment.

No government in its right mind will criticise immigration in any shape or form. Overall, from a pensionable demographics perspective it is going to save the government BILLIONS:rolleyes:

This is what I am trying to get across, the ethos has changed. Whilst I am in no way racist and this post can refer to any immigrant from any country, one will find that the biggest change is that where the new generation of immigrants chose NOT to keep their money here and eventually chose to go back home to live or retire withte families they left behind. This did not happen 20yrs ago anywhere near as much. Cheap air fares/internet links to back home promotes this.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 19:24
PTT: You need to understand exactly what is being stated in this report.I think I do, thanks for your concern.
What the stats don't say is that after tax is paid, their take home pay, does just that: it goes straight home: Sri Lanka, romania, poland, latvia, belarus etc.
So the money they have left after tax which in the dim and distant past (as we knew immigration then) no longer gets ploughed back into the British economy, it vanishes forever.So what? They've already paid their way and the money is theirs to do with as they will.What it does affect is the working class and the young because the immigrants are actually taking their job opportunites away from them, hence the high level of youth unemployment.Taking job opportunities away? A mobile workforce is a good thing, and if someone is more employable or more willing to be employed then it is a nonsense to suggest that another person should get the job because they didn't travel several thousand miles to try for the better opportunities available.one will find that the biggest change is that where the new generation of immigrants chose NOT to keep their money here and eventually chose to go back home to live or retire withte families they left behindOnce more: so what? They've paid for themselves and it's their money just as my money is my own and should I retire to somewhere sunny it is mine to take with me.

tony draper
5th Nov 2013, 19:41
When do we call a halt? probably the thick end of 70 million here now,what's the limit? 100 million 200 million? if the numbers are to be believed there are three times the population of my town coming in yearly now, where the hell do they all live? even the Israelis can build houses that fast.
:uhoh:

racedo
5th Nov 2013, 19:47
Thomas

What is the difference between Emigrants using their money and sending it home to their families and natives spending their money in the economy to buy Chinese made electronics, Japanese made cars, holidays in the United States ?

In 2012 visitors from UK to US spent approx £3.4 Billion......................World Bank estimates £3.2 billion in total emigrant remittances in 2012 from UK.

Total Outbound tourism by UK residents is estimated to have been £34 Billion in 2012.

Thomas coupling
5th Nov 2013, 20:49
Because these 'new gen' immigrants ship massive chunks of their cash home. It doesnt touch the sides (no money goes to buying british everyday goods other than essentials).
Whereas the natives spend most of their money here at home. They may buy a jap car but the men and women making them work and live in good old GB!! They get their salaries from these people buying these cars.
Those going on holiday to America spend some of that money on clothes for their hols here. For travel agency services here, for car parking at the airport here, for insurance here...need I go on?
Don't you lot get it yet?
These are a new breed of non indigenous migrants. They dont INVEST in GB Plc.
They take GBP and change this into foreign currency forever. Natives take their GBP and "most" gets absorbed back into the economy.

What many can't or won't get their head around is the scale of change. Immigration has caused an explosion in numbers living in the UK.

The Uk population has trebled in 60 yrs:eek::eek: This is disproportionate to the native birth rate too. Now I did say earlier that a lot of these actually go back home, "X" years after milking the UK. So imagine what the actual entry rate must be like in reality if we have trebled in 60yrs???

So the government can't afford to 'slug' the incoming tide (a) because it's illegal to stop EU citizens coming in and (b) if they were put off those coming in, after those who were here already - then left to go home, we'd have no workforce left which was big enough to pay oldies their pensions.
The floodgates have opened, now it has to be managed and damage limitation is the name of the game.

Fareastdriver
5th Nov 2013, 21:00
In fact, without immigrants, the NHS would grind to a halt

Which is why the health services in the countries they come from are grinding to a halt.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 21:04
Because these 'new gen' immigrants ship massive chunks of their cash home.Again, so what? They are still putting more in than they take out.(no money goes to buying british everyday goods other than essentials).
Whereas the natives spend most of their money here at home.What makes you think that immigrants working here for any length of time don't need exactly the same things as natives? They still need food, transport, shelter, fuel. The only real difference is that while we may buy houses they are more likely to rent (although even that is becoming less different given the current housing market), and that any savings (i.e. extra over and above those things) will go into a UK bank rather than one abroad.

Capetonian
5th Nov 2013, 21:04
In fact, without immigrants, the NHS would grind to a halt
This is correct in the context of the many immigrants working in it and contributing through their NI payments to it.
The other side of the coin is that the aliens (they are not 'immigrants') abusing it risk causing its demise.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 21:05
The other side of the coin is that the aliens (they are not 'immigrants') abusing it risk causing its demise.The point of the study is that the "aliens" as you call them are of less risk to it than the natives.

Tankertrashnav
5th Nov 2013, 21:24
When I retired I got a nice little job in a service station near my house. Really good site , excellent forecourt, rental income from a car hire firm who rented part of the site. Shop, PO, car wash - lots of potential. Then the lady who had built up the business became ill and sold out to a businessman who arrived full of talk about how he was going to build up the business and make a fortune. Trouble is he couldn't be arsed to do any work - was hardly ever on site - things that went wrong weren't fixed, stock not re-ordered etc, bills never paid. Result - he went bust in 15 months (and we all lost our jobs).

Meanwhile the next site 5 miles up the road (smaller forecourt, no carwash, no post office, no rental income) continues to thrive in the hands of its Pakistani owners - who work every hour they can and ensure that they are providing the service their customers want and continue to buck the trend of rural petrol station closures (and pay lots of VAT and income tax into the bargain).

At the risk of causing huge offence and inviting accusations of racism I can reveal that my ex-boss comes from Manchester (native born) - so based on my limited experience I'll take a Paki over a Manc any day!

racedo
5th Nov 2013, 21:40
Because these 'new gen' immigrants ship massive chunks of their cash home. It doesnt touch the sides (no money goes to buying british everyday goods other than essentials).
Whereas the natives spend most of their money here at home. They may buy a jap car but the men and women making them work and live in good old GB!! They get their salaries from these people buying these cars.


Really since when do all Japanese cars get made in UK ? I could select Skoda............but you seem to want to bitch about people wishing to spend their own money on what they wish. As for british everyday goods ?......................like what Electronics from China ? Clothes from Bangladesh ?.


Those going on holiday to America spend some of that money on clothes for their hols here. For travel agency services here, for car parking at the airport here, for insurance here...need I go on?
Don't you lot get it yet?


Have you really ever travelled to the US ? People go with fairly empty bags and come home with full ones. Office of National Stats states as a guesstimate that people spend £3.4 Billion in US which is more than World bank says is remitted abroad.


These are a new breed of non indigenous migrants. They dont INVEST in GB Plc.
They take GBP and change this into foreign currency forever. Natives take their GBP and "most" gets absorbed back into the economy.


What a load of BS..................conservative figures are that 600,000 brits have bought homes abroad so even a conservative estimate of people investing 75k on a holiday home then thats £45 Billion.
Funny that nobody abusing them for not investing in GB PLC.


What many can't or won't get their head around is the scale of change. Immigration has caused an explosion in numbers living in the UK.

The Uk population has trebled in 60 yrshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif This is disproportionate to the native birth rate too. Now I did say earlier that a lot of these actually go back home, "X" years after milking the UK. So imagine what the actual entry rate must be like in reality if we have trebled in 60yrs???


You struggle with data clearly as UK census in 1961 show a UK population of 46.1 Million................growth to current rates is 0.6% per year.


So the government can't afford to 'slug' the incoming tide (a) because it's illegal to stop EU citizens coming in and (b) if they were put off those coming in, after those who were here already - then left to go home, we'd have no workforce left which was big enough to pay oldies their pensions.
The floodgates have opened, now it has to be managed and damage limitation is the name of the game.

UK PLC stopped investing in Apprenticeships 30 years ago, any training years before and had relied on foreigners to run its NHS, Rail Service and many other public services for years.

EU not responsible in 1950's when UK needed Irish, Indian and West Indian nurses for the NHS.

Fact is that educated emigrants are coming in because UK Govt abandoned training its own people years ago.

I have written on here a number of times about people recruiting and again and again it is immigrants willing to make short and medium term sacrifices that gain where sadly indigenous want jam today with zilch effort.

dead_pan
5th Nov 2013, 21:52
This thread shows how much JB has changed over the past few months. Not so long ago this thread would have been trampled underfoot by the anti-immigrant mob spouting all kinds of nonsense and insults.

parabellum
5th Nov 2013, 22:58
the immigrants produce more and use less of the UK tax "pot" than the indigenous population.


I don't believe that statement carries any weight until just who constitutes an indigenous person today, in Great Britain, is defined. Simply being born in a country doesn't make one a native. For me a family who have been settled in GB for somewhere between four and six generations would be a qualifying limit.

I suspect the stats quoted include as indigenous anyone with a British Passport regardless of how long they have lived in GB and that can be very misleading.

Multicultural we are not, multi racial, yes, very much so.

Cacophonix
5th Nov 2013, 23:04
Parabellum, as a later day immigrant I can only ask you...

What Ever Happened To Saturday Night - YouTube

Zu meine kliene Australian Englander...?

Caco

bosnich71
6th Nov 2013, 02:21
Ref. the NHS being dependant on immigrants I live in Australia so can only speak of the NHS in UK from the perspective of some of my family members still in Britain. There are / have been 4 females from my immediate family,2 daughters and 2 grand daughters who have spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to start training to be a nurse, one has been trying for 14 months so far . All four have the necessary educational qualifications but all have been left frustrated for one reason or another in their efforts.
Perhaps, as one previous poster has said, the UK government has stopped training nurses, apprentices etc. This may well be applauded by some but taking the trained people from 3rd. world countries is to the detriment of those countries in the long term and could be construed as racism.
With regard to a previous post ref. Jamaican nurses in the 50's it used to p**s my nurse wife off a great deal every time there was a news item,documentary or TV drama about British hospitals when it appeared that the only nationalities working in the NHS were either Caribbean or Irish. Perhaps the 'authorities' were already brainwashing everyone even then ..... the 60's and 70's. Seems to have worked for some on this blog. :hmm:

bosnich71
6th Nov 2013, 04:26
P.S. the Telegraph is now reporting that the salaries of Hospital "managers" have doubled in the past 13 years.
That's something else that has been added to the NHS bill. Didn't Matrons used to run hospitals ?

bosnich71
6th Nov 2013, 04:41
P.P.S.
An article about the NHS in today's Telegraph is worth a read.
It has been reported that Professor Joseph Merion Thomas, the surgeon who exposed the scandal of 'health tourism' was subjected to a " fitness to practice" investigation by the General Medical Council for refusing to give FREE treatment to an illegible health tourist after a complaint from the tourist, a non EU national who had never lived in Britain.
Health tourism is said to cost the NHS up to 2 Billion pounds per annum ... quite a few nurses/ doctors could be trained per year for a fraction of that amount couldn't they? But it would seem that H.M. "government" and the medical hierarchy don't care as they would rather chase whistle blowers.
Could be that folks in U.K. are being conned big time and not just in the health industry.

PTT
6th Nov 2013, 05:26
I don't believe that statement carries any weight until just who constitutes an indigenous person today, in Great Britain, is defined. Simply being born in a country doesn't make one a native. For me a family who have been settled in GB for somewhere between four and six generations would be a qualifying limit.

I suspect the stats quoted include as indigenous anyone with a British Passport regardless of how long they have lived in GB and that can be very misleading.It was defined very clearly in the study. If the person was here since before 1995 they were considered indiginous; if after 1995 they were considered immigrants; and if after 2000 they were considered recent immigrants.

The 4-6 generations thing is silly. What does what my my grandparents' grandparents did have to do with my nationality?

wiggy
6th Nov 2013, 07:26
Earlier it was asked why someone should be allowed to immigrate if they were not going to contribute.

Well, that's because we're a part of the EU.

.....in part, but perhaps for historical reasons the UK's system is almost open to such "abuse". Try getting healthcare/benefits in many other EU countries without a contribution history and you'll get a (probably not very polite or subtle) very definite "no".

radeng
6th Nov 2013, 10:53
Fifty years ago, I knew a man who had been born in Guernsey and lived there all his life. He was known as 'de Carteret the Sarkee' because his family had come to Guernsey from Sark in 1588, and they had to be there for 500 years before they could be Guernseymen!

Apply that test and how many 'Englishmen' would there be?

parabellum
6th Nov 2013, 11:09
The 4-6 generations thing is silly.

No it isn't, but it certainly doesn't suit your agenda PTT.

Now if you want a really silly idea it is calling someone who has only been in the UK nineteen years indigenous, in fact it isn't just silly it is deliberately cooking the books and disingenuous.

1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

2. Native to the land, the original inhabitants

3. Existing, born, or produced in a land or region:

darkroomsource
6th Nov 2013, 11:12
darkroomsource
Quote:
Earlier it was asked why someone should be allowed to immigrate if they were not going to contribute.

Well, that's because we're a part of the EU.
.....in part, but perhaps for historical reasons the UK's system is almost open to such "abuse". Try getting healthcare/benefits in many other EU countries without a contribution history and you'll get a (probably not very polite or subtle) very definite "no".

My point exactly, if you read the rest of my post, we in the UK had certain things established for UK citizens. When we became part of the EU, we "agreed" (OK, politicians agreed), that we would NOT change anything and allow anyone from the EU to benefit exactly as though they were a UK citizen, unless the UK was MORE stringent, in which case we had to go by the EU rules for EU citizens and UK rules for UK citizens.

Hence, an EU citizen can come to the UK and get a job with one qualification, whereas a UK citizen must have a higher qualification for the same job, but at the same time, an EU citizen can come to the UK and claim UK benefits, and a UK citizen can't claim EU benefits.

I love our politicians, all of them.

PTT
6th Nov 2013, 11:32
No it isn't, but it certainly doesn't suit your agenda PTT.What's my agenda?

The study used the term "native" rather than indigenous. That's defined as a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.To me, that says that simply being born here (i.e. first generation) is enough to be considered native. Hence the reason 4-6 generations is silly.

Now, I have no idea why they used the term they used, but the fact remains that they very clearly defined what their own terms meant. They could have called them fish, cows and reindeer so long as they define what they mean by the terms used.

So, is your objection to the findings of the report itself or to the use of a term with which you disagree? If the former then please explain how; if the latter then that's some pretty petty nitpicking over an objection how to a study definines its own terms - a standard (and some would say essential) practice.

603DX
6th Nov 2013, 11:55
radeng said:
Fifty years ago, I knew a man who had been born in Guernsey and lived there all his life. He was known as 'de Carteret the Sarkee' because his family had come to Guernsey from Sark in 1588, and they had to be there for 500 years before they could be Guernseymen!



Could have been even worse (by Channel Islands standards) I believe. Hellier de Carteret was granted the fief as the first Seigneur of Sark by Queen Elizabeth 1st in 1565, after starting to re-populate the deserted island from 1563. He was that most suspect of men to true Guernseymen, a Jerseyman, and brought more Jersey folk with him!

So that would-be Guernseyman might have been saddled with the even more undesirable epithet of 'de Carteret the Jerseyman', not 'the Sarkee', in failing to meet that 500-year rule! ;)

racedo
6th Nov 2013, 12:14
My point exactly, if you read the rest of my post, we in the UK had certain things established for UK citizens.

When you say "We in the UK"..........................so you are not in Kenya then ? Do you spend every penny you have there ?

UK Govt sets Welfare policy for UK citizens not EU, if UK Govt wishes to change entitlements for UK Citizens then it is free to do so. However changes it makes are applicable for all EU citizens.

Nobody talking of the Million plus UK citizens happily living in Spain and across EU who take their pensions out of UK PLC and spend abroad. Oh Wait its immigrants to blame for sending money home.

UK Govts don't like it because they cannot control it unlike £400 million used as overseas aid bribes to say India.

Thomas coupling
6th Nov 2013, 12:41
Racedo / PTT: what is wrong with your hearing, you two? Is it selective perhaps?
Listen VERY carefully for the third time.
These fiscal reports one reads about only record government spending or income. They record how much tax the immigrants are paying and they record how much benefits they are shelling out. The NET result of this simple math is a +ve in favour of GB Plc. I hear that, I even accept that. THAT is NOT the point, though is it. HM has no way of monitoring what immigrants do with the REST of their money, do they?
It is this money which is leaving GB forever and on a scale hitherto unprecedented.

Secondly: Brits who go on holiday (your example: the USA) might spend a small fortune whilst over there, but they still spend 90% of the rest of their surplus cash back home. They still 'live' inisde GB Plc and pay bills, invest in ISA's, take out insurance, a mortgage etc. Immigrants that I am talking about don't go 'on holiday', they dont take out mortgages, invest in the city, and so on. They ship their spare cash home.

Those Brits who live in Spain et al: They still have financial committments back here, their roots are back here, their family. They are taxed i.a.w. Brit rules whilst living over there! They get pensions which are administered over here by workers living over here whose salaries are paid for by these admin fees over here. Are you still listening? Do you see where I am coming from.

New gen imigrants are fleecing GB Plc and no-one notices???
They have no wish to spend ANY surplus cash in this country, all their spare cash outside of basic living requirements - goes home.

Get real and smell the coffee.

OFSO
6th Nov 2013, 12:42
de Carteret

Mrs OFSO who is an ex-Bean, said the de Carterets were the oldest family in Jersey when she lived there. Immigrants, sure, though.

She adds that in Jersey you are considered an immigrant in St Mary's if your Jersey family tree dates from 1066 but you moved from the parish of St Ouens to the parish of St Mary's in 1634.....

OFSO
6th Nov 2013, 12:46
Those Brits who live in Spain et al: They still have financial committments back here, their roots are back here, their family.

In my case, none of the above. And I know a lot of British in the same boat, er, peninsular.

They are taxed i.a.w. Brit rules whilst living over there!

No. Tax residents in Spain get taxed in Spain.

OFSO
6th Nov 2013, 12:50
[ since when do all Japanese cars get made in UK ?[]

I have a friend in Australia who was horrified to find his brand-new Japanese car, selected because he thinks Japanese make reliable cars, was made in the UK. He was subsequently amazed to find it was very well built, too.

603DX
6th Nov 2013, 14:07
er, peninsular

Bit of a dodgy afterthought there, OFSO. Living as you do on a peninsula (noun), in a country which was a combatant in the Peninsular War (adjective), I thought you might make the grammatically correct choice!

Those of us who suffered the pains of being taught 'O' level Latin cringe whenever that abuse of the conjoined noun pen (almost) insula (island) occurs.

603DX (unrepentant pedant) ;);)

dead_pan
6th Nov 2013, 14:16
TC

It is this money which is leaving GB forever and on a scale hitherto unprecedented.

Sorry to channel PTT, but do you have a link which corroborates this? Did I read somewhere someone (you?) quoted a couple of billion a year? I would contend that, compared to international trade and investment, forex GBP currency plays plus whatever else the City gets up to, not to mention foreign remittances from major multinationals operating in the country (your Apples, BMWs, Toyotas, eBays, Starbucks etc etc), this is small beer, nee infinitesimal. Seriously, this would be totally lost in the noise.


but they still spend 90% of the rest of their surplus cash back home

Again, can you corroborate this claim?

Whilst some may not be investing in stocks and shares and the like, they will be buying food, renting property, paying for gas & elec, mobile phones etc etc, all of which goes back into the economy.

And anyway, as I and others have said before, its precisely none of our government's business what we do with our tax-cleared cash. I could rub it into my crotch and set fire to it (the money, that is), for all they and I care. Well, maybe not the latter, because that would be illegal, but you get my drift, I hope.

OFSO
6th Nov 2013, 15:22
Thanks 603.

Correct useage is everything.

As I found when I replaced my toilet flush valve yesterday: the new one was made from "virgin rubber".

skua
6th Nov 2013, 15:34
The original story was such a gift for the left-leafing agenda of the Beeb. However you never see the remittance issue properly aired. It must surely mean that recent immigrants are not a net/net benefit. Remittances are a big business - witness the rash of 'money shops' in less salubrious high streets. I also note the rash of eg Polish supermarkets in London. The owners I would imagine repatriate a lot of their profits to where they still call home. Such stores are a vivid sign that that ethnic minority (& it is a very large one) has very limited desires to integrate.

Witness too the chat on London buses of parents talking to their children in their mother tongue - again not a lot of integration effort.

racedo
6th Nov 2013, 16:48
It is this money which is leaving GB forever and on a scale hitherto unprecedented.

Secondly: Brits who go on holiday (your example: the USA) might spend a small fortune whilst over there, but they still spend 90% of the rest of their surplus cash back home. They still 'live' inisde GB Plc and pay bills, invest in ISA's, take out insurance, a mortgage etc. Immigrants that I am talking about don't go 'on holiday', they dont take out mortgages, invest in the city, and so on. They ship their spare cash home.

Those Brits who live in Spain et al: They still have financial committments back here, their roots are back here, their family. They are taxed i.a.w. Brit rules whilst living over there! They get pensions which are administered over here by workers living over here whose salaries are paid for by these admin fees over here. Are you still listening? Do you see where I am coming from.

New gen imigrants are fleecing GB Plc and no-one notices???
They have no wish to spend ANY surplus cash in this country, all their spare cash outside of basic living requirements - goes home.

Get real and smell the coffee.

WRONG

On minimum wage a person will earn £12.5k per year, now assumming they do overtime etc to bring it up to £15k.......................they will pay Tax and NI of 2k a year.

So they remit £3k home so you now claiming that £3k a year home is really more damaging that the a UK family going to US and spending £10,000 on main holiday and couple of European weekend breaks of another couple of £k.

You clearly shown by OFSO living in Spain that you have no idea of double taxation agreements.

dead_pan
6th Nov 2013, 16:51
Ah yes, integration. No-one does it better than us Brits. I mean, the number of Brits I saw speaking Arabic to each other the last time I was in Dubai was just unbelievable. And in Spain, those British-born bar tenders can barely understand a word you say now, given their total immersion in the Spanish language. And their love of bull-fighting knows no bounds.

On a more serious note, despite my professed complete lack of issue with our newly arrived citizens, I was ever-so-slightly unnerved by the recent footie match between England and Poland at Wem-ber-ly, where the indigenous Poles out-numbered and out-supported 'our' fans. Mind you, I suppose its no different to the Scots, Irish or Welsh at the ruggery (not so much the Italians). Bloody turncoats, the lot of 'em.

racedo
6th Nov 2013, 17:05
Remittances are a big business - witness the rash of 'money shops' in less salubrious high streets. I also note the rash of eg Polish supermarkets in London. The owners I would imagine repatriate a lot of their profits to where they still call home. Such stores are a vivid sign that that ethnic minority (& it is a very large one) has very limited desires to integrate.


Hmmmm

So shops setting up where pretty much nobody else wants to for convenience of people living there, paying rent and council tax is such a bad thing.

Mind you Qatar owning Harrods and repatriating profits is ok I presume.:ugh:

El Grifo
6th Nov 2013, 17:16
To get back on track, the statement actually said, Immigrants from the EU make a net contribution, wheras non-EU immigrants are actually net-takers, due to the fact that they are producing much bigger families !!

Can't think who they are referring to !

El; G.

PTT
6th Nov 2013, 17:28
the statement actually said, Immigrants from the EU make a net contribution, wheras non-EU immigrants are actually net-takers, due to the fact that they are producing much bigger familiesCare to put that statement in the context of the report itself? Recent (since 2000) non-EEA immigrants are net contributors. Natives are net takers.

El Grifo
6th Nov 2013, 17:43
I am repeating what I heard on BBC world news a few days back.

In relation to immigration :-

The specific statement said due to the much larger family sizes, non EU immigrants were net takers.

This did not surprise me surprisingly !

El G

PTT
6th Nov 2013, 18:47
Then the BBC was, unsurprisingly, talking without context. While this is true for the immigration population as a whole since 1995, since 2001 they have been net contributors despite the larger family size. Natives have been net takers despite the smaller family sizes.

BenThere
6th Nov 2013, 18:47
Why isn't the obvious solution never tried?

If you choose to come to my country you must accept that no benefits or welfare will be available for a substantial period of time, like five years?

PTT
6th Nov 2013, 18:56
Why isn't the obvious solution never tried?Because, as the report shows, it's far from obvious what the problem is.

Tankertrashnav
6th Nov 2013, 20:09
Witness too the chat on London buses of parents talking to their children in their mother tongue - again not a lot of integration effort.


dead-pan has it bang on. Having spent a lot of my service time overseas I dont ever recall chatting to my friends in Arabic in Aden, Malay or Hokkien in Singapore or Cantonese in Hong Kong. Nor do I recall any of the more permanent Brit expats in those countries conversing in anything other than English in a social situation with their own friends or families, so we are no different in that respect to the Poles etc you overhear on the bus.

bosnich71
6th Nov 2013, 21:42
Meanwhile a report today states that the population of Britain will increase by 10 million over the next 25 years with 65% of that amount due to immigration.
Carry on arguing about points of grammar chaps.

BenThere
6th Nov 2013, 21:56
Think the time will ever come when the speaking of English will be banned in Britain?

racedo
6th Nov 2013, 22:30
Meanwhile a report today states that the population of Britain will increase by 10 million over the next 25 years with 65% of that amount due to immigration.

So what will population of Australia increase by ?

parabellum
6th Nov 2013, 22:55
Ah yes, integration. No-one does it better than us Brits. I mean, the number of Brits I saw speaking Arabic to each other the last time I was in Dubai was just unbelievable

Major difference being that Brit expats working overseas are not immigrants and as long as they can do their job any integration is purely voluntary.

PTT - The original report is worthless given that it assumes people resident in Britain for as little as nineteen years are to be considered as native/indigenous and that, in itself, is a ridiculous assumption, but, by making that assumption, many of the 'GB takers' will, in fact, be immigrants with less than a generation resident in GB.

Using statistics based on the amount of National Insurance contributions made might be more realistic.

bosnich71
7th Nov 2013, 02:42
Racedo ... "what will the population of Australia increase by"?

Australia .... a large place but unfortunately a lot of it contains sod all hence it's nick name, to some, of the G.A.B.A. or 'the Great Australian Bugger All'.
I don't think that there will be an increase of 25 million seeing as how water is a problem and the Greens don't allow dams to be built nowadays but you never can tell. Bring more and more people in and natural selection will take place i.e. most will die due to thirst,amongst other things ..... not that will bother the suits that run the world of course.

PTT
7th Nov 2013, 05:57
PTT - The original report is worthless given that it assumes people resident in Britain for as little as nineteen years are to be considered as native/indigenous and that, in itself, is a ridiculous assumption, but, by making that assumption, many of the 'GB takers' will, in fact, be immigrants with less than a generation resident in GB. The baggage that comes with the word "native" is yours, not theirs. They make no such assumptions, you do. As I said, you could call them groups A, B and C and the data would still be relevant. You are, as I said before, nitpicking over the use of a word which you have loaded with other terms rather than looking at the data. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and I suspect it's because you don't like the way the baby looks (i.e. the data doesn't fit with your prejudices).Using statistics based on the amount of National Insurance contributions made might be more realistic.Did you even read the report?

Tankertrashnav
7th Nov 2013, 08:07
Think the time will ever come when the speaking of English will be banned in Britain?


No.

Next (stupid) question please.

Thomas coupling
7th Nov 2013, 08:45
I know a nice Thai lady who provides all sorts of domestic support :E. She tells me in broken English that she ships every spare penny she can find back home.
Now the interesting thing is that she shares her 'rented pad' with half a dozen other Thai domestics :E and guess what - they send their money home too!
They speak in Thai, they communicate back home on skype in Thai and they fly home on Thai airlines only - In fact they have no wish to integrate but merely make as much money as possible before returning home several years from now. Interesting dynamics in this emerging diaspora.
Racedo - you make me laugh:D

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 08:52
Major difference being that Brit expats working overseas are not immigrants and as long as they can do their job any integration is purely voluntary.

What about the million+ ex-pats living in Spain or France etc? Or those living full-time in the Gulf or Hong Kong?

Its odd but we wouldn't expect any French or German ex-pats living in the UK to speak English when conversing with family members, would we? But then I suppose they're the right kind of immigrants.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 08:55
In fact they have no wish to integrate but merely make as much money as possible before returning home several years from now.

S'funny, all those Brits in Saudi do just the same. Welcome to the real world.

maliyahsdad2
7th Nov 2013, 09:13
I haven't been to Saudi so I don't know the answer,but are there many towns over 500000 population of which 20% are European?

MagnusP
7th Nov 2013, 10:07
Ex-pats in Spain generally have pensions &c paid by the UK government, rather than scrounging from the Spanish Government, no?

OFSO
7th Nov 2013, 10:23
Ex-pats in Spain generally have pensions &c paid by the UK government

A very generalised remark ! Some do, some don't. Many UK nationals living overseas never contributed to the UK pension scheme, so never receive a state pension. You'd be surprised how many UK nationals now in Spain spent all their lives working "overseas" and not in the UK.

Must add that I'm only speaking for my region: I understand that in the Deep South there are housing estates accomodating thousands of Daily-Mail-reading, fish-and-chips-eating, non-Spanish-speaking English national pensioners.


rather than scrounging from the Spanish Government, no?

Little to be gained from attempting to scrounge if you come from the UK. The millions of Moroccans here do seem to do quite well though.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 11:34
Ex-pats in Spain generally have pensions &c paid by the UK government, rather than scrounging from the Spanish Government, no?

I was talking about integration.

Capetonian
7th Nov 2013, 11:44
Integration into a country where you are of a different cultural and linguistic background is a pretentious dream that many people harbour in an attempt to convince themselves that they will be 'accepted' by the locals. They won't.

vulcanised
7th Nov 2013, 11:51
Next (stupid) question please.


How about the banning of displaying the national flag then? Already tried on a limited scale.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 11:52
Cape- Pretty much the point I was trying to make.

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 11:56
there many towns over 500000 population of which 20% are European

A link would be helpful here. I'm intrigued who makes up the other 80%.

racedo
7th Nov 2013, 12:05
I know a nice Thai lady who provides all sorts of domestic support http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif. She tells me in broken English that she ships every spare penny she can find back home.
Now the interesting thing is that she shares her 'rented pad' with half a dozen other Thai domestics http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif and guess what - they send their money home too!
They speak in Thai, they communicate back home on skype in Thai and they fly home on Thai airlines only - In fact they have no wish to integrate but merely make as much money as possible before returning home several years from now. Interesting dynamics in this emerging diaspora.
Racedo - you make me laugh:D

Her money, hers to do what she likes with it.

If she is doing anything illegal then no doubt you will inform on her.

As for emerging ?
Lets see Irish and West Indians and Africans and Asians doing this for 75 plus years.

Uk companies going overseas and making money overseas and shipping profits home...............how is this different ?

BenThere
7th Nov 2013, 15:05
Working immigrants and their net capital inflows and outflows are not the problem.

The flotsam showing up demanding welfare benefits and anchoring the importation of their dependents, who will also claim benefits, are.

PTT
7th Nov 2013, 15:37
Working immigrants and their net capital inflows and outflows are not the problem.

The flotsam showing up demanding welfare benefits and anchoring the importation of their dependents, who will also claim benefits, are.And the working ones more than make up for the "flotsam", which is more than can be said for the natives.

papajuliet
7th Nov 2013, 16:27
If the subject wasn't so important to the wellbeing,now and in the future, of the UK, the views of PTT, Racedo and their ilk, would be laughable for their childish innocence.

PTT
7th Nov 2013, 16:36
What views? These are the results of a study, not a political opinion. You can check the data yourself.

racedo
7th Nov 2013, 19:23
UK
Unemployed 2.5 Million
Disability Allowances 2.8 Million
Single parents 0.6 Million

Yet somehow its immigrants that are to blame while its UK Govts of all hues that pay millions to do nothing.

Capetonian
7th Nov 2013, 19:37
wq_lhlIn1e0

Tankertrashnav
7th Nov 2013, 21:02
How about the banning of displaying the national flag then? Already tried on a limited scale.


Hmm - the "ban" doesn't appear to be working too well

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/40/590x/366949_1.jpg

bosnich71
8th Nov 2013, 02:25
Tanker .... try raising a flag, in one's own front garden, bearing the cross of St. George in rural Dorset as my cousin did. He was told to take it down by a local councillor who was of the opinion that it might upset the feelings of a certain religious minority.
My cousin being a 2nd. W.W. veteran was somewhat peeved about such an order and,needless to say, the councillor was asked vacate the area as soon as possible.

bosnich71
8th Nov 2013, 03:21
The U.K. Border Agency has a back log of over 430,000 cases of illegals being in U.K.
No wonder they don't investigate 94 % of cases reported to them and only 1 in 67 cases investigated results in a deportation.
No worries though, back to sleep,chaps. :zzz:

BDiONU
8th Nov 2013, 04:25
S'funny, all those Brits in Saudi do just the same. Welcome to the real world.All the Brits in the ME, like me. One interesting thing I find here in Dubai is that many families you see and hear in the streets, obviously not of European origin, speak English to each other and their children. English in the Linga Franca.

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Nov 2013, 05:06
S'funny, all those Brits in Saudi do just the same. Welcome to the real world.


The real world for those Brits in Saudi being that when their contract is up, they ship out immediately. The same can't be said for those in their enclaves in the UK.

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 06:07
Regardless of people living in "enclaves", sending money abroad, speaking whatever language they speak, or wearing whatever they wear, the fact remains that without immigrants the economy would be worse off than it is now. That's the point of the report and the article in the OP.

Everything else which has been brought up might or might not be a relevant point in the bigger picture of whether immigration is good for the country (and many of the answers to that will be subjective as there is no objective measure), but when asked whether immigration is good for the economy the answer, in light of the report, has to be a resounding "yes".

probes
8th Nov 2013, 06:39
yep, the "good for the economy" thing - one can't help wondering. Isn't economy supposed to be good for people? How can it be, then, that the 'good for economy' often demands sacrifice, sometimes more than many can take? What is behind the 'economy' actually?

That's not about the UK specifically, don't know about the situation well enough.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 08:25
The real world for those Brits in Saudi being that when their contract is up, they ship out immediately.

My post was in response to another which noted that certain Thai cleaners (masseurs?) were only here to make money, and would return home when they had made enough. I was simply drawing the comparison with what us Brits routinely do in the likes Saudi.

There was some good debate on this very topic on the BBC's Question Time last night, for those who missed it and can access iPlayer. The prog was broadcast from Boston, which most will know has a very large immigrant population. Hearteningly, Nigel Farage, who was on the panel, didn't hold sway. I may be a tad biased but I'd say the audience pretty much had his measure. The Tory rep did pretty well too after making a bit of an ar5e of herself at the beginning, and Vicky Price (yes her) made some good comments, particularly about the situation in Greece and the rise of far right parties.

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 08:35
UK
Unemployed 2.5 Million
Disability Allowances 2.8 Million
Single parents 0.6 Million

Yet somehow its immigrants that are to blame while its UK Govts of all hues that pay millions to do nothing.

Excellent point.

I'd contend that demographics and globalisation is at the root of our and every other western countries' situation. I deliberately refrained from defining it as a problem - it may be for some of us, be certainly not all - its just the way the world is - free movement of people and goods, ease of communication, winners and losers, it all adds up to where we are now.

Tankertrashnav
8th Nov 2013, 09:16
Tanker .... try raising a flag, in one's own front garden, bearing the cross of St. George in rural Dorset as my cousin did. He was told to take it down by a local councillor who was of the opinion that it might upset the feelings of a certain religious minority.



Yes, but that was a councillor expressing a personal opinion, with absolutely no authority behind it, and your cousin was completely correct in telling him where to get off. Sure, there are planning regulations about erecting flagpoles above a certain size, but none about what flag you can fly from them (with the possible exception of the swastika). A near neighbour of mine has a flagpole on which he flies the Union Jack (yes, Union Jack) as a matter of course, but St George's flag goes up on 23rd April and St Piran's (the Cornish patron saint) on 5th March. Never had a word of complaint from anyone, certainly not from the Pakistanis who run the service station just down the road.

Incidentally back in the 19th century the Russians introduced a variation of their prestigious Order of St George for award to Muslims. The medal depicted a black eagle instead of the image of St George on horseback. Many Muslim recipients protested that they would rather have a brave Christian warrior on their medal than a black bird! Another case of offence being taken on behalf of Muslims, when none had been taken by them.

bosnich71
8th Nov 2013, 10:45
Tanker ...
it may well have been only a councillor expressing an opinion but she is only one of many in positions of authority in U.K. who attempt to push their view of the world. It isn't as if the 'certain religious minority' is known to be as accommodating to the ideals of others outside of their particular medieval bubble. In my cousin's case he flew the flag on St.Georges day as he had done for many years .... in his back garden by the way and his house is in a very rural area of Dorset where they don't get many of the non Christian faith. After the altercation he proceeded to erect a further flag pole in his front garden and flew two St. Georges flags every day of the year. There should be more like him
If a council planning approval is needed to put a flag pole in your back garden why do the same councils and the police find it impossible to move, for example, 'travellers' on when they are obviously illegally camped on someone else's property ....or, as in many cases, property in the care of a local council FFS ! Could it be that minorities are outside the law. Probably they are as long as the silly majority do as they are told everything will be fine won't it?
That people in Britain have to put up with this appeasement by the authorities, of certain minorities, will only lead, eventually, to a breakdown in law and order in Britain and no doubt the fault will be sheeted home to the sponging, lazy, football yobs/thugs, dole bludgers call them what you will, as long as they are English, but those that rule the country will most certainly never take the blame for the consequences of their actions.

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 12:16
she is only one of many in positions of authority in U.K. who attempt to push their view of the worldI agree, but isn't that a different issue to the actual effect of the minorities themselves? I'm certainly not saying that all minorities are blameless, but they can't be blamed for jobsworths like that one.

MagnusP
8th Nov 2013, 13:14
Not so sure, PTT. If it wasn't for the aforesaid minorities screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" at every turn, then the huggyfluff councillors would have no reason to poke their noses in.

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 13:32
If it wasn't for the aforesaid minorities screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" at every turnThere's a gross generalisation. While I'm sure that there are cases where they have done so, to generalise in that manner seems silly. I suggest that lawyers creating work (in the same manner as ambulance chasers) are at least as much, if not more, to blame. The fear of legal action, rather than the reality of it, is the issue.

alicopter
8th Nov 2013, 13:32
Hum, I think your immigrants bashing is just out of order and reading some of the posts on here brings vomit in my mouth when I read them... When I fancy a bit of scramble bike thrashing, I take my old XT down the Suffolk and Norfolk country lanes and I so often meet 9 seaters Transit vans full of workers of distinctly non english ethny that, if I had a £ for every one of them, I would not have to pay for my petrol all year round... Do you think you'd pay what you pay for the potatoes, leeks and carrots in the plate in front of you right now if the people working of the farms around here were not working for much less than minimum wages, thing that could not happen with British workers as they are not as desparate for work as their "migrant" competitors. (or not as willing...) so stop blaming these people who are only modern slavery victims, get a life and start blaming employers exploiting them. And I know what I am talking about, my relatives are farming in this part of the world...

dead_pan
8th Nov 2013, 13:36
Ali - I think you'll find this thread has on whole been pretty pro-immigrant (a first for JB, I'd contend, thanks to some particularly "anti" contributors moving on to pastures new).

BTW your point on exploitation was raised on Question Time last night, to which I referred in an earlier post today. Have a gander if you haven't already.

MagnusP
8th Nov 2013, 13:47
to generalise in that manner seems silly.

Any sillier than, say, trying to force someone to remove a lawfully-flown flag?

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 13:50
MagnusP - about the same, I'd say. Are you lowering yourself to the level of that councillor?

alicopter
8th Nov 2013, 13:51
@deadpan, well, agreed, there seems to be more than usual posts in favor of those people leaving a place they most probably and understandably like much more than this crep country that is UK nowadays but, as a rule there is a lot of unfounded statements, born of fear of the unknown and simple stupidity in these pages... No wonder the UKIP to yourself are doing better and better, people are getting less and less educated and are scared to lose what they have been taking from others for centuries... sorry for the vehemence but it really kisses me off...

MagnusP
8th Nov 2013, 13:56
Nope; just suggesting that generalisation (or profiling as it's otherwise known) is NOT sillier.

Just been chatting to a judge who is having an illegal immigrant put on a 'plane home tomorrow. This was the person's THIRD attempt at judicial review of an immigration appeal tribunal decision not to allow him to stay. Guess why? 'Cos his "Human Rights" had allegedly been breached and he was a victim of discrimination. I see it week after week.

Iz it coz I iz black? :ugh:

PTT
8th Nov 2013, 14:02
I didn't say it was sillier, so I'm not sure what your point is really.

As for "profiling", it's just generalisation by another name unless used properly, by which I mean using valid statistical techniques to examine relevant and measurable correlating criteria and give the most likely* answer to a relevant question. "Iz it coz I iz black?" is generalisation; saying that "x% of people of ethnicity y make plea z in the court, therefore there is an n% chance that this is what this person is doing" is a step towards actual profiling (and is still a considerable way from doing it properly).

* which is not, by any means, the always correct answer.

probes
8th Nov 2013, 14:15
Do you think you'd pay what you pay for the potatoes, leeks and carrots in the plate in front of you right now if the people working of the farms around here were not working for much less than minimum wages, thing that could not happen with British workers as they are not as desparate for work as their "migrant" competitors. (or not as willing...) so stop blaming these people who are only modern slavery victims...
that's it.
Why don't we call slavery a slavery, then? Because it would be(=is) reasonable money for them at home? Because it doesn't seem/sound nice to admit immigrants are needed as the locals find these jobs too degrading?

Tankertrashnav
8th Nov 2013, 14:40
I've got to know a few Eastern European immigrants from the Baltic States who work on the farms around here. It's helped me keep my Russian from going too rusty and they've been interesting to talk to. One I know quite well works for a local agricultural contractor who employs about ten people. None of them, apart from the boss and his son are English (actually neither are they, they are Cornish, but that's another story!) While he doesn't reckon he's well-paid for the hard work he does, all of them earn at least minimum wage and all are registered for N.I and Income tax. Yes there are illegal gangs run by gangmasters who exploit their own, and the Irish "traveller" community seems to specialise in this form of slavery, but in general these people are working under the same terms and conditions as indigenous Brits.

The reason the boss only employs Eastern Europeans is not because they are cheaper, but because unlike the locals they can be relied upon to get out of their beds in the morning and put in a hard day's graft. Unpalatable, but true.

racedo
8th Nov 2013, 17:32
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/525918-you-want-someone-employ-you.html#post8107697

TTN

Posted this a couple of weeks ago and its a similar vein of people who lack the basic qualifications to even apply for a job....................getting their name right on the application.

Good part is person got a job......................relative taking bets on how long he will last and not going over 10 days.

3-4 years ago BBC/ITV had a program about Peterborough and impact Eastern Europeans had in the city. Delivery driver asked for his view complained about drunks and troublemakers, reporter asked was it about immigrants and guy said "No, they work hard and everybody knows that, its the F***** natives that cause the trouble"

Sadly the blaming immgrants taking jobs is standard fare when you won't get out of bed in the morning.

parabellum
8th Nov 2013, 21:29
Yes, I did read the report.

I will not accept one single report as The Gospel, particularly when I believe their statistics are inaccurately based and have been selectively arrived at. Anyone who has been in the country for only nineteen years cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as a native of GB, you, on the other hand, appear to accept this. Nothing more to say, you are tilting at windmills, we beg to differ.

alicopter - These farm workers who get paid a lot less than the minimum wage, it would appear then that they are not registered in the UK with a National Insurance number? Is it not possible that if they are not registered then their gross pay, which they keep 100%, may well be as much as the minimum wage after NI and tax. I'm not endorsing their exploitation one bit, but they may not be quite so badly done by after all?

bosnich71
9th Nov 2013, 04:43
Alicopter ... " people are getting less and less educated and are scared to lose what they have been taking from others for centuries".
I presume you are talking about the 'British Empire' and the old chestnut that all the British lived in the lap of luxury for centuries because of it and because of the Empire everyone in the world, regardless of whether they were colonised by the British or not, has the right to roll up and expect entry. As someone recently asked,' how many are we expected to deal with or is it open ended due to the "Empire"?
I don't know about your ancestors but I can assure you that in the case of mine, and I suspect the vast majority of other working people, the only "luxury" they got was a life of grinding poverty, the threat of ending up in the workhouse or, if you were really lucky, a position as a bit of cannon fodder one daybreak arranged by the rulers. Of course you had to survive childhood first and that was no guarantee either.
The 'right' to an education and something approaching a decent life for the average Briton is something which was only realised fairly recently.... some would say as recently as post WW2.It hasn't last longed long has it? It would seem that our betters have now decided we are basically a mob of mongrels who don't deserve what they so graciously allowed us, the majority, to have, a small share of what they have had for centuries. Perhaps that is why successive governments in Britain have allowed education to be dumbed down, can't have the peasants getting too smart can we? Don't tell me that the government, if it was so inclined, couldn't do something about the shambles that is public education today .... and I include the Australian government in that as well.
It is a cheap shot to be complaining about vomit etc.while bad mouthing those more unfortunate than oneself, even if they are British, a case of inverted racism perhaps.

sitigeltfel
13th Nov 2013, 10:00
Two stories in the DM today which caught my attention...

Roma immigration may trigger riots (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504472/Fears-civil-unrest-Sheffield-locals-action-Roma-migrants.html)

In addition, the local Pakistani community association is running ‘official’ warden patrols between 8pm and 10pm every weekday with the intention of ‘educating’ the Roma population about ‘how to behave in England’.

Straw admits Labour messed up on immigration (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504398/A-spectacular-mistake-immigration-Straw-finally-admits-Labour-messed-letting-million-East-Europeans.html)

The former Home Secretary said Labour’s 2004 decision to hand immediate working rights to Poles and migrants from other new EU states was a ‘well-intentioned policy we messed up’. And he accepted the ‘social dislocation’ which can be caused when ‘large numbers of people from abroad settle in a particular area’.

The Left will be wringing their hands in anguish that these comments are coming from their own side, and the furore that would have exploded had it come from the Right is strangely muted.

bosnich71
13th Nov 2013, 11:08
Sitigeltfel ....
Daily Mail headline "fears of growing civil unrest as angry locals take action against new arrivals".
This was in reference to the Roma population in Sheffield. At first I thought oh,no, not another accusation of racism by the British media against the "English". But no it was the local Pakistanis who are getting wound up so no racism there.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry actually.

vulcanised
13th Nov 2013, 11:35
Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution'


It was a typo! They meant to say Recent immigrants to UK 'make not contribution'

Flap 5
13th Nov 2013, 14:44
But no it was the local Pakistanis who are getting wound up so no racism there.


I presume that is sarcasm? Or can Pakistanis not be racist?

wings folded
13th Nov 2013, 17:00
The Left will be wringing their hands in anguish that these comments are coming from their own side

The "left" is a pretty diverse group, and has never been reticent to be critical of even those of a similar but not identical stance. There will be no anguish, just further satisfaction over the openness of debate.

The right is not always so broad minded.

MG23
13th Nov 2013, 17:12
The reason the boss only employs Eastern Europeans is not because they are cheaper, but because unlike the locals they can be relied upon to get out of their beds in the morning and put in a hard day's graft.

In other words, because they're cheaper than hiring equivalent Britons.

radeng
13th Nov 2013, 20:43
MG23,

It maybe that the native born Britons who ARE equivalent in terms of getting out of bed and working hard for their money can get better paid jobs elsewhere.

Some 30 or so years ago, I was visiting a certain Plessey establishment. The manager I was talking to was bemoaning the lack of radio engineers. He got upset when I told him "There's no shortage of radio engineers in the UK. What there IS, is a shortage of radio engineers who want to work for the miserable salaries you are offering".

Shortly afterwards, they started upping their pay scales by 20%...

Pay peanuts, get........

racedo
13th Nov 2013, 20:47
In other words, because they're cheaper than hiring equivalent Britons.

Getting someone to turn if is the main issue.............. too much evidence of Brits not turning up means employers really have no option.

bosnich71
13th Nov 2013, 21:11
Flap 5 ... "I presume that is sarcasm? Or can Pakistanis not be racist"?
.... given the recent history of P.C. etc. in Britain it was sarcasm ! :sad:

bosnich71
13th Nov 2013, 21:16
Radeng .... "Pay peanuts etc."

I once had a conversation with a manager, ex RAAF Engineering Officer, about recruiting personnel for a project in which he stated that the job didn't require 'rocket scientists'. I agreed but also queried whether the job could be done by an ex street sweeper which seemed to be what he was hinting at.

radeng
13th Nov 2013, 21:24
bosnich

What was his response?

A small bet.....it made no sense!

Capetonian
13th Nov 2013, 21:32
Immigration: Britain?s doors are wide open, and we can?t even talk about it - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10446890/Immigration-Britains-doors-are-wide-open-and-we-cant-even-talk-about-it.html)

More of the same.

MG23
13th Nov 2013, 22:35
Getting someone to turn if is the main issue.............. too much evidence of Brits not turning up means employers really have no option.

They could pay more, so people would want to turn up.

Instead, they offer a below market price and whine about 'lazy Britons'.

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 05:49
Yes, I did read the report.

I will not accept one single report as The Gospel, particularly when I believe their statistics are inaccurately based and have been selectively arrived at.On what basis do you make this claim of inaccuracy and selective bias? Do you even know what "inaccuracy" means in polling terms? Anyone who has been in the country for only nineteen years cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as a native of GB, you, on the other hand, appear to accept this. Nothing more to say, you are tilting at windmills, we beg to differ.Again you are hung up on the terminology - you're missing the woods for the trees.

perthsaint
14th Nov 2013, 05:50
Why pay more for an inferior product?

bosnich71
14th Nov 2013, 06:14
Radeng ..... can't remember the reply.
I also had to put him right when he asked how long I was going to take to finish a job. When told that it would probably be another few days he said that he would get some more blokes into help me. It was only when I pointed out that I was actually jammed into a very small space... in a cockpit... and that there was only just room for me never mind a couple of others that he got the message and wandered off and left me alone.
Having said that he was a good manager, just needed leading now and again.

PTT
14th Nov 2013, 06:47
Instead, they offer a below market price and whine about 'lazy Britons'.It's clearly not "below market" as they are getting workers.

Andy_S
14th Nov 2013, 07:52
They could pay more, so people would want to turn up.

Instead, they offer a below market price and whine about 'lazy Britons'.

I think you are missing the point here.

The problem isn’t that we’re not paying enough for people to turn up. It’s that we’re paying them too much to make turning up worth their while.

Whatever else I may think about the massive and uncontrolled immigration that has scarred our country, I have to acknowledge the work ethic that many immigrants have. Poles, Irish, Spanish and more have flocked here and have found plentiful employment, are willing to work hard, and are realistic in their salary expectations.

You’ve got to understand the deeply ingrained culture problem we have in this country with the idea of working for a living. For many Brits, employment has become a lifestyle option rather than a necessity, something they’ll only consider if the job, the salary, the hours and the working environment are agreeable. Stories abound of people who have been offered employment but who have turned it down because they feel the job is beneath their dignity or they have to be at their place of work at a particular time.

If Eastern Europeans are willing to travel halfway across to continent for work that the Brits can’t even be bothered to get out of bed for, surely you’ve got to say that the problem is with the people rather than the wages.

racedo
14th Nov 2013, 08:19
They could pay more, so people would want to turn up.

Instead, they offer a below market price and whine about 'lazy Britons'.

Nope they offer Minimum wage which is set floor market price.

Lazy Brits is a reality as anybody who has needed to employ manual low skilled labour will tell you.
Frank Field: Migrants take nine out of 10 jobs - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8585750/Frank-Field-Migrants-take-nine-out-of-10-jobs.html)

baggersup
17th Nov 2013, 21:29
Well the poo is about to hit the proverbial, sadly. Sheffield of all places!

Am watching with interest to see how it's going to go, especially with the restrictions for Bulgaria and Romania lifting in January.

A recent story told the sad tale though; Pakistani dad in Sheffield, third generation there I think (ancestors came to work in the mills) said he earned about L230 a week working in a factory now.

But the story said a Romanian arriving in January could fully expect to get around L500 a week in total benefits package and live in Sheffield alongside the hard working Pakistani dad. And evidently the Pakistani neighborhoods being affected by this influx aren't happy.

It's going to get rougher in London come January, too. The Roma and Romanian situation already has been building there.

I've even changed the bus stop I've used for years on Park Lane, to change from one bus that serves my place in sw7 to another one at the big stop across from the Dorchester, because the Romanian hordes that are camped out near there are awful.

The minute you alight from the bus to wait for another, they swarm you like cockroaches with hands out. The stench of excrement and wee from their camp site is awful, when the winds waft the wrong way.

I've already changed some of my regular routines in London to avoid this mob, who are becoming increasingly more aggressive...on Park Lane!

They prowl the heavily populated tourist spots, and evidently fine enough suckers to give them a very good income in begging. I suspect the folks in Wapping probably won't be as affected by them right away anyway. For now they are staying where the begging money is.

But come January, when the council houses open to them and they can go on the full benefits, they may start to colonize areas, like they have in Sheffield. Hold onto your hats when that comes.

Oh but to see them try to invade Tower Hamlets. I'd get out my popcorn for that one...............

goudie
17th Nov 2013, 21:46
Ironical isn't it? This country survives two world wars, and recently, near economic meltdown. It will, however, be systematically destroyed by our politician's inability, to halt this massive wave of parasitic immigrants, that will very soon, reach our shores!:ugh:

bosnich71
17th Nov 2013, 22:51
Goudie .... I don't think it is your politicians being 'unable' to halt immigration more likely they don't want too.

MG23
17th Nov 2013, 23:11
Nope they offer Minimum wage which is set floor market price.

And is not a wage Britons are willing to work hard for, because it's not worth their while given the high cost of living and the reduction in benefits. Then, instead of raising the wages, they whine about Britons being 'lazy', hire Eastern Europeans, and the taxpayers pay to keep those Britons on the dole.

The Polish girls who cleaned the office I worked for in the UK were making far more money than they would have done at home, so they were eager to do as many hours as they could in order to save money to take back with them. The 'lazy' English ladies who used to do it just disappeared one day and were suddenly replaced, presumably ending up on the dole instead.