When immigration is around 1 million net and you are focusing on 65000 asylum seekers, I don't think you have it the right way around...
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The vast majority of immigrants do just that. Immigrants have been net contributors by any measure financial and cultural.
Great. Does that mean that the ones who don't get a free pass? Because if we say "no, no, not... can't discuss immigrants... most are good" we are shutting down those impacted by the minority who have no intention of assimilating.
Did I say anything resembling that at all? Have I said immigration shouldn't be discussed or denied there are problems that need addressing. No I haven't, so don't draw conclusions or infer meanings that don't exist please.
Well, it can be inferred. You have thrown out the stock phrases: 'the vast majority of immigrants do [want to fit in]' and 'immigrants are net contributors both culturally and financially'. Yet you have made no comment on the other side, the side that worries people. So, it seems reasonable to infer you have no interest in engaging with the problems immigration brings.
You are an immigrant. I am second generation immigrant. Many on these pages are immigrants. That should make us particularly aware of both sides of the issue.
I agree. Your post said "Barbed wire and patrol boats don't work" so I assumed you were talking about the boats crossing the channel.
If you're arguing we can't control legal immigration then I disagree even more. We have total control of how many visas we issue and who we give them to.
This gets said a lot. I think it's fair to say that's now disputed. Some studies indicate immigration, particularly non-western immigration, has a net cost.
I didn't say "vast majority of immigrants do [want to fit in]". Your inference is unwarranted and incorrect. Talk about assimilating how about the Brits abroad in their enclaves having their full English in the George and Dragon Benidorm.
Disputed by whom and where? Feel free to share. While you do that consider the change in EU, non EU immigration to the UK since brexshit. A complete turnaround with EU numbers in negative, ie net migration.
We do, but we have a horrible imbalance in age. 19% of the population is past retirement age. That means over 11.4 million people in the UK are currently a drain on the UK financially. 17 million people in the UK are under 18. That leaves 38 million people caring for 28.4 million people.
Add to that that we as a country don't give a crap about caring industries (mental health, nursing, etc..) and don't pay enough for any right-minded indigenous person to want to do that work, and you have a nation that is totally reliant on outsourcing its care to people from other countries. And, as the pay is low, it has to be countries where the pay is low.
We haven't invested in the people of the UK for 15 years, so it isn't any surprise at all that we have become reliant on immigration.
That said, the one million figure for immigration does include 500k per year coming in for an education. This is both a great boost to the economy but also means many Universities are now very much tailored towards teaching the Chinese.
So, no, I don't think it is easy to change the way we do our visas. We need to change the way we think about social care and start spending money on the people who do it. Then we won't need the visas.
I quoted you. This is confusing.
And I agree. If Brits abroad in their enclaves are bad, so are any unassimilated group in the UK.
Well here's a recent report on Dutch immigration from the University of Amsterdam: Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf (demo-demo.nl)
Here are a couple of extracts from the summary:
"The average costs and benefits of different immigrant groups differ greatly. The report presents these differences. Immigration for work and study from most Western countries and a number of non-Western – especially East Asian – countries show a positive outcome. All other forms of immigration are at best more or less budget neutral or have a negative effect on the budget."
"Immigrants who on average make a large negative net contribution to public finances are mainly found among those who exercise the right to asylum, especially if they come from Africa and the Middle East. The total population in these areas will increase from 1.6 billion today to 4.7 billion by the end of this century. Maintaining the existing legal framework, in particular regarding the right of asylum, does not seem a realistic option under these circumstances."
Also note I'm not claiming this is the final word on the matter. I'm simply saying the idea that all immigrants are net contributors is disputed.
Ah yes, with reference to the post I was commenting on. Still holds good for me.
That's the Netherlands and as you say disputed data and figures. So far as I understood it was UK immigration that's under discussion following the events of last night. Please use my reference to EU/non EU change post brexshit as a guide to framing a reply
Last edited:
To be fair, that is pretty much the choice!
Was reading that Biden could step down this weekend. Is the Covid diagnosis a precursor for it?
I'm not aware of any equivalent study done for the UK but I don't see any reason why the results would be significantly different. The conclusions of that study aren't unique. In 2021 the Danish Finance Ministry concluded that non western immigration cost the Danish state 31 billion kroner in 2018. There are also some indicators the situation in the UK may be similar. You have the often-repeated-online fact that the 2021 census revealed that 72% of Somalis in the UK live in social housing and you have the fact that the proportion of new social housing lets going to non-UK nationals has almost doubled over the last 15 years.
Leaving the EU has clearly led to a change in immigrant demographics but leaving the EU didn't include any requirement to increase immigration. If anything it reflected the public's desire to reduce immigration. I believe there are over 5 million people in the UK on out of work benefits so there's clearly not a labour shortage. Given that over 65% of skilled worker visas are given to people who earn less than the median wage we're obviously not bringing in high achievers. I've seen people suggest the high levels of immigration were a deliberate decision by the Conservative government to artificially inflate GDP figures. Perhaps there's some truth in that.
You are 100% correct. But unfortunately you are arguing with someone that has already made his mind up and will ignore any facts presented.
Many of the stats/data that show immigration is a “net positive for the UK” were compiled in years gone by - where it’s fair to say immigration WAS a benefit.
It’s only fairly recently that the numbers have gone absolutely insane. So clearly the available data may not be relevant (if even released at all)
It’s patently obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in the UK that things have massively shifted. You just need to look at literally any town centre in the UK. We are talking about thousands of hotel rooms full of people that we are all paying for.
You are right as well about the reasons. It’s because the Tories along with the EU/UN are looking at numbers on a screen and concluding incorrectly that GDP appearing to go up is the only thing that matters.
Holy ****, I almost fell off my chair reading that one
