Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

The biggest problem is there was no account taken of how such a massive influx would impact on all local services. As an example my missus works in a school, hardly a week goes by without new kids starting who don't speak any English, the amount of disruption this causes impacts on all the other children who lose teaching time whilst the non-English speakers are dealt with.

Bear in mind many speak languages that no others speak so they can't even be paired up, I believe there were over 40 different mother-tongues at her school at the last audit, and there are many with a lot more.

Schools don't receive additional funds directly for this and many are struggling to just manage the situation.

I'm sure there are similar problems in all other front-line services, those advocating free movement really don't have a clue...

 

The problem is that it's so PC to say that all immigration is wonderful and no one must say any different. It's often the champagne socialists who totally ignore any local problems brought by too much immigration, as they are in no way affected.

 

I think an excess of immigration is a symptom of other issues rather than an isolated problem.

If the widespread perception is that people move here en masse to claim benefits then that suggests the welfare system doesn't adequately meet its design of offering claimants a minimum level of existence without furnishing them with an advantageous life.

If it's about taking jobs off natives then it's a bit of a misdirection because given two identical candidates with the only distinguishing skill being better English, I don't doubt which way that goes.

In terms of offering cheap labour, that is the same situation that affects all businesses (for example shops with rivals undercutting and the online threat). The only way round that is to be competitive and to try to find unique selling points. On an individual level that equates to trying to attain superior skill and reputation. Now that really is the capitalist way.

For the infrastructural demands, that is a governmental issue of provision. For those paying taxes, it is an assumption that you've paid into the system so can expect schooling and free healthcare. If the taxes don't cover it then it's an issue that extends beyond ethnicity to all low paid workers. For the welfare claimants, my earlier point still stands.

Lastly, immigrants are filling an economic need for working age individuals to prop up the state pension until it gets phased out at some stage in the next generation. For a lot of 50 somethings, they are crucial. For the rest of fity or even forty somethings with their own homes etc, they're in a far more advantageous position than the generation that follows them and so the issue is barely even valid.

 

In response I would say that those immigrants who arrived in Britain between 2000 & 2011 contributed 25 Billion in tax - were 45% less likely to receive social security benefits than British people. People from the EU contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits of all kinds - in contrast those immigrants from non EU sources contributed only 2% more. There is no evidence that European migration to Britain has put any pressure on the British infrastructure whatsoever. If the argument is one of numbers then the percentage of people in the UK. who were born outside of the country is only just over 9% (hardly an invasion), in other European States this is higher with e.g. France, Germany, and the Benelux countries having foreign populations in double figures.

 

Restricting immigration is not xenophobic, Stan. Take care to avoid the old Labour trick that stifles debate, which even they've abandoned now. I'm the first to admit we've had some terrific, enterprising and hard-working immigrants, but I want our Parliament to control who comes in and, as importantly, how many.

I agree Mrs Merkel probably won't compromise on free movement of workers. I think Cameron is over-optimistic there. If we leave the EU, and take the status of the highly successful economies of Switzerland say, or Norway, there is a huge market out there in emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, Australasia etc with whom to do business. The EU won't want a trade war - members still want us to buy their goods. Norway has, for example, an arrangement with the EU for free trade. Sure, we wouldn't be able to make the rules of the EU club, but realistically, if and when the euro recovers, it is the Euro States that will be the power in the EU and we would be a poor relation anyway. And our Sovereign Parliament can still agree free movement of people between "old European states" like France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Benelux countries etc.

London is like the capital of the world and the English race (I'm assuming the Scots will take independence) as it has evolved through sensible immigration over centuries is highly talented and resourceful - this won't stop being so, just because we come out of the European Club.

 

The last labour government admitted to an open door immigration policy as a multi-cultural experiment.
They have since agreed that this was a mistake.

At over a quarter of a million new people year on year coming in, there will come a point where there is simply no more room to build all the extra houses, hospitals and schools. Even if there was the room, where does the money come from? Put up taxes?

 

I'm afraid that simply isn't true.

 

Exactly.

 

Some immigration facts.

In 2014 net migration to the UK was 243,000. 560,000 immigrated, 316,000 emigrated.

Let's look at who the 560,000 were. 14% of them were British citizens returning home. 38% were EU citizens. 47% were non EU citizens.

So emigration from the UK vastly outweighs the number of EU citizens coming here for a year or more - even including those pesky Romanians and Bulgarians. So, it seems to me, linking the EU to over-immigration is just mendacious.

What do they come here to do?
Just over 200,000 come here to work (I'm guessing most of these are the EU immigrants)
Nearly 200,000 come here to study (They make up 18% of all students, over 420,000 in total, and pay £7bn in fees)
About 80,000 to join family already here
Under 100,000 seem to be unknown/unstated/other, I suppose this includes refugees and asylum seekers. Italy had over 170,000 refugess alone last year.

Get rid of the students, and net migration falls to well under Cameron's 100,000 target. Of course, our entirely money driven university system would collapse as a result, perhaps we would get a better one, like we used to have, from the ashes. And of course these 200,000 students woud not be bringing their money to spend on other things. So proposals to kick them out as soon as they finished studying were quashed when British business leaders said they needed them.

As a comparison Germany, Spain, Belgium, Austria and Sweden all have a higher percentage of their populations who were born elsewhere than the UK. We are about the same as France and Holland. If you listen to certain politicians (of several parties) you get the misleading impression that this is a specifically UK problem and the EU is ganging up on us somehow.

 

So, there's no problem then.

What are all these British people complaining about who's lives they say are being very badly affected by too many immigrants in the area where they live?
There is no increase in crime. No pressure on services. They just want to have a go at Johnny foreigner.
They must all be lying racists I'm sure!!

 

Southern Central England is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. And most of the 1/4 million (net) immigrants into the UK will be settling there, every year. It's all very well for Nicola Sturgeon to say we need greater numbers of immigrants. None of them want to go to Scotland!

 

Happy to agree that having an immigration policy is far from xenophobic in itself, and is necessary. But the terms of the debate, language used etc is frequently xenophobic in tone. Just look at the scaremongering about Romanians and Bulgarians. There are plenty of people out there who just don't like foreigners and are ready to blame their personal problems on them at the first opportunity.

We'll see on the EU. Doubtless some kind of accommodation will be reached if we leave, but I doubt we'll look like Norway or Switzerland as a result. I don't think we have ever been fully commited to the EU, if we had joined when it was set up it may have looked very different, but we were too busy trying to decide what to do with an Empire at the time. In a way I'd prefer us to leave than be a half hearted member.

Not sure what you are getting at with the London stuff. Immigration wasn't managed at all until the end of the 19th century, let alone 'sensibly managed. Just everyone wanted to go to America. The big waves of immigrants (Jews, Huguenots etc) in relatively recent history were victims of persecution, or in the 50s and 60s from the commonwealth explicity because of labour shortages, with the Ugandan Asians of the 70s a very honourable return to offering shelter.

 

For balance what was the breakdown of the 316,000 who emigrated? I imagine many were foreigners returning home? It is easy to give a distorted view the way you presented it Stan...

 

I was thinking largely of the 20th Century. The German Jewish population in the 30's, the West Indian population in the 50's, the Uganda Asian's in the 70's were all managed sensibly, to my mind

 

Not sure on this but I know that there are circa 6 million Britons living outside of the UK (ie. just under 10% of the total - around about the same number as foreigners living in Britain). Just over a million of those in the EU.

 

So what do you want Col? Do you want to ban all immigrants or just certain ones? Do you want to kick out people who are already here? Who's policy in the current election reflects your views best - Tories, UKIP and Labour all promising controls on immigration?

I'm not denying that real issues are present, just trying to provide some context, admittedly from a perspective that you don't share. I'm not accusing you or anyone else on here of being racist, aand I don't care about being labelled "PC" or 'leftie".

I'll check it out Sooper. But if they were foreigners returning home wouldn't you class that as a good thing?

Right - 141,000 emigrants were British citizens, 100,000 non EU citizens and the remaining 80,000 EU citizens. British citizen emigration is going down rapidly from the mid 2000's when it was over 200,000 a year. Interesting - lack of opportunity elsewhere?

 

This is what annoys me. Immediately someone questions immigration in any way, these are the questions that are thrown at them. The waters are always muddied in any debate. I have never said that I want to ban all immigration and have said earlier that it has enriched this Country historically.
I do feel that the pace of change in this Country has been too fast and that Labour are entirely to blame for that.
None of the parties offer what I'd like, although UKIP are the nearest in wanting an Australian points system. This seems to me to be the best approach. However, I could never vote for UKIP as I believe that they are made up of too many racists. I quite like Farage, but he has too many loonies in his party for my liking.

I'm far more likely to be influenced by stories as related by Souper's relative. Someone who is directly affected by what is happening than anyone else.

 

Thanks. The Germans apparently only allow non EU immigration from people with degrees/higher education qualification and a job offer. Makes sense to me.

 

Yes, me too.