Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The cost of providing social housing for migrants who come to Britain will hit £1 billion a year for the next 25 years, campaigners say. MigrationWatch UK said 45 extra homes would need to be built every day, the equivalent of 1,400 a month, with each one funded by a public sector grant of around £60,000. Can't we just shut our doors, not because we don't want our fellow neighbours but because we have no money or work. We could close but the uk has lost its backbone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If that is your basis for who should live there I think you'll find few people who would agree with you. I'd rather have the company of 1000 boyfridays than 1 Glamrocker in our society and I suspect most on here would agree with me. That is if we had to choose which thank god we don't, and those who would like to make us will never achieve any real influence or power. John X This is where the debate gets muddled. Its nothing to do with who you like, or like to patronise, its to do what indigenous means. The indigenous British are white. It's not disrespectful to anyone who's not white to claim such. Neither is it racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You're a naughty bugger. Whilst I'm flattered by the attention, I'm inclined to agree with you, but by the same token I think it's fairly obvious that there are some prolific haters who patrol this forum, I'm not saying you're one of them, but they do reveal themselves by the nature of their posts. well according to some like John x I shouldnt even be conversing with you cos I hate you...small minded people eh dont you just love em ..John x has got to be the biggest hypocrite on here when it comes to deriding the BNP and its followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Catch up whites the new black, ask Starkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No they are not, this is the most grievous allegation made against immigrants, all the research shows that immigrants have a net positive effect to the UK Exchequer. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf That's pretty much what happens, the immigrants you see who came here to fill skills gaps are not the same ones you see all the time, but they might look the same to you. That's a particularly British disease. Mmmm the trouble with data by the government on immigration is that it fits their agenda to say that immigration is profitable. But its not. I doubt very much if the data includes things like the cost of counter terrorism in the wake of 7/7. The cost of increasing border patrols. There's hundreds of hidden costs. For example all the new measures needed to deal with airline security the need for translators in every public organisation and the cost of say, the rioters, who were immigrants. Rose tinted glasses where worn when the report was written... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Mmmm the trouble with data by the government on immigration is that it fits their agenda to say that immigration is profitable. But its not. I doubt very much if the data includes things like the cost of counter terrorism in the wake of 7/7. The cost of increasing border patrols. There's hundreds of hidden costs. For example all the new measures needed to deal with airline security the need for translators in every public organisation and the cost of say, the rioters, who were immigrants. Rose tinted glasses where worn when the report was written... I reckon the blind may just jump on a portion of that post my friend ,get ready for the flack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Mmmm the trouble with data by the government on immigration is that it fits their agenda to say that immigration is profitable. But its not. Try reading the report it's very comprehensive and even handed. I doubt very much if the data includes things like the cost of counter terrorism in the wake of 7/7. What does that have to do with immigration? The cost of increasing border patrols. There's hundreds of hidden costs. For example all the new measures needed to deal with airline security the need for translators in every public organisation and the cost of say, the rioters, who were immigrants. How do you know these 'hidden costs' weren't taken account of, especially as they'd be very easy to quantify? Rose tinted glasses where worn when the report was written... How do you arrive at that conclusion in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Mmmm the trouble with data by the government on immigration is that it fits their agenda to say that immigration is profitable. But its not. I doubt very much if the data includes things like the cost of counter terrorism in the wake of 7/7. The cost of increasing border patrols. There's hundreds of hidden costs. For example all the new measures needed to deal with airline security the need for translators in every public organisation and the cost of say, the rioters, who were immigrants. Rose tinted glasses where worn when the report was written... ace post, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Try reading the report it's very comprehensive and even handed. What does that have to do with immigration? How do you know these 'hidden costs' weren't taken account of, especially as they'd be very easy to quantify? How do you arrive at that conclusion in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary? Didn't Migration watch cause them to think again when it turned out at the very best their was only a 28p per person gain and at worse a very large loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Try reading the report it's very comprehensive and even handed. What does that have to do with immigration? How do you know these 'hidden costs' weren't taken account of, especially as they'd be very easy to quantify? How do you arrive at that conclusion in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary? 7/7 was committed by immigrants or the sons of immigrants... I doubt if the report includes eastern european motor insurance fraudsters who crash their car on purpose and make a claim.. What about the cost of the recent large scale police operation to crack down on child grooming? I doubt if that cost is mentioned...Everytime an immigrant is arrested there is a cost. The report will not cover all costs, it can't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.