Minister tells immigrant to go home.

[Anglersvista]

Ah, I see you've dodged the question.

 

Let me repeat it:

 

Is it really safe in Iraq now?

 

Yes, it is. That clear enough?

[Jason Bourne]

Yes, it is. That clear enough?

 

Thank you.

 

So now you've confirmed it's safe, when are all our troops coming back home?

[Anglersvista]

Is it safe to walk through Shalesmoor at night?

[Jason Bourne]

Is it safe to walk through Shalesmoor at night?

 

Don't change the subject.

 

You'll only make yourself look stupid.

[Anglersvista]

From Iraq? they already are...from Afghan (different country) about 18 months - 2 years time.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 15:26 ----------

 

Don't change the subject.

 

You'll only make yourself look stupid.

 

Just pointing out that not all questions have a yes or no answer.

[Cyclone]

Ah, I see you've dodged the question.

 

Let me repeat it:

 

Is it really safe in Iraq now?

 

Give me a Yes or a No answer.

 

Dodge the question again, and we can all take that as a resounding No. It is not safe in Iraq.

 

If it isn't, does that mean that we must accept all applications for Iraqis to move here?

[boyfriday]

BF you can be such hard work!

Were we betrothed in a former life Zamo, that sentiment sounds painfully familiar

 

No and nor have you but it didn't stop you from stating immigrants make a net positive contribution. You provided a link to one study into it and I another. Depending on which method you prefer the result could come out at approximately £2billion either side of breakeven.

So the conclusion is we can't rely on figures, I'd conceded that earlier

Even if I were to concede a £2billion net gain it doesn't undermined my argument. If we do not allow entry to those that are unlikely to make a net-positive contribution then the net gain from immigration would go up dramatically. Surely, even you cannot dispute that?

Through the fog you didn't see the bead in my eye...I've NEVER disputed that! I've always said that immigration should be strictly controlled with provision made for genuine refugees. As an addendum to that, I also think the 'net gain' calculation shouldn't just be a monetary one, there are often very good reasons for supporting 'gainful' migration to this country-the health service being a very good example.

 

It is the same calculation for the indigenous population. You will remember another thread where I split this into fifths - 1/5th make a net positive contribution, 1/5th breakeven and the final 3/5ths make a net-negative contribution.

 

I can't prove that it is the same split for immigrants but I would have thought it would be similar but with perhaps even more making a net-negative contribution because most immigrants come here to escape poverty.

I've no problem with your calculations provided the grubby finger isn't being pointed solely at immigrants but is applied even handedly.

The only real difference between the indigenous poor and the immigrant poor is we don't have a choice but to keep those born here but we can turn away those not.

But that was part of the problem I tried to engage mikeye on previously-many immigrants on benefits won't have come here 'on benefits', they'll have been hard working individuals who've come across hard times just like the indigenous occasionally do, and just like the indigenous the vast majority will be genuinely seeking work and successfully find it-they're not benefit claimants forever.

 

Different times and different circumstances.

 

Firstly, people from commonwealth countries had a right to come here at that time. Secondly, they came and took work in areas where there was a labour shortage (as you said). And finally, the amount that could be taken out of 'the system' was substantially less (because there was no such thing as WFTC or housing benefit) and as a result fewer people made a net-negative contribution.

I was trying to personalise the debate Zamo, not claiming it was the case for all immigrants then, or now.

 

However one quality common to most immigrants is that they don't fear change, taking on new challenges or working, what my grandparents did 60 years ago I couldn't ever contemplate for myself, yet thousands did, and continue to do. Some Black, white and Asian British (indigenous for want of a better word) could learn a lot from them (immigrants, not my grandparents).

 

There is no doubt that 'right on groups' like the Refugee Council are spinning the argument. They frequently claim things like a "£2 billion net contribution" to counter calls for tighter immigration controls or even to advocate relaxing them. I personally do not believe such figures because they conveniently ignore things like the £4 billion capital spend needed for new schools to meet the demand for school places because of mass immigration. But, either way, the measure itself is wrong because it is a blunt tool. We need to know the raitio between those making a positive contribution and those not in order to assess the effectiveness of immigration policy/controls i.e. how effectively are we screening out the later in order to maximise the benefits of immigration.

 

The research paper I linked to was from the House of Lords not the Refugee Council

[Jason Bourne]

If it isn't, does that mean that we must accept all applications for Iraqis to move here?

 

That, Cyclone, is an excellent question as is one that I have been pondering since this thread started.

 

The Coalition of the Willing is responsible for destroying much of the Iraqi infrastructure and plundering its natural resources.

 

The coalition that was supposed to be in charge of the country's security and nation building, so while Coalition troops where stationed there, should we not have accepted every single asylum application from Iraqis that wanted to come here? And should all Afghans be allowed to come here too because our troops are there for a couple more years?

 

Either those countries are now safe, in which case the asylum seekers should go back and our troops should come home, or those countries are not safe and the asylum stayers should stay here, while our troops should stay there.

[Anglersvista]

Thank you.

 

So now you've confirmed it's safe, when are all our troops coming back home?

 

Don't ask questions about events that happened four years ago...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-troops-pull-out-of-iraq-391351

 

Otherwise you may look stupid.

[boyfriday]

I was looking at it as an accountant would when compiling a balance sheet. I don't think the costs of anti terrorism are included in the costs part of the accounts. This costs billions every year and would wipe out, easily, the amount of tax paid. Then there's the use of public services.

Looking at it like an 'accountant'? Where were you articled, Rumour & Innuendo? How do you know it would 'easily wipe out the tax paid'? You're using assumptions again to justify your position and influence casual observers. If your assumption's correct, then "we must be mad to let them into our country!"

 

You make out that tax paid is all profit for the government. It isn't it pays for public services. So the tax paid is not a profit, it pays the expenses the tax payer creates.

I never suggested otherwise, I was simply giving the flipside to your argument that anti-terrorism costs billions, I don't know that it does but Muslims are subsidising the costs of it just like you and I, it's a very poor anti immigration argument you're pursuing.

Then there are increases in public services, like those incurred by the councils and police in areas like Page Hall that have become money eating ghettos. The (white) immigrants there are very much in deficit. None of them work, or very few do and they just soak up everything on offer. Don't believe me ask many of the decent British Muslims who are now suffering at the hands of these people.

Weren't all these 'British Muslims' I could ask immigrants once? I predate the British Muslims in Page Hall, I lived there in the late 60's, full of West Indians then, many of whom whined ad nauseum about their new Pakistani neighbours..irony eh?

So my point was if we're going to be told that immigration is financially beneficial lets have more honesty about the costs.

..and the benefits eh?