Minister tells immigrant to go home.

[southcoast]

What's your reaction to my post above about migrants from A8 countries -

Czech Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

which provides evidence to suggest that put more money into Britain than they pay out and were far less likely to claim benefits and tax credits, and far less likely to live in social housing? Quote

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 22:44 ----------

 

 

What's your evidence for that assertion? Did a bloke down the pub tell you?

 

 

that means EU citizens do better here than they would in some other countries, such as Germany, that have more contributory systems, as Dominic Raab pointed out in the Times.

 

This passage seems to sum it up,and of course its the Guardian isnt it,that bastion of left wing liberal garbage that no doubt you and others think is the Bible.

Unlike you I suspect, I actually read your link,I doubt if I link to the Daily Mail you would do the same.

[Halibut]

The data you provided doesn't include extra costs like the billions to counter home grown terrorists... the damage cause by terrorists, 7/7 was pretty expensive.

 

Of course it doesn't. Home grown terrorists aren't immigrants. Terrorism and immigration aren't synonymous.

 

Then there's the increase in crime these groups cause.

 

Which groups? Which crimes?

 

 

The grooming gangs investigation cost millions...

 

Hardly relevant.

 

Your figures only account for basic public services but don't go deep enough...

 

What do you mean? Please read the report and give more detail.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 23:09 ----------

 

that means EU citizens do better here than they would in some other countries, such as Germany, that have more contributory systems, as Dominic Raab pointed out in the Times.

 

You conveniently ignore the main point, i.e. that migrants to this country contribute more than they take out.

[Zamo]

Grossly simplistic and with utter disregard to the facts. Immigrants put more money into the economy than they take out.

 

From the Independent - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis -''All the evidence suggests that migrants – especially migrants from the new EU member states – are net contributors to the public purse, not a drain. The most comprehensive study on this topic found that the latter paid in via taxes about 30% more than they cost our public services. In particular, they were far less likely to claim benefits and tax credits, and far less likely to live in social housing.''

 

You can read the full study referred to here - http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_18_09.pdf - but you'll probably choose to ignore it.

 

But you ignore two points.

 

Firstly, A8 immigrants may well be less likely to claim child benefit and WFTC. I work a lot in London and in just about every coffee shop and bar you served by someone from Eastern Europe (very professional by the way) and they are mainly young. This is why most don't have kids or families and therefore don't claim these benefits and don't need social housing, or housing benefit, when they can share flats. But people don't stay yound forever and if they put down roots then that will all change - and working in Starbucks when they hae a family will mean they become entitled to all those benefits.

 

The assessments you link to also ignore the fact that people from the A8 countries take jobs that we should be forcing our young and unemployed to take. We have nearly 1m youth unemployed who we pay benefits to and some of this cost should be attributed to immigration policy (but isn't).

 

Secondly, as I've said many times now, the average net positive or negative contribution is a smokescreen in terms of whether our immigration policies and controls are right. What matters is the raitio between those that will make a lifetime net-positive contribution and those that will not. And the vast majority need to be on the positive side to indicate effective immigration policy and controls. The point is that we should be cherry picking who comes in so there is absolutely no argument about whether the contribution is positive or negative... we should be arguing about the different calculations and whether the positive contribution is huge or massive.

[alternageek]

Mod Note:

 

Racism is not tolerated and posts to be removed. If you can not keep from making these remarks, thread will be closed.

 

Thank you.

[mikeye]

The Albanians are on the march next... we have to get out of the EU.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437333/Anger-at-Albania-s-European-Union-plan

 

FRESH concerns about mass immigration from eastern Europe were raised last night when Brussels gave Albania the go-ahead to apply to join the EU.

 

[chalga]

But you ignore two points.

 

Firstly, A8 immigrants may well be less likely to claim child benefit and WFTC. I work a lot in London and in just about every coffee shop and bar you served by someone from Eastern Europe (very professional by the way) and they are mainly young. This is why most don't have kids or families and therefore don't claim these benefits and don't need social housing, or housing benefit, when they can share flats. But people don't stay yound forever and if they put down roots then that will all change - and working in Starbucks when they hae a family will mean they become entitled to all those benefits.

 

 

If immigrants have worked at Starbucks,or anywhere else for years before they put down roots,they have paid contributions from their wages into the UK system,just the same as home grown workers have done.If home grown workers can get these benefits,what's wrong with immigrants getting them?

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2013 at 09:40 ----------

 

 

The assessments you link to also ignore the fact that people from the A8 countries take jobs that we should be forcing our young and unemployed to take. We have nearly 1m youth unemployed who we pay benefits to and some of this cost should be attributed to immigration policy (but isn't).

 

 

The only advantage of this would be that the amount paid to home grown youth in unemployment benefit might fall,the top up payment benefits would still be paid to them in the same way that thy are paid to immigrants who are working for peanuts,because many businesses have decided that they are not going to pay a living wage,they have said to governments,you subsidise us with taxpayers money to top up the wages we are willing to pay,we just want to enjoy the profits made possible by taxpayers subsidies of our business.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2013 at 09:50 ----------

 

 

Secondly, as I've said many times now, the average net positive or negative contribution is a smokescreen in terms of whether our immigration policies and controls are right. What matters is the raitio between those that will make a lifetime net-positive contribution and those that will not. And the vast majority need to be on the positive side to indicate effective immigration policy and controls. The point is that we should be cherry picking who comes in so there is absolutely no argument about whether the contribution is positive or negative... we should be arguing about the different calculations and whether the positive contribution is huge or massive.

 

Immigrants that are working will make a positive contribution,sometimes a huge and massive contribution,because by working for peanuts in many types of businesses,they are enabling the owners of these businesses to rake in huge profits,so the spending power these owners have created for themselves is a benefit to the rest of the community when they buy stuff from these profits..Home grown workers have largely turned their back on these type of low paid jobs and so continue to be a drain on taxpayers,so immigrants are creating the wealth for business owners while home grown workers who could be doing this are draining the taxpayer.

[Zamo]

If immigrants have worked at Starbucks,or anywhere else for years before they put down roots,they have paid contributions from their wages into the UK system,just the same as home grown workers have done.If home grown workers can get these benefits,what's wrong with immigrants getting them?

 

Because it makes the nation poorer?

 

The only advantage of this would be that the amount paid to home grown youth in unemployment benefit might fall,the top up payment benefits would still be paid to them in the same way that thy are paid to immigrants who are working for peanuts,because many businesses have decided that they are not going to pay a living wage,they have said to governments,you subsidise us with taxpayers money to top up the wages we are willing to pay,we just want to enjoy the profits made possible by taxpayers subsidies of our business.

 

Put aside the subsidising business bit because that is another subject. The fact remains that if some of the 1 million unemployed youth of this country had the jobs filled by immigrant workers then less money would be leaving the system and the country would be better off. Therefore there is an indirect cost associated with immigration that is not being counted but should be.

 

Immigrants that are working will make a positive contribution,sometimes a huge and massive contribution,because by working for peanuts in many types of businesses,they are enabling the owners of these businesses to rake in huge profits,so the spending power these owners have created for themselves is a benefit to the rest of the community when they buy stuff from these profits..Home grown workers have largely turned their back on these type of low paid jobs and so continue to be a drain on taxpayers,so immigrants are creating the wealth for business owners while home grown workers who could be doing this are draining the taxpayer.

 

Did you have two spliffs for breakfast?!?

[chalga]

Because it makes the nation poorer?

 

 

 

 

No,immigrants working for years before they put down roots have contributed to the UK government finances by deductions from their wages,how can that be making the nation poorer,as has been noted,EU migrants are net contributors in the surveys carried out.If immigrants are claiming benefits that they are fully entitled too when they put roots down,then everybody in the UK who is claiming those same benefits is 'making the nation poorer',not just immigrants.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2013 at 10:59 ----------

 

 

 

 

Put aside the subsidising business bit because that is another subject. The fact remains that if some of the 1 million unemployed youth of this country had the jobs filled by immigrant workers then less money would be leaving the system and the country would be better off. Therefore there is an indirect cost associated with immigration that is not being counted but should be.

 

 

 

 

Then force the unemployed UK youth to take the jobs then,and also,force the UK business that are employing immigrants to take the UK youth instead,regardless of how qualified/suitable/reliable/hard working they are.If you are a business and faced with a UK person who is not suitable for your business,and an immigrant who is,how are you going to force the business to take someone who is less suitable or able to do the job,and therefore affect customer service and ultimately profit............business is calling the shots here,on wages,who they employ and who they want to employ.......governments, and stopping immigrants being allegedly the cause of indirect costs to the UK taxpayer don't come into it.

[Xt500]

How would you feel if he went home and was killed?

 

Maybe you would like to pay what he has cost/costing? I wonder if the bill dropped on your door step you would have the same attitude? My guess is not!

[Jason Bourne]

Maybe you would like to pay what he has cost/costing? I wonder if the bill dropped on your door step you would have the same attitude? My guess is not!

 

Probably much less than what the two wars have cost the nation?

 

I've not looked forward to paying for those out of my taxes