mikeye Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 The Polish football team went away without anything last night at Wembley. Their fans consoled themselves though by the fact that they all received a free house and benefit for their kids back home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avidcameron Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Troll 2 - Return of the Niave.. In cinemas soon... Why is it pitchforkest to want liars and con artists kicked out? Do you believe every thing some people say, or do you just believe people with dark skins? They can't lie can they? Is it genetic? Is naive the word that eludes you?The simplisitic nature of your reasoning suggests the word is applicable to yourself. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 09:07 ---------- The Polish football team went away without anything last night at Wembley. Their fans consoled themselves though by the fact that they all received a free house and benefit for their kids back home... Even the fans from Krakow and Gdansk who travelled for the match?You are naive to believe the benefits myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 How would they know that until they got here? Or are you suggesting that they could only come once they have secured a job here..? Genuine questions.. Most of them equipped with addresses and family friends, whom they are to live live, and work unregistered in the family/friends business or which is more likely, the shop. On top of that, there is trafficking and people smuggling to contend with. Either way they tend to be in personal trouble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinut Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Do these 1 million Brits claim benefits off spain?do these 1 million Brits claim free health care, without putting a penny in? should i go on? The problem with your thinking which unfortunately has become general thinking is that you automatically associate immigrants with claiming benefits. You forget that most foreign people come here to work and contribute to the economy. This guy is not legal so he cannot work and has no access to benefits either. I am against the benefits system and the soft touch but it is also a soft touch for the indigenous. Please learn to separate the two issues! If you want to be less attractive to immigrants and improve economy, stop focusing on the immigration control effort and fix the benefit system. This for both indigenous and migrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Oh, thanks for being frank... Actually, I think that's you, that is. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 10:52 ---------- The problem with your thinking which unfortunately has become general thinking is that you automatically associate immigrants with claiming benefits. You forget that most foreign people come here to work and contribute to the economy. This guy is not legal so he cannot work and has no access to benefits either. I am against the benefits system and the soft touch but it is also a soft touch for the indigenous. Please learn to separate the two issues! If you want to be less attractive to immigrants and improve economy, stop focusing on the immigration control effort and fix the benefit system. This for both indigenous and migrants. A good point, people who don't like immigrants will find reasons to justify it, so they look at the negative aspects and associate them with immigrants generally. This also happens all the time during discussions about refugees-we know they can't support themselves so we must be paying for them. Yes, they're immigrants, but not all immigrants are refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Most of them equipped with addresses and family friends, whom they are to live live, and work unregistered in the family/friends business or which is more likely, the shop. On top of that, there is trafficking and people smuggling to contend with. Either way they tend to be in personal trouble We're talking about the visa situation though, which specifically excludes those who arrive illegally and excludes those who intend to immigrate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 The problem with your thinking which unfortunately has become general thinking is that you automatically associate immigrants with claiming benefits. You forget that most foreign people come here to work and contribute to the economy. This guy is not legal so he cannot work and has no access to benefits either. And what is wrong with your thinking is that most of the benefits (of living in this country) are not claimed. Immigrants put down roots. They bring family over and they create families whilst here. They will receive child benefit, their kids will benefit from a 'free' education system, they will all benefit from a 'free' healthcare system and a'free' legal system. If they are on low income then they will also have access to working families tax credits, housing benefits, council tax benefit etc, etc. And when they get old, or they bring parens over, they will get state pensions or pension credits, winter fuel allowances, 'free' bus passes, 'free' support from social services etc, etc. When you add it all up, most immigrants do not currently make a net positive contribution. Of course, the politicians and right-on groups spin things to hide this fact because they fear unrest - which would be better avoided by facing up to the problem and dealing with it. They spin a deception by averaging out the contribution of immigrants, which means the net-negative impact of the majority is (roughly) offset by the huge net-positive contribution of a small percentage of immigrants e.g. hosital consultants, bankers, businessmen, football club owners etc. The immigrant in question obviously has no skills we need or he'd be allowed in. He has no money. He has a family that he will bring over if we let him stay. He doesn't want to embrace our culture (he didn't stay in France because his daughter wouldn't be able to wear the burka). He will take more from the country then he will ever put in. Please tell me why we should welcome him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 And what is wrong with your thinking is that most of the benefits (of living in this country) are not claimed. Immigrants put down roots. They bring family over and they create families whilst here. They will receive child benefit, their kids will benefit from a 'free' education system, they will all benefit from a 'free' healthcare system and a'free' legal system. If they are on low income then they will also have access to working families tax credits, housing benefits, council tax benefit etc, etc. And when they get old, or they bring parens over, they will get state pensions or pension credits, winter fuel allowances, 'free' bus passes, 'free' support from social services etc, etc. When you add it all up, most immigrants do not currently make a net positive contribution. Of course, the politicians and right-on groups spin things to hide this fact because they fear unrest - which would be better avoided by facing up to the problem and dealing with it. They spin a deception by averaging out the contribution of immigrants, which means the net-negative impact of the majority is (roughly) offset by the huge net-positive contribution of a small percentage of immigrants e.g. hosital consultants, bankers, businessmen, football club owners etc. The immigrant in question obviously has no skills we need or he'd be allowed in. He has no money. He has a family that he will bring over if we let him stay. He doesn't want to embrace our culture (he didn't stay in France because his daughter wouldn't be able to wear the burka). He will take more from the country then he will ever put in. Please tell me why we should welcome him? You might as well talk to a brick wall, you can't educate pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 And what is wrong with your thinking is that most of the benefits (of living in this country) are not claimed. By immigrants or the indigenous. Immigrants put down roots. They bring family over and they create families whilst here. They will receive child benefit, their kids will benefit from a 'free' education system, they will all benefit from a 'free' healthcare system and a'free' legal system. If they are on low income then they will also have access to working families tax credits, housing benefits, council tax benefit etc, etc. And when they get old, or they bring parens over, they will get state pensions or pension credits, winter fuel allowances, 'free' bus passes, 'free' support from social services etc, etc. When you add it all up, But you haven't have you? most immigrants do not currently make a net positive contribution. How do you know this? Most immigrants are of working age, pensioners are mainly made up of the indigenous-have a look at the pernicious effects of the ageing population when you have two minutes and solutions for it's remedy. Of course, the politicians and right-on groups spin things to hide this fact because they fear unrest - which would be better avoided by facing up to the problem and dealing with it. They spin a deception by averaging out the contribution of immigrants, which means the net-negative impact of the majority is (roughly) offset by the huge net-positive contribution of a small percentage of immigrants e.g. hosital consultants, bankers, businessmen, football club owners etc. Have you tried that calculation when considering the net-positive contribution of the indigenous, without 'averaging out', their contribution? Just as an example, my grandparents came to the UK about 60 years ago, they left behind their 5 children and brought them over when they could afford to do so. All of their children got educated and worked, some in areas of massive labour shortages within the NHS and education. They're all long retired now and would have been appalled to have been a burden on the state-they're experiences aren't exceptional as far as immigrants are concerned, but no doubt you'll try to tell me different. The immigrant in question obviously has no skills we need or he'd be allowed in. He has no money. He has a family that he will bring over if we let him stay. He doesn't want to embrace our culture (he didn't stay in France because his daughter wouldn't be able to wear the burka). He will take more from the country then he will ever put in. Please tell me why we should welcome him? We shouldn't, he's overstayed his welcome, but don't confuse a discussion about a failed asylum seeker with immigration generally. No one's saying immigration shouldn't be strictly controlled by statements such as your own tend to polarise an argument whereby people who challenge what you say are seen as 'right on groups putting a spin on things', that's certainly not the case as far as Im concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeye Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 By immigrants or the indigenous. But you haven't have you? How do you know this? Most immigrants are of working age, pensioners are mainly made up of the indigenous-have a look at the pernicious effects of the ageing population when you have two minutes and solutions for it's remedy. Have you tried that calculation when considering the net-positive contribution of the indigenous, without 'averaging out', their contribution? Just as an example, my grandparents came to the UK about 60 years ago, they left behind their 5 children and brought them over when they could afford to do so. All of their children got educated and worked, some in areas of massive labour shortages within the NHS and education. They're all long retired now and would have been appalled to have been a burden on the state-they're experiences aren't exceptional as far as immigrants are concerned, but no doubt you'll try to tell me different. We shouldn't, he's overstayed his welcome, but don't confuse a discussion about a failed asylum seeker with immigration generally. No one's saying immigration shouldn't be strictly controlled by statements such as your own tend to polarise an argument whereby people who challenge what you say are seen as 'right on groups putting a spin on things', that's certainly not the case as far as Im concerned. All the calculations are fiddled. Things like the cost of counter terrorism for home grown jihadists is never included. Neither is the increases in police expenditure in areas like Page Hall. I suppose the cost of policing EDL demos is a direct result of immigration and Islamists so we can add that on as well, if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.