Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[chalga]

The Sun admitted it's headline was wrong,

the 600,000 non active stands.

 

Which part of '18 times lower' than the figure quoted don't you understand.?

Do you honestly believe that immigrants who have worked in the UK for years in some cases and contributed from their wages into the UK system dont deserve to get anything out of it for their dependents and families in the UK, if and when they lose their jobs and are looking for another,just like UK nationals do?.............why should they be discriminated against when their contributions are as good as any UK nationals,or should their contributions just be used to distribute to the UK national jobless who have decided that a life on benefits is the way to go,which is why a lot of the immigrants have been called over in the first place.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 09:32 ----------

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/15/david-cameron-europe-benefit-tourism

 

 

 

 

QUOTE:

• A relatively small number of EU citizens in Britain – 60,000 – are claiming jobseeker's allowance, which works out at around 10% of the total non-active EU group. This compares with a 28% figure for the EU as a whole. The 60,000 figure is from the latest Department for Work and Pensions figures, according to Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

• Duncan Smith wrongly claimed in 2011 that EU citizens are costing Britain more than £2bn in benefits. This was revised down to £150m. Todd said: "Even for the £150m they haven't produced any figures to back up that claim."

Edited November 6, 2013 by chalga

[Michael_W]

Exactly,too much good news for the gullible and the brainwashed to take..........that's why I printed the unsubstantiated lies of the right wing press about 630,000 benefit tourists they claimed,and then had to admit they had no proof to back up their claims........if there's not enough negative propaganda......make it up.........plus the naked racism on Saturday of the Daily Express.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 04:08 ----------

 

 

Nothing in reply to refute anything then........just more baseless claims...or something.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 04:14 ----------

 

 

Of course some people will turn to UKIP,there has to be a mouthpiece for xenophobes,it's only natural.I sincerely hope that UKIP are elected to run the country at some stage,or at least hold the balance of power,the laughs these clowns would give me with the stuff they will come out with would last for the rest of my lifetime.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 04:42 ----------

 

 

The Negative propaganda,stereotyping and stigmatising of the UK Tabloids.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/26584

 

This is of course familiar ground for the tabloids. East European migration to the UK might be a recent phenomenon, but it is only a variation on a much older migration theme, one that has been a favourite whipping post of the tabloids. The tabloids have thus been able to draw on various plotlines from previous migrations to frame their coverage of the current migration. Recycled references to ‘floods’, ‘invasions’, and ‘hordes’ act as linchpins to past migrations: they evoke racialised understandings of migration by juxtaposing past migrations against their current versions. They also remind the British public that the more things change, the more they stay the same

Now as before, the tabloids present immigration as a problem. They oftent don’t stop at criticising immigration policy, it impugns the integrity of the migrants themselves. Repeated associations of East European migrants with crime, benefit shopping, and a host of other unsavoury activities, particularly when those activities are sensational, portrays these migrants not as upstanding workers trying to eke out a living but as dangerous social parasites preying on their well-meaning hosts. Racialisation occurs when those migrants are collectively disparaged with reference to a combination of cultural, social, and/or biological traits. Here again we don’t find the crude racism of epithets, slurs, and insults; rather, racialisation gets packaged as innuendo and inference.

The sort of racialisation found in the tabloids does not rely on somatic differences but instead invokes and valorises various cultural and social attributes of the migrants. This is a kind of cultural racism: criminal tendencies, uncivilised behaviour, and moral deficiencies are indiscriminately imputed to the migrants. Though even though cultural racism doesn’t make explicit reference to somatic differences it can still contribute to its reproduction. Ideas like ‘the west’, Europe and modernity that are conveyed through these associations all carry unambiguous colour connotations. Those to whom membership is bestowed in these categories are lightened and those to whom membership is denied are darkened.

 

Brainwashed and gullible ...... people like you really are out of touch, are you a politician ?

Have you noticed how our media, particularly in it's online form, don't allow comments on anything that will come across as negative regarding the non indigenous amongst us ..... I wonder why ?

[Zamo]

Aren't you the one (and a bunch more who are much less reasoned) arguing against the conclusions of the report that started this thread?

Despite the conclusion that immigration is beneficial, you are arguing that it needs to be reduced and changed to suit your own preferences.

And the less balanced are arguing that the report is a lie and that immigration only has down sides.

Half of the people arguing against it, HappHazard for example don't even appear to understand how the immigration system currently functions, or prefer to pretend that it's an open door policy when it simply isn't. (regarding outside EU immigrants).

 

But there you go again with a sweeping generalisation that has as much validity as saying all Muslims are terrorist... a statement you would be quick to jump all over. Just because some immigration is positive, doesn't mean it all is.

 

Let's do this in bite size chunks and start with the biggest issue... non-EEA immigrants. The report people keep referring to as a glowing endorsement of immigration acknowledges that for the last decade non-EEA immigrants have made a net negative financial contribution. This also happens to be the group that most struggles to integrate, whose culture we have the least in common with and who have a problem with extremism that spills over into terrorism.

 

Is that assessment wrong? Why would any right minded person welcome that sort of immigration? What is wrong with wanting to control immigration better?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 09:51 ----------

 

Page 1, right here;

 

I didn't think he was really advocating that... did you think that? Maybe... perhaps he can clarify.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that people can't keep putting words in mouths by saying people are arguing for no immigration, and then throwing in a few racist and xenophobia comments, when they have stated countless times that they are not. It just winds people up, adds to the frustration and pushes them a little closer to taking a more extreme position. Isn't that somewhat counter productive?

[chalga]

Brainwashed and gullible ...... people like you really are out of touch, are you a politician ?

Have you noticed how our media, particularly in it's online form, don't allow comments on anything that will come across as negative regarding the non indigenous amongst us ..... I wonder why ?

 

 

LOL............you've obviously not read the readers comments on immigration articles,and anything that can be tenuously connected to immigrants,in the right wing media..........references to 'immigrants and their seed' in the Daily Telegraph..........you really need to read the stuff that these people are coming out with.If you believe in what you wrote about online comments,sorry,it's you who is living in cloud cuckoo land and are in denial.

[angos]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jun/18/nhs60.nhs2

 

And here's some more.

 

I can see that their are some positive aspects of employing immigrants in the NHS, but there are many negative aspects to it also, we could have put resources into training British people to work in the NHS, its not positive for the countries that are loosing doctors to the UK, Immigration also increases the population which means the NHS is under greater strain.

The Negatives far out way the positives.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 10:21 ----------

 

Aren't you the one (and a bunch more who are much less reasoned) arguing against the conclusions of the report that started this thread?

Despite the conclusion that immigration is beneficial, you are arguing that it needs to be reduced and changed to suit your own preferences.

And the less balanced are arguing that the report is a lie and that immigration only has down sides.

Half of the people arguing against it, HappHazard for example don't even appear to understand how the immigration system currently functions, or prefer to pretend that it's an open door policy when it simply isn't. (regarding outside EU immigrants).

 

The report in the OP didn't argue that immigration is beneficial, it argued that recent immigrants to the UK made a net contribution to public finances, it didn't go into the negative aspects of immigration.

[Cyclone]

But there you go again with a sweeping generalisation that has as much validity as saying all Muslims are terrorist... a statement you would be quick to jump all over. Just because some immigration is positive, doesn't mean it all is.

I didn't make that generalisation. Strawman.

 

Let's do this in bite size chunks and start with the biggest issue... non-EEA immigrants. The report people keep referring to as a glowing endorsement of immigration acknowledges that for the last decade non-EEA immigrants have made a net negative financial contribution. This also happens to be the group that most struggles to integrate, whose culture we have the least in common with and who have a problem with extremism that spills over into terrorism.

It is also the group that are most subject to immigration control, and that has been tightened recently.

 

Is that assessment wrong? Why would any right minded person welcome that sort of immigration? What is wrong with wanting to control immigration better?

Nothing. It certainly should be controlled.

 

I didn't think he was really advocating that... did you think that? Maybe... perhaps he can clarify.

He said it, why should we second guess what he meant?

 

It still doesn't change the fact that people can't keep putting words in mouths by saying people are arguing for no immigration, and then throwing in a few racist and xenophobia comments, when they have stated countless times that they are not.

But as demonstrated, some people actually are.

It just winds people up, adds to the frustration and pushes them a little closer to taking a more extreme position. Isn't that somewhat counter productive?

Yes, but equally arguing from a position of ignorance (which you aren't, but some others are) causes frustration and annoyance on the other side. If someone can't be bothered to actually find out the reality of the situation, then why give their opinion on it the time of day?

[Zamo]

LOL............you've obviously not read the readers comments on immigration articles,and anything that can be tenuously connected to immigrants,in the right wing media..........references to 'immigrants and their seed' in the Daily Telegraph..........you really need to read the stuff that these people are coming out with.If you believe in what you wrote about online comments,sorry,it's you who is living in cloud cuckoo land and are in denial.

 

The irony is that people like you are fuelling the flames that lead to the sort of readers comments you are referring to.

 

You need to take stock of what sort of return your tactics are achieving. Are people becoming more tolerant towards immigrants or less? Are parties advocating tougher immigrations controls gaining support or losing it? When there is a Islamic terrorist attack are we seeing more tit-for-tat reprisals or less? Which way is the tide of opinion on this subject flowing?

 

It doesn't really matter whether you or anyone else agrees with the tide of opinion. All that matters is the direction of travel. And the continuing direction of travel should be telling you that your arguments are failing (because people trust their own eyes) and it is time to appease. The longer appeasement is delayed the more appeasement there will need to be and the less of the 'as is' (that you seem to love) will remain. Cut your loses.

[Peer Gynt]

Jut a few? In the 70s Clough signed among others Roy McFarland, John O'Hare, Archie Gemmill, John McGovern, Alan Hinton, Colin Todd, Peter Shilton, David Nish, Trevor Francis and Kenny Burns in different managerial spells. Some were record signings at the time. He also tried to sign Bobby Moore and Trevor Brooking. To say he didn't rely on signings is a lie.

Hold on a minute he said Trevor brooking was useless on many occasion and anyway you're proving my point about cheque book management

[chalga]

I can see that their are some positive aspects of employing immigrants in the NHS, but there are many negative aspects to it also, we could have put resources into training British people to work in the NHS, its not positive for the countries that are loosing doctors to the UK, Immigration also increases the population which means the NHS is under greater strain.

The Negatives far out way the positives.

 

Stop cutting the NHS budget then,that is the smokescreen that governments are operating under..........cut the NHS budget,claim immigrants are the reason that the NHS is failing because immigrants are 'putting a strain on it'...the gullible fall for it.....it's immigrants again.

it's like inviting friends round for a cup of tea,then having a go at them for not having enough cups to serve them,or because they are sat on all the chairs and you don't have one,or because they have caused you a load of washing up.......if there isn't the infastructure to cope with migrants in places like schools and the NHS,stop inviting them to come and contribute their labour,or get some new infrastructure built that shows government initiative in realising that new migrants need more infrastructure,not less,and then blame it on migrants for coming....the ones that business in the UK asked to come in the first place.

[Peer Gynt]

The irony is that people like you are fuelling the flames that lead to the sort of readers comments you are referring to.

 

You need to take stock of what sort of return your tactics are achieving. Are people becoming more tolerant towards immigrants or less? Are parties advocating tougher immigrations controls gaining support or losing it? When there is a Islamic terrorist attack are we seeing more tit-for-tat reprisals or less? Which way is the tide of opinion on this subject flowing?

 

It doesn't really matter whether you or anyone else agrees with the tide of opinion. All that matters is the direction of travel. And the continuing direction of travel should be telling you that your arguments are failing (because people trust their own eyes) and it is time to appease. The longer appeasement is delayed the more appeasement there will need to be and the less of the 'as is' (that you seem to love) will remain. Cut your loses.

 

Seems some on here should have learnt from Neville Chamberlin. Reminds me of how the Romans tried to by off the invaders.