Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[boyfriday]

It isn't an 'on or off' thing. We no doubt need some immigrants to plug gaps but you have effectively just written off the 2.5 million unemployed of this country as no-hopers... and I get accused of generalisations!

 

No I havent written them off, I've asked you to consider why they're being superseded for jobs that EEA immigrants are taking.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 08:38 ----------

 

You saved me a lot of time posting something similar....Thanks!!

 

I bet the figures also don't take into account the cost of schooling, health care, interpreters etc.

How do you know this? Do the net figures take into account the costs of schooling and healthcare for the indigenous?

There's lies, damn lies and statistics and people will fudge the figures to suit their own agenda.

Which is precisely what you're seeking do, but without providing any evidence.

I suspect immigrants from certain countries are overall costing us an absolute fortune, especially those who aren't educated and don't speak our language.

There may well be immigrants from certain countries costing us a fortune, but this latest research takes account of that.

We're a small island with a growing population, I think it's time we became much stricter on who we allow into this country. If we have a shortage of brain surgeons, then allow in people with the relevant qualifications, but it's time to stop inviting people in willy nilly.

Again, more fanciful thinking-people are not invited in 'willy-nilly', do you remember the recent trouble those protesting Syrian refugees had getting into the UK?

[Happ Hazzard]

That report is a load of balls. UCL is a hotbed of fabianism and liberalism. Ask any normal working-class person on the street (and there are a lot more of us than there are snooty academics) what they think of immigration and you will get a very different answer.

[boyfriday]

That report is a load of balls. UCL is a hotbed of fabianism and liberalism. Ask any normal working-class person on the street (and there are a lot more of us than there are snooty academics) what they think of immigration and you will get a very different answer.

 

The issue isn't about what the 'normal working-class person' (whatever he or she might be) thinks about immigration and how do you find yourself in a position where you can speak for them anyway?

[Happ Hazzard]

So what is the issue? Do we live in a democracy or not? Studies like this mean nothing when the majority of voters simply don't believe it, especially when it comes from an institution like UCL that has had long standing ties to liberalism and fabianism

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 08:53 ----------

 

How about we halt ALL immigration for a decade, just to see what the alternative to the current free for all would be like? After that people will be able to make an informed choice as to which they would prefer.

[angos]

I've been arguing this for years on here yet people still seem to want to blame a lot of our problems on people moving from abroad.

 

At the risk of being controversial, isn't about time now to turn the attention away from recently arrived immigrants and to start to look at the problems within the indigenous population.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

 

The study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

 

So this group as been a net drain on the tax system, they occupy houses which makes housing more expensive for the native people, they occupy school places which means larger class sizes and more language problems.

They do work that could be done by British people which means for every immigrant working, there must be one British person claiming benefits that could and should be working.

 

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

But is this contribution enough to cover the benefits paid to the British person that should be working. This group also contribute to higher house prices which might appear to be good for economic growth, but these higher house prices contributed to the economic crash and the inability of young British people to afford housing.

[Doom]

How do you know this? Do the net figures take into account the costs of schooling and healthcare for the indigenous?

 

We're not talking about the indigenous population, we're talking about the net cost of immigrants.

 

Which is precisely what you're seeking do, but without providing any evidence.

 

I'm not the one who wrote the report, I'm just pointing out that you can be selective with figures to suit your argument.

 

Without knowing exactly what is and isn't included in this report, it becomes meaningless.

 

There may well be immigrants from certain countries costing us a fortune, but this latest research takes account of that.

 

I've only scanned through the report, but I can't see where it breaks down the figures into country by country.

 

You've obviously looked much closer than me, so how do the figures compare between a Norwegian immigrant living in this country and a Somalian immigrant?

 

Again, more fanciful thinking-people are not invited in 'willy-nilly', do you remember the recent trouble those protesting Syrian refugees had getting into the UK?

 

So what restrictions are being put on those from Eastern European countries? Are they been allowed in based on their educational standards and skill sets? - No, they're being allowed in because their country is now part of the EU!

 

Regards

 

Doom

[boyfriday]

So this group as been a net drain on the tax system, they occupy houses which makes housing more expensive for the native people, they occupy school places which means larger class sizes and more language problems.

They do work that could be done by British people which means for every immigrant working, there must be one British person claiming benefits that could and should be working.

They have more children-the future working population.

[angos]

The wonder of fanciful thinking Zamo. Yes in an ideal world our unemployed would be doing those jobs in London cafes, bars and eating places-in fact they'd be seeking out those jobs, but have you ever wondered why they aren't? Why are they being superseded by (very good) EEA immigrants who've travelled to be here, don't have the supportive infrastructure our own have and don't even have English as their first language?

 

Forcing these people to work may well be possible, but would you continue to frequent those London cafes to be served by indolent, reluctant individuals? The cafes would go out of business, oh and the staff back on the dole. This could be applied across all sectors where unskilled immigrants are working in the UK.

 

Because immigrants are better off working here for low wages than working in their own country and our benefits system made it less beneficial for British people to take these jobs. Immigrants have a good incentive to work here whilst our unemployed don't, because they will get money and housing regardless of their negative contribution to society. If our benefits system was equal to Poland's benefit system you will find more British people seeking these low paid jobs.

[Doom]

They have more children-the future working population.

 

Or future claimants, depending on the path they take.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[boyfriday]

We're not talking about the indigenous population, we're talking about the net cost of immigrants.

Well we're actually talking about a recent research piece, the contents of which you've chosen to denounce without any evidence to do so.

 

I'm not the one who wrote the report, I'm just pointing out that you can be selective with figures to suit your argument.

Yes we all know that, but if you're going to produce a counter argument at least provide evidence that can be properly discussed.

 

I've only scanned through the report, but I can't see where it breaks down the figures into country by country.

 

You've obviously looked much closer than me, so how do the figures compare between a Norwegian immigrant living in this country and a Somalian immigrant?

I've no idea but the report is a macro one, it refers to immigration generally. It also doesn't include the social/cultural benefits of immigration in which case I can think of one very notable Somalian immigrant who's made significant contributions in the field of athletics.

 

So what restrictions are being put on those from Eastern European countries? Are they been allowed in based on their educational standards and skill sets? - No, they're being allowed in because their country is now part of the EU!

The idea behind the EU is free movement of labour, there's nothing stopping our unemployed seeking work in Germany, Spain, France or even Romania...assuming they wanted to.