How to handle illegal immigrants

[RonJeremy]

I do. Arguing with the right wing bigots who appear to lack humanity and empathy. It's enough to make you wonder about humanity.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 07:24 ----------

 

 

Yes, I'm most definitely a net tax payer thanks.

 

So you work in the private sector? And you earn above £27K pa?

[loraward]

I do. Arguing with the right wing bigots who appear to lack humanity and empathy. It's enough to make you wonder about humanity.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 07:24 ----------

 

 

Yes, I'm most definitely a net tax payer thanks.

 

How can a human lack humanity? and you have demonstrated repeatably that you lack empathy.

 

Bigots are people intolerant of other people because of the opinions they hold, and you demonstrate your intolerance towards other people in most of your posts, and it must be based on their opinions.

Edited June 25, 2015 by loraward

[harvey19]

I do. Arguing with the right wing bigots who appear to lack humanity and empathy. It's enough to make you wonder about humanity.

 

I despair when phrases such as the above are used to try and justify emotion over practical reality.

[Zamo]

Calculate what you paid over the years, and what you cost over the years.

 

Loraward and Zamo will be able to explain how you were not a net-contributor and therefore unworthy of hand-outs by the state.

 

Also, can you explain to those that were unfortunate enough to be born a few years after you why they have to work for an extra 2-5 years so that your pension can be paid?

 

Thanks.

 

Thanks for the invite to contribute.

 

The contributions of everyone in this country can roughly be broken down as thus... 3/5th make a net negative contribution, 1/5th breakeven and 1/5 make a positive contribution. There are lots of dodgy stats out there but the only one that matter is contribution against individual/family share of total spend by the exchequer... and that is what this is based on.

 

Obviously we have a deficit at the moment (contributions from the the richest 1/5th are not enough to offset the draw-down by the poorest 3/5ths) but roughly speaking the balance is pretty close. So ask yourself what happens when you start messing with the balance? What happens when millions of migrants enter the country and not only fall into the bottom 3/5ths of contributors but the bottom 1/5th?

 

The reality of mass immigration (nearly all low skilled and low earning) is that it makes us collectively poorer i.e. we must either pay more tax to keep pace with the additional expenditure that comes with additional people or the services and protection we receive from the State must reduce. The problem doesn't of course materialise the moment immigrants arrive but is more of a slow burn... which allows some dodgy stats to pretend the contribution is positive. But the reality is that over a lifetime the contribution of low earners will be negative as life events happen e.g. use of NHS as they start families, use of schools, child benefit and working tax credits start, more use of the NHS as they get older and finally pensions and social care requirements.

 

So... how to handle illegal immigrants? As rule we should get rid because if they had anything to offer they could enter via legal routes. They will make us poorer and I don't want to be poorer.

[RonJeremy]

Thanks for the invite to contribute.

 

The contributions of everyone in this country can roughly be broken down as thus... 3/5th make a net negative contribution, 1/5th breakeven and 1/5 make a positive contribution. There are lots of dodgy stats out there but the only one that matter is contribution against individual/family share of total spend by the exchequer... and that is what this is based on.

 

Obviously we have a deficit at the moment (contributions from the the richest 1/5th are not enough to offset the draw-down by the poorest 3/5ths) but roughly speaking the balance is pretty close. So ask yourself what happens when you start messing with the balance? What happens when millions of migrants enter the country and not only fall into the bottom 3/5ths of contributors but the bottom 1/5th?

 

The reality of mass immigration (nearly all low skilled and low earning) is that it makes us collectively poorer i.e. we must either pay more tax to keep pace with the additional expenditure that comes with additional people or the services and protection we receive from the State must reduce. The problem doesn't of course materialise the moment immigrants arrive but is more of a slow burn... which allows some dodgy stats to pretend the contribution is positive. But the reality is that over a lifetime the contribution of low earners will be negative as life events happen e.g. use of NHS as they start families, use of schools, child benefit and working tax credits start, more use of the NHS as they get older and finally pensions and social care requirements.

 

So... how to handle illegal immigrants? As rule we should get rid because if they had anything to offer they could enter via legal routes. They will make us poorer and I don't want to be poorer.

 

What an excellent post.

I have just one further comment. I can afford to be a little poorer, although it wouldn't be right or fair to tax me even more, but how many of those encouraging and approving of this immigration would be happy to pay more of their money to support these immigrants? And how many of them can afford to be poorer?

Edited June 25, 2015 by RonJeremy

[Halibut]

So... how to handle illegal immigrants? As rule we should get rid because if they had anything to offer they could enter via legal routes. They will make us poorer and I don't want to be poorer.

 

Expand on that if you will please.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 08:06 ----------

 

How can a human lack humanity

 

You really need to ask?

[loraward]

Expand on that if you will please.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 08:06 ----------

 

 

You really need to ask?

 

That doesn't answer the question.

[tzijlstra]

Thanks for the invite to contribute.

 

The contributions of everyone in this country can roughly be broken down as thus... 3/5th make a net negative contribution, 1/5th breakeven and 1/5 make a positive contribution. There are lots of dodgy stats out there but the only one that matter is contribution against individual/family share of total spend by the exchequer... and that is what this is based on.

 

Obviously we have a deficit at the moment (contributions from the the richest 1/5th are not enough to offset the draw-down by the poorest 3/5ths) but roughly speaking the balance is pretty close. So ask yourself what happens when you start messing with the balance? What happens when millions of migrants enter the country and not only fall into the bottom 3/5ths of contributors but the bottom 1/5th?

 

The reality of mass immigration (nearly all low skilled and low earning) is that it makes us collectively poorer i.e. we must either pay more tax to keep pace with the additional expenditure that comes with additional people or the services and protection we receive from the State must reduce. The problem doesn't of course materialise the moment immigrants arrive but is more of a slow burn... which allows some dodgy stats to pretend the contribution is positive. But the reality is that over a lifetime the contribution of low earners will be negative as life events happen e.g. use of NHS as they start families, use of schools, child benefit and working tax credits start, more use of the NHS as they get older and finally pensions and social care requirements.

 

So... how to handle illegal immigrants? As rule we should get rid because if they had anything to offer they could enter via legal routes. They will make us poorer and I don't want to be poorer.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Now please consider the following in your elaboration: how do you "get rid"?

 

Such an easy opt-out. Are you proposing dumping them back in France? Flying them back to country X so they can start the journey again? Invest in their home-countries to ensure stability and a future for these people?

 

Having grown up in a town with an asylum seeker camp (town of 5000, 600 asylum seekers at the peak, mainly ex-Yugoslavs and AFrican boat refugees) I learned why they came across. Sending them back will only make them want to come across again. I don't believe it has been in the news here (not a lot anyway) but recently a man washed up on the beach in the Netherlands, turns out it was a Syrian refugee trying to swim the Channel.

 

He didn't make it, how many will make it? How many make the crossing illegally? Are we stop and searching all incoming sail-boats in Cornwall these days?

 

The problem exists, "getting rid" is a naive answer.

[loraward]

Thanks for the explanation. Now please consider the following in your elaboration: how do you "get rid"?

 

Such an easy opt-out. Are you proposing dumping them back in France? Flying them back to country X so they can start the journey again? Invest in their home-countries to ensure stability and a future for these people?

 

Having grown up in a town with an asylum seeker camp (town of 5000, 600 asylum seekers at the peak, mainly ex-Yugoslavs and AFrican boat refugees) I learned why they came across. Sending them back will only make them want to come across again. I don't believe it has been in the news here (not a lot anyway) but recently a man washed up on the beach in the Netherlands, turns out it was a Syrian refugee trying to swim the Channel.

 

He didn't make it, how many will make it? How many make the crossing illegally? Are we stop and searching all incoming sail-boats in Cornwall these days?

 

The problem exists, "getting rid" is a naive answer.

 

But getting rid will in the long term stop people trying to swim the channel. Once they know that risking their life to get here is a pointless exercise they will stop trying, whilst ever there is a benefit to trying they will keep trying and dying.

[Cyclone]

I despair when phrases such as the above are used to try and justify emotion over practical reality.

 

We have a practical, moral and ethical obligation as a 1st world country to take a portion of refugees fleeing wars, persecution and natural disaster.

Your 'practical' objections that would result in tens of thousands of deaths make me despair, but fortunately only for you and for people like you. The country as it stands will do it's part, as it's required to under international law.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 08:59 ----------

 

So you work in the private sector? And you earn above £27K pa?

 

Yes, although I don't really intend to discuss my income beyond that.

FYI though, I earned more than that within 4 years of leaving university, and that was now 15 years ago.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 09:00 ----------

 

How can a human lack humanity? and you have demonstrated repeatably that you lack empathy.

 

Bigots are people intolerant of other people because of the opinions they hold, and you demonstrate your intolerance towards other people in most of your posts, and it must be based on their opinions.

I find your word games tedious. You can't challenge intolerance by tolerating it, it isn't bigotry to challenge you and your ilk with your right wing idolatry.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

The reality of mass immigration (nearly all low skilled and low earning) is that it makes us collectively poorer i.e. we must either pay more tax to keep pace with the additional expenditure that comes with additional people or the services and protection we receive from the State must reduce. The problem doesn't of course materialise the moment immigrants arrive but is more of a slow burn... which allows some dodgy stats to pretend the contribution is positive. But the reality is that over a lifetime the contribution of low earners will be negative as life events happen e.g. use of NHS as they start families, use of schools, child benefit and working tax credits start, more use of the NHS as they get older and finally pensions and social care requirements.

 

So... how to handle illegal immigrants? As rule we should get rid because if they had anything to offer they could enter via legal routes. They will make us poorer and I don't want to be poorer.

 

Why do you persist in pretending that refugees are the same as economic migrants?

 

Obviously illegal immigrants are by definition people that will if possible be returned. If they can't for some reason, then they're no longer illegal.