Quote Originally Posted by MadAmster View Post
Right! Here beginneth the lesson... in no particular order.

1. You accuse posters on here of cherry picking. You have taken a part of a sentence and turned it into the be all and end all. There may have been 90K into health care last year. There are still in excess of 100K vacancies in the NHS. They need filling. I posted QUOTE only once we have zero vacancies in the NHS and other vytal areas UNQUOTE I didn't go into the specifics of other vytal areas but seemingly missed that bit, probably because it doesn't fit your narrative.

2. Doesn't exactly explain the rest? Apart from mentioning the NHS I also included that business owners and shareholders want profits to grow and that can't happen with a shrinking population. It is the richest few % who are driving governments all over Europe and the UK to get these extra bodies in to guarantee their own financial status quo at worst and to improve it if at all possible (not verbatim but that's the gist of what I wrote). You chose to throw those particular cherries away. Why? Destroys your argument? Explains exactly why these folk are being allowed in. It's not being done for you or against you, it's to protect the lofty position of the rich. Another part of my post to which you replied that you ignored.

3. 750K net immigration in 2023. Of that number, a massive 29,437 came via small boats. That's 3.924% of the net immigration.

4. Wage stifling/job stealing. I have yet to see an English fruit or hop picker claim these foreigners have taken their job and/or caused their wages to stagnate or drop.

Where I would agree with you is that immigration does need to be controlled. I've now lived in the Netherlands for 40 years, that's 10 longer than I lived in the UK. I am now the holder of dual nationality. If I commit a serious crime, I'll do my time, lose my Dutch citizenship and be sent back to the land of my birth, the UK. I don't find that harsh. It's what should happen to those entering the UK and then committing serious crime as well.
actually, your post isn't that different from I am saying or believe in.
1. whatever vacancies we need, if they can't be filled domestically, then by all means import. (not fully agree with that, because we have neglected our own via education/training/apprenticships, which will bite our arse long term). I have always said, its the rich who love mass immigration. They keep their pool of cheap labour and don't have to worry about the side effects mentioned- housing/NHS/education/transport/crime/social . GDP hasn't really gone up either and GDP per capita has plummetted.

2. I don't think the boats figures+ the extra illegals totalling 36704 are even included in that figure.

3. wage stifling- errrm its supply and demand . Its the low wage earners who are the worse off. Low-wage workers are more likely to lose out from immigration, while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain, but the effects are small
Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK has found negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers, but both effects are small. In other words, immigration is not just one of the major factors that shape low-wage workers’ prospects in the labour market.

For example, a 2022 study found that immigration to the UK from 1994 to 2016 reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners at the 5th percentile (i.e. the lowest earners in the labour market) by around half of one pence per year. The gains for top earners were also small: 1.7p per year for people at the 90th percentile of wage earners. The one thing you don't allow for either, is the booming BLACK MARKET

4. The last part is spot on. But we in the UK definitely don't do that. The army of lawyers comes out to defend any of these migrants who have committed heinous crimes, to stop deportations. Starmer was at the front in helping. Ironically, many that do get deported, pop back up a few months later.