Careless Tories!

[ramAnag]

Rubbish. We have an obligation to our own, as does every other country in the world.
Exactly where is the sense in flooding more and more people in for negative benefit, which ultimately makes everyone poorer?
This is a downward spiral, because as a country , we have failed to invest in our people with education and training.
It was made easier for industry to import labour and now we are paying the price.
The fact remains, not everyone that comes into the UK contributes for the better of the nation
Import so much cheap labour, they arrive with dependents and give next to nothing back, campared to what they take out.
It isn't tocket science

Rubbish? Thanks…you mean…you disagree. No great surprise there.
But, yet again you miss the point.

My response, to GP, was that…although I recognised his point, there is a real danger in suggesting that, ‘economically’ we cannot justify providing for the needs of those who are ‘not net GDP per capita effective/enhancing’.

Imo it turns people into mere commodities. It’s a very complex issue, I accept that, but we’re talking very fine lines and there are a great many people, probably including you and possibly all but about three on this forum, who wouldn’t score very highly if judged now on our individual contribution to GDP per capita efficacy.

[swaledale]

Rubbish. We have an obligation to our own, as does every other country in the world.
Exactly where is the sense in flooding more and more people in for negative benefit, which ultimately makes everyone poorer?
This is a downward spiral, because as a country , we have failed to invest in our people with education and training.
It was made easier for industry to import labour and now we are paying the price.
The fact remains, not everyone that comes into the UK contributes for the better of the nation
Import so much cheap labour, they arrive with dependents and give next to nothing back, campared to what they take out.
It isn't tocket science

Mm so all the research which shows that immigrants make a net gain to the countries finances are wrong then? I mean they only use evidence rather than your bigoted, simplistic take on things!

The findings of research done by University College London show that immigrants to the UK who arrived since 2000, and for have made consistently positive fiscal contributions regardless of their area of origin. Between 2001 and 2011 recent immigrants from the A10 countries contributed to the fiscal system about 12% more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about £5 billion. At the same time the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn, with fiscal payments about 64% higher than transfers received. Immigrants from outside the EU countries made a net fiscal contribution of about £5.2 billion, thus paying into the system about 3% more than they took out. In contrast, over the same period, natives made an overall negative fiscal contribution of £616.5 billion. The net fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts therefore to a positive net contribution of about £25 billion, over a period over which the UK has run an overall budget deficit.

[Andy_Faber]

Mm so all the research which shows that immigrants make a net gain to the countries finances are wrong then? I mean they only use evidence rather than your bigoted, simplistic take on things!

.

Basically, yes. Especially when you’re using data from a different era

However, to evidence that I don’t just disagree with you for disagreeings sake, something that you said a the subject of immigration many moons ago holds true - the ship has sailed. As such, although I agree or see the point of what TTR says, he’s wasting his breath

[Trickytreesreds]

Leaking into the papers, well those that dont hide it anyway

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-crisis-worse/

[Geoff Parkstone]

The difference of course being that pensioners, such as yourself, have "paid into the system" for 50 odd years before becoming GDP per capita negative in later life - so they have credit in the bank so to speak.

Imported labour or refugees don't come with this enhanced economic tag. Indeed much of the earnings of imported labour is often remitted back to country of origin (nothing wrong with that) and so doesn't enter into the earnings multiplier computations.

On a purely economic level therefore migrant labour (permanent or transient) is not all it's cracked up to be. It also often comes with baggage - eg economically inactive family members. The positives of getting jobs done that our own entitled domestic workforce prefer not to do does offset this downside, but is it enough in the round?

I am deliberately only talking economics here. The soft humanitarian aspects cannot be measured on a logical scale. Some may value humanitarian decisions over economic ones. Personally I don't, you'll be surprised to learn 😀. So each to their own - there is no right answer.

[ramAnag]

The difference of course being that pensioners, such as yourself, have "paid into the system" for 50 odd years before becoming GDP per capita negative in later life - so they have credit in the bank so to speak.

Imported labour or refugees don't come with this enhanced economic tag. Indeed much of the earnings of imported labour is often remitted back to country of origin (nothing wrong with that) and so doesn't enter into the earnings multiplier computations.

On a purely economic level therefore migrant labour (permanent or transient) is not all it's cracked up to be. It also often comes with baggage - eg economically inactive family members. The positives of getting jobs done that our own entitled domestic workforce prefer not to do does offset this downside, but is it enough in the round?

I am deliberately only talking economics here. The soft humanitarian aspects cannot be measured on a logical scale. Some may value humanitarian decisions over economic ones. Personally I don't, you'll be surprised to learn ��. So each to their own - there is no right answer.

I do take your point, although I’d query the ‘50 odd years’, but, imo, the migrant issue isn’t going to go away. It is only going to increase as a result of war, famine, poverty and, one imagines, increasing numbers related to climate change.
There but for the accident of birth go you and I…we were both fortunate enough to be born to good and caring parents in a (relatively) stable society. Not everyone is and it requires some joined up thought from the ‘wealthy world’ to deal with the problem not more and more division.
I’m sure I’m guilty of being idealistic, in the same way as your economic stance may appear callous and Tricky’s thoughtless…but the UK is not alone in having a problem with immigration, indeed others in Europe take far more and, as ever, the better off and wealthier countries need to work together to solve the problem rather than demonise the poorest.

I really don’t know what the acceptable alternative is and it doesn’t seem to have worked out too badly for Australia and the USA.

[Trickytreesreds]

I do take your point, although I’d query the ‘50 odd years’, but, imo, the migrant issue isn’t going to go away. It is only going to increase as a result of war, famine, poverty and, one imagines, increasing numbers related to climate change.
There but for the accident of birth go you and I…we were both fortunate enough to be born to good and caring parents in a (relatively) stable society. Not everyone is and it requires some joined up thought from the ‘wealthy world’ to deal with the problem not more and more division.
I’m sure I’m guilty of being idealistic, in the same way as your economic stance may appear callous and Tricky’s thoughtless…but the UK is not alone in having a problem with immigration, indeed others in Europe take far more and, as ever, the better off and wealthier countries need to work together to solve the problem rather than demonise the poorest.

I really don’t know what the acceptable alternative is and it doesn’t seem to have worked out too badly for Australia and the USA.

Yes and others in Europe have realised their error and are slamming the door shut fast. Germany/Denmark/Sweden. Even the EU is now muttering a Rwanda plan. Half of what we get now, is because Europe is saying no and they look for the next sucker.
Our quality of life is falling through the floor fast, like other places in europe has
I know its convinient to just blame the Tories, but the reality is the West is failing at this. Amazing how they steer clear of the rich middle east countries.

The USA? I think you need to educate yourself chap. It is seriously falling apart there. The left allowed it, the south rebelled and passed them on to the left areas.
NEW YORK ALONE- The 2024-25 Executive Budget Financial Plan indicates the State plans to spend $4.3 billion between State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2022-23 through SFY 2025-26 for emergency spending related to people seeking asylum in the United States. Emergency spending for asylum seekers totaled $713.0 million through March 31, 2024.
Who is suffering in New York? Yep, it;'s the legal poor migrant communities, who have seen their shelters/ food banks/ housing disappear over night. You may not like my videos, but you really should do some digging yourself.

One for Maddy, seeing as he seems to not mind the migration. Seeing as Gert has risen through the power bands in Holland , is everything ok there?
The Morrocan drug gangs are now said to be bigger than the Italian mafia and Antwerp the drug base of Europe.

Immigration comes with positives and negatives.
As it stands the negatives by far out weigh the positives. Both economically and socially. Crime/ freedom of speech/ housing/ health / services are imploding.

The draw bridge needs raing fast, some breathing time gained and a re think.

[MadAmster]

Yes and others in Europe have realised their error and are slamming the door shut fast. Germany/Denmark/Sweden. Even the EU is now muttering a Rwanda plan. Half of what we get now, is because Europe is saying no and they look for the next sucker.
Our quality of life is falling through the floor fast, like other places in europe has
I know its convinient to just blame the Tories, but the reality is the West is failing at this. Amazing how they steer clear of the rich middle east countries.

The USA? I think you need to educate yourself chap. It is seriously falling apart there. The left allowed it, the south rebelled and passed them on to the left areas.
NEW YORK ALONE- The 2024-25 Executive Budget Financial Plan indicates the State plans to spend $4.3 billion between State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2022-23 through SFY 2025-26 for emergency spending related to people seeking asylum in the United States. Emergency spending for asylum seekers totaled $713.0 million through March 31, 2024.
Who is suffering in New York? Yep, it;'s the legal poor migrant communities, who have seen their shelters/ food banks/ housing disappear over night. You may not like my videos, but you really should do some digging yourself.

One for Maddy, seeing as he seems to not mind the migration. Seeing as Gert has risen through the power bands in Holland , is everything ok there?
The Morrocan drug gangs are now said to be bigger than the Italian mafia and Antwerp the drug base of Europe.

Immigration comes with positives and negatives.
As it stands the negatives by far out weigh the positives. Both economically and socially. Crime/ freedom of speech/ housing/ health / services are imploding.

The draw bridge needs raing fast, some breathing time gained and a re think.

First I'll approach three things from TTR's post.

1. They don't "steer clear" of the rich middle eastern countries. Those countries won't have them. They won't have them because they are either not Muslim or they're the wrong "flavour" of Muslim.

2. The influence of the Mocro-Mafia, as they are known, has been hit. A dozen or so of the "top honchos" recently got sent down for long stretches. Most for between 15 and 20 years. Three of them got whole life sentences. When we first introduced "whole life" it was meant to be that, till you die. That was deemed by the EHCR to be both cruel and illegal as it removed any hope from prisoners. We changed the Law. They now get one chance, after serving 25 years, to appeal for parole. If granted they are out on licence. If refused, that's it, the rest of your natural inside.

3. "Gert" (his name is Geert) was elected on an ultra right wing manifesto including things like banning Islam, banning the Hijab, banning the Koran. Those things were, and still are a) illegal under Dutch Law and b) go against international agreements the Netherlands has signed up to. He has dropped ALL of those proposed policies. The current situation is that 4 parties have been talking since the November election to each other to attempt to form a coalition. An artificial deadline is looming. Wilders feels he HAS to have a really strong approach to immigration as that is the one policy that saw him become the largest party in Parliament. The problem he's facing is that, to satisfy his voters, he NEEDS stringent plans. Countering him is Peter Omtzigt's NSC. A party devoted to Law and Order. Talks look like breaking down on the immigration policy as Geert doesn't want to water down any further and Peter says he has to as parts of what geert wants are still illegal.... I said "new election" when the results were announced. I think I will be proven right.

Why is an influx of immigrants deemed necessary? Partly for jobs the indigenous population won't do. Partly to fill staff shortages in the NHS. However, it's big business doing most of the pushing. Falling populations means less call for their goods and services. Rather than scaling their business to match the declining demand, they refuse to accept decline in turnover and profits. They push politicians to keep population levels high. Also, declining population means less working people supporting ever more pensioners. The "tax dollars" have to come from somewhere. Research shows, Swale and GP have commented on this earlier in the thread, that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out. Ergo, both big business (aka the rich, the 1%) believe they NEED immigration. That's why it's happening.

[Andy_Faber]

The difference of course being that pensioners, such as yourself, have "paid into the system" for 50 odd years before becoming GDP per capita negative in later life - so they have credit in the bank so to speak.

Imported labour or refugees don't come with this enhanced economic tag. Indeed much of the earnings of imported labour is often remitted back to country of origin (nothing wrong with that) and so doesn't enter into the earnings multiplier computations.

On a purely economic level therefore migrant labour (permanent or transient) is not all it's cracked up to be. It also often comes with baggage - eg economically inactive family members. The positives of getting jobs done that our own entitled domestic workforce prefer not to do does offset this downside, but is it enough in the round?

I am deliberately only talking economics here. The soft humanitarian aspects cannot be measured on a logical scale. Some may value humanitarian decisions over economic ones. Personally I don't, you'll be surprised to learn 😀. So each to their own - there is no right answer.

Agreeing totally. The ‘economic benefit of immigration’ is, overall, a fallacy, pushed by those who don’t understand the economics or chose to ignore them

[swaledale]

Agreeing totally. The ‘economic benefit of immigration’ is, overall, a fallacy, pushed by those who don’t understand the economics or chose to ignore them

Mm I do think that making such a simplistic statement about a complicated matter which you clearly don't fully understand is just making yourself look foolish. There are many benefits and admittedly some downsides to immigration, but taking simple demographics into account, by and large immigration is compensating for the low birth rate which under the current economic model, which you and GP seem to subscribe to, is rather important for it to work.

GP's polemic is wrong on many counts, for a start research shows and I quote from that done by University College London

The net fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts to a positive net contribution of about £25 billion, over a period over which the UK has run an overall budget deficit.