Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

cyril82

ninky wrote: »

net migration from 1991 - 2006 accounted for 2.3 million growth in uk population.

with births in the uk typically around 700, 000 a year breeding accounted for around 10 million growth in population in the same 15 year period.

anyone who has children is somewhat hypocritical to complain about growing population size. if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You're totally wrong on this point as we are debating immigration, not birth rates. And the cost of births, where the majority of children born go home to live and be supported financially by their parents can not be compared to the cost of housing and feding immigrants, let alone the cost of processing and monitoring imigrants to the government.

and i doubt anyone in the U.K wants to see the introduction of limits on the amount of children a family can have such as in china.

Also if you're going to quote the birth rate of british citizens should you not also be quoting the death rate of british citizens in the same timeframe for purposes of comparison, after all that is the circle of life, people die, people are born. i don't really see your point.

dervish

StevieJ wrote: »

Het Dervish you have room to talk :rotfl:

:rolleyes: so do you , apparently...

tomterm8

Now, I am very confused, why do you think there should be any cost of "of housing and feding immigrants"? Immigrants work. Like everyone else. Maybe you are thinking of asylum seekers? Asylum seekers are not immigrants. They are allowed to stay in the UK until it is safe to go home, then they go home.

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

Now, I am very confused, why do you think there should be any cost of "of housing and feding immigrants"? Immigrants work. Like everyone else. Maybe you are thinking of asylum seekers? Asylum seekers are not immigrants. They are allowed to stay in the UK until it is safe to go home, then they go home.

Can you supply figures to support that opinion?

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

Now, I am very confused, why do you think there should be any cost of "of housing and feding immigrants"? Immigrants work. Like everyone else. Maybe you are thinking of asylum seekers? Asylum seekers are not immigrants. They are allowed to stay in the UK until it is safe to go home, then they go home.

A quick google seems to show a different story, this is from the independant 2006, so if anybody can furnish more recent figures i would be grateful.


Tony Blair promised in 2004 that the number of rejected asylum-seekers would exceed the total of unfounded new claims by the end of 2005.
Just over 7,700 asylum-seekers and their dependents claimed refuge in Britain in the third quarter of last year, while 3,935 failed asylum-seekers and their dependents were removed.
The Home Office now predicts that it will hit the Prime Minister's target by 28 February.
That still looks an ambitious goal, but a new system of tracking the departure of asylum-seekers from major ports may help to close the gap. The Home Office is also intent on increasing the number of enforced returns, controversially including to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This may be a sensible move, but it has largely been brought about by the Government's failure to deport failed asylum-seekers."

jojo1964

ninky wrote: »

net migration from 1991 - 2006 accounted for 2.3 million growth in uk population.

with births in the uk typically around 700, 000 a year breeding accounted for around 10 million growth in population in the same 15 year period.

anyone who has children is somewhat hypocritical to complain about growing population size. if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Immigration to Account for a New Household Every 6 Minutes
March 13, 2009

Government projections issued this week confirm that net immigration is now the largest single influence on household formation in England, accounting for very nearly 4 in 10 new households (39%).

The projections show that, over the 25 years from 2006 to 2031, immigration will account for an extra 99,000 households a year - or one every six minutes. This means an extra 2.5 million households by the end of the period out of a total of 6.3 million new households, or nearly 40%. These households would not be formed if immigration was in balance with emigration.

Paints a different picture to the one you show.

chopperharris

dervish wrote: »

what unites British people? :

The English language for one (or it should) - there is no excuse for 2nd or 3rd generation Pakistani families not using English.

yes it out of order how dare they know 2 or more languages while the scots , welsh and irish cant speak their mother toungues....and the english only speak a mish mash of mockney and ganster raps meets txt speak , and cant understand half of its own poulations accented spoken word other than in ridicule.

The english language isnt even english , if mem serves there is but a handful of words that are in fact english.Actually words like bungalow and pyjamas come from the indian continent , you know where pakistan was actaully born from through the empires want for money.

LAstly the pound isnt even british neither , the uk is a mongerel nation of the eu , and always has been through history repeating what was done to it in the rest of the world to lesser developed nations even today.

tomterm8

jojo1964 wrote: »

Can you supply figures to support that opinion?

Which opinion do you want supported by figures? I assume you mean the number of asylum seekers removed. The latest figures reported by the RDS (the official government body) shows in Q4 2008 there were 6,735 initial requests, of whom 2,570 were deported.

In any case, it is not a question of statistics, it is a question of law... the law is that asylumn seekers have the right to remain only so long as they are in danger, and then the government can deport them. There are exceptions where the period of asylumn is so long the person develops legitimate roots in the UK, but these tend to be discretionary.

Now, we can argue about how cack handed the government is about deporting people, but that's a given. This labour government is barely capable of even knowing how many people enter the country, it took years for them to institute a process of counting people in and out... so we don't really have any accurate statistics about illegal immigration. The countries borders are completly porous, you could get a jumbo jet in through the ports without anyone noticing.

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

Which opinion do you want supported by figures? I assume you mean the number of asylum seekers removed. The latest figures reported by the RDS (the official government body) shows in Q4 2008 there were 6,735 initial requests, of whom 2,570 were deported.

In any case, it is not a question of statistics, it is a question of law... the law is that asylumn seekers have the right to remain only so long as they are in danger, and then the government can deport them. There are exceptions where the period of asylumn is so long the person develops legitimate roots in the UK, but these tend to be discretionary.

Now, we can argue about how cack handed the government is about deporting people, but that's a given. This labour government is barely capable of even knowing how many people enter the country, it took years for them to institute a process of counting people in and out... so we don't really have any accurate statistics about illegal immigration. The countries borders are completly porous, you could get a jumbo jet in through the ports without anyone noticing.

You stated Quote.They are allowed to stay in the UK until it is safe to go home, then they go home. Unquote, which is patently incorrect.

I would prefer to deal with facts and figures, as opposed to somebodys personal opinion wrapped up as fact.

tomterm8

My statement was entirely correct. I supported it with statistics. My statement was a description of the law. If you don't like that, frankly I don't care very much.