Migrants to UK 'returning home'

MissMoneypenny

Any wrote: »

I thought that is good news.
I thought that the worry before was that soon we will have more pensioners then people working and therefore paying tax towards those pension payments...

Not a good thing as those increase in births means more money on taxes to pay for their health care, education and benefits (tax credits, birth bonds?, healthy food vouchers and whatever else parents are given these days).

IveSeenTheLight

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Not a good thing as those increase in births means more money on taxes to pay for their health care, education and benefits (tax credits, birth bonds?, healthy food vouchers and whatever else parents are given these days).

I thought it was agreed that there was a need for an increasing birthrate to counteract the ageing population

IveSeenTheLight

From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

You can see from the graph beolw that natural change (births)is on the increase.
There are now more natural births than there is net migration.

There were 791,000 births in 2008 and 570,000 deaths, meaning the net change in natual change was 220,000

There were 591,000 migrating people to the UK in 2008 and 375,000 emmigrating, meaning net migration was 186,000.

Assuming the natural change remained at an increase of 220,000, the amount of people emmigrating from the UK would need to double before the population would become stagnant let alone decrease.

Also consider that in 2007, 406,000 people emigrated thus the people leaving the UK decreased in 2008.

ruggedtoast

ninky wrote: »

surely this is a fairer system? getting the visa if you have the points shouldn't be difficult. but surely what IS still difficult is qualifying for the points in the first place.

i don't think UK is unique in EU for not knowing exactly how many EU immigrants are in the country - that is the point of having the EU, to allow greater freedom of movement. they probably also don't know how many people moved from manchester to liverpool or wales to england.

The UK is fairly unique in the EU as we have an economic policy that fundamentally revolves around low wage non unionised labour. Local people start working for little, then demand more. You replace them with immigrants who work for less, but eventually they start wanting more too - so you replace them with a new wave of immigrants - and so on.

Its impossible to use this model whilst simultaneously having any serious intention to secure border controls.

Brown has outsourced much of the visa controls to "sponsors". These are recognised employers and universities. The majority of the points you need to obtain a UK visa are obtained just from having a certificate if acceptance (for a job or college place) from your sponsor. Much of the burden of working out if an applicant is genuine is now down to thousands of organisations who have no clue what they are doing.

As a sponsor its now up to us to muddle through with the chaotic guidelines the UKBA have provided and hope we're not giving out certificates to the wrong people.

The UKBA would also like us to "tell" on people who arent playing the game when they get here. They arent sure how much we have to tell, who to tell, if we're legally liable to tell, how telling might fit into data protection, or what the consequences might be for not telling. But they'd like us to tell all the same. If we get around to it.

If this doesnt sound like its really going to help an awful lot in controlling visas then thats right, its not meant to. Brown has no intention whatsoever of reducing immigration to the UK (or predominantly England to be honest) - however tough new policies, sponsors, certificates and points, are just the sort of soundbites he can wave around at the daily mail, and appear to be doing something.

Edit: I should also add that times when we have reported blatant visa violation - we have been met with complete indifference from the UKBA and the police. There is simply no interest at all in removing illegals from the UK on any great scale.

In the meantime theyre all still eligible for income support, nhs treatment - yadda yadda.

MissMoneypenny

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I thought it was agreed that there was a need for an increasing birthrate to counteract the ageing population

Not since it was realised that 9 out of 10 families with children are claiming benefits.

IveSeenTheLight

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Not since it was realised that 9 out of 10 families with children are claiming benefits.

That would be interesting.
Got any links for this?

PasturesNew

Any wrote: »

I thought that is good news.
I thought that the worry before was that soon we will have more pensioners then people working and therefore paying tax towards those pension payments...

That was a ridiculous worry.

What happens when all those new births become old people? More people needed?

Already, look around you, where are they all going to live in 15-25 years' time?

It costs about £90k on average from birth to getting a job for the taxpayer to fund a birth.

bo_drinker

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It's the weak sterling that is making a lot move home. Add to that the massive tax rises we are going to get and it doesn't make a lot of sense for those that work, to stay here, unless you feel loyal to the UK. Not sure how long that loyal feeling will stay though when people start to see even less spare money for all the hours they work.

This is not a knock the migrant workers post but loyalty rarely entered the equation as it was fit as many into a house as possible work all hours you can and send the largest chunk of money home.
The gov't failed to see this coming when they thought it was a good idea to open the gates rather than get our lazy b4stards of their ar5es and in to the jobs the migrants were taking when the going was good. The cream has long gone here so they are going home meanwhile the same lazy fkrs here still don't work and are oblivious to it all.

MissMoneypenny

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That would be interesting.
Got any links for this?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Childcare/DG_4016029

Really2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Not since it was realised that 9 out of 10 families with children are claiming benefits.

Would that include benefits that are received by people who work and have children?

I can believe the figure (you can earn over £50K and get tax credits) but the quote makes it sound like they are not working.