Immigrants & Benefits

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

From your research paper, from your 12 peers.

Indeed, slightly positive.

Hardly what you have been suggesting. Surprised you didn't find that the first time round when I asked you on the other thread instead of going off on a racist insult.

This is the thing Hamish, NO ONE is saying immigration is bad overall. It's just you put your "facts" across from such an authoritative viewpoint, and close your eyes to everything else. If you had looked at the source of my document you would findi t's not against immigration, it's just saying all these facts you have been spouting about how we need immigration so much are not really facts, just VI's leaning on cherry picked statistics which leads to misleading information.

It's exactly what you are doing, hence why you are coming up against a wall of opposition to pretty much everything you state. You use the extreme end of statistics each and every time.

No one is saying shut the doors. Were saying control it.

hethmar

grizzly1911 wrote: »

And this proves what exactly?

Not exactly admissible as evidence.

It actually proves the Job Centre appointment system they use now is working

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You haven't given any evidence regarding unemployed.

Post 274.

But here it is again...

The overall employment rate of immigrants (68%) is lower than that of UK born persons (about 75%), but the gap has been declining in recent years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

it's just saying all these facts you have been spouting about how we need immigration so much are not really facts, just VI's leaning on cherry picked statistics which leads to misleading information.

It's not saying that at all.

Could you identify what VI the London School of Economics, NIESR, CEBR, BCC and The UK Government have? Or why they would "cherry pick" statistics?

PaulF81

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And that statistic, combined with the low birth rates of the "one child policy" is about to bite China badly.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html

China is a dead man walking, in economic terms, as the inevitable population decline and increasing dependency ratio will impose extremely harsh burdens of care on the young.

China will sart declining economically from the 2020's onward.

They need either a baby boom, or truly massive immigration, from then on to save themselves.

no they dont. If you think the chinese will have a problem with too many old people to support, I suggest you look at their penchant for carrying out full term abortion.

Its going to get tough for old people in China, but it will continue to grow IMO. All they are doing is trying to match their population size to a realistic expectation of the resources available to their population in time to come. They arent going to let the suffering of OAPs get in the way of preventing a situation whereby the long term health of the nation is put at risk, wrightly or wrongly.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Post 274.

But here it is again...

So that doesn't mention unemployment.

But the answer is that some immigrant subgroups (not EU immigrants though, more Asian and Middle Eastern) have a far lower percentage of women working, as they prefer to maintain a traditional family.

The employment numbers I quoted in the other thread were for EU immigrants versus British Nationals.

And show markedly higher employment for the immigrants than the nationals.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So that doesn't mention unemployment.

But the answer is that some immigrant subgroups (not EU immigrants though, more Asian and Middle Eastern) have a far lower percentage of women working, as they prefer to maintain a traditional family.

The employment numbers I quoted in the other thread were for EU immigrants versus British Nationals.

And show markedly higher employment for the immigrants than the nationals.

Are these unemployed EU immigrants entitled to any benefits from the UK taxpayer?

PaulF81

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which would completely defeat the objective of free labour market access. So no, of course not.

People should be able to come here and look for work. Finding a job from overseas is extremely difficult, and would no doubt reduce immigration.

We need more immigration, not less.

If your concern is benefits, then by all means, cut them if such a deal can be done. Immigrants aren't coming here for that anyway, so makes no difference.

Utter BS. If I decided I was going to pitch up to the UAE without guaranteed employment, would the Emirati government dip in their pockets in the hope I could find a job that doesnt exist? Not a chance.

Does this stop the UAE from being one of the most successful multiethnic countries in the world, with one of the largest Expat and multinational population in the world? No, it doesnt. What it does prevent is people moving there with more to take than they have to give, in terms of state assets. Why would you want someone moving to the UK that has no qualifications and is going to consume more resources than they will ever pay for? Madness.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

Are these unemployed EU immigrants entitled to any benefits from the UK taxpayer?

All EU citizens are entitled to a similar range of benefits.

Why should we deny them the same rights we have there?

And also worth noting that immigrant use of benefits is less than half the UK native use of benefits.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But the answer is that some immigrant subgroups (not EU immigrants though, more Asian and Middle Eastern) have a far lower percentage of women working, as they prefer to maintain a traditional family.

Any proof of this? Only it would take a lot of those families to make up the difference in the figures.