Immigrants & Benefits

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nope.

We're competing against offshore wages up here. They make £18.50 an hour starting wage offshore.

The Aberdeen jobs market is mental. 0.8% unemployment.

Which begs the question, why aren't more Brits willing to get on their bike and move to where the work is?

Because it is 4 hours from Glasgow, which in turn is 5 hours from the Midlands and another 5 from Graham.?

Because it is cold, grim, desolate?

Personally it wouldn't bother me if I needed to I like it up there.

I can understand if you have family, kids in education, elderly relatives that need you it is a big step for many people. For some it may not be financially possible, not because of benefits but simply because they don't have the spare resources to gamble.

I guess the above is the reason for many not getting on their bike even closer to home.

An EU immigrant toting only a rucksack and willing to gamble may see it differently.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Like I said, benefits tourism is a myth.

Natalija doesn't seem to think so.....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4753651/lithuanian-immigrant-youre-a-soft-touch.html

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are just extracting the urine now.

Night Hamish. This thread is pointless, and get's more extreme the more you post.

If you just want immigration so that you can pay low wages, you should have said pages ago, instead of claiming all the guff you've claimed.

Howcome it's just you again, and everyone else will be able to get cleaners for well under 20k!? Not reliable you say? Maybe they can't stand working for you?...

I googled quickly cleaners in Aberdeen and can only seem to find jobs for the minimum wage or just above. (unless these are 'specialist cleaner jobs that Hamish is looking to fill) so I am finding it strange too that he cannot fill his cleaning jobs for £10 an hour? I found a regional cleaning manager position for £22k which seems rather lowly paid if cleaners are getting £10ph

I also looked at the more basic jobs admin staff, data entry and stuff like that that doesn't require real specialist skill set and they also don't appear to be really any better paid than the rest of the country.

Given the fact that Aberdeen house prices have risen greatly which no doubt impacts the rent paid on rented accommodation I am at no loss to see why people from other areas don't up sticks and rush up there.

Going4TheDream

Sampong wrote: »

Natalija doesn't seem to think so.....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4753651/lithuanian-immigrant-youre-a-soft-touch.html

I am not convinced she was a benefit tourist in the true sense as she did work here before being made redundant so didn't just turn up for benefits.

It is the fact that she has been 'allowed' to turn down a job and still continue to claim all her benefits without penalty that is worse, when many people do work for low wages and don't have the luxury of choice that she seems to have. This is where the Benefits system itself is wrong and not the immigration/migration policy.

(I also cant understand why she applied for a £14k job if it was so beneath her skills set only to turn it down?)

vivatifosi

ILW wrote: »

I don't care. It should not happen that a foreign national that has never contributed should get a penny from the UK taxpayer. One is too many.
This goes for Brits who move abroad also.

That's my view too. I have been an immigrant myself and see no point in bashing a heterogeneous group of people who probably have more in common with you than you think (I say this in the broadest sense, my comment isn't aimed at ILW).

However where I draw the line is two-fold. People who migrate economically should be making a light footprint on their host country. They should only be able to claim benefits after a qualifying period and not be able to claim social housing. However access to healthcare for all who are working (not healthcare tourists) and education for children should of course be a right.

Incidentally, Brits who move abroad then make no effort to understand the local culture or learn the language annoy me too.

MS1950

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Should be remembered that the industrial revolution was largely a British thing. We didn't have mass immigration then, and look what was achieved?

Really?

What about the Irish - mainly refugees from the famine - who dug the canals and built the railways and who came to South Wales and the West of Scotland to work in the coal mines and ship building, as well as populating many of the poorer areas of London, Manchester and elsewhere - read the reports and commentators of the time about the hostility and divisions with the locals - often expressed in terms similar to many on this thread.

ILW

MS1950 wrote: »

Really?

What about the Irish - mainly refugees from the famine - who dug the canals and built the railways and who came to South Wales and the West of Scotland to work in the coal mines and ship building, as well as populating many of the poorer areas of London, Manchester and elsewhere - read the reports and commentators of the time about the hostility and divisions with the locals - often expressed in terms similar to many on this thread.

Did they claim any benefits?
Don't think there were any then, just charity.

GeorgeHowell

The answer of course would be to make obtaining benefits more arduous and rigorous for everyone, including immigrants, in order to cut out a lot of fraud, waste, and scrounging. In the unlikely event that the government had the courage to take this course of action, we can be sure that the LibDems would never let them.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The answer of course would be to make obtaining benefits more arduous and rigorous for everyone, including immigrants, in order to cut out a lot of fraud, waste, and scrounging. .

Totally agree.

But then what excuse would the usual suspects hide behind for wanting to curb immigration?

MS1950

ILW wrote: »

Did they claim any benefits?
Don't think there were any then, just charity.

No there were no ‘benefits’ nor much (if any) ‘charity’ for those for 18th and 19th century Irish immigrants; without whom “The rapid extension of English industry could not have taken place”.

Nor were there for the millions whose ‘free’ labour (in the form of slavery) – in combination with (virtually) ‘free’ raw materials and captive markets provided by colonies – provided the economic surplus to invest in the industrial revolution – the legacy of which still underpins the (remaining) relative wealth of this country compared with much of rest of the world - which in turn provides the relative comfort from which some posters on this thread can attack ‘immigrants’.