Immigration vital to the Nation's finances...

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

You're not fooling me, pretending you want to discuss open borders policy nor with your fake indignation about the 'racist card'.

Not sure what you are getting at. Open border policy is creating many issues. So much so that Cameron himself has made a few u-turns based on his latest speeches.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I've seen many posts from you, with the vilest ones stating immigrants urinate in the streets, defecate in ponds and eat our swans. I could look it up, but don't feel like trawling through

I don't care if you look them up or not - I stand by everything I said. Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand does not make me a racist for stating facts.

Unfortunately when you have open borders - it isn't a mechanism that brings in the "brightest and the best". The bigger effect is that at best it brings in thousands of unskilled workers, and at worst it brings in criminals and the dross of their society without so much as a background check.

If you spend a day visiting any of the towns in the East of England - Boston being a prime example - it won't be long before you witness a foreign national urinating in the streets. They also do it against people's property - and in their front (or back) gardens. Many residents have taken photographs of this behavior - I could post them if you wish but then you would argue that there is no evidence that they aren't English (sigh).

The defecation point is also true I am afraid - this generally happens where homeless migrants have set up camp (again on peoples property) but has also been witnessed in the streets - believe it or not. However this was reported not long ago after the Boston resident appeared on Question Time;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265592/The-mother-told-truth-immigration-BBC-Rachel-Bull-explains-HAD-speak-Question-Time.html

‘Even though they were trespassing we didn’t mind the odd one or two camping on our land — some of them cleaned up after themselves — but there were some that left beer cans, vodka bottles, human faeces, damp sleeping bags"

You may not like to hear about what is going on - and are keen to label what I post as xenophobic claptrap for stating what goes on - but would you want this on your land?

And as for the Swans (and Ducks and Fish) - there is no "hard" evidence of this because nobody has been prosecuted yet. However - again you will find the problem of illegal poaching rife in towns that are experiencing large influxes of Eastern European Immigrants - prior to this there was no problem.

And as you can see from the following press report;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9963858/Immigrants-may-be-behind-swan-attack-says-RSPCA.html

an RSPCA inspector suspects that it may be immigrants that are responsible for the poaching. Are you now going to suggest that the RSPCA inspector is a xenophobe and a racist?

If that's not enough for you - I know of two people who live in properties which back onto riverbanks - and have witnessed this practice. Of course they reported it - but the authorities can do nothing unless they catch them.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

You sure are a nasty piece of work.

What for - stating fact? You need to get your head out of the sand.

Obviously you and Hamish with your constant name calling (racists, xenophobes) and comments like "you sure are a nasty piece of work" would love for them to have the desired effect which is to silence those who have got the guts to lay out the facts.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

lay out the facts.

If that's all you did, nobody would think you are a racist.

Because the facts are that immigrants commit less crime than the native born, claim benefits at a lower rate than the native born, are a net economic benefit to society compared to the native born, and neither take jobs from, nor reduce the wages of, the native born on average.

But when you obsess about the evils of immigrants on every single thread about immigration, use misleading statistics instead of facts, substitute anecdotal stories for evidence, and then present absolutely preposterous claims such as it's commonplace for immigrants to be eating swans and pooping in the streets, we have no choice but to assume you are in fact a racist.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

Chances are it's a duck.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because the facts are that immigrants commit less crime than the native born, claim benefits at a lower rate than the native born, are a net economic benefit to society compared to the native born, and neither take jobs from, nor reduce the wages of, the native born on average.

Please stop realing out these "facts" which have already been discussed at length on here and proven to be untrue. You do it time and time again regardless. The fact you have gone on to suggest others are using misleading statistics is a joke. Just look at your OP for crying out loud....to have the audacity to then complain about misleading statistics is something quite unique!!

The only reason immigrants claim less in benefits is:

A) They are less likely to have kids than the native born (hence they are "free" to migrate from their country) and therefore can't claim child benefits.

They are less likely to take a pension here as they are less likely to actually be here at pension age.

This has been done time and time again, but you still insist on trotting out "facts" which are, at best, vague, and in some cases, completely untrue. This has been put to you on at least 4 occasions now, all backed up with data, graphs etc, but you just won't accept it it seems, and simply hold the racists card up in response.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only reason immigrants claim less in benefits is:

A) They are less likely to have kids than the native born (hence they are "free" to migrate from their country) and therefore can't claim child benefits.

They are less likely to take a pension here as they are less likely to actually be here at pension age.

No they're not the only reasons. A higher proportion of immigrants work compared to the native population and so don't qualify for as many benefits.

As a nation we should be welcoming immigrants that will provide a net economic benefit and closing the door to the rest (other than for humanitarian reasons). In addition we should be equipping our own unemployed to compete for the available jobs - the government (and inflation) seem to be helping to price them into work at least.

Lazy governments have failed to get a grip on this (preferring the 'it's the EU innit' approach). However, EU rules were lifted by authority of the UK government to allow farmers to bury dead sheep on their land in the aftermath of the bad weather. Didn't seem to cause a problem in Brussels - maybe the UK could pick and choose potential immigrants? After all there are exceptional circumstances - we're skint.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

No they're not the only reasons. A higher proportion of immigrants work compared to the native population and so don't qualify for as many benefits.

As a nation we should be welcoming immigrants that will provide a net economic benefit and closing the door to the rest (other than for humanitarian reasons). In addition we should be equipping our own unemployed to compete for the available jobs - the government (and inflation) seem to be helping to price them into work at least.

Lazy governments have failed to get a grip on this (preferring the 'it's the EU innit' approach). However, EU rules were lifted by authority of the UK government to allow farmers to bury dead sheep on their land in the aftermath of the bad weather. Didn't seem to cause a problem in Brussels - maybe the UK could pick and choose potential immigrants? After all there are exceptional circumstances - we're skint.

how does an immigration official know which immigrants are likely to actually work or which will not?
obviously no racial stereotyping will be allowed.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

No they're not the only reasons. A higher proportion of immigrants work compared to the native population and so don't qualify for as many benefits..

Look at benefit and immigration statistics.

Theres hardly any difference in the percentage of claimants claiming stuff like Income Support, Housing Benefits, JSA etc.

There a huge difference in those claiming pensions and child benefit, which means over all benefits, immigrants claim less.

wotsthat

Sampong wrote: »

The defecation point is also true I am afraid - this generally happens where homeless migrants have set up camp (again on peoples property) but has also been witnessed in the streets - believe it or not.

There's an argument that immigrants are vital to the future of the UK's finances. The link provided by Hamish is less than persuasive and I'd suggest that the UK is being targeted by benefit tourists due to a) high benefits b) unrestricted access to the NHS and c) the gulf in living standards between the UK and some of our European partners.

However, stories about 'dirty foreigners' really don't add to the debate - they're simply intended to be inflammatory.

kabayiri

All the immigrant workers I encounter work in shops, hotel work, generally low paid work. That's their main appeal - cheap for business.

But at min wage levels don't make me laugh by claiming they are net contributors. One Polish child at a local school has special needs and a lot of interpreter time. £44 per hour time. I bet the Hamish magic calculator would make this family seem a net asset too.

Obviously, its hogwash, and finally the public are waking up to it. A pro immigration political campaigner will be one with no future.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Look at benefit and immigration statistics.

Theres hardly any difference in the percentage of claimants claiming stuff like Income Support, Housing Benefits, JSA etc.

There a huge difference in those claiming pensions and child benefit, which means over all benefits, immigrants claim less.

This is one area where the data is reasonably clear - immigrants are less likely to claim benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16643677

IMO it depends upon the country of origin. Polish people for example will be better educated than your average Slovak and they are more likely to return home because of the higher standards of living there. I can't see why anyone would want to return to Slovakia under any circumstances.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

how does an immigration official know which immigrants are likely to actually work or which will not?
obviously no racial stereotyping will be allowed.

Assessments should be made before arrival. A basic English test and evidence of a completed education would be a start. That would already be significantly more than the current requirements.