Ukip

Generali

#2 shows an astonishing level of innumeracy.

Surely the larger the population, the more people paying in to the pot so the greater the amount of infrastructure can be provided. The larger the population, the more infrastructure is required but the more can be afforded.

Just to make a point about immigrants and taxation. Do you think that people that get of their bottoms and move to another country in order to:

1. Sit about and claim benefits
2. Work their socks off in order to provide a better life for themselves and their family?

Surely person type #2 is the sort you'd want a lot more of. With an open border they're self selecting.

Sampong

Generali wrote: »

#2 shows an astonishing level of innumeracy.

Surely the larger the population, the more people paying in to the pot so the greater the amount of infrastructure can be provided. The larger the population, the more infrastructure is required but the more can be afforded.

Taken as a whole, what migration adds to production is counterbalanced by their addition to the population.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58738527&postcount=265

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants
comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London.
However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government,
business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—
generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

To be fair, although the government report linked to in Grahams post above said that the committee can find no evidence to support the claim of government, businesses etc that mass migration provides what is often portrayed as substantial gains to the economy - more work does need to be done in this area and a large scale analysis needs to be done.

If carried out thoroughly and fairly, including currently "hidden" costs such as the likes of translation costs to health services and law enforcement, my guess is that the results won't be looking rosy. But even if there is a net gain, it would likely be nominal - and there are other factors to consider beyond economic ones, such as the breakdown of social cohesion. This is of course difficult to talk about without inviting abuse form certain posters.

I fail to see how importing masses of low skilled workers, whilst keeping much of the native population unemployed and claiming benefits, can be seen to lessen the burden on the taxpayer.

There is no doubt that it increases Gross Domestic Product, but does this financially benefit the general population?;

Overall GDP, which the Government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant
and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the
UK. The total size of an economy is not an index of prosperity. The focus of
analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the
resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that
these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to
the increased supply of labour. In the long run, the main economic effect of
immigration is to enlarge the economy, with relatively small costs and benefits for
the incomes of the resident population.

So - little or no financial benefit for your ordinary working man - and a breakdown in social cohesion and divided communities to boot.

burnleymik

Generali wrote: »

Just to make a point about immigrants and taxation. Do you think that people that get of their bottoms and move to another country in order to:

1. Sit about and claim benefits
2. Work their socks off in order to provide a better life for themselves and their family?

Surely person type #2 is the sort you'd want a lot more of. With an open border they're self selecting.

I have absolutely no doubt that you are correct, most have the best intentions in the world, but the fact is there are no longer the jobs to support this influx, hence why so many people are out of work.

With proper controls of the immigration we could manage this properly to suit the economy, not an outdated EU policy.

As for your point about the numbers being "astonishingly" incorrect, how do you know that? I am not saying they are right or wrong, but you are stating that they are wrong as an actual fact and I'd be very interested to see how you come to that conclusion, otherwise your statement is just as incorrect as theirs.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems to work for Australia?

Have you been to Australia? I think about 30% of Australian residents were born outside Australia and loads more are second generation immigrants. Their economic growth has been more dependent on immigration than ours has...

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The photo could have been flipped, yes. But you could say that about anything, and considering this went to the police and they threw it out, you can safely assume that everything you stated wasn't actually the case.

Except it isn't illegal to perform a nazi salute in the UK and the police were investigating him for allegedly posting some comments on facebook. So the police have not made the determination you suggest.

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Except it isn't illegal to perform a nazi salute in the UK and the police were investigating him for allegedly posting some comments on facebook. So the police have not made the determination you suggest.

Oh dear, the disruptive kids are back.

I guess the Police must have missed the Daily Mirror article.

There are plenty of "leads" for the Police to follow, the arm outstretched picture is all over the internet, and posted on here about a hundred times by Hamish.

Without checking, I don't think it's illegal anyway. I'm not going to bother checking that, because we don't do the Nazi salute at the Friday night UKIP meeting so I have no reason to worry about that.

Not that it was ever a Nazi salute anyway.

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Have you been to Australia? I think about 30% of Australian residents were born outside Australia and loads more are second generation immigrants. Their economic growth has been more dependent on immigration than ours has...

That's not his point though is it.

Nobody has suggested and end to immigration, full stop, for ever and ever.

But we need to gain control over our borders.

That control we don't currently have.

His point was that a controlled approach to immigration has worked for Australia. They have been selected people with skills, and ensured they don't have a criminal past.

The result is that they end up with immigrants contributing to the economy and society.

Our process is non selective. Anyone from Europe can come. Including low skilled workers and those with a criminal past.

Many violent crimes and murders have been carried out by immigrants with a known criminal record who have been able to walk into the country without checks because of our open border policy.

There is a huge incentive for Eastern Europeans to come here because they can increase their standard of living four fold. Notice how we do not have large influx's of low skilled workers from France and Germany. This largely comes from the A8 countries.

And before anyone starts calling me names for pointing out social problems;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210324/horr72.pdf

mirry

We need control of our own borders. Our local taxi firm uses only polish workers, they advertise in Poland. They earn money and send it back home and claim tax credits/child benefits. How does this help the uk economy?
We have lost local jobs for local people and its not the first company to do this. It has nothing to do with Race, it's about numbers. The strain on our services is worrying, kids loosing school places, hospitals not coping. UKIPS policy's = common sence.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Have you been to Australia? I think about 30% of Australian residents were born outside Australia and loads more are second generation immigrants. Their economic growth has been more dependent on immigration than ours has...

No I haven't been. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they have CONTROLLED immigration, and as you have stated, it appears to have been very successful for them.

Theres a world of difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration, and what UKIP stand for is controlled immigration.

Hence, it semms to work in Australia. You have only gone on to say how well it's worked in effect.

I don't know why people take such issue with us having control over our own borders. To me it seems insane for us not to have.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Except it isn't illegal to perform a nazi salute in the UK and the police were investigating him for allegedly posting some comments on facebook. So the police have not made the determination you suggest.

And that clearly and obviously isn't a Nazi salut, no matter how much people want it to be, so nothing to worry about.