GDP per capita and immigration

Generali

mayonnaise wrote: »

I predict Bantex will now say that you're stifling any debate by playing the race card.
It's the usual modus operandi for the forum bigots on here.

That's why I phrased it as I did.

You don't have to be a racist to be anti-immigration, I get that. There is an awfully strong correlation though.

As I read the other day, UKIP aren't racist as such. However, in a pinch you rather get the feeling that if The Racists were a couple of men short then UKIP would be able to rustle up a few people to help out.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

What Roma influx? That's a product of your imagination.

We covered this a couple of months back and the feared mass migration of millions of [insert racist term of choice for gypsies] from Romania and Bulgaria simply never happened.

I daresay that's right but, equally, some immigrant groups contribute more than others, e.g. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

What Roma influx? That's a product of your imagination.

We covered this a couple of months back and the feared mass migration of millions of [insert racist term of choice for gypsies] from Romania and Bulgaria simply never happened.

there was no influx in January because as the Romanian minister declared, there was no recorded case of a romanian being refused entry prior to January. Those that wanted to come were already here.

The House of Commons Library has estimated using data from the labour force survey that since 2007 the A2 population in the UK has grown by 148,000, or about 25,000 a year.

The Department for Work and Pensions has produced larger figures: 22,000 Romanians and 14,000 Bulgarians have been granted national insurance numbers to work in the UK on average each year since 2007. Again, this estimate likely to be higher because the main migration estimates miss out short-term migrants, and the fact it’s much larger than the population change suggests that many leave after coming to the UK.

“The truth is nobody really knows”: There are no official estimates for how many are expected to come to the UK

whether one thinks the numbers are significant is up to you

antrobus

Bantex wrote: »

Not where I live it isnt. (London/Kent borders). There are around 50 or so camped out in a derelict multi storey carpark and the level of vandalism and petty theft in the immediate area has gone thru the roof.

Whilst there's just a tiny part of me that wants to point out that 'Roma' is just a polite way of saying 'Gypsy' and that we've had them around for centuries, and that the recent 'influx' into this derelict multi storey carpark on the London/Kent borders may have originated from Surrey.

tincans

A little curious that the graph starts in 1980, when in fact net migration was either small incoming or outgoing for every year until approx. 1998.


What then can we learn from a graph that has 35 years on one axis when large scale net immigration is only relevant in the last 15 years, halve of which saw a house / debt / government spending boom, followed by an almighty recession ?

kabayiri

Is it time for me to mention my usual "robots are the future" spiel ?


After all, it is a pro immigration thread.


In a mere few decades hundreds of thousands of jobs (if not millions) will be done by machines, and not the human it takes today. A machine won't care if it displaces a British born or a super hard working immigrant. *1






*1 ...unless your name is John Connor