BS: UK immigration too high?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 07:03 AM

Artbrooks, good question about EU.
Free migration was a principal, but when it enlarged some countries did not extend that to the new members.
We did and there was an influx of about a million, mostly from Eastern European countries such as Poland.
With the recession, some have returned home.

Most UK immigration is from Africa and Indian subcontinent

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 05:36 AM

• There is no evidence that net immigration generates significant economic
benefits for the existing UK population.
• The Government's own figure for the annual benefit of immigration is
62 pence per head per week.
• The overall benefit to the Government's revenues is likely to be small.
• Immigration is not the answer to the pensions problem.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/pdfs/ourcase_3.pdf

The Select Committee's overall conclusion was that:
"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."1
Their main recommendation was that:
"The Government should have an explicit and reasoned indicative target range for
net immigration and adjust its immigration policies in line with that broad
objective."2

We do not support the
general claims that net immigration is indispensable to fill labour and skills
shortages. Such claims are analytically weak and provide insufficient reason for
promoting net immigration. Vacancies are, to a certain extent, a sign of a healthy
economy. Immigration increases the size of the economy and overall labour demand,
thus creating new vacancies. As a result, immigration is unlikely to be an effective tool
for reducing vacancies other than in the short term."4
"The argument that sustained net immigration is needed to fill vacancies, and that
immigrants do the jobs that locals cannot or will not do, is fundamentally flawed.
It ignores the potential alternatives to immigration for responding to labour shortages,
including the price adjustments of a competitive labour market and the associated
increase in local labour supply that can be expected to occur in the absence
of immigration."5
1 Ibid. para 3
2 Ibid. Abstract, para. 2
3 Ibid. para. 220
4 Ibid. Abstract, para. 4
5 Ibid. para. 228

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:11 PM

Who belongs where?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:03 PM

""I'm not having a go at you or anyone but you did say the answer to a lack of accommodation would be to reduce numbers.

I say build more accommodation, that's all.""

You should know me better than that mate, based on my past posts.

I was suggesting that lacking sufficient housing might be handled by letting in a smaller number of NEW immigrants, UNTIL such time as your NEW housing became available.

I would NEVER countenance the removal of existing residents, under ANY circumstances.

They belong here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 03:57 PM

Let me try to put my point another way.

Given the demographic shift of an ageing population and the older members of the population living longer than ever before, there are few options if we want to maintain our aspirations of a "retirement life".

The obvious way is to accept that we have to make provision for a lot more workers to maintain us. That is to accept much greater immigration rates.

If we consider that large scale immigration and population growth is undesirable then it follows that we must give up pretty much all our expectations of "retirement". With fewer earners the only answer is to reduce the number of dependants. I presume that nobody here is proposing a cull of the elderly, so would those people concerned about immigration be totally willing to continue to work to support themselves - in effect - until they die or become wholly incapable?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Manc
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 03:02 PM

bloody foreiners eh..!!??

coming over here and shagging our birds..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8288083.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:53 PM

Of course you are right Art, I was being wilfully naive.

But the parallel is not entirely without foundation. We return elected members to the European Parliament and the laws passed there become statutes on the books of the member states when ratified. In relevant matters, ratification is a treaty obligation on member states. The only retention of sovereignty are on matters of defence, the fine detail of social policy, tax and expenditure - but decisions on the latter two are limited if you happen to be in the euro currency.

How I wish we had the Euro now; Brown and Darling's freedom to fuck us over with the banks are going to cripple this country for generations. Eurozone nations are going to get through this mess a lot quicker than us.

The freedom to migrate and settle across the EU is one of the rights all EU citizens have (except citizens of the 8 accession countries, but that is a time-limited restriction)and the European law granting those rights is enacted in all the member states so in some ways to, say, turn away the French from Great Britain would be quite a lot like the CA / NJ comparison I made.

I know, this is really off-topic - if anyone wants to take this further, please start a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:38 PM

Well not exactly, Royston. Newcomers from New Jersey are port of the same polity, while those from, say, Oman are not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:07 PM

Exactly Art, it's like California placing a limit on incomers, whether they be from Middle East or from New Jersey.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:05 PM

You keep talking about unlimited immigration, when this thing doesn't exist. And if you now accept that our social needs will demand more external labout then it doesn't matter whether that labout force is an increasing resident number or an increasing number of short term, rotating, workers. It still means that we need an ever increasing number of people on these islands at any give time.

Jeesh, you are such hard work!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:03 PM

Not to get into the middle of a UK-catters' discussion, but because I've been following this with interest and I'm curious about the answer:

Isn't free migration one of the principles of the EU? If so, can the UK legally limit it while staying within the EU?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:49 PM

People are welcome to work, send home money, save and return.
That is a common arrangement.
Do you not think that England is already far too overcrowded to continue to encourage unlimited numbers to come and settle?
Balanced Migration do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:24 PM

Keith,

Oh I see, so in your view of things it doesn't matter how many people we bring here to slave for us and support our expectations of a lovely long retirement; just so long as we need them and those people accrue no rights to remain and settle and reap the benefit of their labours for our society? And then we tell them to pack their bags.

Because that it what sounds like you're saying.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 09:19 AM

According to the cross party group of MPs Balanced Migration,
•The centrepiece of the Government's major reform of immigration is their Points
Based System for work permits. However, this does not limit numbers.

•We propose that there should be a limit – not on the number of people who come to
work here, but on those permitted to live here permanently.

They also say
The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs conducted a major
enquiry into the economic impact of immigration – the first of its kind in Britain. The
Committee included peers from all the main political parties, among them a former
Governor of the Bank of England, a former Director General of the Confederation of
British Industry and two former Chancellors of the Exchequer. The report was
unanimous.
The Select Committee's overall conclusion was that:
"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."1
Their main recommendation was that:
"The Government should have an explicit and reasoned indicative target range for
net immigration and adjust its immigration policies in line with that broad
objective."2
1 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, The Economic Impact of Immigration, 1 April 2008, Abstract, para. 1
2 Ibid, Abstract, final paragraph
http://www.balancedmigration.com/ourcase.php

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 09:19 AM

No, Don.

I'm not having a go at you or anyone but you did say the answer to a lack of accommodation would be to reduce numbers.

I say build more accommodation, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 08:45 AM

""but what about the economists who calculate that we don't have enough people to support our economic and social growth and social needs?

Don, I know your intentions are good but you still miss the critical issue. The response to a lack of social resources for the population is not to have a cull, it is to build more resources.""

I think you are mixing your posters Royston.

That wasn't me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 08:12 AM

but what about the economists who calculate that we don't have enough people to support our economic and social growth and social needs?

Don, I know your intentions are good but you still miss the critical issue. The response to a lack of social resources for the population is not to have a cull, it is to build more resources.

This is not an unprecedented situation, we had a booming population in the post war period and we bloody well went out and built millions of new homes in suburbs and new towns. And we did it all at a time when the nation was pretty bankrupt.

All we lack now is the honesty and the will.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 08:00 AM

But, many people think that even with the controls now in place immigration is still too high.
Just numbers, not race.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:32 AM

Control is fine,and we already have that, so where is the problem?

If less immigration is indicated by, for example, a lack of employment, or a lackof sufficient accommodation, then a simple alteration in the numbers permitted, or a restiction on trades we do not have a need for, and it's sorted.

Once the race bogey is removed from the equation it becomes very simple.

Unfortunately, the majority of those who are complaining about immigrants are very much concerned as to the colour of those they wish to exclude, and most of those are also in favour of repatriation, voluntary or otherwise.

I wonder, if we repatriated all those of different ethnic backgrounds, and their countries of origin repatriated all who were of British ethnic origin back here, WHO would get the worst of THAT exchange?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 03:25 AM

It's not racist, Bubllyrat or Riginslinger, to talk about immigration. It's just a shame that in the UK, the people who shout the loudest are in fact racists and some of the most vocal are in fact Nazi's.

But, bubbly, you really should stop saying that this country has uncontrolled immigration becasue you know that is not true. To say something you know to be untrue is to lie, isn't it?

So the what we are trying to discuss is are we *now* and going forward, controlling migration properly (the points system designed only to admit people that we need) and then, once we have only the people we need, how do we provide resources for all necessary citizens of this country.

Unfortunately another truth here is that with an ageing population and a falling birth-rate, we need an awful lot of taxpayers and pension-fund investors from elsewhere. How do we get and provide for them, what on earth are we going to do if we can't get enough of them?

This dilemma exposes the ponzi scheme nature of all pension provision. Bubbly, you served in the military but your well-earned pension is entirely dependant on there being enough taxpayers around. It is not therefore a guaranteed thing.

Same applies to people in defined benefit company pensions - more retireees on the books need ever more workers paying in at the bottom.

Same for money purchase (equity) schemes.

Same for people deluded into thinking property is a pension - eventually everyone needs to cash in, and we know what that does to an asset's market value. Even worse if there aren't a lot of willing buyers.

Why can't we discuss these big issues?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 09:27 PM

It's that way in the US too, b-rat. You can see the hordes of people destroying the country side like locusts, but if you say anything you're labled a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:24 PM

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter what their religion,language or ethnicity is----the point is,the UK is becoming increasingly crowded and over-populated.Of course,this is not immediately apparent if you drive across Dartmoor or Salisbury Plain,but it IS if you go to Slough,or Birmingham,or London (obviously !) etc,but unfortunately most immigrants are neither inclined nor encouraged,or even permitted, to settle "en masse" in rural areas,which in any case would lead to frighteningly complex, demographically insuperable logistic and social problems.
             Of course,it is impossible to try and draw any sort of attention to one's perception of the existence of any kind of demographic imbalance or upheaval ,with uncontrolled immigration as a causal factor,without being immediately branded a racist or a BNP supporter,particularly,I'm sorry to say,on the Mudcat,so at the end of the day it hardly seems worth the bother of commenting.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 02:52 PM

"An effective use of the English language" would be liable to exclude quite a lot of people whose ancestors have been living here since the year dot...

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 02:08 PM

But surely the points-based immigration system deals with this entire issue, doesn't it?

If you are a non EU Citizen (including the 8 recent accession states) then you have to prove that you have;

*a skill or trade necessary to the economy
*money and accommodation to support yourself and any dependants
*an effective grasp of the English language

So if we only admit the people that we need and who can support themselves, the problem is...what?

I don't fancy fortress Britain. I make a living out of working in other countries and so do many people. This country has no meaningful industry (thanks Maggie and Tony!) and the only exports we have are financial services (shit!) and expertise that we deploy where it is needed. The work I do is always at the cost of local people in the places I go to, but I prove that they need me, they agree, I earn money, they get their problems sorted out.

If we become a bunker, what hope do we have?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:32 AM

"Zero population growth would certainly aggravate the pensions timebomb."

That timebomb will eventually explode no matter what the population situation Richard, unless there's some radical, outside-the-box thinking done by those responsible for pensions policy.

The fact remains - the UK is rapidly becoming seriously overcrowded and is beginning to suffer the problems and tensions that overcrowding causes - like racist conflict and attitudes f'rinstance.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 09:57 AM

"ANY situation or action or behavior...etc. that has no practical limitations will usually get out of hand."

I have to agree with that - and yet the concept of the bottomless pit/pot-of-infinite-capacity seems to be one on which most social policy and economic theory is be based. I quite like living in a diverse society, and in many ways I consider that another person's ethnic background is none of my business and should not affect the way that I deal with that person on a day-to-day day basis. But I am aware that high population densities can lead to dangerous tensions building within society. Politicians and decision makers cannot just assume that allowing the population to keep on growing (by whatever means) has no consequences and can be ignored. One consequence is, of course, that people from an obviously different ethnic background to the majority population make obvious scapegoats for fascists like the BNP.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:27 AM

The UK problem is very high immigration added to very high population density, especiall in England where almost all settle.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:07 AM

Zero population growth would certainly aggravate the pensions timebomb.

If a magic wand could solve that, then I would really prefer a whole lot fewer people across the entire world.

But I can't see how a fortress state with zero population growth internally could hold off the rest of the world for ever.

This is not, really, a UK only problem, to the extent that it is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 07:59 AM

"Europeans come here to breed, Claim benefits, bring their granny over...."

Hmmm....what one may have heard from the Original People of Canada regarding UKers?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 07:30 AM

Richard,
"The official statistics I linked to on the other thread showed immigration as having fallen and still falling. So I don't see the need for any further steps yet. I particularly don't see the fact that proportionally more immigration is from outside the EU as cause for concern."

The concern is that EU incomers are very likely to return, but not those from third world countries.

The fall you refer to is mainly due to EU returnees.
Non EU immigration remains historically high.

Until 1982 there was a net outflow of migrants from Britain.
Between 1982 and 1997 average net immigration was about 50,000 a year. It has
climbed rapidly since 1997 to reach a peak of 244,000 in 2004. This has now fallen to
about 190,000 a year.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 06:30 AM

Maybe what's needed is a policy which will maintain a zero net population growth?

I believe the UK has pretty much as many people living here as it can cope with. Nothing to do with race, purely numbers. Some sort of policy to maintain our population at the current level - no more, no less - would be a good idea, and should involve other issues as well as immigration/emigration. Like birth-control.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Chris Green
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 06:18 AM

'Clearly you don't live near families of nine living in one house speaking no English, drinking beer all day and selling dope near you. Raising their glasses to the British Social Security Benefit system'

No. On the other hand I do live fairly near a family of five who do all of the above AND speak English, as they were all born here and are ethnically Anglo-Saxon. But presumably that makes it okay...?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 06:11 AM

Yes, i would agree that.
Now, is the current level too high?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:52 AM

"Most of us seem to broadly agree that unlimited immigration would not be good, and it is just the level that we are disputing?"

Also I would wager that most of us accept that a total absence of immigration would not be a good thing either for the economy or for our culture.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:14 AM

Just igore the trolls.
Most of us seem to broadly agree that unlimited immigration would not be good, and it is just the level that we are disputing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:00 AM

"Parts of London and Manchester are more dangerous for the ordinary Brit than Iraq was for a British soldier"

I live in Manchester. Can you tell me which parts you are referring to? Er, have you ever actually been to Manchester?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Darowyn
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 04:20 AM

I suppose the point of the question is to think through the proposition that, despite the many benefits that immigrants have brought to this country, is there a problem with the sheer numbers?
Clearly the kneejerk reaction of many of those who rail against immigration do so because their feelings towards immigrants lie somewhere along the line between fear and hate. The Geordie troll demonstrates this.
I saw a small example of the benefits recently when I rode through Handsworth in Birmingham. The vitality of the shopping area and the variety bore no comparison to the nearly all white bourgeois town of Malvern where I lived at the time- which like many similar, is not thriving.
I was there, incidentally, recording with a Nepalese producer, a Carribbean rapper, and a Polish backing singer. We were recording a Scottish folk song. I'm from Yorkshire.
I like to meet people from other parts of the world. I'm happy to have them living in this country.
On the other hand I do not relish the prospect of a significant growth in the population here- whatever the cause.   
Cheers,
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 03:11 AM

lol @ Paul

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:53 AM

What's more, they rape our jobs, take our women, and they smell.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 08:02 PM

"On the whole, immigration has made this country a better place to live in than it was before"

Clearly you don't live near families of nine living in one house speaking no English, drinking beer all day and selling dope near you. Raising their glasses to the British Social Security Benefit system.

Europeans come here to breed, Claim benefits, bring their granny over and get the N.H.S. to run an M.O.T. on her.

They turn me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 07:40 PM

That's good to know, Kevin...I hope it continues like that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 07:28 PM

We've got "unlimited immigration", in principle, within the European Union. Most people stay home. Most of those who come prove themselves to be useful members of society.

The same goes for people coming here from outside the European Union. One difference here is that in this case there is no reciprocal right to go and live in their country.

On the whole, immigration has made this country a better place to live in than it was before.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:26 PM

A quick comment from the economist about the Daily Mail's weak attempts at scaremongering and resentment stoking in 2007, when they reported the story of the alleged child benefit scroungers.


Read it here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:26 PM

Immigration points system

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:08 PM

Royston *smile* sure....

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:05 PM

The official statistics I linked to on the other thread showed immigration as having fallen and still falling. So I don't see the need for any further steps yet. I particularly don't see the fact that proportionally more immigration is from outside the EU as cause for concern.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:04 PM

Phew Bill,

Just as well that we've got well controlled and restricted immigration policies in this country then.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:57 PM

What most discussions of this type fail to do is to get at the BASIC question/issue.


ANY situation or action or behavior...etc. that has no practical limitations will usually get out of hand.

Unlimited fishing, unlimited TV for the kids, unlimited sunbathing, unlimited traffic....you get the idea.

Of course restrictions on most desirable activities are necessary! ....and of course, those who are restricted will usually object.

It is not necessary to insert racial/cultural issues into the debate...they are always there if there is any cultural conflict, but the discussion can and should be carried on with as neutral a base as possible.

There are few solutions which are even easily discussed....too many people who have become 'aware' that life in general is better somewhere else means that many want to emigrate. It all made sense in 1753 or 1845. Now it is an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:27 PM

Well said Keith! - no one is going to disagree with that :)

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:42 PM

Britain's taxpayers are forking out more than £21million a year in child benefit for youngsters living in Poland, official figures reveal.

A loophole in EU regulations means migrants from other EU countries who are seeking work in the UK can claim state handouts for children they have left behind in their home countries.

The total benefits bill for the Treasury is likely to be closer to £50million a year when other Eastern European countries are included.
In addition, ministers refuse to reveal how much more is being paid out in tax credits.

Britain's child benefit payments of £941 per year for a first child or £629 per year for younger siblings are far higher than the equivalent paymentsin Eastern European states that are new EU members.

The Polish benefits system, for example, pays a maximum of around £160 per year in child benefit.

Investigations have found that many workers moving to Britain are fraudulently claiming family benefits in both countries, exploiting lax checks and poor information sharing between member states.

Figures released by the Treasury show 26,000 Polish children from 16,286 families were being paid child benefits by UK taxpayers.

That means 16,286 first-born children were receiving the full £18.10 per week with the remaining 10,000 getting the lower payment of £12.10 per week.

The figures show that the number of claimants is soaring.

In June last year, the Treasury said 14,000 families from eight Eastern European states were claiming the benefits - around 10,000 were estimated to be Polish.