BS: UK immigration too high?

Subject: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 02:55 PM

Back on the BNP thread there was talk of dicussing immigration rather than just BNP.

I think we all know what BNP stand for, so let's leave them out of it.

Let's ignore trolling guests who will try to cause friction.

I think that immigration levels in recent years give cause for legitimate concerns. Does anyone else have any concerns (excluding, please, racial ones)?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 02:58 PM

As an American I have no trouble with UK immigration levels. However - the fellow who works at the next desk in my office - named Ian - is from Hull. Would you care to have him back??

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

In the US, we seem to be having some of our recent immigrants going home because their jobs have dried up. Is the UK experiencing the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 03:40 PM

Yes. The recession has seen many return to Eastern Europe.
The majority of our immigrants, however, are from Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 03:43 PM

Recent research in 5 countries showed that migrants tend to come to the United Kingdom for economic reasons, but leave for personal reasons.

Tim Finch, Head of Migration at ippr, says:

'The migration debate in the UK is fixated with the idea that immigrants come to settle and not enough attention has been paid to the fact that more and more immigrants are spending only short periods in the UK. Our research shows that many groups of migrants are now increasingly mobile. They are coming to the UK to study and work for short periods and then they are moving on'

Of course this also applies to the millions of Brits working abroad.

Shall we stay or shall we go attempts to analyse re-migration from the United Kingdom, and to understand what motivates immigrants to leave.

While I'm not arguing that net immigration is falling it does seem to have stabalized from what - yes Keith!, the ippr report refers to 'unprecedented immigration' figures 'in recent years' during an economic boom but also takes a much more objective view of immigration and labour skills.

I'm all for divorcing the issue from the other thread but, given the BNP have made it a major issue, I honestly don't see how they can be left out of any discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 03:54 PM

Why can't we discuss immigration without bringing them into it?

They have extreme, racist views.

We can leave race and them out of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 03:55 PM

None whatsoever.

Most if my best friends are immigrants or from immigrant families. Like me.

People generally only come here because they expect to be able to work for a living, and that's normally the case. They only get to do those jobs if there aren't local people who want to do them, and can do them as well.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 03:56 PM

I am very interested to learn about this issue and would like to offer my full support to the OP for starting it.

It is perfectly possible to discuss this issue without referring to the BNP.

In fact, this issue is most usefully discussed without referring to the BNP.

I'm curious to see the "issues" defined, and to learn the facts.

Leaving the BNP out of it is not only possible but essential as they only see one issue - immigrants are bad and they should be deported.

I suppose it does no harm to look at that question, but I suspect it might take over the conversation and that any other issues might as a result get overlooked.

Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:10 PM

Keith,

Yes. The recession has seen many return to Eastern Europe.
The majority of our immigrants, however, are from Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

But afro-carribbean and indian subcontinent immigration mostly all happened in 1947-1970. In recent years the "wave" of immigration has been from Eastern Europe with war refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you saying you have a problem with migrants who have been settled here for several generations? Do you want *them* to go home?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:21 PM

What I'm trying to understand is do you think we have a problem with current immigration, or historic immigration. Some immigrants or all of them? Should we reverse immigration or just stop or limit future immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:31 PM

THE number of Eastern European migrants claiming benefits has almost doubled in the last year, costing the taxpayer up to £190million annually.

Around 267,000 migrants who came here to work are now receiving or claiming benefits – almost a fifth of those who have arrived since 2004.


The huge drain on public funds came as tens of thousands more Poles and their neighbours arrived in the first quarter of this year.


The latest Home Office figures are another example of the huge strain migration has placed on local authorities and the public purse.

I want to see limits placed on the number of "Free Loaders" coming into the UK for a handy fistful of notes.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:35 PM

But to answer the original question, is UK Immigration too high (pending Keith's clarifications) I would say, in general terms...

The British went out and dominated the planet by way of an Empire. We took an enormous amount of wealth and accrued an almighty set of privileges for ourselves.

As Empire was disbanded, we invited planned numbers of British Citizens from the Imperial Colonies to come and live in Britain and continue to be British. Those British Citizens happen to have been Indian, Pakistani, African and Caribbean by descent.

They were as entitled to live here on these islands as any other British Citizen.

I believe they and their descendants have enriched our Great nation in the period since 1945 and helped forge modern Britain as much as any other hard-working British person has.

In figures that Keith and I agree on, immigration ticked over unremarkably until 1997 or therabouts when, like the rest of the Western World, we launched ourselves into the great economic bubble (boom, if you will). The immigration rate increased again because we needed an awful lot of tax-paying workers. The proof of that need lies in the fact that even with the influx of people, we had effectively full employment in this country.

Now we are in recession, migrant workers are leaving and the new arrivals have fallen through the floor (numerically).

Oh, because we went out and started destroying and murdering in Iraq and Afghanistan, we were obliged to offer asylum to many of our victims. I regard that as the least we could do (and not enough).

So all told, no I don't think, in the very general terms of the original question, that "Immigration is too high".

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 04:39 PM

Geordie (but I doubt you'll stay and answer)

Where are your figures from?

No European can claim UK benefits of any sort without having lived here for at least 12 months. So why should an EU Citizen who has paid tax in this country be excluded from the benefits?

But first and foremost, where are your figures from?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:06 PM

Britain has become a 'war zone' thanks to mass immigration. Parts of London and Manchester are more dangerous for the ordinary Brit than Iraq was for a British soldier.

London is one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. We live in an increasingly violent society where teen gun gangs hold whole suburbs hostage.

It the product of Black single parenthood, and their culture of carrying guns and peddling drugs.

It is the black community who brought gun and drug culture to the streets of South London, & Moss Side and Longsight in Manchester. You can't say it doesn't exist.

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

I'd just like to reply to Geordie and say bullshit.

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

I live in South London.

I can say that it doesn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:15 PM

I also live in South London and know that Geordie is a liar.

I am safe and sound, I have no fear. I am in a white minority in my neighbourhood. I don't recognise Geordie's fantasy-land.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:18 PM

The arguments a flying fast.
Non EU immigration.
Figures are difficult to get, but in 2006 68% of foreign immigration was non EU.
Over a longer period it is 92%
EU migrants do not have to check in and out.
i million registered for work, but not all will have remained.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM

McGrath, my experience is similar, but would you advocate unlimited immigration because of it?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:21 PM

It's fact.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:22 PM

Royston,
"What I'm trying to understand is do you think we have a problem with current immigration, or historic immigration. Some immigrants or all of them? Should we reverse immigration or just stop or limit future immigration? "

Advocates of balanced migration advocate a gradual reduction over many years to achieve balance.

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

Beware of replying to trolling guests.
They want to make people angry.
Joe will delete their posts and the replies will make no sense.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:08 PM

Royston *smile* sure....

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 03:11 AM

lol @ Paul

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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:11 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:53 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: 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 - 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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:11 PM

Who belongs where?

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: 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: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 08:09 AM

Rather have Eastern Europeans who speak with a clear voice and have a grasp of good English - ever been to Surrey Steet Market in Croydon - you need subtitles for the oik market traders!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:07 PM

Where I live is a New Tiown, so virtually everybody here either came here from somewhere else or their parents did, and we've still got planty of more recent newcomers. I can't really see it makes much difference that some of my neighbours came from Poland or Ghana as well as London, Yorkshire and Ireland. Except that it makes for a more varied and interesting neighbourhood.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 12:14 PM

So the standing-room-only effect is the only thing to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 06:14 PM

I do not agree with the select committee report. I suspect there is an element of pandering in it. It plainly missed a very fundamental point about immigration providing needed labour - the time factor.

I also, however, disagree with Euro-centric views about control. IMHO the Brown=Darling response to the recession (apsrt from the absence of proper control about banks, which seems to be back on the agenda) was almost wholly right. The only bit of it I disagreed with was the scrappage scheme which should have been limited to vehicles under 15 years old, and/or should have provided for classic vehicle clubs to acquire classics threatened to be scrapped.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 03:27 AM

The Government claim that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they do not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

Surely London would collapse without immigrants?
This debate is not about existing immigrant communities. Nobody is remotely suggesting that they should leave. The issue is how many more people our island can sustain.

Do we need immigration to fill 600,000 vacancies?
No. The Government first made this claim in 2002. Since then the number of foreign born workers aged over 16 has increased by 1.1 million yet in October 2008 there were still 610,000 vacancies. The reason is that immigrants also create demand which in turn creates new jobs, so the argument from labour shortages leads to an endless cycle of immigration.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faq

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 04:31 AM

As with comedy, Keith - the secret is timing.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 04:40 AM

I wonder what those who are against immigration to the UK think about all those British people who retire to take over vast tracts of Spain. Sauce for the goose?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 09:41 AM

I've just come home from Ingleton FF.

All the pubs & other venues were full of immigrants from all over the place including yours truly.

The language barrier was an issue as late at night after really intense & focussed imbibing, many were speaking [& singing] in tongues!

Luckily, music being the food of love we played on & on!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 09:45 AM

oops pressed knob too soon - meant to say our musical endeavours would be considerably the poorer without influences from near & far.

No bagpipes [orig. from India] , guitars, banjos [Africa], fiddles, free reed insts [China] , do I need say more?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:15 PM

What did the Celts use?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 05 Oct 09 - 10:48 PM

"Zero population growth would certainly aggravate the pensions timebomb"

In a separate (though current) thread you stated that we need more birth control and abortions, now you are worried about stagnation of population growth(?) . . . if I'm ever involved in a court case, I want you to represent my adversary.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 02:49 AM

Don't we need migrants to help pay for our pensions?
This is false. Immigrants themselves grow older so the only effect, even of very large scale immigration, is to postpone by a few years the impact of an ageing population. The real answer is that, as people now live longer, they should work longer. The Turner Commission on pensions dismissed the argument that immigration would help with pensions saying that only high immigration can produce more than a trivial reduction in the projected dependency ratio over the next 50 years...and this would be only a temporary affect unless still higher levels of immigration continued in later years... This view was endorsed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in their report published in April 2008.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faq

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 03:20 AM

"The real answer is that, as people now live longer, they should work longer."

Yes, but that smug statement completely ignores the reality. Have you ever tried getting ajob when you're over 50 - or over 60? Believe me, it isn't easy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 07:41 AM

............& ultimately, everyone who inhabits these islands has an ancestry which has originated elsewhere.

Take Guest Geordie for example, if he's frae Gateshead, Newcastle, etc then its likely his four bears were invading immigrants from somewhere northern Europe [or even beyond]

Perhaps we should all go back to our place of origin?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 07:52 AM

Maybe, but does that have a bearing on the level of immigration that is reasonable now?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 07:58 AM

Cor, its enough to make you go and live in South Africa, or maybe Australia. hear there's some great expat communities in Spain and the greek islands.Hong Kong sounds good as well, and of course the whole EU is my oyster.

   For almost every year in the late 20th century we had a net fall on emigration figures, i.e. more people left than arrived. What are the figures now.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:05 AM

As with McGrath's observation that immigrants make a community more varied and interesting.
That is my observation too, but there must be an upper limit that can reasonably be accomodated in a small and very densely populated island.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:11 AM

Tug, 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
http://www.balancedmigration.com/pdfs/ourcase_1.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:18 AM

What's the magic number for vacancies/ spare places here?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:30 AM

Mr.H, since 2002 the number of foreign born workers aged over 16 has increased by 1.1 million yet in October 2008 there were still 610,000 vacancies. The reason is that immigrants also create demand which in turn creates new jobs, so the argument from labour shortages leads to an endless cycle of immigration.


Don't we need foreigners to do to the jobs that British people are unwilling to do?
No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled (Briefing Paper 1.22). At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. That partly explains why we have 2 million unemployed and a further 2.6 million on incapacity benefit, of whom the Government wishes to move 1 million from welfare to work. These figures include just over one million young people who are not in education, employment or training.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faq

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 09:29 AM

Thganks Keith A. for providing up to date figures. I am sure I have read figures about the type of jobs (other than unskilled) which require a strteam of qualified incomers.
I am also aware that many incomers find work ( or are only able to find work) beneath the level of their qualifications.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 09:56 AM

I think that you are right on both counts, but most of our immigrants are Third World, and unskilled or low skilled.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:03 AM

From link above


'Are economic migrants taking British jobs?


There is some anecdotal evidence of foreign workers being preferred. However, the UK labour market is large and complex with nearly 30 million in the work force and, of course,

the total number of jobs is not fixed.

The statistics are not unambiguous

but there are some worrying signs '.............??


**************

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:20 AM

Mr Happy, were you expecting a statement that they are taking British jobs?
They only claim as fact that for which they have hard evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:23 AM

"Maybe, but does that have a bearing on the level of immigration that is reasonable now?"

No, but neither did your statement. If, however, in the future, older people cannot find work and, therefore, unemployment levels increase, the anti-immigration lobby will probably blame immigration instead of looking for the real cause - rampant ageism amongst employers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:25 AM

Not necessarily, but I am wondering what issues/ 'legitimate concerns' are so worrying to some people.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 10:32 AM

""This debate is not about existing immigrant communities. Nobody is remotely suggesting that they should leave. The issue is how many more people our island can sustain.""

With respect Keith, that is exactly what many people ARE suggesting, and they are finding their voice through that organisation we are discouraged from naming in this thread.

There are TWO points worth taking into account.

1. If you are, as you say, only concerned with future immigration, then the controls are already in place, and simply need tuning to the necessary level.

2. If you see those controls as being insufficient or non-existent, perhaps there might be a need to re-examine your point of view?

I will also point out that members of the aforementioned organisation are loudly applauding your efforts here, and consider you as somewhat of a hero, on their Facebook discussion board.

If that were me they were cheering, I'd be looking to find where I had gone wrong.

Of course you could always go the whole hog, and join..........

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 11:36 AM

As the bard Shakespeare [wonder wot his ethnic origin wos - apart from being a Brummie from SoT!]

said, 'A rose by any other name would smell.....'

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 01:18 PM

mr Happy, people have concerns over the driving down of wages, competion for jobs, shortage of social housing, services like health and education stretched and inadequate, overcrowing of roads and transport systems, environmental degradation and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 01:33 PM

Don,
your point 1.
There are controls in place but they have had little impact.
You have to suspect that our ruling class and employers are secretly very happy to have thousands of non unionised cheap labour arriving every day.
2. I do not think that current controls are sufficient.

about the BNP.

We have a history of tolerance here. The far right have never had the hold they do in France, Italy, lately Holland, Spain etc.

The concerns I put to MrH bear down hardest on the working class.
The mainstream parties ignore their concerns and call them racist.
They feel no one takes them seriously, and then along come BNP.

I hate them.
Ignorant, racist scum.
You will not drive them back where they came from by just ignoring this issue.
That is how they gain in strength.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 01:42 PM

I take no pleasure if those bigots are indeed cheering me on, as I know the unwanted "guests" have.

It is a measure of how pathetically inarticulate they are that they are unable to string an argument together themselves, but they will get no support from me for racist policies, repatriation or any other of their nonsenses.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 01:53 PM

sorry, not thousands every day.
hundreds more like.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 07:56 PM

""It is a measure of how pathetically inarticulate they are that they are unable to string an argument together themselves, but they will get no support from me for racist policies, repatriation or any other of their nonsenses.""

I'm sorry Keith, I know you mean well, but whether it gives YOU pleasure or not, every time you come out with one of those crashing inaccuracies on a public forum, you MAKE THEIR POINT FOR THEM!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Richard
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:18 PM

Don, leave them alone and they may just leave you alone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:02 AM

Don, you speak as if I make frequent "crashing inaccuracies."
I made one, and corrected it within minutes.

Let me clarify exactly.
In 2007 the average number of immigrants was one thousand five hundred and eighty every day.
It was even greater the previous year.

You were kind enough to acknowledge that I mean well.
After all the recent abuse I promise you that was warmly received.
Thanks.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 07:38 AM

'people have concerns over the driving down of wages, competion for jobs, shortage of social housing, services like health and education stretched and inadequate, overcrowing of roads and transport systems, environmental degradation and so on.'


Ok, all above true, but how do you arrive at the conclusion that these issues are all down to immigration?

Surely, for a balanced discourse, there's many influences and variables which together are contributory causal factors of these problems

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 07:51 AM

The independent Office for National Statistics projects an increase in population of nearly 10 million in the next 20 years, nearly all in England. 70% will be due to immigration .
The need for housing pushes up rents and increases the waiting lists for social housing

The latest government household projections show that immigration will account for 39% of all new households in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children.

Especially in our cities, immigration is the overwhelming factor in these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 10:37 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/SearchRes.asp?term=immigration&x=33&y=13

Can you point me to where it says:

'The independent Office for National Statistics projects an increase in population of nearly 10 million in the next 20 years, nearly all in England. 70% will be due to immigration .
The need for housing pushes up rents and increases the waiting lists for social housing'

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 11:16 AM

Which single word always follows the phrase
'I am not a racist.....'

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 11:27 AM

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/96

"The need for housing....." is my own observation.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 11:38 AM

Keith A of Hertford,

Your link refers the Office for National Statistics

I've given a link to it above, but here it is again.

Can you point me to where this site says:

'The independent Office for National Statistics projects an increase in population of nearly 10 million in the next 20 years, nearly all in England. 70% will be due to immigration .
The need for housing pushes up rents and increases the waiting lists for social housing

The latest government household projections show that immigration will account for 39% of all new households in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children.

Especially in our cities, immigration is the overwhelming factor in these issues. '

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 11:40 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/SearchRes.asp?term=immigration&x=33&y=13

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 12:00 PM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:11 PM

it is not all in one place.
it is useful to have a reputable body do the searching.
Here are projected population figures.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1352

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:26 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/23/immigrationandpublicservices.immigration
guardian on same projection.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:29 PM

http://www.gad.gov.uk/Documents/Demography/Projections/2004-based_national_population_projections.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:34 PM

Tug, I would continue your sentence with the word "AND", as in;
"I am not a racist and this debate is not about race anyway"

Are you in a mindset that believes, "anyone with the slightest reservation about large scale immigration can only be a racist" ?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:56 PM

Net migration
Of the standard population variants, the net migration variants have the largest impact on the household projections, reflecting the size of the variant assumptions. The high migration variant increases the number of households by 33,000 per year between 2006 and 2031 compared to the principal projection. Under the high migration variant there is an increase of 810,000 households over the 25 year projection period, leading to 28.6 million households in 2031, compared to 27.8
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1172133.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 05:51 PM

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000682/SFR38-2006web3.xls#Table34!A1

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 05:59 PM

BBC reporting figs obtained by Telegraph under freedom of info act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7147954.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 06:08 PM

""Net migration
Of the standard population variants, the net migration variants have the largest impact on the household projections, reflecting the size of the variant assumptions. The high migration variant increases the number of households by 33,000 per year between 2006 and 2031 compared to the principal projection. Under the high migration variant there is an increase of 810,000 households over the 25 year projection period, leading to 28.6 million households in 2031, compared to 27.8""

Keith, these are projections, and like any other projections carry an unknowable variability factor, depending on the accuracy or otherwise of the parameters chosen from which calculations are made.

Or to put it another way, guesses of an unfathomable degree of wildness. You can't adduce ANY really credible conclusion using them. Only governments are daft enough to try.

The accuracy of the figures suggested will not be known until 2031, by which time (hopefully) you will have tired of looking for more guesses, and moved on to other things.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 06:10 PM

Guest Richard,

Mind your own bloody business!

Clear?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 01:31 AM

Well done Keith, It seems most here are beginning to get the message,
Richard's advice to Don is particularly pertinent.

To sum up, the answer seems to be....keep calm, listen to what other people are saying, whether you agree with them or not; and deal with the ISSUES raised.....Shouting at the labels proves nothing, other than the intellectual weakness of those doing the shouting.

I hope this thread marks a change in attitude here...a move away from the lynch mob mentality and towards common sense on all controversial issues.

We should remember that we are all human beings, the labels hung on us are meaningless, just another trick to divide and "organise" society.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 02:53 AM

Don, Governments have to be seen to be looking ahead and planning for our future.
That is why they employ highly qualified experts in sciences such as demography to spend their professional working lives studying the official figures and other hard evidence to assess current trends and project them forward.

The conclusion reached by the top experts in the land is that issues relating to immigration are most likely to become more severe in the near future.

On what evidence do you base your opinion that if we carry on as we are everything will be alright, and why should we listen to you and not them?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 03:06 AM

Don, never mind the future, the issues I raised on health, housing, schools, employment etc, are current.
Government and employers benefit from lower production costs and wages.
The middle classes enjoy a cheap supply of domestics and nannies.
The working classes get none of the benefits and all of the downside.
They are told that they only complain because they are racist.
In the absence of anyone else who will listen they turn to BNP, who rapidly turn them into racists.

You and people like you in politics are the problem Don.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM

KAoH,

Thanks for your new links, none of which, I note, are from your 1st referent, The Balanced Migration site.

I've examined all of your links & find ambiguities, contradictions & omissions from included info.

I쳌fll not list them all right now, but will do so if necessary.


Here쳌fs a contradiction to your assertion that immigration is the greatest cause of population growth in UK :

Guardian article: [about population increase in UK] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/23/immigrationandpublicservices.immigration

The Office for National Statistics said the surge was caused by an unprecedented combination of trends - rising fertility, rising life expectancy and rising inward migration.


Here쳌fs a typical example of an omission;

From here

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1172133.pdf

You cited this excerpt:

Net migration

Of the standard population variants, the net migration variants have the largest impact on the household projections, reflecting the size of the variant assumptions.

The high migration variant increases the number of households by 33,000 per year between 2006 and 2031 compared to the principal projection. Under the high migration variant there is an increase of 810,000 households over the 25 year projection period, leading to 28.6 million households in 2031, compared to 27.8 million in the principal projection. Over a third of the additional households are one person households, whilst a further 29 per cent are married couple households.


But you omitted this excerpt


The low migration variant has a slightly smaller impact on household numbers in absolute terms than the high migration variant, resulting in an average of almost 31,000 fewer households per year between 2006 and 2031 relative to the principal projection. Under the low migration variant there is a decrease of 770,000 households over the 25 year projection period, leading to 27.1 million households in 2031, compared to 27.8 million in the principal projection. Just under a third of the reduction in households is one person households and a further third are married couple households.

The zero net migration variant projection assumes zero net migration in the population at all ages. This does not give a pure measure of zero net migration on household formation as the composition of the inward and outward migrants and their propensity to form households will be different, but it illustrates the extent to which the migration assumptions impact on household numbers over and above natural change in the population.

******************

Seems to me you쳌fre just picking out the bits that suit your hypotheses, rather than presenting the whole picture

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:46 AM

Mr. Happy, you specifically asked me to find figures from Office of National Statistics.
If you do not agree with any of them, you should take it up with ONS not me.

Nit picking quibles about minor items hardly answers my case that the current unprecedented level of immigration raises some legitimate issues and concerns, and that many well informed people think it should be reduced.

Do you object to any of that, if so exactly what please?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:48 AM

Quite right, Mr. Happy

Don't hold your breath for any original thinking from people - just more selective cut and paste snippets that suit their view of the world from some biased sources.

You see people are quick to see the problems - demands on housing, health, schools and issues around wages, but staggeringly slow to see solutions - like building more of that which we are short of (with the tax revenue from productive workers) and strengthening legislation to protect minimum wage and low-paid workers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 10:03 AM

Royston the current rate of providing housing, services and infrastructure has been falling further and further BEHIND the needs of our rapidly rising population, and if you offer that as a solution to people suffering real need right now they will laugh at you (if you are lucky) and you will deserve it.

If you kept up with the news you would know that all the talk now is of REDUCING expenditure.

Your "solutions" are a joke , so what is your next big idea?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 10:14 AM

"...people are quick to see the problems - demands on housing, health, schools and issues around wages, but staggeringly slow to see solutions - like..."

             Placing a moratorium on immigration and deporting the louts who are unwanted now.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 10:41 AM

Yes Keith, the talk NOW is of reducing expenditure the same way that the TRUTH NOW is that immigration is falling through the statistical floor and is not exactly a live issue either NOW or in the FUTURE, based on present levels.

You keep talking up a problem whose existence was questionable based on your selective cherry-picking of 2006/2007 projections. At the time your forecasts were made we were in a miraculous economic boom and there was plenty of money and resources to make the social investments I have been talking about, and plenty of jobs for the incomers. All that was missing was the political will.

If politicians had cared one small fraction as much about PEOPLE as they have cared about BANKS & BANKERS, we could have solved all of our social infrastructure problems.

NOW that there is nothing to support your scaremongering, you should just shut up. Thet only people NOT laughing at you are the BNP clones and ringinlsinger who is somewhat to the right of Herman Goering.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 10:43 AM

I find I omitted to insert the URL for Migration Watch which was actually the site I wanted you to give the requested info from [it being your primary referent in your first posts.]

***************

'.......many well informed people(?) think it should be reduced'

In order to become informed, its best if you examine material from a variety of sources, not just the ones which reflect your prior assumptions.

*************

According to Eurostat, Some EU member states are currently receiving large-scale immigration:

for instance Spain, where the economy has created more than half of all the new jobs in the EU over the past five years

Spain is the most favoured European destination for Britons leaving the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration


*************

My observation is: immigration looks like good news for Spain!


So why not for here too?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 11:05 AM

Royston, please post some evidence for your extraordinary statement, "immigration is falling through the statistical floor and is not exactly a live issue either NOW or in the FUTURE"

mr happy balanced migration is a small and easy to navigate site, unlike ONS which took hours to search!
http://www.balancedmigration.com/ourcase.php

You will easily find what you want.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 02:41 PM

""Nit picking quibles about minor items hardly answers my case that the current unprecedented level of immigration raises some legitimate issues and concerns, and that many well informed people think it should be reduced.

Do you object to any of that, if so exactly what please?""

One man's nit picking is another man's deliberate misinformation.

Either quote the whole article or don't use it at all. There's no brownie points for cutting out what disproves your assertions, because somebody will always catch you out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that I am the one being harrassed by the BNP, and YOU are apparently their new champion, I think most here will know just WHO is the dangerous one.

As a role model, you would make a good greengrocer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 03:07 PM

Don, those were very large documents.
No one would read the whole thing.
It is usual to extract the relevant piece and provide the link.
That is what I did.
I deny anything misleading.
Please identify specifically anything you consider misleading.

BNP are thugs and they will behave thugishly.
Why be angry with me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:38 PM

""Please identify specifically anything you consider misleading.

BNP are thugs and they will behave thugishly.
Why be angry with me?""


Mr Happy already identified the point at which you emphasised the facet which supported your claim, but ignored the other half of that statement, which would have brought the whole int balance, but would, at the sme time have weakened your POV.

That is evidence of bias, and brings the credibility of your stance into dispute.

As to my comment about the BNP, whether you realise it or not, you are advancing their argument quite vehemently, and giving them cause to rejoice.

They believe you are proving their argument, and unfortunately they will have ammunition supplied by you which they will delight in using, out of context to show British Folkies catually supporting the BNP.

That reflects on the whole forum, so why wouldn't I be angry with you?

I know that you are absolutely NOT a racist, but they will claim you as a brother, and others will believe it too.

I just wish we could bury this thread, and discuss the issues elsewhere.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 02:28 AM

Mr Happy you accuse me of not pointing out that
The Office for National Statistics said the surge was caused by an unprecedented combination of trends - rising fertility, rising life expectancy and rising inward migration.

I could accuse you of pushing a half truth for not pointing out that our rising fertility is itself due to immigrants who have a much higher fertility7 than the existing population.

You also accuse me of not posting the projections for low and zero immigration because they are much nicer than the projection for continued high immigration.
BUT MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A MUCH BETTER FUTURE IF WE COULD ONLY ACHIEVE A LOWER RATE OF IMMIGRATION!!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 02:38 AM

Don, you seem to be saying that because there are such people as racists we must never discuss the problems of immigration.
I do not hold that view, though the main parties actually do.

BNP will know of the government survey that found 79% of the population want immigration cut.
That a few folkies do too will not further there cause very much.
They also know and have access to Migrationwatch and Balanced Migration whose views I have been posting.
So no extra ammuntion for them there either.

I was not just invited, but challenged by Royston to discuss immigration.
I am sorry if that is regretted now.

Some of you attacked BNP and set yourselves up as their enemies.
(Bravely I think. Fair play to you all.)
That is why they are enjoying the spectacle of you all vainly trying to deny an obvious truth, i.e. that there are perfectly valid and respectable arguments for reducing immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 03:11 AM

Royston, I am still looking forward to some support for your statement, "the TRUTH NOW is that immigration is falling through the statistical floor and is not exactly a live issue either NOW or in the FUTURE, "

Perhaps you could find a half decently qualified demographer, or some people from parliament, or some official government statistics, you know, the sort of stuff I have routinely provided to support my case.

Obviously that will be difficult if you are totally wrong, as when you thought that immigration peaked some time in mid 20th Century.

You have never actually provided any supporting evidence.
Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 05:07 AM

KAoH,


'I could accuse you of pushing a half truth for not pointing out that our rising fertility is itself due to immigrants who have a much higher fertility7 than the existing population.'

*************

I do resent that you've accused me of 'half truths', when after all, I've merely reproduced here a sentence from your own link to the Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/23/immigrationandpublicservices.immigration, which indicated a relevant response to your assertion that immigration was the only cause of population increase.



Anyone was able, as was I, of clicking that link & reading the complete passage or did you want me to copy/paste the whole thing here ?

Furthermore, in that same article, there's no mention at all of relative fertility levels of any particular group of people.


Might your accusation statement above be in reality based upon, as you've stated elsewhere in this debate, your own observations?

'They breed like rabbits, y'know!!'



**************


'You also accuse me of not posting the projections for low and zero immigration because they are much nicer than the projection for continued high immigration.


BUT MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A MUCH BETTER FUTURE IF WE COULD ONLY ACHIEVE A LOWER RATE OF IMMIGRATION!!! '

****************

Possibly, you don't understand that all of the statistical info in that passage is all based upon projections.

Now anyone with even a little nous would discern that 'projections' are not the same as 'facts'

Also, since you've shouted in BIG CAPITALS, you've proved that your own underlying agenda is that you in fact wish to restrict access for anyone wanting to migrate to UK, for dubious reasons of supposed detriment to this country.

Here's a couple of comments from the Guardian article which, I feel, represent a more balanced view:

'Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of the Migrationwatch campaign group, said the levels of immigration predicted would change Britain "irrevocably and permanently", urging ministers to take action now to avoid "very serious" consequences for the country.

Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the Local Government Association, said: "Migration is benefiting the country, generating in total over £40bn every year. '

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 05:42 AM

Mr Happy,
"your assertion that immigration was the only cause of population increase."

Not true.
I did not assert that.
I said it was the main cause and ONS agrees.
ONS also says that immigrant fertility is higher than existing population. Would you like a link?

The projections are made by government experts on the best and fullest data available. Projections of current trend.
You did not like the projection for continued high immigration.
You slated me for not quoting the nicer projections for a future with lower immigration. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 06:23 AM

Overall fertility of foreign-born women is higher than that of UK-born women.
http://iussp2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=93139

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 06:39 AM

Keith A of Hertford,

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but my use of the word 'only' rather than 'main' or even 'greatest', seems somewhat irrelevant given that casual examination of the gist of the statement is the same.

In addition, all my comments in that specific post were clearly referring to the Guardian article which doesn't contain any mention of fertility comparisons.

************

I feel from your latest responses that it will be completely futile to try to continue any discourse on these topics, as you seem determined to carry on in your deluded perceptions and instead of contributing any reasoned, balanced evidence to support your opinions, I'll withdraw from the 'debate'

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

Before you go Mr Happy,

1I have given impeccable sources for every statement I have made.

2I said immigration is the main factor in current population increase and it is.

3It was you who raised the issue of fertility.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 05:59 PM

""1I have given impeccable sources for every statement I have made.""

Impeccable according to WHO?

A Whitehall appointed government quango, a man whose activities are inextricably linked with an organisation which has a very dodgy past, if not present, and YOU.

Hardly impeccable at all then!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:12 AM

The Office Of National Statistics.
What do they know about anything?
A bunch of overqualified statiaticians, demographers , sociologists etc.
Employed by all governments to provide them with the facts on which to base their policies and to answer parliamentary questions.
Universally respected by all political parties.
Not nearly as impressive as the sources used by your side of the argument.
What were they again?
Oh yes. Royston's imagination.
And that was it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 09:05 AM

I haven't forgotten you Keith. More's the pity. I've been working in the Czech Republic this week and in Liverpool now with little free time.

Save me some trouble, please. Do you still claim that all your, and Migrationwatch's, forecasts for worst case scenario - all based on 2006 and 2007 figures are still valid now? In spite of the 2008 points based restrictions on migrations and on the 2008 end of the economic new world order.

If you accept that the world now is not the same as the one that generated your paranoid figures then I will not have to go quite so far in proving you to be a blinkered liar and fantasist.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 03:09 PM

For the time being Keith, here are some facts from one of my earlier posts that you ran away from.

Even on a 2009 -v- 2008 comparison, inward immigration is down 50%. As we already established that the peak year was 2004, but it remained at similar levels through 2005/6/7 before falling, the present situation is nothing like any of your doom-mongering BIASED FORECASTS that were cast on 2006/2007 numbers.

When will you learn Keith?

More will follow when I have time.
-------------------------------------

And what is immigration down to now?

Annual immigration statistics for 2008 and quarterly immigration figures for April to June 2009, covering migration from Eastern Europe, asylum applications and removals and voluntary departures, were published by the Home Office on 27 August 2009.

The figures show that work applications from the eight accession countries have continued to fall in 2009. In the second quarter of this year there were 26,150 applications from workers in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic - down from 46,070 in the same period in 2008.

The number of Bulgarian and Romanians applying for accession worker cards also continues to fall. There were 580 applications in the second quarter of 2009, a fall of 43 per cent, compared to the same quarter in 2008.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) published figures earlier the same day that show net-migration fell to 118,000 in 2008, from 209,000 in 2007, the lowest since the eight accession countries joined the EU in 2004.

In the first half of 2009, 30,435 people illegally in the United Kingdom were removed or voluntarily departed from the country, including 2,550 foreign prisoners. The latest figures also confirm that a total 67,980 people were removed or voluntarily departed in 2008.

Individuals seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has remained broadly at the same level over the past four years. It is less than a third of the level when it peaked in 2002. Applications for asylum in the second quarter of 2009 were 6,045 compared with 5,830 in quarter two 2008. The Home Office is now concluding 60 per cent of new asylum cases within six months.

Numbers reducing dramatically with magnificent progress on removals. Keith might even consider reducing his medication at this rate.

Source - UK Border Agency

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:31 AM

Welcome back Royston.
Before you left you made the extraordinary statement,"the TRUTH NOW is that immigration is falling through the statistical floor and is not exactly a live issue either NOW or in the FUTURE, based on present levels."
I asked you twice to give a source or any credible person who agreed, but you have chosen not to.
We can draw our own conclusions.

In your latest post you forgot to provide links.
Did you not want us to see the full story?

Now you ask me about Migrationwatch and their views on the current situation.
Here are some extracts from a BBC piece from February this year.

"...the biggest decline - 21% - coming from new EU nations such as Poland.

But figures also show a 290,000 rise in overseas-born UK residents, which hit 6.5 million in the year to June 2008."

"There are no official figures on the outflow of migrants to accession countries but Sir Andrew Green, of pressure group Migration Watch, said the flow from and to Eastern Europe would "come into balance before very long" and the "main pressure was now immigration from outside the EU" which unlike EU migration the government could control. "

"Other figures released earlier reveal the number of people from outside the EU granted the right to settle in the UK was 145,965, an increase of 17% on the previous year.

This was largely down to an increase in the number of people allowed to stay because of their job, which returned to 2005 levels.

Asylum applications were 10% higher in 2008 at 25,670 "

Commenting on the figures, shadow immigration minister Damian Green, for the Conservatives, said: "Even at a time when short-term applications are falling because of the dreadful state of the British economy, grants of settlement are up 17% mainly because of foreign workers who have come here and decided to stay.

"This shows how foolish Gordon Brown's promise of British jobs for British workers was.

"The asylum statistics are ominous, as they show the first signs of a system sliding back into the chaos of previous years. Applications are up 10%, decisions are down 11%, and the number waiting for an initial decision has risen by a third. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7906277.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:37 AM

Keith, read please.

2009 figures 50% lower than 2008.

Source UK Border agency.

All your arguments are based on projections from 2006/7 figures and are therefore now meaningless.

Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:14 AM

I can not find where they said that Royston.
Link please.
The BBC piece is from this year, and the figures go up to Sept 2008.

Now you read extracts of my extracts.

290,000 rise in overseas-born UK residents, which hit 6.5 million in the year to June 2008."
" and the "main pressure was now immigration from outside the EU"

right to settle in the UK was 145,965, an increase of 17% on the previous year.

Asylum applications were 10% higher in 2008 at 25,670 "

grants of settlement are up 17%



"The asylum statistics are ominous, as they show the first signs of a system sliding back into the chaos of previous years. Applications are up 10%, decisions are down 11%, and the number waiting for an initial decision has risen by a third. "

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 01:09 PM

Keith

Now I know you are winding me up.

In a discussion that you entitled IS UK immigration too high, please try to stick to contemporary data.

Otherwise call it WAS UK immigration too high.

None of Coleman's 2007 projections.

None of your BBC 12 months to June 2008; which is now 16 to 28 months out of date.

Now, 2009 nearly 2010 please.

My post below contains UK border agency figures for Q2 2009 against the same period 2008. 50 percent fall in immigration.

The link to the source was in the original post on the BNP Conundrum thread. I can't recreate it on a blackberry so go look yourself as you obviously ignored the truth first time round.

On the same day and the same thread i posted a link to a national audit report of August 2009 that held that the border agency were making excellent progress on asylum decisions and removals.

That's August 2009 Keith. Not any other dubious selection by you from history.

You are a fool and a waste of time. I'm definitely tending toward's Azizi's view fo you as something altogether more sinister.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 01:39 PM

In fact, it is as I said some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 04:23 PM

Royston, here are links to your posts.
thread.cfm?threadid=123889&messages=402#2734032
thread.cfm?threadid=123889&messages=402#2734154
You made them on 29th Sept and we have already talked all about the links in them.

There is no reference to a 50% drop in immigration.
You must have imagined it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 05:14 PM

Keith there are no lengths you won't go to in order to avoid the truth is there?

'about' a 50pc drop. 209,000 down to 118,000. The second stat was down 43 percent. The next stat was about 46k down to about 26k. Well done. Now have you anything of substance to say?

I prefer your nitpicking to your imaginary arguments about contemporary issues which you base on 2yr old numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 05:33 PM

I thought that might be what you were getting at, but I also expected better of you.
This is what the ONS 27th August said about immigration.

512,000 people immigrated to the UK, little change on 527,000 in the year to
December 2007. Immigration of non-British citizens was 441,000, also little changed
from the previous year. Immigration of citizens of the A8 Accession countries (those
countries of central and eastern Europe that joined the European Union in 2004)
declined by 28 per cent from 109,000 to 79,000 over the same period, but this
decline is not statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Got that?
"little change" to immigration
Immigration of non British "also little changed"
Immigration from accession countries "decline is not statistically significant"

What happened was such a huge surge in people LEAVING that NET immigration dropped 44%
What happened last year to cause that?
Maybe the banking collapse and the worst recession in living memory.

So that is your great hope for the future. That the recession will get so much worse every year that it drives away enough people to make room for the continuing huge rate of immigration.

And you call me a scarmonger!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 05:45 PM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0809.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM

Now we're getting to the truth of Keith A, it seems.

I thought that you and your friends were only concerned about NET immigration. You said you were not racist, just worried about total population growth.

Now that you agree that net immigration is reducing dramatically you still arn't happy. NOW you point to the problem being not enough reduction in the number of non-british immigrants.

So it's the wrong type of immigration is it Keith? Says a lot, that does.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 02:57 AM

No Royston.
I listed ALL the components of immigration referred to in the report.
It was YOU who singled out non British immigration in order to call me racist.
Despicable, but I am not angry.
It tells me I have knocked down all your arguments, and that is all you have left.
I have shown you that immigration continues as high as ever and your drop in net immigration is due to an unsustainable, one off surge in emigration.
Even if, Heaven forbid, the recession deepens or other catastrophes occur, that surge will end.

Its main components are returning EU migrants and there are a limited number of those, and people bringing forward plans to retire abroad.
There will certainly be far less of those in the future.

The projections are still valid. The best we can hope for is a delay of a year or so.

Your ludicrous claim that immigration has now ceased to be an issue of concern has been shown to be groundless, and all you can do in reply is to wave your arms and shout racist.
A posturing fool.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:47 AM

no Keith, all your 2007 projections, for whatever reason, are now meaningless. Your fears and arguments have no substance.

Aside from the fall off in numbers, your projections make no account of the 2008 points based immigration restrictions, as those restrictions were not existent in the years on which your hysteria is based.

At worst a concerned person could say 'I wa worried about immigration but thankfully it has reduced. We don't know if the points system will address our concerns in the event arrivals increase; we shall have to monitor the situation.'

What the debate does not need is people like you stirring things and upping the temperature with out of date information twisted into half lies and hysteria.

The truth now, is 'wait and see', no projections are possible, the old ones are worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:55 AM

The Points Based System (PBS) is not designed to limit the number of people settling in the UK. Therefore it is completely unlike the Australian system.
According to Government figures, the PBS would have cut net immigration in 2007 by 8%, when a reduction of 75% is required to stop the UKs population hitting 70 million in 2028.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/162

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 04:57 AM

This scheme does not limit work-related migration in any way, and is not intended to. The Australian system which it is said to resemble is, in fact, entirely different; it starts with a limit and selects within that total. By contrast, Tier One is entirely open ended. For Tier Two, employers are supposed to make sure that there is no satisfactory candidate within the European Union but this test is notoriously difficult to police. Nor does it apply if an occupation has been declared a "shortage occupation", nor if the migrant arrives as an intra company transfer.

4. There is no evidence of the economic benefits of large scale immigration.
As unemployment climbs towards three million, the whole justification for a massive system for economic migration comes into question. With a workforce of 30 million, the only long-term answer is to train and retrain British workers. The CBI themselves acknowledged this in their evidence to the House of Lords [2]. Furthermore, the whole concept of skills shortages is dubious, particularly over the medium term. Professor Metcalf, Chair of the government's own Migration Advisory Committee told the House of Lords Economic Committee that "the whole notion of shortages was a bit of a slippery concept" (Q557), since, over time, wage increases should deal with the shortages. This scheme assumes that there is significant economic benefit to the host country from large-scale immigration. However, House of Lords report in April 2007 came to the opposite conclusion [3].

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM

What, in this context is a "non-British" immigrant?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 07:13 PM

"There has been a lot of irresponsible scaremongering about immigration in recent years which was based on the false assumption that high net migration into the UK was inevitable for years to come. As our recent report on re-migration showed, migration flows go both ways and we now need to be thinking about how our managed migration systems can continue to attract and retain the migrants we need to help our economy to recover and grow."


A different viewpoint from yours Keith. I pointed out before that the House of Lords report missed a fundamental trick in its analysis.

Source? The Institute for Public Policy Research.

http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=3694

Given the rather malodorous views of Immigration Watch in general, I ahve a preference in policy terms.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:05 AM

You are telling us that there are some people out there who agree with you.
Thank you Richard, but I think we all realised that.
IPPR seem to hold a more extreme view that there should be no limits or controls at all. They are certainly very critical of the weak and inneffective points based system.
But there is nothing malodorous about either group.
Why must you people always try to smear anyone who disagrees with you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:13 AM

You don't think that attacking human rights is malodorous?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:53 AM

Yes , that would be Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Den
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 04:01 AM

It would appear you are becoming very popular Richard on a number of social websites.

Richard please stop attacking Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 04:49 AM

Guest, your "support" is not welcome.
Go away.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 01:46 PM

Immigration is too high everywhere. There are just too many people.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:09 AM

Mr Happy said on 6th October, "I am wondering what issues/ 'legitimate concerns' are so worrying to some people."

John Denham, the Communities Secretary, could have told you.
I did tell you.
"Some councils have told government they have struggled to maintain the confidence of local people who feel they had been left behind as policymakers have appeared to focus on the needs of incomers.

Mr Denham denied these areas had been largely "forgotten" by policymakers, but acknowledged that some were susceptible to extremist far-right recruitment if people's grievances were not dealt with.

"These are areas where we know that people will often say, I'm not sure that someone is speaking up for us, does anyone really understand what is happening to our lives."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8305906.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:49 AM

Yes Keith, we know people have justified concerns about immigration.

The article also lists other community issues;

*Recession

*Loss of traditional jobs - that's industrial change, decay, factories and the like shutting down and relocating to the Far East.

*Collapse of trust in local authorities and services

Just to be sure that people aren't in any way misled, Keith, into thinking that the initiative, and the issues it identifies, are all about immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:39 AM

I have to agree with you Royston.
There are other issues facing working class communities.

Immigration pressure is the main one being addressed here as the previous ignoring of it by politicians has led people into the clutches of BNP.
(As I have been saying for months)

Now, why do you call me a racist liar please?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:52 PM

Because, Keith, you tell lies to reinforce your own paranoia and that of others in regard to immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 03:15 PM

You keep repeating the slander but you never justify it.
You can not because there is no truth in it.
Just empty abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 03:52 PM

I don't have to prove that which you yourself have said.

Every time you've misled people, I've pointed it out and the record is here for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:13 PM

You have to prove that I said it.
You could easily do that by reproducing it.
But you can not.
Saying that you have seen it will not do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:08 PM

Most people here can read. They can even use scroll up and scroll down.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:30 PM

Most people can read so give them something.
Which of my hundreds of posts on this should they look at?
JUST SELECT THE VERY WORST ONE!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:38 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2743942

The projections are still valid - Lie, they are not valid. Keith's hysteria was based on a projection of the future that was dependent on net migration staying the same as it was in 2006/7.

-------------------------------------

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2743670

The entire post is a lie. It is put forward in the context of a discussion of "now". It is only my wariness of Keith's 'facts' that forced him to admit that the whole thing was dragged out of 2003, including his deliberately reprinted and sensationalist (senstionally out of date) claim of 300 asylum seekers every day.

-------------------------------------
http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2743382

Now you ask me about Migrationwatch and their views on the current situation - but what Keith actually gave me was But figures also show a 290,000 rise in overseas-born UK residents, which hit 6.5 million in the year to June 2008 - data that has nothing do with now, it is over two years old (the earliest data in the range). Lies, misinformation, halftruths. Designed to mislead.

--------------------------------------
http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2740614

More 2007 projections put forward as a fact of where Keith claims we are heading.

---------------------------------------
http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2740304

This message contains a number of sensational statements

"The NAO projects..."

"The latest government household projections show..."

"Immigration is the overwhelming factor..."

When the truth is that the NAO *did* project and the household projections *once upon a time* showed some things that are now no longer true. Making Keith a liar.

Others then proved that in fact birth rate was the biggest factor, not immigration. Making Keith a liar again. And then Keith pointed out that the birth rate was higher amongst citizens born outside the UK suggesting that part of Keith's solution would be "send 'em 'ome"

Enough to be getting on with? I've had enough now, can't be bothered with clickies. Anyone that cares can cut/paste them into the address bar.

And I'm not going in any more circles on this with you Keith. Don't come back and blame it all on MigrationWatch - your impeccable source. YOU found those snippets, you presented them in the way you did and you are the liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 08:42 PM

ooops, was logged out earlier when I declined Keith's kind invitationn to take back my remark about mistaking his posts for thinly veuiled xenophobia. I declined because it really is an easy mistake to make. I'm sure I could be easily mistaken over many of his posts. perhaps I'm prone to mistakes.... or.....

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 08:57 PM

I think that immigration levels in recent years give cause for legitimate concerns

The majority of our immigrants, however, are from Africa and the Indian subcontinent

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

People are welcome to work, send home money, save and return.

The Government claim that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they do not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children.

Especially in our cities, immigration is the overwhelming factor in these issues.

Oh Crikey, how do I keep mistaking this stuff dor thinly veiled xenophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:15 AM

Thanks Tug.
Royston agrees with me on the first quote.
He said"Yes Keith, we know people have justified concerns about immigration."
Did you mistake that for xenophobia?

The next two could only be taken that way if you did not read what went before, i.e. points about immigrants returning due to recession.
EU ones might, others probably not, but no suggestion that one sort is better or worse than the other.

Thw work permit system is used by many countries. They can not all be xenophobic.

The economics of migration is crucial to this debate. My protagonists have all given the opposite view but no one else offered this interpretaion. You do want to hear both sides don't you?

The schools thing is one of those legitimate concerns Royston wrote about.

Lastly, "these issues" were issues to do with immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 03:15 AM

Royston, if all that economic stuff on the graph is too complicated, just look at the blue line of net migration.

It shows a steady upward, with short lived dips at each of the last three recessions, that had no effect on the long term trend.

If that is true for this recession, then the projections ARE still valid, and you certainly can not call someone a racist liar for pointing that out.

Every recession has produced a temporary surge in emigration, which soon ended and did not effect the long term trend.
Tell us why you think this one will be any different Royston.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 03:21 AM

Now Royston, re my posts that you and Mr Happy say "prove" me a racist liar.
The first four all concern whether the projections are still valid.
Unless you have some hard evidence that the current, recession driven surge in emigration is permanent, that is a valid point of view.
Do you have such evidence?
If not your assertion that everything is different now could itself be called a lie.
But not by me.
It is a valid point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 03:33 AM

Royston, re your fith and final of my posts.
It was a straight reply to mr Happy who said,

"'people have concerns over the driving down of wages, competion for jobs, shortage of social housing, services like health and education stretched and inadequate, overcrowing of roads and transport systems, environmental degradation and so on.'
Ok, all above true, but how do you arrive at the conclusion that these issues are all down to immigration?"


How could I answer that without showing the link between immigration and those issues?

We are discussing the upside and downsides of high immigration.
You feel free to point out the upside, but if I point out a downside you shout "racist"

You specifically asked me to join this discussion.
I must be allowed to express the issues and concerns that are felt, without being called a racist liar for it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:13 AM

Keith, we have reached the limit of your intelligence. Unless you can improve, and quickly, there will be no point carrying on with this.

If you extrapolate a trend line to a future conclusion, then the projection of that line is only valid if the progression of the contributing data series remain unchanged.

If for instance we go through a period where net migration halves from the projected levels, then the remaining progression of the trend is altered irrevocably. The longer and more sharp the deviation from trend, the more significant is the change in future outcome.

Now you really have to think this one through Keith. Carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:39 AM

You say "If for instance we go through a period where net migration halves from the projected levels, then the remaining progression of the trend is altered irrevocably"

We have gone through 3 previous such periods.
Every recession.
And they did NOT change the trend.
Just temporary dips.
If that is true for this recession, then the projections ARE still valid, and you certainly can not call someone a racist liar for pointing that out.

Every recession has produced a temporary surge in emigration, which soon ended and did not effect the long term trend.
Tell us why you think this one will be any different Royston

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:18 AM

The ONS data)if I have correctly identified the link to which you refer, Keith) only appears to go back to 2000. Which are the three recessions to which you refer?

It seems to me that the present and past year's circumstances are unprecedented apart (arguably, although the causes were very different) from the Thatcher-Reagan recession (which was deliberately engineered) and the "Great Depression" which came from a different type of bubble speculation and was affected by ignorant pre-Keynesian economics.

My present view is that:

1. there is no reason to envisage an upturn in net immigration from A8 countries (their economies will benefit with other EU economies from the Brown-Darling-Obama measures, so long as the French and Germans do not sabotage it, and if they do they will sabotage us as well)

2. there is no reason to envisage an upturn in net immigration from third world countries: the points system should see to that (but if "high flyers" come that will be economically beneficial).

3. there is no reason to envisage a flood of asylum seekers: the removal process has been made more effective as has the detection and prevention of arrival, and more effective "first port of call" enforcement is also in the pipeline.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:36 AM

Obviously the wrong link Richard.
I would not dispute your 3 views.

The last three recessions are 1975-1976,1981-1982 and 1993.
They produced larger drops in net immigration than the current one has.
It has always been temporary, with no effect on the long term trend.

Royston is sure that this one is somehow going to be different, but he has not yet told us why.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:20 AM

Thanks Tug.
Royston agrees with me on the first quote.
So what?

Lastly, "these issues" were issues to do with immigration.

Indeed, and the selection of material, and the deliberate pose of objective neutrality lead me, unmistakenl;y, to see them as an example of thinly disguised xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:28 AM

So What?
Its xenophobic for me to say it, but not Royston?

We were dicussing issues relating to immigration.
Which of those am I forbiden to select without earning the X word?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:11 AM

And why do you assume my objectivity is a pose Tug?

You are making extreme judgements on my character without any evidence.
That is called prejudice Tug.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:46 AM

I'm making guesses. It is not only what people choose to say....questions of style and selection give clues to motivation. These are reasonable easy to spot in verbal interaction, but can also be evidenced in analysis of written output.

Prejudice is pre-judging. I am judging, but only after reading many of your posts in many threads. Most recently a typically misleading post to the 'England 'thread.
   Were I asked to provide a profile, derived from your writing, I would certailly conclude that they bespoke thinly veiled xenophobia,and that non-white immigration mworried youn more than white anglophone immigration.

You clearly DO have views, why not just state them openly, rather than conceal them (not very well) behind what is IMHO, a pose of objectivity.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 12:15 PM

I have now looked at the data you suggest Keith. It is from ImmigrationWatch so may or may not be objective. However, while it looks arguably like a tracker effect from 1990 to 2007 (and not more recently) the immigration is bi-directionally countercyclical from 84 to 90, and untracking in 71/2, 73/4, 79/80, 81/82.

That could well be a happenstance correlation at most, like the legendary case of stork population and live births in Finland (sorry, I don't know the date but it is in all the student textbooks on statistics, or at least it was when I was younger).

Off the top of my head, what would the figures be if you tried to correlate (a) government in power and years from change with (b) net migration?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:39 PM

Fascinating Tug, but that is not me at all.
We should meet sometime.
Conciously or unconsciously you have judged that anyone who expresses any concern about high immigration is a racist, and fitted in all subsequent evidence with your preconception.
You have misjudged me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:47 PM

Richard , I would be interested in a lawyer's opinion, not on that, but on the quality of the "proof" offered by Royston that I am a racist liar.
On the other, I am sure you are using a clever lawyer's trick to hide a simple truth.
The graph shows a steady long term rise in net migration, with three dips that coincide with each of the previous three recessions.
We just need Royston to explain why this one is going to be different.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM

no,I believe it is not too high,we are in Europe,Europeans should be able to move anywhere they like.
furthermore that should apply to all nations everywhere,If I want to emigrate to the USA I should be able to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 03:57 PM

The word co-incide is not wholly accurate, but further the proposition you advance is not exactly that which you previously advanced.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:17 PM

Conciously or unconsciously you have judged that anyone who expresses any concern about high immigration is a racist

Oh Keith, please. You always ,reasonably, ask others for chapter and verse. Nowhere have I called you racist. Xenophobic suggestions are something else. Of course my profile of you, based on limited info was inaccurate. Most people who ask for their communication to be profiled, however, are not asking to find out who they 'are', but how they come across to others. I think that you have ample evidence from posters here and elsewhere, that you consistently come across in a certain way, whether you intend it or not. If this concerns you, you are able to change your style of communication without changing your enduring commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM

Richard i think coincides is a good description.
Tug, Xenophobia in this context would have to be a fear of foreign immigrants and thus racism.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM

I sense that this thread is drawing to a close.
I did not expect that we would agree an answer to the question in the title, but I hoped that we would hear members' different answers to it.
I had strong reservations about entering the debate, as I said early in the "conundrum" thread.
I expected, correctly, that others could not discuss this without resorting to name calling.
Most people sensibly stayed away, and I became the only person putting the case against.

Looking back, I would summarise the stages in the other side's arguments thus;


1. We would really like to discuss immigration with you Keith.

2. We are having the discussion, but if you describe any concerns related to the issue of immigration, you are a racist.

3. We concede that there are concerns, but you must not describe them now because we think immigration is now declining, and if you disagree, you are a liar.

We now see that there is every reason to believe that the decline is temporary, and there is no evidence that it will continue.

I am very interested to know where they will go next.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge still fighting with the Dell
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:54 PM

I don't think I have said any of those things.

1. I regret to way that your obsession with immigration is self-describing.
2. Your concerns lead repeatedly back to the worry that immigrants are different, are not "British". That is racism. I see no indication anywhere that you would be worried if white English emigres returned "home".
3.   I am not concerned by immigration, as I perceive it.

No, you have assumed that the decline in immigration is temporary despite the fact that there is very little actual co-incidence (that is to say occurrence at the same time), and that the world of statistics is full of happenstance correlations. I am NOT going to get out my old stats texts and see what degree of confidence there is to an alleged relationship between economic growth and net immigration. If you want to show that there is a statistical correlation, you do the arithmetic. You will still have to show a causative relationship.

Your position, Keith, boils down to wanting to keep foreigners out. Otherwise you would be wanting to address breeding habits. But you show no signs of concern about white English breeding habits: only those of the people you don't want here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:06 PM

""Xenophobia in this context would have to be a fear of foreign immigrants and thus racism.""

Xenophobia, in any context, is fear of foreigners, whether they be in England or Abroad.

It is independent of their location, and therefor the correct descriptor in this case is bias against immigrants.

Racism may not be the appropriate single word for this, but it will have to do until somebody invents a better one.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:51 PM

Xenophobia is not the same as racism. Racial prejudice is not the same as racism. A rule of thumb is that racism is action, based on racial prejudice, taken that actually detracts from the life chances of others.

   many immigrants are of the same 'race' that indigenous british people are ( caucasian) some white ( eastern europeans) some non-white ( people from the Indian sub-continent.)

   Whilst Keiths postings do not bespeak racism ( whether he is racist or not) they certainly give succour to those of racist tendencies.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 03:20 AM

I refute both racism and xenophobia.
All the so called examples quoted against me were just objective and rational arguments for a lower rate of immigration.
Putting those arguments is my role in this debate.
It does not mean that I am obsessed with anything, any more than someone on the other side.

Of course it is much easier to make personal attacks than to counter my arguments.
Talk about the issue and not about me.

Richard, explain your statistical objection or stop saying you have one.
The FACT that each of the last 3 recessions produced a temporary dip in net immigration is good evidence that it might again.
I am not a statistician, but I am a physicist and know that that graph would be regarded as empirical proof of a relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 04:03 AM

Keith, read what I said. If economic growth led to immigration then the change in immigration would always follow (by a constant-ish margin) the previous change in the economy. It doesn't. I gave the detail above.

Imagine you are investigating the effect of applying flame to a beaker of water. If it gets hot before the flame is applied, or cools while the flame is being applied, the heating effect is being caused by something else.

Are you not aware of the well known happenstance correlation between the number of storks and the birthrate, wherever it was?

And do you not see that there are other factors intended to affect immigration that will be in place when (and if) we climb out of this recession?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 09:41 AM

Richard, it is Royston who keeps saying that economic growth leads to immigration, not me.

My point is that a recession causes a surge in emigration, resulting in a temporary dip in net immigration.
This is the fourth time in a row it has happened.
What are the odds of that being happenstance?


Are the "other factors inteneded to effect immigration" the new points based system?
How could that cause emigration??
Remember the latest ONS figures showed "little change" in gross immigration.
The new system is having little or no effect on it.

But wait.
Perhaps Royston will now tell us how he knows that this decline in net immigration is not going to be brief like all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 09:53 AM

Re migrationwatch, the very latest official statistics show that all their predictions have been accurate, and their critics wrong.
Take a look.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases/19-October-2009

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 10:11 AM

yeah, yeah, yeah, constantly blame immigration for the ills of society..

We live in too small a place for too many people of any kind.

When will all of us be intelligent and responsible enough
to practise voluntary birth and population control.
No more than 2 kids per family,
and as many adults as possible convinced of the positive benefits
of a lifestyle opting out of parenthood.

Well thats what me and the mrs think and decided to do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 10:25 AM

Probably the trick is to get the immigrants to do it!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 11:47 AM

What no-one has yet owned up to is that the places with the densest populations are also the richest. Sheck out the netherlands. For our neck of the woods, try channel islands, compare population density and GDP

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 12:42 PM

But the resources would have to be coming from some place else.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:29 PM

Oh yes, they do, as is is the case in the UK. However the 'our overcrowded little island' argument is bankrupt at every level.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:54 PM

Tug, the government has calculated the economic benefit of immigration to amount to 62 pence per citizen, which hardly compensates for the problems that have arisen in school provision, housing crisis, health care, social unrest etc.
We have overtaken Holland in population density. USA Germany and France have much lower densities than us.
Bangla Desh is higher.
Perhaps you could develope your proposition with some evidence and comparisons.

Overall, the UK's population will grow by almost 2 million over the next five years, even allowing for the recent, perhaps temporary, fall in immigration. How will we provide homes, schools, hospitals, houses,.....?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:27 PM

Keith, the 2002 projections were not those that you were earlier defending, but the higher 2007 ones. To imply (as you do) that they were one and the same seems erm - go on, you supply the word.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:57 PM

Figures , plese Keith, on population densities for netherlands and UK.62 p per person, whatever that means, is still a benefit. What evidence have you that schooling and housing problems are caused ( rather than exacerbated by) immigration, There are a lot of other contenders, and there are still more unoccupied properties than homeless people.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:26 AM

This is a very one sided debate.
You people make up theories without any evidence, the latest is Tug's overcrowding brings wealth theory, and demand I produce all the figures!
When I knock it down, you just forget it and make up another.
Tug, this article is about density. It cites very recent ONS figures. I can find a direct link if I must.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

Tug, there are other factors in the housing crisis, e.g. family breakup, but the main cause is population outstripping provision and immigration provides 70% of our population increase (same article).

Richard, the 2007 ONS projections were based on the most recent figures available. We have just seen that those immigration figures were a serious UNDERESTIMATE, making the projections even worse.
If the recession effect is only temporary like all the previous ones, those projections ARE still valid.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 08:44 AM

the latest is Tug's overcrowding brings wealth theory,

Oh dear, no wonder exasperation is sometimes evident in these pages. I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that some of the areas of gretest density were amomg the most affluent ( as are some of the poorerst. Indicating that simplistic arguments really have no place in seriou debate. Should have known better.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 08:50 AM

Tug, you actually said"...the places with the densest populations are also the richest."
Sorry for misunderstanding but I am sure I was not alone.

(Actually, nobody else is probably reading any of this.)

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 08:55 AM

Keith, thank you for the link to density figures, I was not aware that we had overtaken Holland. We both remain prosperous.
The trouble with the reporting is its making of unwarranted claims.

England has become the most crowded major nation in Europe, official figures have revealed.

The figures show nothing of the sort, crowded is a judgement, not a fact. many square kilometres in UK have hardly any inhabitants, in cities the figure will be several times higher than reported. To travel across britain, for the most part it is its emptiness and lack of habitation that strikes one as we gaze from the railway carriage window, or come in low to land in a aeroplane.The figures for the whole of britain as against, say the USA are in some part due to our lack of great wildernesses such as deserts and mountain ranges.

Our island is still not overrcrowded, and most prople still choose to live in areas of higher than average density.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:02 AM

Tug, the figures show that we are, comparitively,very densely populated.
In your opinion we are not overcrowded.
Many people, especially in the South East, disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 11:41 AM

lets ask irreverent immigrant folk rock band "Kultur Shock"
for their well considered opinion on this issue..


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000HWZ682/ref=dp_image_text_0?ie=UTF8&n=5174&s=music

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 11:55 AM

Ah at last. We recognise that that we have different opinions...despite any 'facts and figures'. The reasons for disagreement remain both valid and interesting, and are ultimately more about world view and enduring commitments rather than the type of fluctuations latter day capitalism results in.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 03:01 PM

We are all entitled to our opinions, but you should be aware that yours is very much a minority one.
72% think that the government is not doing enough to restrict immigration.http://www.policy-network.net/uploadedFiles/Events/Events/Ben%20Page.pdf

It is found that the lowest paid are disadvantaged by immigration, and the highest paid benefit. Might that have helped you form your opinion?

Does the competition for scarce social housing effect you and your family much? Might your opinion be different if it did?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 03:18 PM

The removal of social housing was ANOTHER right wing agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 03:56 PM

Richard, in the last 8 years, under a Labour government, the number of immigrants has increased by two million. Nearly 700 a day.
You would have to produce houses at a rate of ten per hour.
It is no good saying that there would be no problem but for ancient Tory policies.
There are just not enough houses of any kind because they just could not be built fast enough, and building land is running out.

Immigration bears down hardest on the low paid and unskilled. The Left should stand up for them.
Instead they cheer as the government, backed by the bosses, bus in cheap non union labour by the tens of thousands.

But you, retired "eminent" lawyer in your genteel English rural village, are entitled to your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 06:20 PM

The amount of national homeless people has increased in towns and cities all over the country.

but homeless problems have been made worse by imigration in regards to homeless imigrents sleeping rough.

Lets face it the country is swamped with them?

I am not racist towards these people I hold genuine concerns for them because our own goverments dont give a shit about our own homeless so what chance have folk from over countries got. but a life of misery. I am not talking abouit tramps Iam talking about whole families from overseas sleeping rough.
I know homeless nationals in London who have been homeless for years who are moaning themselves about this problem.
Reagrds Pierre.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 06:44 PM

Keith, I like my village, but genteel it is not. The local name for it is not "Lower Stoke", but "Lower Coke". It is a couple of miles from Allhallows on Sea with its caravanparks, and the slipways from which a fast boat can be in Amsterdam in an hour. Amsterdam, the home of iffy drugs and iffy diamonds. Go to the boat park, any day of the week, and apart from the boats that are at sea you will be able to count half a dozen of those giant semirigid inflatables that the cigarette smugglers use off Gibraltar. Most of them have FOUR Mercury 100s on the transom. The estuary's equivalent of a Mitsubishi 300FQ. The "Q" stands for "Quick".

I know a couple of bods formerly of Fleet Air Arm who are rebuilding an MTB which will run 4 bloody great v8s. They approached a friend of mine formerly of Special Boat (when he came out of the nick after his stretch for attempted murder - a crock if there ever was one: if he'd wanted someone dead they would have been dead) to do the navigation.

This is not the gin and Jaguar belt.

Yes, the left should stand up for the low paid and unskilled. I do. But I do not do that by discriminating against the even lower paid and even less skilled.

The rate of immigration is not rising. It is falling. But yes, funding the building of housing would be another good way to palliate the effect of bankers' recession on the real workers.

There are plenty of empty houses - kept empty by speculators. Some in Chelsea. One right behind my house. An ex-pub that could have housed 6 next door and partly demolished by a speculator. Even some in Chelsea owned by Russian emigres who stole that country's wealth.

Some, too, are in the North. Indeed many.

The empty north.

So, if the government had the balls, it could legislate to make bankers advances recoverable, to make derivatives losses recoverable, to make the bail-out finds for banks recoverable loans, to prevent banks paying dividends (or bonusses) out of profits that had not been held for 5 years, to render its bailouts recoverable loans - with debenture rights to take over management of the banks.

Before that it would have to re-impose Exchange Control, which Thatcher abolished as a wholly doctrinaire move to help her oppress the working classes (oh, sorry, what did she call it "Impose commercial discipline"?).

Then the funds repossessed from the banks could be spent on creating industry where we need it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:40 AM

If you walk the streets of London.
you wont find a poor old man kicking up old newspapers.
you wont see any old girls with dirt in there hair.
The old seaman out side the seamans mission died years ago.

What you will see if you walk the streets of London
is scores of East Europeans sleeping rough in large numbers,

You will see East European Gypsies with babes in arms streaked with tears there men playing accordians on tube train to commuters who dont give a shit. "Thats what you will see
                   If you walk the streets of London"
Kind regards to all Pierre.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:08 AM

Here is some info that you dont hear about on National TV.

There is often conflict between East European homeless in London
and there counterparts The British National homeless.
in regards to prim begging/sleeping locations.

The under passes at the Elephant and Castle in London are a prim place for this kind of problem. along with several other locations acrross London.

I work in London.
We get homeless folk from overseas and from over here sleeping outside museums and in parks.

You often get 10 or maybe more sleeping under the 15 inch Guns outside the War Museum.

What these East european homeless folk do is they drape Tarpulins over the Guns making huge tents which they gather in, in large groups with babes and young children in tow. dogs and all sometimes.

Being security we have to move them on. Its a sad state of affairs brought about by a government who dont care and that applies to all political parties weather they be left wing or right wing.
No one gives a toss.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:51 AM

Some nice pictures of your village here Richard.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stokeparishcouncil.org.uk/images/Nags-Head-Lower-Stoke.jpg&imgrefurl=http://
Not really the front line is it?

You speak about immigration being in decline as if it is no longer an issue.
Once again I must educate you . How can you have such strong opinions and yet know so little?
Research by the Institute For Financial Studies shows that immigration will add almost 1 million – equivalent to a city the size of Birmingham – to the UK's population during the course of the next Parliament. Overall, the UK's population will grow by almost 2 million over the next five years, even allowing for the recent, perhaps temporary, fall in immigration.
To reflect last year's expected decline in immigration, this estimate assumes that net migration will fall to 150,000 a year and stay there, compared to the current official assumption of 190,000 a year,. It also assumes a Total Fertility Rate of 1.95. The results show that the UK's population as a whole will grow by 1.96 million; immigration will account for 0.90 million.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn87.pdf

To suggest that these kinds of numbers can be accomodated in a few empty properties or by moving people around just shows yet again how out of touch you are.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:57 AM

Richard's village.
http://www.stokeparishcouncil.org.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:31 AM

Unchanged for a hundred years Richard.
Nice.
Not like the places described by Guest Pierre.
In case he is delete, here are his posts.
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau - PM
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:40 AM

If you walk the streets of London.
you wont find a poor old man kicking up old newspapers.
you wont see any old girls with dirt in there hair.
The old seaman out side the seamans mission died years ago.

What you will see if you walk the streets of London
is scores of East Europeans sleeping rough in large numbers,

You will see East European Gypsies with babes in arms streaked with tears there men playing accordians on tube train to commuters who dont give a shit. "Thats what you will see
                   If you walk the streets of London"
Kind regards to all Pierre.



Here is some info that you dont hear about on National TV.

There is often conflict between East European homeless in London
and there counterparts The British National homeless.
in regards to prim begging/sleeping locations.

The under passes at the Elephant and Castle in London are a prim place for this kind of problem. along with several other locations acrross London.

I work in London.
We get homeless folk from overseas and from over here sleeping outside museums and in parks.

You often get 10 or maybe more sleeping under the 15 inch Guns outside the War Museum.

What these East european homeless folk do is they drape Tarpulins over the Guns making huge tents which they gather in, in large groups with babes and young children in tow. dogs and all sometimes.

Being security we have to move them on. Its a sad state of affairs brought about by a government who dont care and that applies to all political parties weather they be left wing or right wing.
No one gives a toss.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:28 AM

Well doh Keith, why would the parish council put up pictures of the bits it didn't like? The Nag's Head currently has pictures of the Kray twins beside the bar, and occasional strippers on Fridays, as well as karaoke that can be heard for 800 yards on a bad night.

The Ship is partly demolished, the front bearing the poorly painted over graffiti "Don't share cunts".

Our village hall was on the Southern news about a party last Saturday (10 days ago now) where 250 drunk 13 year olds rioted at a hall with capacity of 125.

There is an ex-cons hostel, the inhabitants of which gather behind the public lavatories to drink strong cider. Indeed I had at one stage two lodgers, one awaiting trial for GBH and the other (an ex-tankie) just out after a stretch for fraud, but both moved on and, happily, up.

Lower Stoke as a village has the worst reputation on the Hoo peninsular - a peninsular with a pretty poor reputation as a whole.

You don't know, and you don't want to know, so you pretend that I don't know in stead.

Setting one part of the dispossessed against another part of the dispossessed is not the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:33 AM

Just like The Wire Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:36 AM

Are you,
the only lawyer in the village?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 09:09 AM

1. Wot?
2. AFAIK. I don't think there are any accountants. But the bloke who runs the crims hostel is Nigerian, and the people who run the takeaway and one village shop are Chinese, the other village shop Singaporean I think, and the kebab shop up the road Turkish, the dentist is the daughter of the very nice Kenyan Asians who run the post office, and there are some also very nice stoppers (travellers and part-Romany who have stopped travelling and now live in brick houses) although the stopper I got on with best ODd. He might have been spiked, as as well as a dealer he was a grass.   Not an idyll. There are two retired doctors on the outskirts, and there is also a methodist chapel that gets a small congregation one of whom runs the garage.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 11:14 AM

Close the gates of our nation,
    Lock them firm and strong!
    Before this mob from Europe,
    Shall drag our colors down. (USA song, 1923)

"Mob from Europe"? These racist Americans dared to call us mob?

Now immigration from other continents that's a different story. They are really different and that goes too far. Imagine, in our national football team now play guys like Mesut Özil, kid of immigrants from Asia. I can't even pronounce their names. Why can't we have good old German players with good old German names like Pierre Littbarski, playing the world championship in 1990, or Kevin Kuranyi, more recently.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 11:39 AM

These foreigners!
They come over here, filling up our threads, taking all our posts....

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:30 PM

Does the competition for scarce social housing effect you and your family much? Might your opinion be different if it did?

actually it has had huge effect, but the shortage has nthing to do with immigration.....or single mothers,but onyears of national and local government.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:27 PM

That may be true on an intellectual level, but to a hard pressed family in deprived circumstances, they just see a long waiting list and wish that there were not so many newcomers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:03 PM

I have been too easy on you Tug.
You can not blame anyone for failing to build enough houses.
As I said yesterday, in the last 8 years, under a Labour government, the number of immigrants has increased by two million. Nearly 700 a day.
You would have to produce houses at a rate of ten per hour.
It is no good saying that there would be no problem but for ancient Tory policies.
There are just not enough houses of any kind because they just could not be built fast enough, and building land is running out.

Immigration bears down hardest on the low paid and unskilled. The Left should stand up for them.
Instead they cheer as the government, backed by the bosses, bus in cheap non union labour by the tens of thousands.

But you, retired "eminent" lawyer in your genteel English rural village, are entitled to your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:26 PM

Didn't you say that already? I am not retired, and it isn't a genteel village. Read my lips.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:52 PM

I did say that already but Tug missed it.
PLEASE do not tell us anymore about your village.
Not retired? Surely someone said you were (past tense) an eminent one?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 09:29 PM

Ah, that's the eminence, not the lawyering. So now you know about my village, why carry on about it being genteel?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 01:53 AM

I copied the post for Tug and did not intend to copy that last line.
How interesting though, that both times I made the post you ignored my main argument and were only prepared to debate how genteel your village is!
I suspect that Tug did not really miss the post but also chose to ignore it.

Is there any point continuing this "debate" when you have not one argument between you and you can not challenge mine?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 05:53 AM

In the area I live there are few or no incomers, except from Birmingham and London. people are unable to buy in the locality of their birth because of price inflation caused by wealthy, white retirees and second home owners. There has been little or no social housing built ( partly down to local government decisions, influenced by Nimbyism ) and lots sold off into private hands ( following Thatcher's masterplan to make debtors of us all).

    Look...... There are many causes for the ills you describe, and the causes vary geographically. To simply blame immigration is Xenophobic, not even thinly veiled.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 06:05 AM

I have alluded to family breakups and other factors, but this thread is discussing immigration, and so I have to post about those issues where immigration is a significant factor.
Do you deny that immigration is a factor at all in the housing crisis?
If it is , then it is not xenophobic for me to refer to it.
Please stop making that false accusation, attacking me personally instead of the argument.

Can you answer my argument?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:48 PM

I already have..... it is one of the factors in some areas....can you agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:50 PM

Yes, thank you.
I have family in seaside towns in Cornwall so I know that housing in such towns as yours is a big issue for locals and not related to immigration.

My argument was that, especially in urban areas, the rapid rise in population has outstripped any possibilty of providing housing and many other services, and immigration has been the main driver of that rise.
There is also the issue of jobs and wages.

Can I invite people to say now where they stand, with a single sentence.
1 Immigration should rise.
2 The current rate is sustainable.
3 Immigration is too high.

For myself, I think it is too high because it is a significant cause of social, economic, and environmental problems.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 07:21 PM

""Do you deny that immigration is a factor at all in the housing crisis?
If it is , then it is not xenophobic for me to refer to it.
Please stop making that false accusation, attacking me personally instead of the argument.

Can you answer my argument?""


You had better do some more homework, mate, because you are falling behind the plot.

Reported on BBC News yesterday, the latest from ONS (remember them? You consider their projections as gospel truth).

They said that immigration was under a measure of control, and had been falling (just as Royston and Richard said), and furthermore the major cause of population increase now, and likely to remain so, is THE BIRTHRATE, not immigration.

Check it out. These new figures are bang up to date, not two years out of date.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 07:31 PM

To be wholly accurate - the difference between the birthrate and the deathrate - which is EXACTLY why an injection to the working population is needed to fund the cost of the longer retirement period (or the period when the ageist employers will not hire despite eligibilty).

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 08:55 PM

The Guardian today carries a full report on the projections and what they are based on. The birth rate is apparently much higher among the recent immigration population who have a younger age profile and a higher fertility rate.

   But so what...lets talk aboput justice. If we want the benefits, whatever they are, of EU membership, then this is part of the package. Just as it is for friends and family of mine retiring to parts of Europe!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:42 AM

Don, the latest ONS figures confirm everything I have said and more.
Here is an extract.
The population of the United Kingdom was 61,383,000 in mid-2008. This is an increase of 408,000 (0.7 per cent) on mid-2007 and is equivalent to an average increase of over 1,000 people a day.

Population growth has increased over recent decades; this latest increase compares with an average annual growth of 0.5 per cent since 2001; 0.3 per cent per year between 1991 and 2001; and 0.2 per cent between 1981 and 1991.

In the year to mid 2002, net migration accounted for over 70% of the total population change.

The number of births is increasing partly due to rising fertility among UK born women and partly because there are more women of childbearing ages due to inflows of female migrants to the UK.

In comparison, net migration contributed to 186,000 of population growth in the year to mid-2008, an increase of 26% on the mid 2002 figure of 148,000.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:55 AM

Richard, why should we listen to your opinion on the complex economic issues of demography and migration?
Put up some authoritative opinions, and I will find an expert to contradict any that you find.
Do not state as fact that which is merely your uneducated guess.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 02:01 AM

Tug, you should have watched QT not for Griffin but because it is so rare to hear politicians discuss immigration.
Because of him they had to.
All the politicians agreed that immigration is much too high!
My views are mainstream, yours are extreme left fringe.
Towards the end a very articulate black man from the audience made all of the concerns about immigration that you have been branding racist and xenophobic. No one challenged him.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:25 AM

Yes.... I also picked up on the gentleman you mention Keith, the spokespersons for the main parties are weasels trapped by the PC claptrap they have been spouting for the last decade.

After so long spent demonising those who disagree with their disneyland view of society, they are terified to admit the very obvious truth.

When the hard questions are put to them by someone who cannot be bullied....like the black membere of the audiance on Question Time, they cower like rabbits in the headlights.

The Programme? I thought most here would have loved it.......A "How to" video for witch hunters!.....:0).........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:52 AM

Just so Akeneaton.
The real reason they all tried so hard to keep him off was so they could continue the conspiracy of silence.
He was no threat to them in debate, but he forced them to have the debate.
If BNP ever get a more articulate and charismatic leader we will be in big trouble.

Don, did you not wonder everyone else on your side kept very quiet about those latest figures.
I can not find where they say the government has immigration under control. You must have imagined that.
They do show that immigration will add just under 7 million people to the UK's population in the next 25 years – equivalent to seven cities the size of Birmingham.
90% of this growth will be in England.
Immigration will add almost one million to the UK's population between 2009/10 and 2013/14 alone.

No one has been able to provede housing and services for the rising population before, AND NOW IT IS RISING FASTER THAN EVER, mainly driven by immigration and babies born to immgrants.

All the problems I have referred to, and been villified for, are set to get worse and worse.

Now I invite people again to state where they stand on the question in the title.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 05:08 AM

Keith, stop fantasising about Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. "Babies born to immigrants" indeed!

The facts are that the excess of births over deaths contribute more to population growth than immigration, and that immigration is still falling. All political parties plan to be able to restrict it in some ways (that itself is new) and there is no reason (other than "It's happened before, so it will happen again) to believe that it must rise again.

A major part of the excess of births over deaths is typical longer lifespans. That necessitates funding elderly care (unless you plan a program of compulsory euthanasia too). That in turn necessitates a growth in the economic sector, and the growth needs to be greater than the growth in population because of the ageing trend. So immigration is necessary and control measures are in place or are being put in place. The points system that you deride can operate as a soft cap because it is always possible to regulate (almost instantly, by statutory instrument) the number of points needed to immigrate.

I'd probably want to adjust A8 policy and the Employed Workers' Directive too - but the former largely on humanitarian grounds to alleviate the situations that Pierre le Chapeau describes, although the more that is publicised, the less A8 workers will want to come here (and indeed many have gone home or are going home already).

What is necessary is an explosion in the building of social housing, and as Roosevelt taught us that and an infrastructure program will drive economic growth - and if correctly located, no-central economic growth. It's that or a Malthusian doctrine, or a "drawbridge" policy that will, as Europe demonstrated in the 20s produce a severe recession.

Net A8 migration is probably negative at present. Policies to control 3rd world migration are in place. Asylum claims are down. Asylum rejection rates are up. Asylum decision times are down. Removal rates are up (although a more effective tracking system and a workable detention or tracking policy for those awaiting visas would be more effective still. It is not correct to say that immigration is rising faster than ever. The population may well be, but immigration is not. If you want to know what a falling population will do to a country, study the economic effects of the pneumonic and bubonic plagues in this country.

What else do you want? Or is it still "No foreigners, and no children of foreigners"?

With respect the very articulate black gentleman on Question Time was in a lawyer's suit and sounded like a lawyer to me - but was not challenged perhaps because of the amazing bottle he had to be so "dog in a manger". I think he MUST have been a barrister. But I have answered his question above.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 06:00 AM

Richard please, I am not "fantasising".
The ONS quote is "The number of births is increasing partly due to rising fertility among UK born women and partly because there are more women of childbearing ages due to inflows of female migrants to the UK."
The latest ONS stats show that population is rising faster than ever.
Disagree? Go check.
Immigration comes second only to excess births, and immigrants account for most of that.
Disagree? Go check. And then come back and tell us what you find.

You sound as though you are in favour of the government controls, ineffective as they are.
Doesn't that mean you think immigration is too high?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 06:44 AM

Just to clarify, babies born to non UK born mothers account for about a quarter of all births.
Without that contribution, immigration would be the main cause of population growth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:13 AM

""Just to clarify, babies born to non UK born mothers account for about a quarter of all births.
Without that contribution, immigration would be the main cause of population growth.""

You really love your circular arguments, don't you.

Without that contribution excess of births over deaths would reduce, but the only way that contribution could disappear is for the mothers and fathers to remain in their countries of origin, which would reduce immigration in the same proportion.

NO CHANGE THERE THEN, except that our NHS, our care services, our social services, and just about every other key area of employment would be massively understaffed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:24 AM

Well, I am an immigrant, so I suppose my daughter is one of these "babies born to non-UK born mothers". Of course, she's white, and could pass for a "proper" English person, so maybe she is okay.

So tell me, are we part of the solution or part of the problem?

After all, I am now a single mother, as my British husband (of 15 years) and I divorced 3 years ago. When we were married, my family paid tax into one of the higher-earning tax brackets. Now I am a nasty single mum, but I still pay my taxes (at a somewhat lower rate), work full time, and contribute to society as best I can.

I know that I am not alone. The Eastern European immigrant community that I have come across in this area are nice, decent, hard-working people. They may be using public services like schools and the NHS, but from what I can tell they are also contributing to the local economy and paying their taxes. Yet this county has one of the highest concentrations of BNP membership, accoring to the recently-leaked list.

When I worked in Leicester, I remember visiting as part of my job certain estates where there were several generations of families who had never worked. These were white, "indigenous Britons" (to coin one of Mr Griffin's favourite phrases). There is a similar "no go" estate in our nearby market town. This sense of entitlement to benefits and a dedication to getting whatever they could for nothing, letting their kids run feral and taking no responsibility for themselves, their fertility or their circumstances, is endemic in certain areas. I would not be surprised to learn that there is a high instance ofBNP voting (for those who can be bothered to get off their arses and vote) in such places.

So tell me: who is really overstretching the system? Who is it that is taking but not putting back? If more of the indigenous underclass was made accountable and compelled to work for a living, do you think that maybe the system wouldn't be as overstretched as it is? DO you think maybe the people who don't actually contribute anything to the system are the ones who ought to be targeted, rather than hard-working immigrants who contribute to Britain's coffers and cultural life?


Maybe Keith A needs to find a new scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:28 AM

I will state the argument simply and with no circularity Don T.
The population is growing faster now than at any time in the last 50 years.
We could not provide enough houses and services before, so what hope have we got now.
Unrest and support for the far right results from lack of low skilled jobs and low wages caused by importing cheap labour.

Reducing immigration would help, but please give your alternative solution.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:36 AM

Ruth, no mum is worth less than another.
No one is to blame and no particular group are causing problems or taking more than their share.
We need a young generation.
But our population is just rising too fast.

I am only arguing for a balance between immigration and emigration.

All the parties agree that immigration is too high.
I am just arguing with three people who refuse to see what is obvious to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:08 AM

""I am only arguing for a balance between immigration and emigration.

All the parties agree that immigration is too high.
I am just arguing with three people who refuse to see what is obvious to anyone.""

And we are arguing with one person whose thinly disguised agenda would, if it were put into practice, do more damage to this country than two world wars.

The system is in place to control further immigration. It just isn't the system YOU want to see.

You rant about lack of housing, but somehow fail to notice that the Polish building workers currently in this country are among the hardest working, most conscientious tradesmen we have.

Let's see now. We don't have enough houses, right?

So let's send the people who want to immigrate into this country packing, yeah?

Hang on a minute, every Polish work gang of say eight men is building houses for huge numbers of British citizens. Even if each of those men takes up one house, he's going to contribute to the building of hundreds of others.

So, how does he rate as a drain on British resources?

1. He houses native citizens
2. He works for the hours he's paid for
3. He pays taxes, and National Insurance
4. He doesn't disappear for three days in the middle of a job

I'm beginning to think we should keep him, and send certain others packing

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:21 AM

Don T, who told you the system was in place to control further immigration?
Was it Phil Woolas, the immigration minister?
He did say "Today's projections show that population growth is starting to slow down, the impacts of the radical reforms we have made to the immigration system over the last two years are working," he said.

However, Guy Goodwin, ONS director of population statistics, said the change was due to a change in data analysis, not Government policy. "I would not call it a significant slowing up in any way," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:32 AM

Don T could any kind of builder provide England with a complete city of Birmingham every four years for the next 25?
That's what we will need just to stop things getting worse than they are now.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:36 AM

My point, Keith, is that "too much immigration" is always going to be relative to the resources and econonomic production within a particular society. If more people are productive, there are more resources for everyone.

I would argue that tax-paying immigrants are not nearly as much of a drain on available resources as the indigenous Britons who do not work, and who live within the benefits sub-culture.

I know that this sounds incredibly reactionary, but I would really like to see this sector of society quantified in comparison to the "drain" on resources caused by immigration. I feel that it's easy to scapegoat the immigrant as the cause of Britain's problems, when in many cases, as highlighted by Don T, we are the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:57 AM

Ruth,
"My point, Keith, is that "too much immigration" is always going to be relative to the resources and econonomic production within a particular society. If more people are productive, there are more resources for everyone."

I have argued that our very high population density and the serious concerns over immigration related issues are evidence that things have gone much too far.

"I would argue that tax-paying immigrants are not nearly as much of a drain on available resources as the indigenous Britons who do not work, and who live within the benefits sub-culture."

I absolutely agree Ruth.

"I know that this sounds incredibly reactionary, but I would really like to see this sector of society quantified in comparison to the "drain" on resources caused by immigration. I feel that it's easy to scapegoat the immigrant as the cause of Britain's problems, when in many cases, as highlighted by Don T, we are the solution."

I tend to agree with that, and certainly do not go in for scapegoating.
It is just a question of numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 09:45 AM

""Don T could any kind of builder provide England with a complete city of Birmingham every four years for the next 25?
That's what we will need just to stop things getting worse than they are now.""

My point precisely! You are going to need those foreign workers, or you are going to be in a much BIGGER hole.

God, it's murder talking to the hard of understanding.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 09:59 AM

Don T, we could import all the builders in the world, but then you would have to bring in builders from other worlds to build towns for them.
Don, seven new Birminghams in 25 years.
It is time to stop.

Can any of you produce one authoritative person who agrees with you that current immigration levels are sustainable?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 12:18 PM


Can any of you produce one authoritative person who agrees with you that current immigration levels are sustainable?

Who said that?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:01 PM

Very good Tug!
Be fair though, I have already given all 3 political parties as agreeing it is too high.
I can not think of any credible person who does not.
So, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:51 PM

Some results from a YouGov opinion poll this year.

- 76% want to see net immigration cut from its present level of 237,000 a year to 50,000 or less a year. Of that 76%, 32% want to see a policy of "one in, one out" while 22% want to see no immigration at all.
The party affiliations are also of interest:
- A sharp cut in immigration (to 50,000 a year or less) was supported by 85% of Conservative, 70% of Labour[1] and 65% of Lib Dem voters.

I suggest that the only reason I am the only Mudcatter making this case is because of the nasty, abusive and insulting way that your side argues its case.
From the start you have made personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments. It is much easier to just say "racist" and "xenophobe".
Do you really believe that 76% of the population are racists?

Have you thought of anyone who does not think immigration is too high?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM

Of course present levels aren't sustainable, but that hasn't been the drift of the thread, which seems to be whether immigration is the prime cause for a whole set od social ills.

    Quite what kind of policy would need to be put in place has not really been dicussed either, given eu rules, economic need in the Uk etc, though there does seem to be some simploistic thinking about just pulling up the drawbridge, without any real consideration of how that would be done, and what wider, unforseen consequences this might have.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 08:20 PM

I suggest that the only reason I am the only Mudcatter making this case is because of the nasty, abusive and insulting way that your side argues its case.
From the start you have made personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments. It is much easier to just say "racist" and "xenophobe".

Look up 'ad hominem'.
I am not on a 'side'. I also never side with a majority ( e.g those who favour a return of capital punishment) just because they outnumber me.
You again run away from the argument.......given that we need to think casrefully about predsent levels of immigration ( as well as longevity and how it will be finances) can you please suggest concrete proposals that are not xenophobic?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 05:58 AM

"Of course present levels aren't sustainable"
Tug that is the first time you have even hinted at that.
Your previous;

the 'our overcrowded little island' argument is bankrupt at every level.

Our island is still not overrcrowded

immigration population who have a younger age profile and a higher fertility rate.
But so what.

Now we agree, so that is fine. End of our discussion.
What should be done? Almost all other countries apply limits to immigration.US style quota system.Australian points based system that, unlike ours, actually limits the numbers entering.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 08:21 AM

Keith, none of my posts suggest I am unaware of the PRESENT levels of immigration being sustainable. The figures that you partially report suggest the rate is declining and that there will be a return to a net outflow......this may happen without any government interference.


    I diverge from you on laying the blame for all our ills solely on immigration, for making unworkable suggestions for 'stopping them'.feeding xenophobia and others and missing all sorts of points in a selective manner. Our Island is not 'overcrowded',but we lack the resources to fill parts of it with new cities at the rate that current figures would suggest. Subtle difference, or don't you get it.
Almost all other countries apply limits to immigration.US style quota system.Australian points based system that, unlike ours, actually limits the numbers entering.
So do we, except that we have duties arisingv from our EU membership.Practical suggestions please!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 09:24 AM

Tug, re your first paragraph, I have produced no figures that suggest the rate is declining and may reverse.
I would be fascinated to see any such.

Para2, not all our ills. I specified those ills due to a rapidly rising population. For many years now, immigration has been the main driver of that, and it is not xenophobic to state that.

para3, "so do we" No. Our points based system is not working to stem the flow.
Re EU. Most of our immigrants are not from EU.
We were one of the few EU countries that CHOSE to allow unrestricted access to the new accession countries.
We must live with EU migration unless we renegotiate membership, and could limit outside migration to compensate. That might be seen as xenophobic.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:44 PM

That was reported in the Guardian this week. The PRESENT figures give cause for concern, but we need to see the longer term trends.

Either to limit immigration ,or devote more resouces, may well be necessary. It is shameful that so many people are having to live in virtual shanty towns when they came here to work!!!

   Some kind of humane system is needed, a blanket halt to immigration, especially if based on racial grounds ( no, I am not accusing you of saying that) would be a slur on our reputation as a civilised couintry....especially as we expect to be eble to retire or relocate almost anywhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 03:47 PM

Hi Keith from Hertford . Firstly Iam a mudcat member.

Unless I misunderstand you why should my above posts be deleted there is nothing wrong with them I am not racist I speak from what I see and what I encounter all being now,t but the truth.

I agree with imigration to fill jobs.
But I do not agree with the fact that when the flood gates are opened and jobs are filled that thousands of poor homeless folk nationwide are left high and dry to rot on our streets.

Its disgusting.
Good luck to the polish workers.
My building where I work employs scores of cleaners from
South America good luck to them. if they can earn and have a better life over here good luck again.

Imigration leads to homelessness if it is not controled carefully and no goverment from any political party in this country clearly gives a toss about what I am referring to and that is the homeless.
The blinkered politican who says this and that but does now,t.


I put that to you and whoever else.
Kind regards Pierre

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:19 PM

The points based system can be tailored by adjusting the points threshold.

The legality of detaining pending asylum seekers and others needing but not having visas can be dealt with by primary and probably secondary legislation.

The period for asylum determinations is down.

The number of successful asylum applications is down.

Location of removees can be dealt with (eg anklets).

Log-in and log-out issues can be dealt with.

A8 immigration is now negative.

Japan has one of the most rapidly ageing populations (particularly Tokyo) and the UK one of the next. To support the pensions timebomb we NEED population growth. That or the demolition of capitalism. Or compulsory euthanasia and a Malthusian doctrine.

And the main cause of population growth is not immigration.   

Therefore the opposition to immigration, and Keith's basic premise, is at best xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau.
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:38 PM

why is it that Polish builders with the same certified papers has our national builders are doing the same jobe has our national builders but getting paid a hell of a lot less. The fact that they would earn less in there home land but earn more over here is not the issue the fact they are doing the same job means they should earn the same wage. alot of building firms are owned by ex politicians who use this has a excuse to save them selves money that is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:45 PM

On the Nationwide programme on RTE last night the highest number of migrants in Ireland came from England.
The English people who have migrated here have nothing but praise for their Irish neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:55 PM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1023/nationwide_av.html?2632183,null,228

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:02 PM

From yahoo news

The survey in the News of the World found that almost two-thirds of voters feel the mainstream parties have no credible policies on immigration. But only 6% said the BNP had the best policies on the issue and just 10% agreed with the far-right party that there should be a halt to all future immigration.

   Perhaps I'm not in such a minority after all.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:54 PM

Imigration has a lot to do with homelessness.

1)(The government has no idea how meny homeless folk there are in this country from overseas.

(2 above all how meny of these folk are illegal having out stayed there visa,s but not returned home and are living rough or paying to sleep in safe houses.

3) How many criminals fleeing there own judisal system have fled over here and started up over here. (a true fact.)

But for the majority of law abideing overseas folk what prospect is there for those with out work or shelter.
There is no Carrington House anymore(Thank God)
There is no Cardboard city.

There is
St Martins in the fields in London which is bursting at the seams and cant cope but manages to regardless.   

The one time hostals that we did have could just about cope with our homeless and lots have been closed down due to Government cutbacks

And now these folk intised here through prospects of jobs and pay and also to those who came thinking that the streets of London are paved with gold and have been left pennyless cannot now return home through being pennyless even if they want to.

Sad state of affairs.

Kind regards to all.
I,ll post no more.
Pierre Le Chapeau.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 05:02 AM

Yes Tug, present figures certainly give cause for concern.
Future figures we do not know, but official projections based on the current official figures are for continued rapid rise in population.
And that is this month's figures and this month's projections.
Richard, birth rate has only just overtaken immigration as the main driver of population rise, because of the high birth rate of immigrants.

Government controls so far are utterly ineffective at controlling the spiralling population. I think it needs more than a tweak Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 05:27 AM

Keith here http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950 are figures apparently current to August 2009 from the ONS showing net migration still falling.

Those sucked into false predictions of prosperity (as in "The Grapes of Wrath") deserve our greatest sympathy, and for many reasons government (in its widest sense) needs to know who they are and where they are. Some may be illegal entrants, some may be overstayers, some may be failed asylum applicants, but not all are any such, I assert.

There is a case for removal of the above three categories (for they have been determined as not lawfully being here), and as I said long ago I believe it is possible for English law to make it clear that visa applicants can be detained during processing. That does not however enable full policing of removal.

Making rules about who is allowed to enter does not solve that puzzle.

Perhaps those who insist that population growth is ipso facto bad (a position I think irrational) or at present excessive (a position I think, allowing for projections, not justifiable) should set out: -

a) How they would reduce the excess of births over deaths, and
b) How they could find those unlawfully (now or in the future) here?
c) How they could prevent illegal entry?

There are no magic wands, and no government can be blamed for not achieving the impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 08:18 AM

Richard, net immigration is falling because of the recession.
It is due to people leaving.
Every recession has been the same, and the effect is always temporary.
Actual immigration is still rising.

The birth rate you brought up again is a red herring.
We have the birth rate we have.
If it rises, to control population we can only control entry.

If we really can not prevent and remove illegals, then again we can only control entry.

Most countries do manage better control of their borders than we seem able to..
I suspect our government lacks the will.
A supply of cheap labour suits them and suits the bosses.
The people who suffer the effects are just the urban working class.
If they complain they must be racist and can be ignored.
And their natural champions, the political Left, are complicit.
Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 11:58 AM

If you cannot control illegal immigration then you cannot control entry either.

Net immigration is falling. You can speculate why, and you can speculate when if ever that will reverse, but it is the present fact. You rule out, it seems, compulsory birth control (despite the fact that you several times refer to children of immigrants), so that makes it plain that the only thing you want to stop is immigration.

What do you mean that "most countries do manage better control of their borders"?
1. That fewer people arrive without going through immigration control at all?
2. That they receive fewer asylum applications?
3. That they reject more asylum applications?
4. That they do it faster?
5. That they more promptly or successfully deport failed asylum seekers?
6. That they are more effective at hunting down and deporting category 1 arrivals?

You say you want fewer immigrants. How do you plan to achieve that?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 12:04 PM

The same way that USA and Autralia do.

Richard, you keep bringing up the birth rate.
I just said that it is not relevant.
As I said, we have the rate we have. We can only control immigration.
Are you saying that it is impossible to reduce it at all?
Maybe if the government actually tried?
Actually appeared to want to?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 02:44 PM

Keith, check how many migrants walk across the borders of the US. I have a friend who walked or drove into the USA as he pleased for many years, and was running a haulage business there after being deported 7 (I think it was) times before one of the US agencies said "We are now deporting you again. If we find you here again illegally you are going to jail for a long time". He than married a native American woman and ran his haulage business for a number more years before a row with her led him to park one of his Kenwoods that was registered in her name in a parking lot at JFK and fly out for good, of his own free will.

Turning now to Australia:

You already ought to be able to figure out how the manipulation of number requirements in a points system can affect the number of those entitled to entry. It is immaterially different from a hard cap as used by Australia.

Try figuring out how (as Australia threatens) sinking ships can apply to trucks coming in on short-haul ro-ro ferries and to the Eurotunnel.

Is that what you want: to threaten to murder people before finding out whether they have legitimate claims to entry?


You want, it seems, no more immigrants.

We already have immigration control at all airports and ports. How many ships and planes do you want scouring the seas and skies for small boats and aircraft aircraft? Will you search every truck coming into the UK, and how will that affect international trade?

Now suppose those you find claim asylum. What will you do? Tag them all so they can be tracked? How much equipment will you need? Who will operate it? How will you stop the tags being cut off? How will you tag everyone already here?

What will you do about visa overstayers? Tag every tourist so that you can be sure they go home?

You are wrong to want a bar on immigration - but if you could impose one, how would you police it?

The present government has already got the period for determination of asylum claims down and the number of refusals up. Asylum is not an easy option, and the existing laws permit a bare and unpleasant subsistence to those who wait for a decision. By and large, visas if refused cannot be re-applied for while still in the UK.

You say the government should "actually try". Well, come on, what should they try? A perimeter fence and patrols with dogs and sub-machine guns?

The government knows perfectly well that jerks are going on about immigration. Don't you think they'd like to shut them all up?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 03:52 PM

Richard, one thread at a time.
When you agree with Tug and me that the answer to the question, "UK immigration too high?" is yes, we will start one on how to reduce it.

So Richard, is it too high or not?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 06:19 PM

No. It is below population growth, and falling.

And you can't say "too high" and purport to attribute blame for that alleged fact until you have an alternative. Looks like you haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 06:24 PM

This thread goes Richard/Keith/Richard/Keith.... I suspect that the right honourable Richard lives in a white only enclave!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 06:25 PM

Oh, 300 by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 12:52 AM

Paco, I provided some details above of the diversity of people we have in my village. At the university at which I mostly teach the vast preponderance of students are not eligible to join the BNP under its current constitution, and on the bus from such teaching to the train I am usually the only person who would be so eligible.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:26 AM

How stupid and pointless to say that immigration is below population increase.
Unless it is the only factor, OF COURSE IT IS!

Look at this month's population graph from ONS. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pproj1009.pdf
Figure 4 shows the highest and lowest future population rise for various factors. On the minimal reasonable assumption for immigration based on the best and most up to date figures, it is shooting up.

Who else apart from you thinks that is OK?
Our 3 main parties agree on little, but they agree immigration is too high. Most of the population do too. It seems everyone does except you. I have asked several times if you know of one credible individual who agrees with you.
Silence.
You have a mental block on this and it is pointless arguing with you.

Re controls, the numbers entering across beaches is minute and negligible. Immigrants come in through air and sea ports.
We should invest a little more on controls there and implement a quota system based on the numbers leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:39 AM

You know perfectly well I was referring to the difference between births and deaths.

Equally you know perfectly well that it became a given of this thread long ago that opinion was not the issue, but that the facts were.

I have in the past hesitated to join Royston in calling you a liar, but this time you have condemned yourself. You refer to "the best and most up to date figures". The document you link to is dated this month, but it is, as it says, based on 2008 figures, ever since when immigration has been falling.

What it does show, however, is the alarming PSA ratio - which on their figures shows a very adverse trend - as I predicted above - and on current immigration figures it will really take a dive.

Maybe as well as blockading the ports (sea and air) - although they already all have immigration controls - you want to start shooting the elderly?

Maybe you really want to stop tourists coming in unless other tourists have been counted out. Is that your plan?

How are you going to count them, and how are you going to round up those who have gone missing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:11 AM

The difference between births and deaths has only just overtaken immigration as the main cause of our rapidly spiralling population, and immigration is making that worse.
Immigration is still accounting for almost half of our population increase, so how can it be ignored, fool.

If you have more up to date figures than The Office Of National Statistics, you should contact them at once, fool.

This very month Phil Woolas, the immigration minister foolishly said "Today's projections show that population growth is starting to slow down, the impacts of the radical reforms we have made to the immigration system over the last two years are working," he said.

However, Guy Goodwin, ONS director of population statistics, said the change was due to a change in data analysis, not Government policy. "I would not call it a significant slowing up in any way," he said.

Actual immigration is not falling.
A few extra people are leaving because of the recession.
Do you have any evidence that will continue, fool?
The FACT that every previous recession in the last 40 years has had the same, short lived effect is very good evidence that it will not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:26 AM

I'm not aware of anyone complaining about Poles coming to Britain in 1939 and 1940 when they came to continue the fight against Nazi Germany alongside their comrades in the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, the Army and the Merchant Marine. In return for their heroism and their sacrifices in defence of our freedom Churchill and Attlee sold their country out to Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam.

When it comes to the Poles, we owe them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 06:06 AM

I agree Scouse.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 08:32 AM

Are you planning to get rid of the Irish as well? They're immigrants from a foreign country as well, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 08:36 AM

Chris, I am not calling for the removal of anyone.
Why do you even ask that?
Have you read any of my posts in this thread at all?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 08:59 AM

"In return for their heroism and their sacrifices in defence of our freedom Churchill and Attlee sold their country out to Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam."

Strictly speaking, they didn't make their sacrifices in defence of our freedom - that was a cause secondary to what was overwhelmingly their main objective, which was the liberation and re-constitution of Poland.

But you're right Chris, they were astonishingly brave and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. I've met some of those men, and felt humble in their presence - very humble indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 09:37 AM

richard, look on the other thread .
I found someone who agrees with you!
I would say that he is incredible, not credible though.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 01:29 PM

Tug?
Pesent levels unsustainable. Very true.
But why do you think the trend will not continue?
All the evidence is that it will.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:28 PM

Keith why don't you read the stuff you posted links to?

The projections there were based on 2008 figures: fact.

We now know (from the very same ONS) that ever since then net immigration has been falling: fact.

You ask whether the immigration is sustainable: look at the age profiles in the same stuff you linked to: we need more immigrants to provide an economy that can support the ageing.

Either that or you will have to start exporting or killing the ageing, or starving them out. You call yourself a physicist? You should be able to work out the arithmetic.

I repeat. If you called the stuff you posted to the most up to date information, then you are a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:29 PM

"UK immigration too high?"

Smokin' too much bud over there . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:46 PM

Richard you fool, those ARE the most up to date figures!
That ONS link you posted yesterday, uses the same figures, fool.
Why don't you read the stuff you post links to.
You might notice that the graph stops at 2008.
By your logic, that makes you a liar as well as a fool.

I am a physicist, but not an economist.
Are you?
For any you can find, I can find one that does NOT agree that immigration is the answer to our problems.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 08:39 PM

Tug?
Pesent levels unsustainable. Very true.
But why do you think the trend will not continue?
All the evidence is that it will.

yes Keith, it was me, where has it gone.... I'm still signed in. Why was it deleted....it clearly carried copies of older posts, Joe, or Clone, please re-instate, or thread becomes incoherent!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 02:53 AM

Richard, you have been busy posting elsewhere (and smearing my name elsewhere).
You need to answer here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:17 AM

You are right that the link I gave was not to more recent figures, and therefore you were not lying when you said the link you gave was to up to date figures. To that extent I owe you and give you an apology.

Your reading of the effect of the data is still however wrong in that immigration has been falling (incidentally, since some time before the economic downturn) and is falling, which will be disastrous in terms of the age profile of the population - the "pensions time-bomb".

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:52 AM

Apology accepted.
Thank you.
The ONS projections take all trends up to mid 2008 into account, and unless there is a dramatic change in policy they are valid.
Everyone except you agrees that makes UK immigration too high.

The supposed need for immigration to solve the pension problem is not proven.
For instance, see the opinions of Migrationwatch and Balanced migration

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:58 AM

Everyone except you agrees that makes UK immigration too high.

   No, as I said in my deleterd post, it is a balance between immigration and available resources. Immigration may or may not be too high, according to the political will to devote resources.

    The present trends, over the past couple of yearts cannot be extrapolated. That would be like measuring a baby's growth over the firat year and extrapolating an 18 ft being with a huge head.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:30 AM

It is more noteworthy than that. Net immigration started to fall in mid 2005, whereas the economy did not enter recession until late 2008, which might very well presage a continuing fall in net immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 03:05 PM

There is none so blind as them who refuse to see!
Look at the graph, figure 4, that I linked to.
A steadily rising trend, extrapolated into the near future.
Look at the net migration graph that Richard linked to.
Net migration is shooting up at the start, 1998, and continues to rise for the whole period. There is an upward spike which is the EU influx, which peaks in 2005. That decline is the EU rush tailing off.

How can you two set yourselves up as an authority on population, and contradict the teams of expert demographers, statisticians, economists and social scientists employed by the ONS.
Do you have more comprehensive and up to date statistics than they do?Please tell us how you know that they have got it completely wrong, and you two know better????
I believe the professionals.
Who do you think is going to believe you????
You are in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:25 PM

So you agree that net immigration has been falling ever since 2005?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:05 PM

No richard, anyone can look at the graph YOU linked to and see that is not true.
There is a spike that peaks in 2005. That spike ends in 2006, then the steady long term upward trend resumes until the recession.
But I know nothing.
I take note of what the professionals say.
The population is shooting up.
It is driven by immigration and the children of immigrants.
It is not me saying that, but the experts who monitor the statistics for the government.
You obviously know much more than them.
Give us YOUR evidence that says that the ONS is WRONG and immigration is coming down.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:07 PM

Look, we've already been here......the figures are the figures ( some may be more reliable than others) 'Too high' and 'not too high' are both judgements that stand independent of the figures. ONS doesn't set out to make judgements, only to provide data. If your judgement is different from mine, on the same 'data' there are interesting reasons for this....let's hear them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 11:08 AM

It is the projections based on all the available evidence that justify my belief that immigration is too high.
I am not aware of any credible or authoratative individual, group or publication that does find those projections acceptable.

This has gone on too long now.
I described some of the issues relating to immigration to argue that it is too high.
For doing that I was called a racist and a liar by Mr Silly and Royston, and a xenophobe by Tug, which I take to mean racist.
I used evidence from ONS to endorse everything I claimed.
Only Tug and Richard are still arguing.
They have a preconceived belief that mass immigration is intrinsically good. They have no evidence to support their view and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.
The findings of The Office Of National Statistics, with all their professional expertise, comprehensive data and data processing resources, are simply dismissed.
They know better but they can not say how.

If that does not change their prejudice, nothing I can say is ever going to.
Just two numpties.
Not worth another post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 12:35 PM

Ermmm, I'll type this slowly.....figures in themselves do not constitute an argument. Somewhere you must reveal your major premise.

Here's mine.....immigration has always been a part of British life, if it outstrips available resources then we need to take action. This should not be based on racial criteria, should take into consideration gaps in the employment market, and seasonal workers should be accommodated properly ( fruit, hops etc picking is done almost exclusively by eastern Europeans who may well not qualify for permanent immigration).


    Immigration is one of several factors that contribute to a variety of social problems, and in some areas is hardly an issue,yet the problems persist.
Said all this before....Nuff said!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 12:41 PM

Just two numpties.

Lack of argument reveals itself!

Actually there are quiet a few more. A glance at my PMs indicate that several posters just haven't got the will to endlessly repeat themselves. Perhaps being willing to continue against all evidence of being heard does make us numpties.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 01:26 PM

Major premise, I do not want to live in the England of the projections.
Who does (not a rhetorical question)?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 03:14 PM

All the people 'clamouring' to be immigrants, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 03:18 PM

Not even you then.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: folk1e
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 04:52 PM

OK, I'll have a go......
There is a question (or 2) behind the original question of wether UK immigration is too high. Is the population of the UK too high? Is the future population of the UK too high? Will immigration provide the needs of the UK now and in the future? ...... etc, etc

Firstly as has been previously noted effective immigration is the amount of people coming into the country in exess of those emmigrating.
The future population of the UK is dependant on the base population birthrate pluss the immigrant birthrate. UK base population birthrate is not sustainable! By this I mean the base population death rate is higher than birthrate, ergo we need immigration to hold our population at the present levels. I have seen few people advocating a reduction in our population. This leaves us with argueing over the actual amount of immmigration we collectivly want!
If you think about it there is a natural selection involved in emmigration so that we are more likely to loose a highly qualified person than a lower one, if only because they are more likely to be financially able to relocate abroad. This slews the natural ballance of the population (allbeit slightly).
The opposite side of the equation is the earning potential of immigrants is greater than in their homeland, otherwise they would not be coming here!
If we take the long view here, the educational chances of an immigrants children are increased. This has a dramatic effect on the number of their children (there is a direct corolation here)!

So we need some net immigration, and the total number of immigrants (and their families) will initially increase but then slowly reduce to base levels) If anyone doubts this look at the birthrate in countries like Ireland over the last century.

Again this is a simplification of the complex nature of population change and has also been noted already we are being asked to apply an emotional answer rather than an impirical one!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:07 PM

A quick look at the graph Richard linked to shows that the birth rate was already well above the death rate in 1998, and has been ever since.
Balanced migration would still result in rising population.
Many people do think that the population of England, especially the South East, has become too high already.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:47 PM

Bye, then. I'm staying.

As a physicist Keith, you will be aware of the practice of drawing the best curve through data. Immigration peaked in 2005, well before the recession, and has been mostly going down ever since.

There are new measures in place that authorise control of immigration. You admit that most immigration comes through ports (air and sea) but not through smuggling. In those ports there are immigration control posts.

I wish you the best of luck as you age wherever you go, and the falling population means that there will be no support for you in your old age.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 02:36 AM

Richard, I can not resist exposing your ignorance, and your attempts to mislead.
It was only EU immigration that peaked in 2005.
That peak is superimposed on the steadily rising graph of net migration.
ONS expects EU migration to balance.
ONS expects the actual decline in net migration, that coincided with the start of the recession, to be temporary as usual with recessions.
ONS have said that current controls are having no effect.

You are arguing with and against ONS, numpty.
Why should anyone listen to you and ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 03:16 AM

The number of persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom, excluding EEA and
Swiss nationals, rose by 26 per cent in the second quarter of 2009 (46,120) compared with
the second quarter of 2008 (36,510).There were increases in employment-related grants
(up 34 per cent to 19,815), family formation and reunion grants (up 9 per cent to 16,965)
and other grants, including those on a discretionary basis and where the category of grant
is unknown (up 56 per cent to 8,740). These were partly offset by a decrease in asylumrelated
grants (down 7 per cent to 600) (Figure 3.3).
Comparing the last 12 months (ending 30 June 2009) with the previous 12 months (ending
30 June 2008), the number of persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom, excluding
EEA and Swiss nationals, rose by 9 per cent from 148,730 to 162,630. There were
increases in employment-related grants (up 17 per cent to 67,600), asylum-related grants
(up 4 per cent to 3,765) and family formation and reunion grants (up 19 per cent to 63,120).
These were partly offset by a decrease in other grants, including those on a discretionary
basis and where the category of grant is unknown (down 18 per cent to 28,145).

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:09 AM

Link for last ONS extract http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0809.pdf
To sum up, according to ONS,

Immigration from outside EU is still rising and has been for very many years. So called controls have had no effect.

EU immigration has peaked and declined.

The drop in net migration due to the recession is almost entirely due to people leaving, and is only temporary.

We are still heading for the worst case projections.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:22 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950

Again. Peak immigration 2005. Trend ever since downwards.
Peak well before recession, therefore Keith your (not the ONS's) argument that immigration will bounce back because it tracks economic growth is unfounded.

Just numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:42 AM

Ignore the post accession EU influx, and there has been NO peak in immigration in 2005.
That was a one off event causing that blip.
You must know that. You are trying to conceal the simple truth that there has been no fall in actual immigration. Only a recession induced temporary increase in actual emigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:52 AM

512,000 people migrated to the UK in the year to December 2008,
similar to the 527,000 in the year to December 2007 and remaining at a similar level to that
seen since the A8 Accession countries joined the EU in 2004 (Figure 1.1).

NO PEAK IN 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:18 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0809.pdf
Look at the nice simple graph, Fig 4.3 at the bottom of page 12.
there is a line for UK resident born outside, and for resident foreign nationals.
Both are steadily rising lines.
NO PEAKS ANYWHERE

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:39 AM

"Keith your (not the ONS's) argument that immigration will bounce back because it tracks economic growth is unfounded."

The ONS says actual immigration has been rising steadily irrespective of economics.
The ONS predicts that the surge in emigration coinciding with the recession will be temporary as usual for recessions.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 06:38 AM

I will be offline for a couple of days.
While the cat's away the numpties can play, at making up theories and naively or disingenuously misinterpreting statistics.

The true figures still show that we are on track for the worst case projections.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 07:33 AM

Right that does it....off to Australia, plenty of room there.Or maybe Spain, mind you I've heard Corfu is nice for brits.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 02:54 AM

Immigration is putting an intolerable strain on services in many areas.
There are real issues on jobs and homes.
It is not racist to express concern at the level of immigration.
The government should do something to reduce the influx.

I know I have said all this before, but now the Prime Minister has said the same.
The Lib Dems say his proposals are too little too late.
I wonder what Royston, Mr.Silly, Richard, Tug, Don and Co. are saying.
Liar?
Fantasist?
Xenophobe?
Racist?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:18 AM

The PM also described the dismissing of immigration as an issue,(those above and also Fred McCormick) as "lazy elitism."

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Arnie
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:53 AM

Embarkation checks were abandoned at Channel ports by the Tories in the mid 1990's. When Labour took over, they used this as a precedent to abandon embarkation checks at the airports. Now no-one really knows how many visitors, students, work permit holders etc actually leave the UK when their visa expires - an awful lot simply stay put and enter the world of illegal working, sham marriages & bogus college courses. Of course, if you are unfortunate enough to be picked up by a UKBA Arrest Team, then a timely claim for asylum will get you instant bail and another chance to disappear. Until embarkation checks are re-introduced, the UK only really operates half an immigration control. Last time I visited the US I was checked by immigration on departure and I'll bet they haven't abandoned their outward checks.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Les Paul
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 12:43 PM

I have nothing against any race of people, but when you see the numbers of Europeans flooding into Britain one cannot help but be concerned.

Yes they did arrive in 2000 to seek employment, but they soon discovered that bringing their family over paid a lot better.

I have a family living beside me and the lady told me, their rent is paid, they both receive state benefits, and with three children they receive more than they did when her husband was working.

The government MUST cap the numbers coming in and stop giving them benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 05:46 AM

And from your one (unprovable) anecdote, aboout one immigrant famiy, we are supposed to extrapolate that all the immigrants in this country are here looking for handouts.

Not very likely, given the long line of unverifiable pro BNP "Guests" who have been dirtying these threads recently.

So "Guest, whatever", care to give us some reason for granting your comments any credibility?

No!....I thought not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 02:41 PM

Right, the official time was 16 days and 19 hours, would the winning ticket holder please make their claim.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 12:25 PM

""Major premise, I do not want to live in the England of the projections.""

But where would you go Keith?

Abroad is absolutely full of the foreigners you want to keep out.

Is there anywhere in the world that lives up to the exacting, foreigner free standards, which you have outline in dozens of threads?

Me?.....I'll stay put, and find out what effect an influx of new blood has on this multicultural land. After all, it's done well enough out of 2000 years of immigration.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 12:38 PM

Too many foreigners flooding in to an already -overcrowded,over-populated,small island that doesn't have the infrastructure to cope with the sheer numbers.Nothing racist or xenophobic about that----it is just PURE COMMON SENSE !

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 02:03 PM

""it is just PURE COMMON SENSE !""

Not much of PURITY about it...No matter how loudly you shout.

In 2000 years, there has never been a DAY when this country didn't have a significant immigrant population, and today is no different.

"Too much" is a totally subjective concept.

Too much for whom?....You?.....And why is your assessment more likely to be right than mine, or Richard's?

There is no indication that the infrastructure of this country is collapsing under the weight of immigrants.

More likely, upon logical analysis, is the suggestion that it is in danger of collapsing under the weight of this government's incompetence.

Five percent of a population cannot even significantly influence the choice of government, let alone cause the collapse of a nation's economic structure.

Dear Gordon having saddled every man, woman, and child with thousands of pounds of debt, we might end up being happy to have those immigrants sharing the burden of repayment.

The only complaint I have relating to (but not the fault of) immigrants, is the practice of foreign firms paying wages far below our legal minimum, and then using these low paid workers to carry out work in this country.

That is where the stories of Poles undercutting Brits come from, and it is that which should be stamped on....HARD!

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Royston
Date: 16 Nov 09 - 06:24 PM

Guest: Falco

You are the voice of reason. Yes it is right and proper to feel concerned about population and provision issues. If people are needed; for economic growth or to support senior citizens/retirees, then the only issue that need give cause for concern is the challenge of providing the schools/dentists/doctors/houses for all the necessary and productive workers.

The answer is not to restrict the producers of societal wealth. It is to provide enough of the support mechanisms those producers require.

If, as some 'guests' claim, some migrant or indigenous people take the piss out of our welfare state then that is justification for enforcement against piss takers including the feckless white trash BNP voters; not justification for persecuting immigrants.

Keith A, in the absence of immigrant scapegoats, would not advocate sterilization of white britons to control the growth of the socially needy...or would he?

Keith, I didn't stop arguing against your stupidity, I am really busy. Working in Angola of late.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 05:41 AM

We should all be thanking Dr Barnardos, all of the other institutions, and of course the British politicians for shipping out all of those poor chidren to the colonies.
Just think Britain would have been bursting at the seams, that is what I call forward thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 08:32 AM

My concern on immigration is just about numbers, not race.
The same concerns are expressed by the Prime Minister, the government, the Libdems and the Tories.
You people are way out on an extreme, radical wing.
Don T you are wrong again. There has never been immigration on anything approaching this scale before.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 10:05 AM

Surely Keith the Irish potato famine,the country was reduced from 9 million in 1841 to 2.5 million in 1850, England was then swamped by the fleeing Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 10:09 AM

That should read 6.2 million in 1850.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 12:48 PM

Why are you concerned about numbers,you now have the opportunity to live anywhere in Europe.
if you dont like England any more you can leave.
So there is a problem waiting for dentists,well maybe we could with a few immigrant dentists to reduce the wait.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:37 PM

I agree with Don in the thread above re staffing in hospitals would be down if not staffed by folk from overseas.

This is true and the reason is that all our nurses and doctors have had to go overseas to pratish doctoring and nursing because the British goverment is to bloody stingy and tight to finacnce uk citizens who demand decent wages.

So instraed they go abroad to Saudia Arabia and the USA where the wages are much better. My sister has been in (Saudi for 10 years)

The government cannot just do away with the NHS and make everyone pay for there health
so they fill the vacancies with folk from, overseas who will work for half the wages saving millions of £s but those millions of £s saved does not clearly get put back into the NHS SYSTEM. The money saved is used to fund over things .
What happened to the body scanner that was funded from public money and jumble sales and events when the Brook hospital closed back in the 80s. Fuuny how a bloody great scanner can just vanish without a trace.

Has for folk coming here from overseas to work in hospitals clearly it is improving there lives so good luck to them. I dont blames them
But in 20years time you can say farewell to the NHS you will be paying for your own hip replacemnets bloodtests you will have to get your own medical insurence on a yearly basis like car insurence. and it wont be cheep it will cost you thousands has they do in the USA. and that is what our government wants for over here.
The American way.
Its a disgusting.
Regards Pierre.,

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:37 PM

Ard, Ireland lost about 3million in that terrible decade.
All too many were deaths. Many others crossed the Atlantic.
Exact records of how many arrived here were not kept because they were british citizens.
Over the last ten years, almost three quarters of a million British people have left the UK and nearly 2.5 million immigrants have arrived. This rate of inflow is 25 times higher than any previous period of immigration since the Norman Conquest in 1066

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:40 PM

Schweik, yes I could leave, and tens of thousands do.
I suspect you will be unhappy if we get another Tory government, but would it drive you from the country of your home and family?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau.
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:42 PM

No offence to our friends across the pond this is not your fault it boils down to OUR UK spineless.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 01:57 PM

I get off the train at Waterloo East London when I go to work and I see on a regular basis a homelss man who has two stumps for legs he is clearly homeless and he gets around London on a bread crate with wheels on it. He uses his hand to push himself along. Its a pityous sight to see I asked myself how is this allowed to happen. Without that trolley nhe would be rolling bodily along the pavement.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

Schweik, yes I could leave, and tens of thousands do.
I suspect you will be unhappy if we get another Tory government, but would it drive you from the country of your home and family?
yes it did,I left because I couldnt stand Thatcher,now stop Whingeing and get on your bike,take the advice of Norman Tebbitt.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 04:35 PM

Are you really saying that anyone who disapproves of government policy on anything should just leave the country???
What about my job?
What about my family settled here?
I only speak English.
I am 59.
But I must not object to anything, just leave the country!
You are a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Gary
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 05:54 PM

I don't see Keith as a racist. I see him as a guy who loves his country and is proud to be British. He expressed an opinion and now he is getting it in the neck.

More than 2.5 million people have been allowed to flock through the "open door" into Britain.

Most of the newcomers have arrived from outside the EU, making a mockery of Government claims that an annual cap on migrants would have a limited effect. That is equivalent to the entire population of Greater Manchester. This has put a massive drain on public services.

It has also forced up the tax burden on already hard-pressed families and seen police forces pleading for more cash to deal with gangs of foreign criminals. Immigration is having a dramatic effect on our public services. It's one of the biggest reasons we're having to build so many new houses and concrete over our country.

Mass immigration is making all services scarcer and more expensive in terms of tax as a large number of Polish couples come to the UK to have their families and the British taxpayer are left to raise them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 06:42 PM

""Don T you are wrong again. There has never been immigration on anything approaching this scale before.""

INDEED?

So tell us, O fount of all knowledge, What are the ONS immigration figures for the period 40BC - 2001AD as a percentage of total population? And what were the percentages of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Danes, Celts, Picts etc. etc. You must have those figures, since you claim to know that they were lower than today's.

You do talk some bollocks boy, and YOU are the one who is so fond of throwing the word FOOL around, fool.


""So there is a problem waiting for dentists,well maybe we could with a few immigrant dentists to reduce the wait.""

Strangely enough Dick, a huge proportion of our dentists are in fact Australian.

Guest, Gary,

Go and play with the traffic on the motorway of your choice. Nobody is swallowing this multi anonymous identities BNP crap anymore.

Don T.



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 09 - 09:55 PM

Most of the newcomers have arrived from outside the EU

Have they? Any facts and figures to substantiate that claim?

Back to the main thread. I think that there is a genuine worry that overcrowding will become a problem. I don't think though that immigration is the cause though. Overcrowding will happen regardless of migration patterns, unless we have another world war, heaven forbid. Immigration may make it happen a little sooner but even the 2.5 million figure quoted is quite insignificant compared to the present population. I also believe that the tide is now moving back although I cannot quote any figures on that and I must make clear that this is my own observation.

Although only 3/4 of a million English people emmigrated do we have any figures on the number of previous immigrants who have now left? Anecdotal evidence, such that it is, leads me to believe that a lot of the Poles that arrived locally in the last few years have now returned home. Don't know about other nationalities because I have less reason to notice. It does seem as though a lot who came did not find the land of milk and honey they hoped for and have realised that they have more dentists, hospitals and schools back in Warsaw, Krakow and Bielystok!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:07 AM

David, immigration from EU never reached that from outside.
Net immigration from EU is now approaching zero and is expected to remain in balance.
Don, unlike those on your side of this debate, I do not often resort to abuse. I called Schweik a fool because he thinks that whingers, ie anyone exercising their right to question the government, should go into exile.
The alternative in his vision of Britain, presumably, is to be dragged off at dead of night for re education.
We should fear the far Left as much as the far Right I think.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:13 AM

Don, you are right. I should not glibly use the word never when people like you are involved.
I could have been referring to the time when we were not an island couldn't I.
But only you might have thought so.
In all the debate in this country, I have never seen anyone else claim that the invasion of the ancient Kingdoms that we now call England, in the distant Dark Ages, when these lands were mainly wilderness, amid a welter of slaughter, had any relevance.
Please explain why you felt the need to bring it up here, and why my failure to mention it constitutes "bollocks"!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 04:58 AM

Keith,you asked me a question,and you scored an own goal,because I did leave my country.
you are free to live anywhere in Europe,if you dont like it take Tebbitts advice

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 05:54 AM

I do not like the ever increasing urbanisation and overcrowding of England, but I refuse to leave.
As I have said, I am not a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
All three of the main political parties agree that immigration has reached unacceptable levels. Polls show that the majority of the population agrees.
You would have us all leave?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 06:19 AM

It's one of the biggest reasons we're having to build so many new houses and concrete over our country.

Actually the biggest reason we are building so many houses is because many UK couples divorce.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 06:27 AM

you dont seem to understand the concept of Europe, England is now a European state,Europeans are free to live and work anywhere in Europe[that includes England].
this gives certain advantages to multinational capatilism,it also makes european wars less likely.
if you dont like it tough,[stop whingeing, your stuck with it] England decided to enter Europe,they did have the sense to keep their own currency,so they can devalue sterling whenever they like,as they have done recently to boost exports,but they are part of Europe.
that means under European law, Europan immigrants have a right to come to England,.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 07:54 AM

Schweik, we still have some autonomy.
Most of our immigration is from outside EU.
We have every right to decide the limits.
EU migration is approaching balance, but anyway many people argue that Britain should renegotiate or leave the EU.
We have the right to do that too.
Have a whinge about it if you like.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 10:17 AM

Most of our immigration is from outside EU.[lets have statistics].
why dont you move to northern ireland,they speak English.their economy is booming[all those shoppers from Eire].
it is your fault you only speak English.
do something about it learn another language.
you complain, why should you have to emigrate?why should the Irish have had to emigrate for hundreds of years?,now you know what it feels like.
Do what the Irish have had to do for years,get another job make a new home,and stop moaning,Brittania doesnt rule the waves any more,learn a new language and get on your bike,you support the Tory party,then take Norman Tebbits advice.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Lass in Leeds
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 11:34 AM

I think "Good Soldier Schweik" (GSS GOOD SWEATY SESSION)is trying to extract the Michael here. Please keep the posts civil gentlemen, it is a serious topic.

Thanks
Queenie

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 12:49 PM

I am serious,do what people from other countries have to do,they have to leave their countries to find work.
the trouble with the English is they are reluctant to learn another language,and they expect everyone else to learn English[which most foreigners do],and then become indignant[as does KeithA] when it is suggested they should learn another language,and possibly have to emigrate, no, the English are too good for that,why should they do what foreigners have to do.
people like ,Keith vote Tory,but expect everyone else other than them to take Tory Tebbitts advice.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 02:51 PM

""Don, unlike those on your side of this debate, I do not often resort to abuse. I called Schweik a fool because he thinks that whingers, ie anyone exercising their right to question the government, should go into exile.""

Reality check, Keith.

You have called Richard Bridge, and Royston, and numerous others "FOOL".........REPEATEDLY!

Have a look at your own posting record on threads dealing with immigration, and Ireland, just two subjects, and you will see just how often you have used that particular type of ill mannered language.

The fact that you have the bare faced effrontery to complain, and assert that you do not do this, lends credence to the characterisation of you as a liar by Richard and Royston.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:05 PM

""Please explain why you felt the need to bring it up here, and why my failure to mention it constitutes "bollocks"!""

Well then, in short words that you might understand. This country has for two thousand years been subject to foreign influx, and mostly, the end result has been positive.

There has never been the kind of "English Nation" that you and the BNP bleat on about, and that mixture of types and cultures led to a nation that was strong enough to populate the so called New World, and to manage an empire that owned one third of the rest.

So we've always been multicultural, and we've done pretty well on it.

So I say roll on the future, let's see where it leads next, and if it ain't broke, there's not much need to fix it.

And it AIN'T BROKE yet mate, in spite of what xenophobes and racists would have us believe.

Towns are crowded, even in underpopulated countries, and I don't see much evidence of people packed shoulder to shoulder outside of towns.



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:09 PM

G.S. Scheik,
The Statistics Commission has confirmed that, leaving aside the movement of British citizens, 68% of foreign immigration in 2006 was from countries outside the European Union.1 The development of non-EU immigration since 1992 is shown in Figure 4.
Find that here. href="http://www.balancedmigration.com/pdfs/ourcase_1.pdf">http://www.balancedmigration.com/pdfs/ourcase_1.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:54 PM

Don,
If you think that anything that happened over a thousand years ago has any relevance to modern Britain, you are on your own.
Or can you come up with anyone else who thinks that?
If you are happy with immigration as it is, that is fine for you, but you are very nearly alone on that too.
Can you list any well known persons?
All the main parties and most of the population think you are wrong.

You say I bleat about an English Nation and link me with BNP.
Please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 03:58 PM

Maybe we can look at it another way. It is generaly accepted that world has become a 'global village'. If that is the case then surely the issue is world overcrowding rather than national migration. If we look at a village, or council estate for us commoners, there are often a few houses that are overcrowded. It is not an issue usualy. If however the whole village/estate becomes too full we do have an issue. Do we have problems with the global village or the houses therin? I don't know - honestly. If the problem is the world then overcrowding in the UK pales into insignificance. If it is only in the UK then what the heck - we'll get over it. Maaybe the immigrants will bring their own doctors, dentists and teachers with them?

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 05:25 PM

David, many of us are not badly effected by immigration.
But some are.
Here is some stuff about the effects on services.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/pdfs/ourcase_2.pdf
There is also a problem for many with housing and work.

To be content with current levels of immigration is a point of view, but it is an increasingly rare one.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 18 Nov 09 - 07:33 PM

And who are ..'balanced migration'

The co-Chairmen of the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration are Frank Field MP (Labour) and Nicholas Soames MP (Conservative).

The Group's Vice-Chairmen are Lord (Bill) Jordan CBE (former President of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union) and Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury & Atcham).

Other members include Baroness Cox, David Taylor MP, Field Marshal Lord Inge KG, GCB, PC, DL,
Lord Ahmed, Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury), Lord Skidelsky, Roger Godsiff MP,
Tobias Ellwood MP, Michael Ancram MP, Colin Burgon MP, Julian Brazier MP, Ann Cryer MP,
Ian Davidson MP, Peter Lilley MP, Lord Lamont, Lord Leach, Robert Key MP, Peter Kilfoyle MP, Peter Bottomley MP, Mr Archie Norman and Mr Hazhir Teimourian.

hardly fills you with confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 02:29 AM

You can have every confidence in their facts Tug.
You can be sure that their enemies scrutinise everything they publish looking for something to nail them with.
Parliamentarians can get away with many things, but not being caught in a lie.
Especially not on such a sensitive subject.
That is why you can make snide innuendo, but you can not challenge a single one of those facts.
Can you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 05:18 AM

""If you think that anything that happened over a thousand years ago has any relevance to modern Britain, you are on your own.""


I live in hopes that one day you will answer what an opponent says, instead of interpreting it to mean something entirely different, and then answering your interpretation.

You take my statement that in 2000 years of its history, this little bunch of Islands has always seen foreign influx, and on the whole, by assimilation, strengthened and improved the nation, and you try to claim that I am equating 2000 years old figures with today's figures.

You know very well that I was talking about an ongoing infusion of new blood, new ideas, and new achievements, and you can't find a sensible argument against that, so your only recourse is to change the premise to suit your heavily twisted perception.

Nobody has claimed that immigration should not be controlled. I would just prefer that it weren't controlled by anti foreigner bigots.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 05:30 AM

A third of schools in Blackburn and Leicester have a non-English speaking majority
while in Birmingham that figure is about a quarter

There's one false fact for a start. If you look at the footnote given, you will see that the figures about those for whom English is not a mother tongue....not non-English speaking people. Elsewhere bi-lingualism is celebrated as an achoievement.

Thw whole report seeks to colour the facts by using ambiguous and misleading language.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 05:52 AM

Don, I keep telling you it is about numbers not race.
Tug, it is about precise meanings.
A non English speaking child will have a few words of English after just a few days at school, so technically he is no longer a non English speaker, but he is still requiring of much extra attention.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 05:58 AM

""Don, I keep telling you it is about numbers not race.""

I know you keep telling me, and if you keep telling me for another decade you'll even believe it yourself. But I won't!

If all the thousands of British Expats all over the world started coming back tomorrow, you would object to them being allowed in?

YEAH RIGHT!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 09 - 06:07 AM

If they did we could not cope Don.
It is just about numbers.
What cause do you have to refuse to believe me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 02:26 AM

I will answer for you then.
You have no cause to say that at all.
From the start I have only debated the practical and rational issues surrounding immigration.
I have been concerned only with numbers, never origins.
The only exceptions being when language is an issue, or when someone else has raised the issue of EU v non EU migration.
I described my views as in line with a cross party group that includes ethnic minority members and the last Archbishop of Canterbury.
Like them I have never advocated an end to immigration, but a reduction over a period of years to a state of balanced migration.
I am no racist so have never made a racist statement Don.
But you believe you can see beyond the posts of a member and straight into his soul.
Do you see yourself as a kind of Deity Don?
That would explain why, from your lofty moral superiority and knowledge, it is OK for you to be in favour of controlling immigration, but not a mere mortal.
It would also explain how you know that the arrival of people like the Jutes has improved our population, making us somehow better than others not so blessed.
Not racist when you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 11:39 AM

Then lets be precise, having taught in multi racial schools in London and Leicester, I know that the vast majority of the kids for whom English was not the mother tongue were fluent in english...with a local accent. The report is deliberately misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 12:52 PM

Are you being precise?
It would not apply to pupils born in UK, whose mother tongue would be recorded as English.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 09:05 PM

Keith, I am being absolutely precise. Non- English speakers is not a term you can find anywhere in government documents. As I illustrated above, this was a deliberately misleading usage introduced in the much vaunted report by the 'balanced ( sorry...reduced) immigration group. You then immediately tried to justify this with the rather absurd
A non English speaking child will have a few words of English after just a few days at school, so technically he is no longer a non English speaker, but he is still requiring of much extra attention.
Which has no warrant anywhere. You really have lost the respect I had for you as an assiduously honest reporter of facts ( I was always suspicious of your choice of facts). It is now clear that you will stoop to, and collude with, the most lowly of rhetorical usages in order to be 'right'. You're not, and I wish this corresp[ondence to cease.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 01:17 AM

Tug, if you are going to use one expression out of several pages in a report that I linked to for information, that is your right.
i do not know why they chose to use it, but you found a note explaining it so there was no deception.
I suspect that many of the pupils you taught were of immigrant families but had been born here and had some years in English schools.
Here is a BBC report on the issue so that you can not pretend that it is not an issue.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7372853.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 01:18 PM

Another.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7306903.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 01:21 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7072843.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:38 PM

First time user on board.
I am hoping to find out if anyone knows anything about the hanging of Dr Lynn [United Irishman]in Randalstown in @1800, three days after Roddy McCorley?

Paul from Randalstown

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: MartinRyan
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:51 PM

GUEST Paul

There's some relevant information in THIS THREAD

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:35 PM

Oh Dear, Keith, talking to you really is trying to walk through a swamp. OF COURSE, there are children in our schools with little or no English. Your 'Bakanced Immigration' group deliberately conflated these with fluent English speakers who have a diffewrent mother tongue. You must realise this, musn't you. Just go back and look! My God, why don't you use YOUR critical factors in a balanced way?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:16 AM

Tug, I accept that you have a point, and that the expression was not well chosen.
What is not acceptable is for you to use that trivial point to claim that I am not worthy of any respect, and to dismiss all the hard factual information on that site.
I am just arguing that immigration is now much too high. The precise number of pupils with no English does not matter, only that there are a large number of schools who feel overwhelmed by the unprecedented influx of such children.
That is amply borne out by the BBC reports.
I have seen high profile campaigns against the admission of a few Traveller children to village schools, but this problem is confined to poor, inner city scools.
And who cares about the children of the poor?
Not the Left, who collude in grinding them down, and just call them racist scum if they complain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:20 AM

Paul, you were lucky to find someone like Martin in amongst all this.
Music related threads are in the top half of the forum.
I hope you find plenty to interest you there. We usually have at least one thread about Irish music running.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:43 AM

The middle classes are "insulated" from the effects of immigration and find it hard to understand fears about housing and jobs, John Denham, the communities secretary said.
The affluent often are able to see opportunities within change and uncertainty, whereas those who are less insulated from potential drawbacks may see the same change as a risk or a threat

People who were better off tended to look more favourably on mass immigration, he said.

"Crudely expressed, the higher you are in the pecking order, the more likely you are to benefit from immigration," he said.

"Those of us who feel culturally enriched by the benefits of migration and who are insulated from the competition for jobs, housing and public services that is potentially posed by migrants, often find these views difficult to appreciate.

It echoes a speech last month by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said: "If the main effect of immigration on your life is to make it easier to find a plumber, or when you see doctors and nurses from overseas in your local hospital, you are likely to think more about the benefits of migration than the possible costs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8389701.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:23 AM

I am reopening this only because Royston has, in a current thread, said that my views expressed here show me to be a far right bigot.

The views of John Denham and Gordon Brown quoted in my last post here exactly coincide with mine expressed throughout.
You never responded Royston.
Did you recognise yourself in their description of the kind of person who shouts loudest for mass immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:46 AM

No, Keith. What Royston said (roughly) was that many people here thought you were a right wing bigot, and that if you were not you might care to ponder how they came to form such views.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:00 AM

Never mind "roughly"
He said exactly "Keith, most people here suspect you (from your posting history in general) to hold a number of rather right wing prejudices; that you are a right wing bigot"

Do you think he did not include himself?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:58 AM

Keith,

If you wish people to be clear about what your political position is, then you should make it clear with each post, and if people get the wrong end of the stick you should explain what your actual opinion is.

You may feel that it is up to others to understand things the way that you meant them, but sometimes that is simply unrealistic and you have to allow for a margin of error and misinterpretation on all sides. That is the subtlety of good communication (something which I could do well to develop in my own posts).

In the Ugandan death penalty thread, your posts do appear is if they were posted to add credence to Ake's or GfS's position, not least because Ake repeatedly indicated that he saw you as being on his side.

This was something that you never distanced yourself from, just as you made no attempt to refute his numerous unfounded assertions about homosexuals.

It could easily be inferred that the reason you do not take Ake to task when he describes Gays as having a natural propensity for child abuse, and when he says that Gays should effectively be imprisoned, (amongst other things)is that you agree with him.

It could easily be inferred that you are more concerned with refuting those who are outraged by his position than you are with setting the record straight wholly neutrally as you claim you are.


Civil rights is a fundamental principle of our society, and when people argue to limit them, they condemn us to a return to the jungle.

We live in a world that depends on ideas to continue functioning.

Political debate is the arena in which ideas are examined and developed.

Money for example is nothing more than an idea. It only exists because we all agree it does.

The law, parliament, the courts, queueing for the bus, ... all these things are nothing more than ideas ... yet their agreed existence has allowed human beings to survive in a way unprecedented by any other species.

Of course Ideas can also result in the creation of solid tangible things too, like cars and computers, but I am more concerned with the imaginary mechanisms that mean we don't have to live in caves and hunt big game with spears, or have a life expectancy of about 30 years.

So if you wish to engage in political discussion, why not share your ideas, and why not give your reaction to the ideas that are around you.

So in short,

1, what do you think

2, what problems do you find with the assertions made by GfS and Ake?


If you aren't prepared to answer these questions, then it may be realistic to expect people reading your posts to view you as being an apologist for homophobic and racist politics.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:08 AM

Just to clarify, it wasn't clear until you stated clearly in a recent post that you do not see homosexuality as a gay or african disease.

However, I fear that Ake would miss the subtlety of your post and simply see it as a point scored for his team.

For the record, I live in inner city London and live on less than 25K a year. The reason why I do not subscribe to racist politics is not that I am part of a demographic which benefits from immigration, but that I am lucky eough to have an open mind so I have been able to consider racist ideas in a bit more depth and have consequently rejected them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:58 AM

I cannot remember if I have posted to this thread before so apologies if I am repeating myself. I do not subscribe to the view that everyone who thinks immigration should be restricted is a racist. I do not personaly agree with the view for various reasons, mainly becuase I believe the flow is distinctly tidal and will always ebb and flow, but I can see how it will bother some people. Maybe if the term 'UK population is too high' was applied it may be seen as less controvertial?

I have seen no evidence of Keith saying that immigration should be restricted on grounds of race, colour or creed so the views are more exclusionist than right wing. Whether the exclusive use of one piece of land by the people lucky enough to be on it is right or not is yet another matter. Whether the borders should go up when a particular country is full is yet another. What constitues full is a third as, even if we were to accept many more people, our standard of living would still be much higher than some of the less densely populated countries in, say, Africa.

Bearing these things in mind I think it is a fair question to ask but one that was always bound to attract the extemists from both ends. To imagine otherwise would be naive.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 06:35 AM

Just to clarify, I also have seen no evidence of Keith holding racist or homophobic views, and my experience of him has been that when he has wound me up with his posts, he has been able to set me straight as to his intentions pretty quickly.

Of course noone is perfect, and we can all learn from each other.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:46 AM

Exactly, with context: -

"Keith, most people here suspect you (from your posting history in general) to hold a number of rather right wing prejudices; that you are a right wing bigot. You need to consider, if you believe us all to be mistaken, just what is it that you say and do that leads people to hold that suspicion of you."


So why are we, and so many of us, so mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:30 AM

Richard, I do not know but suspect that that is how some people label anyone who challenges their dearly held beliefs.

Lox , on the other thread I kept out of the dicussion of morality. I had no desire to enter that bull pit.
Opinions I did not challenge, only supposed factual information.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:57 AM

"Opinions I did not challenge, only supposed factual information."

You did provide your subjective interpretation of stats.

You also posted others opinions, including that of a guardian columnist.

"I had no desire to enter that bull pit."

I think this may have been unrealistic. I don't believe it is possible to contribute to a disussion and not be a part of it.

Had you done the research you referred us to, that might have given you an immunity if sorts, but what you did was refer us to research and opinions from other sources.

It is not possible to be neutral in that respect, though with careful attention it is possible to provide as balanced a picture as possible and to draw attention to inaccuracies across the board where you think you see them.

I would like to reiterate that I am of the view (not that I see myself as meriting any position of judgement, but for the purpose of reassurance) that you are honest and well intentioned, and that this is demonstrated extremely clearly in your retractions and where, when asked, you have clarified your position.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:09 AM

I provided the opinions of experts in the field for consideration.
I did not find but withold anything because it did not fit someone's agenda. I put up everything relevant that I found.
The Guardian columnist included some statements from very well informed professionals, beside extreme opinions of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:18 AM

Two threads are becoming confused here.
Sorry.
Lox re me not seeing AIDS as gay or African, my post on 21st Jan
"Globally HIV / AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexual people both in absolute number and in terms of the percentage of sufferers"
Yes, I do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

""I am reopening this only because Royston has, in a current thread, said that my views expressed here show me to be a far right bigot.""

Keith, it is well known on this forum that I am a Tory voter, and also that my income is sub £12000, yet I find your posts to show a bias considerably to the right of my own.
_____________________________________________________________________

""Richard, I do not know but suspect that that is how some people label anyone who challenges their dearly held beliefs.""

An odd answer, given that the people who are most in agreement with you persist in calling those who challenge their dearly held beliefs "liberal fascists".

No, my friend, it is your insistence upon posting the opinions of others with suspect motives, and disseminating their dodgy "factoids".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:12 PM

Still, immigration is probably too high in every developed country.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:43 AM

Dodgy factoid!
Oh dear.
Please give me an example so I will know never to post one again.
Just one will do.
Make it the very worst one I have ever posted.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:06 AM

Mudcat Dictionary

Dodgy Factoid: A piece of hard evidence that weakens or destroys your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:28 AM

Was there just a funny smell in here?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:55 PM

Yeah!

Big Nasty Pong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:59 PM

""Dodgy Factoid: A piece of hard evidence that weakens or destroys your argument.""

No Mate!.......A so-called fact from a source or origin with a serious axe to grind, a fixed political bias, or a somewhat iffy mental capacity only equalled by those who believe, and quote, said source.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM

I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here.
In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents.

I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se.

During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM

You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM

"You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England.""

I agree, and they often work a bloody sight harder too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM

I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here.
In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents.

I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se.

During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?""

Slight terminological inexactitude there Ake.

Below are the other times when you haven't posted to this thread.

_____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 01:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:25 AM

Just thought you might like to acknowledge the fact that you ARE not as infallible as you try to make out.

Mind you, there wasn't much of substance in those two posts, but hey! Why change the habits of a lifetime.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:25 PM

I apologise for missing the fact that I had posted twice...I even checked to make sure....must be the auld eyes!

I see you've forgotten to answer my question!....must be the auld brain cells! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM

Answer?

NO!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM

""During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?""

On second thought this does deserve some expansion beyond a simple no.

Right Ake, listen up, so you won't miss anything.

You have pointed out that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.

Now, stay with me on this, right?

How do you think they know this????

Because they have tested them for, guess what,....YES! HIV.

DUH!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM

Don....for fuck sake waky! waky!

You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country.
If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples!


Even for you!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:20 PM

""You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country.
If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples!

And if they're new infections it's still six months after after they arrive that they have a sufficient viral load to test positive.

And shouldn't you be grubbing up bugs in the Kalahari?

Not so seemples (the tests I mean)

You?.......Well, if the cap fits.............

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:40 PM

Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry!

Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:12 AM

Could someone tell us how USA has imposed its ban on HIV infected people entering?
Now that Obama is to reverse that policy, do we know if anyone is going to pay for their treatment?
If the answer is no, they will not be living in USA for long.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:44 AM

"Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry!

Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you?"

And if they pass the first test, how do you propose ensuring that they do not become infected before the second test?

There would still be a risk of them developing it, passing both tests and then being admitted wouldn't there?

What a waste of money that would be ...

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has telephoned a woman for calling her "bigoted" while out on the campaign trail.

The PM's comments came as he was driven away from an event in Rochdale at which 65-year-old widow Gillian Duffy tackled him in front of the cameras about Britain's financial problems, taxes, student financing and immigration.

Unaware that his radio mic was still connected, Mr Brown told an aide that the encounter had been "a disaster" and said he should never have been made to speak with Mrs Duffy, adding: "She was just a bigoted woman."

You can't open your mouth or expression an opinion about these fucks pouring into the UK without some arsehole calling you a bigot or racist. The word they should be called is a realist. Ship them out if they are here to scrounge benefits as 95% of them are, 29 Polish nationals have committed murder in the UK within the last 23 months.

The lady expressed what a lot of us think.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:40 AM

Troll alert!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:25 PM

KEITH please spell my name correctly ,I am schweik.
multi national capitalists believe all immigration controls should be abolished,they wish to be able to get labour as cheaply as possible.
however sending immigrants back and preventing immigration will not solve any economic depression.
the BNP and the other anti immgration parties do not seem to have an understanding of how to manage the capitalist system efficiently.
KEITH, please explain how you think restricting immigration will help to get England out of an economic depression.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM

Sorry Good Soldier Schweik (I read the book once).
I have not said that immigration is the cause of recession.
I only suggested that there might be an optimum level and that we may well have passed that.
I also pointed out some of the problems associated with a rapid large influx, e.g. housing, schooling, health care resources, employment, etc.
I also pointed out that the burden falls unequally on the already poor and disavantaged, while the already rich benefit even more.

Like the Rochdale pensioner, I was called a bigot for daring to express such views, which are completely mainstream and middle of the road.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/tim-finch/is-progressive-case-for-migration-truly-progressive

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:35 AM

I hope Royston follows my link.
It is a piece by a progressive leftie who heads the immigration section of a left wing think tank, who has reconsidered his position on immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 07:14 AM

The wages of British workers were forced down because the Labour government failed to restrict immigration from eastern Europe, Ed Balls claims today. In a provocative article in the Observer, the Labour leadership hopeful says the party will rebuild trust only if it admits "what we got wrong".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/06/ed-balls-labour-immigration-wages

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 11 - 07:39 AM

This thread ran before our government changed.
Our current immigration minister this week:

The Government blamed the previous Labour administration. Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'These statistics show that immigration was out of control thanks to the old system.

All parties now agree that immigration was and is too high, and the losers are the low paid workers.

Yesterday Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/net-migration-uk-immigration

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:19 AM

I'm not going to stick my neck out and comment on the EU or immigration, but I will say that on my recent visit to Ireland and England I was surprised and irritated by the large numbers of service people who were unable to speak or even understand English.

If I move to another country would I expect them to cater to me and speak my language?

Well, yes, I will comment on immigration; many people I talked to lament the joining of the EU. Both England and Ireland came out on the short end of the deal.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max)
Date: 27 May 11 - 10:40 AM

I agree Kendall, but in these times too many are willing to jump down your throat for making such a comment.

There is a major problem in the area I live. The Polish used to come to the UK to seek employment, now they have discovered having children is more profitable. None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits. They are now bringing their elderly family members into the UK for free health care The Health Service simply can't copy with the numbers.

The government must deal with this problem.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 11 - 11:41 AM

Ja, ve must more "Schower rooms" machen und darein the schvein tueren.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Big Phil
Date: 27 May 11 - 02:14 PM

Geordie "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."


A harsh post, but very true.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 11 - 03:32 PM

"None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits." Geordie

I don't know how the Poles are now, I only know they have been. It would surprise me very much if they- or even half of them- fit that description.

I expect that Richard Bridge is being satirical. I should hope so, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 11 - 07:51 PM

Er - yes!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: kendall
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:52 PM

I was told by a hotel owner in Dingle Ireland that the Poles are skipping England and coming to Ireland because the benefits are more. Just what Ireland doesn't need!
A few fleas are no problem to a healthy dog, but a thousand can kill it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max)
Date: 28 May 11 - 03:43 AM

Evidence that the system of social security benefits is one factor in attracting large numbers of foreign workers to the UK.

An in depth analysis of the operation of the current benefit system, by think tank Migrationwatch, has shown that the effect of benefit levels combined with means testing of benefits for those who are working means that there is little financial incentive for people with families living on benefits to find employment.

This may partly explain why, despite there being 3.5 million people on Jobseekers Allowance or Incapacity Benefit, most of the 1.6 million immigrants have come to work in the UK in the past ten years went onto benefits within months of arrival.

There would be considerable benefits in getting our own population into work rather than encouraging immigration.
    
It has been suspected for some time that benefit levels are a real disincentive for the Polish, not the work that is on offer.

Poles have very strong financial motivation. Those that do decide to work are earning 4-5 times what they would earn at home and, by living in multi-occupancy, they can afford to send considerable sums of money back to their families - according to the National Bank of Poland, Polish migrants in the UK are sending home about £9 million a day.

A family with two children and one working member receives £89.50 of Working Tax Credit, intended to cushion the impact of means testing of benefits and be an incentive to work.

All working families with children and one working member on the minimum wage are worse off than the same Polish family receiving the maximum Incapacity Benefit.

The maximum level of Incapacity Benefit has effectively been brought very close to the minimum wage, the Polish have spotted this. There are good reasons of social equity for this but it does mean that there is very little financial incentive for such persons to return to paid employment, especially as they are allowed some earnings. This means it is particularly important to ensure that claimants are genuine cases.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 11 - 05:52 AM

Geordie UK - I do hope you experience living on incapacity benefit, soon. But not for too long.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 28 May 11 - 02:05 PM

Seems to me that the winners of WW 2 are having a tough go of it while the losers are prospering. Let's let them win next time.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 11 - 05:07 PM

Can I ask a question then? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the levels of immigration but even if we stop all immigration now, what do we do with the immigrants who are already here?

I know one Polish chap in particular who hasn't worked for at neary 25 years yet he still gets benefits from the state, lives rent free, gets more health care than I do and has his family look after his every need. What shall we do with him and his sort? Send them home I reckon...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 11 - 05:32 PM

Oh goodness me - Geordie UK is sending me messages referring to the fakes of me promulgated by a thing that thinks it's a political party.

WHAT a surprise.

Come on coward, give us your real name.

Joe - you know what you need to do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 11 - 06:56 PM

OK, and all I can do is tell you that "Geordie UK" is another iteration of "Richie Black," a troll who has been plaguing us for years. I can't do anything about him. If I delete his messages, it goads him to post more. If I delete his membership, he'll post under another membership. No matter what I do, he can come up with a counter-move. The only thing that can frustrate him, is if we do not respond to him at all...and so I ask you to respond to him with silence instead of giving him the attention he craves. And no matter how distasteful he is, he does serve to express a hateful point of view that is present and increasingly popular in Europe - and in the United States.

I'm disgusted with all of you who get so bent out of shape about our putative failure to control trolls here. We moderators really try hard to keep trolls under control, and I think we do a better job than a lot of commercial Websites - U.S. newspaper Websites, for example. We do find it's best to do it slowly and quietly and subtly - and with the cooperation of our regular posters. You people dumped all over me last week because you couldn't ignore a two-line troll message in the thread on the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder - and I'm sick of it. Hell, I've even had people threaten to take legal action against me because I failed to do thus-and-such. [I wonder how far you'd get in a lawsuit against a volunteer moderator.] I just can't understand why you people can't accept the fact that troll messages are part of being on the Internet. This is an imperfect world, and you can't expect every person in it to post according to your specifications. If Richie Black posts (under whatever name), I'm likely to leave his posts right where they are. If Mudcatters can't resist responding, I'm likely to simply close the thread.

Now, if that's not good enough, contact Max directly and ask him to develop systems to keep "Richie" under control. I've contacted Max many times and suggested members-only posting in the non-music section, MAC tracking in addition to IP tracking, and verification of membership by issuing passwords by e-mail. I warn you, however, that no amount of control is going to work perfectly; and every added control will limit the freedom we've all enjoyed here. But if you don't have what it takes to ignore our trolls, then contact Max and get after him to set up controls.

But before Richie Black, it was Martin Gibson who ran rampant here and feasted on the deliciously self-righteous indignation of Mudcatters. And before him, it was that woman from Minnesota. And no matter what controls Max institutes, there will be other trolls. Therefore, the best solution is to accept it that trolls are a fact of life on the Internet, and learn to ignore them.

As Keith said in the original post:

I think we all know what BNP stand for, so let's leave them out of it.
Let's ignore trolling guests who will try to cause friction.

If you discuss immigration here, somebody is bound to post things that you consider distasteful. Live with it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: J-boy
Date: 29 May 11 - 12:10 AM

Kendall. I have the utmost respect and admiration for you but please recognize that it takes time for immigrants to assimilate and learn the language and culture of a foreign land. That is what our ancestors did after all. When they weren't killing Native Americans that is. But that's a sticky wicket I won't go into tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 29 May 11 - 05:02 AM

Just to say that my husband entered the UK legitimately from Ivory Coast. We had to spend a fortune on Marriage Visa Application, flights to the UK Embassy in Ghana (none in Ivory Coast), fund an Appeal in London due to a simple error in Ghana, which was successful but cost even more money (over £1000). We then had to obtain a Further Leave to Remain biometric card, involving a journey to Cambridge, more money for the FLR Application. In December, we'll need to find OVER £1000 again!!! for his Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settlement) He's paid also for the Life in the UK Test (which is very difficult, even I couldn't answer all the questions!) and passed it. To finally obtain Citizenship and the right to a UK Passport, he'll have to pay more huge amounts of money, and my Bank Account, finances, assets, etc will be scrutinised. He is not entitled to a PENNY of Public Funds, (It says so on his Biometric Identity Card) no Jobseeker's Allowance, nothing. He IS permitted to work, but would pay full Tax and National Insurance. I have to be prepared to keep him on my Pension, with no Tax Relief for this. We will not be having any children to be a burden on the State (too old!) So far, he's only had a bit of work picking up stones in a paddock for a few hours, nobody else would do it so he got the job. I'm telling you all this to point out that SOME immigrants have struggled, waited, and paid a great deal of money to come here, do not cost the State anything and are an asset. My husband does Voluntary work for the church here, and helps many elderly neighbours with small jobs for no money. So far, he's met with only kindness and a big welcome from all. He will make (IMO, biased of course!) an excellent Citizen, and he adores Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 29 May 11 - 05:28 AM

it was Martin Gibson who ran rampant here and feasted on the deliciously self-righteous indignation of Mudcatters

Interesting to see that, a Martin Gibson was ejected from Concertina.net because he was banned under his real name (and thrown off under a number of other aliases). The same man runs a number of aliases on session.org. A bully.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 29 May 11 - 05:51 AM

I was told by a hotel owner in Dingle Ireland that the Poles are skipping England and coming to Ireland because the benefits are more.

Interesting sort of statement given the fact most of the hospitality industry in Ireland runs on underpaid Eastern European labour.

It's also not true, around 200.000 Eastern Europeans, mostly Poles, left Ireland after the boom was over and work got scarce.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 29 May 11 - 06:53 AM

J boy, I am well aware of their problems, but when one of them is giving me directions to the proper waiting area and he is wrong, and I almost miss my flight, I don't give a rats ass why.
Furthermore, 8 out of 10 of these people is a bit much. When I was working if a man couldn't do the job he was out.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 May 11 - 10:01 AM

The twerps are still sending foolish and inaccurate messages.

I wonder when they will learn that if they want to achieve any of their objectives, accurate and well reasoned debate is less unlikely to succeed.

Kendall (I wonder if you are really Kendall) I once nearly missed a flight out of Kennedy because the taxi driver first did not know where Kennedy Airport was and second could not find the Pan-Am terminal. It's no reason to sound off about immigrants. What was that bit about "Bring me your... ... ..."?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max)
Date: 29 May 11 - 10:57 AM

One of the most off-putting things about Mudcat is if your views don't fit in, the inner circle here go flat out to attempt to discredit you.

I HAVE NOT send Richard Bridge any message, I AM NOT A TROLL.

I was a "GUEST" then I joined, now I am renamed by Mr. Offer !

This site is slowly becoming boring as it caters for views of around six members. If your post expresses a view they don't like, they delete it. If you express it again and again, they attempt to discredit you.

Very very sad

-----------Troll ALert! As if it were really necessary.... JoeClone-----

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: kendall
Date: 29 May 11 - 12:29 PM

I have nothing against immigrants. My ancestors came here in 1635, but as far as I know, none of them ever made anyone miss his flight through incompetence.

Subject: RE: No lying messages? What are these then?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 May 11 - 02:01 PM

Geordie UK         Richard        28 May 2011 02:29 PM                
                        
Message:
Such a nasty thing to say

"From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 11 - 05:52 AM

Geordie UK - I do hope you experience living on incapacity benefit, soon. But not for too long. "

I just googled you a moment ago, "Richard Bridge folk musician" and "Richard Bridge Mudcat Cafe."

Holy Christ, you are all over the internet. You one dirty filthy old bastard. Photographs of girl ladies with massive breasts on all your social network sites and music forums. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have the nerve to come onto a folk music forum and preach the rule of law, have you never heard of obscene images ?

You need a good cold shower. A man of your age putting such images on site that minors could come across and sitting proudly with your guitar.

People like you turn my stomach. I will report you now to Mr. Joe Offer.

Dirty bastard.



Mrs, Bridge         Thank you        29 May 2011 05:16 AM                
                        
Message:
Well well Richard, you naughty naughty boy. Sending your friend Joe little messages unable to stand up like a man and deal with such matters yourself.

Well Hoff, I am shocked at the number of social websites you are on. I imagine the messages you receive from friends of bygone days make interesting reading once they receive a "friends request" that is from you.

I imagine the young ladies that live in your area write some nasty replies to your requests.

So Richard Black is getting the rap, suits me man haha.

I was in the Good Intent in Rochester three weeks ago. I had a wonderful evening, met a few friends of Don Thompson, two knew you. Neither ever hear of Roger the Chorister, but one guy in the Nags Head in lower Stoke had.

Richard, it amazes me why you have multiple social web pages ?

As I was telling Bill Woodcock and Ralph Jordan recently, so many people tend to refrain from making derogatory comments on forums these days and in return they live peaceful lives, take Joe Offer for example.

That carefully worded post exonerates him. He wasn't impolite, he wasn't making personal attacks (although he blamed that bloke Black) it is most unlikely Joe will have to send another one of him messages to flickr.

As I see it, only two guys seem to be irritating members of this forum, Hoff and Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson , Carol C, Bill, John and a host others all saw sense and stay out of it. (Let us not forget Gervase Webb).

Richard wouldn't it be nice if Joe would make a public ruling that to threads attacking the British National Party or English Defence League would no longer be allowed. That would see every thing you all dislike and get upset about vanish , I imagine you know what I mean.

Oliver




Geordie UK         Re: Re: Richard        29 May 2011 05:41 AM                
                        
Message:
Well well Richard, you naughty naughty boy. Sending your friend Joe little messages unable to stand up like a man and deal with such matters yourself.

Well Hoff, I am shocked at the number of social websites you are on. I imagine the messages you receive from friends of bygone days make interesting reading once they receive a "friends request" that is from you.

I imagine the young ladies that live in your area write some nasty replies to your requests.

So Richard Black is getting the rap, suits me man haha.

I was in the Good Intent in Rochester three weeks ago. I had a wonderful evening, met a few friends of Don Thompson, two knew you. Neither ever hear of Roger the Chorister, but one guy in the Nags Head in lower Stoke had.

Richard, it amazes me why you have multiple social web pages ?

As I was telling Bill Woodcock and Ralph Jordan recently, so many people tend to refrain from making derogatory comments on forums these days and in return they live peaceful lives, take Joe Offer for example.

That carefully worded post exonerates him. He wasn't impolite, he wasn't making personal attacks (although he blamed that bloke Black) it is most unlikely Joe will have to send another one of him messages to flickr.

As I see it, only two guys seem to be irritating members of this forum, Hoff and Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson , Carol C, Bill, John and a host others all saw sense and stay out of it. (Let us not forget Gervase Webb).

Richard wouldn't it be nice if Joe would make a public ruling that to threads attacking the British National Party or English Defence League would no longer be allowed. That would see every thing you all dislike and get upset about vanish , I imagine you know what I mean.




Geordie UK         Good morning        29 May 2011 07:09 AM                
                        
Message:
Gut gut Richard, Sie ungezogener ungezogener Junge. Schicken von den Joe kleinen Nachrichten von Ihrem Freund, der unfähig ist, wie ein Mann und Geschäft mit solchen Materien sich aufzustehen.

Gut sind Hoff, ich an die Anzahl von sozialen Websites Sie sind an schockiert. Ich stelle mir die Nachrichten, dass Sie empfangen von Freunden von längst vergangenen Tagen macht interessante Vorlesung einmal sie empfangen vor „eine Freunde erbitten", der von Ihnen ist.

Ich stelle mir den jungen Damen vor, die in Ihrem Gebiet leben, schreiben Ihren Bitten einige ekelhaften Antworten.

So erhält Richard Schwarz das Klopfen, Prozesse, die mich haha besetzt.

Ich war in der Guten Absicht in Rochester vor drei Wochen. Ich habe einen wunderbaren Abend gehabt, hat ein paar Freunde des Don Thompson getroffen, haben zwei Sie gewusst. Keiner hört je des Roger des Chorsängers, aber ein Bursche in den Gäulen Führt hinein niedriger Stochert hat gehabt.

Richard, es überrascht mich, warum Sie mehrfache soziale Web-Seiten haben?

Als ich Bill Woodcock und Ralph Jordanien kürzlich erzählte, damit viele Leute dazu neigen, sich von Machen von beeinträchtigenden Bemerkungen auf Foren heutzutage und in zurückkehrt sie leben friedliche Leben zu enthalten, nehmen Sie Joe Angebot zum Beispiel.

Der vorsichtig Posten formuliert hat, entlastet ihn. Er war nicht unhöflich, machte er persönliche Angriffe (obwohl er jenen Kerlschwarz) es der unwahrscheinlichst Joe einem anderem einen von ihm Nachrichten zu flickr nicht hat getadelt ist schicken muss.

Während ich es sehe, scheinen nur zwei Burschen, Mitglieder dieses Forums zu reizen, Hoff und Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson, Carol C, Bill, John und ein Gastgeber andere alle gesehene Sinn und hält sich daraus heraus. (Lassen Sie uns Gervase Webb vergessen nicht).

Richard würde es ist nett nicht, wenn Joe eine Öffentlichkeit machen würde, die regiert, dass zu Fäden, die die britische Nationale Partei oder die englische Verteidigung Liga nicht mehr angreifen, erlaubt werden würde. Das würde sehen, dass jedes Ding Sie alle Abneigung und wird umgestürzt um verschwindet, stelle ich mir vor, dass Sie wissen, was ich bedeute".




Geordie UK         Re: Re: Richard        29 May 2011 10:58 AM                
                        
Message:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63453117@N03/

Subject: RE: Oh, and another one
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 May 11 - 03:07 PM

Do you think they have any idea how stupid they look?






Gundulf Morris         Someone sent me a link        29 May 2011 02:57 PM                
                        
Message:
Richard, some guy sent me this link, no idea why

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000680862086

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:53 AM

Almost half a million people were added to the UK population last year – the highest level since 1962 and the start of the last baby boom, figures revealed yesterday.

New migrants accounted for almost half the increase while the number of births hit a 20 year high.

However, the increase in children was also partly down to a rise in migrant mothers meaning immigration had both a direct and indirect impact on population growth, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

The trend means enough people to fill the city of Manchester were added to the country last year and, if it that rate continues, the population will hit the 70 million mark by 2026.

The growing figures are a fresh headache for the Government which has pledged to slash immigration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8608777/UK-population-growing-at-fastest-rate-for-50-years.html

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:08 AM

Also in today's news.

While stressing that immigration plays a vital role in British society, he (Duncan-Smith)will argue that many immigrants end up doing jobs that could easily be done by British citizens.

Official figures unearthed by the Labour MP Frank Field show that 87% of the 400,000 jobs created over the first year of the coalition government went to workers from abroad.

Extracts released in advance show Duncan Smith will insist that the government is "reforming welfare to make work pay, and to help people back to work ... and we are toughening sanctions against those who refuse to take jobs when they are available."

He will add: "But we also need an immigration system that gives the unemployed a level playing field.

"If we do not get this right, then we risk leaving more British citizens out of work, and the most vulnerable group, who will be the most affected, are young people."

Gordon Brown was criticised after his 2007 pledge to provide "British jobs for British workers" was followed by figures which showed that around 80% of jobs created during Labour's time in power went to migrants.

Duncan Smith will say that controlling immigration is "critical" to avoid "losing another generation to dependency and hopelessness", but will appeal for help in ensuring that British citizens are awarded jobs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/01/duncan-smith-appeals-businesses-employ-young-britons

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:47 AM

Spot the inconsistency (and the ignorance of multiplier theory)?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:47 AM

We can easily lose the easyjet tattooed and BNP hoardes to other countries to compensate for the decent immigrant population.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:46 PM

Bonzo (note promotion) - "HORDES".

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:09 PM

You point being?