rafferty Advanced Member
United Kingdom
639 posts Joined: Feb, 2012
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 07:50:43
Don't get me wrong I'd never like to see the UK go the way of Poland or Russia where immigration is virtually non existent because of so many pro Nazi followers. I've seen Ross Kemp do a special on the way certain people in those countries think and it's just plain primitive.
I just think there should be a safe balance of who we let in here and not in such huge numbers. Would any of you really want to see Britain get to the point where it has a population of over 100 million in our lifetime? Sounds funny now, but it will probably happen when we are at the later stages of our lives.
Also some people immigrate here and they have no loyalty to Britain and refuse to assimilate to the culture of the country. It's just seen as a place they can get everything free and get lots of money. To me this is wrong.
If we ever got into another war, it always makes me wonder how many would be willing to go on the front line to protect the nation that has given them so much.
rafferty Advanced Member
United Kingdom
639 posts Joined: Feb, 2012
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 08:10:09
quote:Originally posted by jenks:
quote:Originally posted by whispering:
I'm what they would call here "immigration critical" or how the pro immigration people would say "racist".
I have no problem of people from other nationalities coming here. The biggest problems, in my opinion, come from our welfare system. It was not designed for this. People from other countries come here for better living standards and live off welfare. And they will stay on it as long as they are here. 90% of Somalis that come here can't read or write, they are competing in the job market with the same people that are constantly topping the PISA scores. There is no competition. According to government statistics people from Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar have an unemployment rate higher then 50% (about the same nationalities shine on the assault and rape statistics). The more people that come from these countries, the higher strain it will have on our welfare system. On the other side, you have people from Asian countries, Kenya, Ghana etc that have a very small unemployment rate.
We (in Finland) should dramatically cut welfare from non Finnish citizens, and take away that reason for immigration, that it is for so many. Require a job or a way to get by from people coming to live here. We would still get people that actually want to contribute to Finland, possibly their new homeland. But the people that only come for the benefits, would be cut off. Though for solidarity we should still allow a manageable amount of refugees in.
Regarding the welfare points, is there any actual data to back up the notion that they come over and just live off welfare?
I've have not got data on me, but it is pretty obvious, that this is the reason so many are trying to come here.
Like for example if you came from a poor country, why wouldn't you want to come to England. You can't deny the fact that if you migrate to England from some places. You know your going to get money from the government if you lose your job, family payments if you have kids and free healthcare. It's plain and simple, that is why so many are coming here.
Now put it this way, it costs the government so much money to have this extra strain on the benefits system and the health system. The government ends up having to make cuts to basic benefits for British people that have worked all their lives. Now how is this fair?
A lot of you might need the pension one day, but the government won't be able to afford it because too many are on it. Think about it:)
jenks Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,687 posts Joined: Feb, 2003
19 hardcore releases
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 14:30:57
quote:Originally posted by rafferty:
I've have not got data on me, but it is pretty obvious, that this is the reason so many are trying to come here.
Like for example if you came from a poor country, why wouldn't you want to come to England. You can't deny the fact that if you migrate to England from some places. You know your going to get money from the government if you lose your job, family payments if you have kids and free healthcare. It's plain and simple, that is why so many are coming here.
Now put it this way, it costs the government so much money to have this extra strain on the benefits system and the health system. The government ends up having to make cuts to basic benefits for British people that have worked all their lives. Now how is this fair?
A lot of you might need the pension one day, but the government won't be able to afford it because too many are on it. Think about it:)
The top ten countries with the highest immigrants per-captia are:
Andorra
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Monaco
Kuwait
Macau
Palestine
Singapore
Hong Kong
Bahrain
I don't doubt that people migrate for economic reasons, but they're doing it overwhelmingly to find themselves a better job, not to sponge off the state. The reason nobody can ever provide any data to back up the claim that immigrants proportionally cost the state any more than the rest of us do is because they almost certainly don't, if anything, they're probably cost less. You hear in one ear they're spongers, then in the other they're taking all the jobs, well which is it? You (the general you) can't have it both ways. Personally I would tighten the asylum laws, but immigration on the whole is keeping this country afloat, not killing it, even during the recession there were more job vacancies than unemployed people in the country, they were just "lesser" jobs and more difficult to find.
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 14:50:05
Hello, think I might wade in here!
This sort of right-wing press fuelled stuff has cajoled the current government into hurriedly implementing poorly thought out policy in order to appease a certain portion of the electorate. I think it's really going to take it's toll soon.
My girlfriend graduated this summer with an MA in Conference Interpreting. She's chinese and has until January 21st left on her student visa. If she wishes to remain here she has to find a permanent full time position offering >20k per annum, where the employer is a registered "Tier 2" sponsor which costs them 2k to start with.
Now this isn't particularly difficult, 20k is probably a modest amount for someone with an MA. She was about to be offered a job as a "Mandarin Speaking Insurance Assessor" down in Surrey, but at the last minute they told her that the UKBA had said they cannot sponsor for this position. This is because in order to qualify for a work permit the job title must be rated at a certain level. (NQF6 or NQF4 Creative, if you're interested) An "Insurance Assessor" only rates at NQF4.
I would understand if she was taking a job away from a british national, but how many of you can speak fluent Mandarin?
She could earn more than enough money by taking freelance work as self employed. She can translate and interpret as and when (an agency wanted her to interpret only last weekend) but you cannot get a work permit in order to work self employed even when she clearly wouldn't be taking work away from British people. Most interpreting work is freelance, all the permanent positions are for in-house work which generally requires years of experience.
Finally, we're always being told about how important the emerging economies are if we're ever going to get our own economy back on track. If a British company wants to operate in Brazil or China, even such "mundane" jobs as secretaries are going to require native speakers. Once last years batch of students on Post-Study Work Visas dries up (they're from before the change in legislation and get 2 years to work) I think we're going to be in trouble. This sort of knee-jerk politics helps nobody. The ignorant cap on immigration is really going to be counterproductive. Since EU immigration can't be controlled we're going to suffer a severe shortage of talent from non european countries in order to meet this cap.
So please don't be so quick to tar all immigrants with the same brush. Immigration isn't so black and white!
whispering Moderator
Finland
8,453 posts Joined: Nov, 2002
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 16:26:17
quote:Originally posted by jenks:
I don't doubt that people migrate for economic reasons, but they're doing it overwhelmingly to find themselves a better job, not to sponge off the state. The reason nobody can ever provide any data to back up the claim that immigrants proportionally cost the state any more than the rest of us do is because they almost certainly don't, if anything, they're probably cost less. You hear in one ear they're spongers, then in the other they're taking all the jobs, well which is it? You (the general you) can't have it both ways. Personally I would tighten the asylum laws, but immigration on the whole is keeping this country afloat, not killing it, even during the recession there were more job vacancies than unemployed people in the country, they were just "lesser" jobs and more difficult to find.
The reason there aren't many surveys, is cause they wouldn't like the results. Our last immigration minister said she "doesn't have time for it", even though it was directly related to her job. But Denmark did a government wide survey on the cost of immigration (their last government, current one is more pro immigration), and the result was that Denmark benefits from immigrants of western countries, but loses money from the rest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8492822/Denmarks-immigration-laws-save-country-6-billion.html
If a country is having huge unemployment on construction jobs, then work related immigration on that area isn't very helpful. If its on something that doesn't have a huge unemployment rate, then its more wise. Or do you disagree?
"Immigration as a whole", this is what i don't like. Grouping a hugely diverse group into one. Work related immigration, marriage related, refugees and people that immigrate for the greener grass are all very different things. And this is exactly why the system is so F-ed up now, cause you can't talk directly on the problems. Instead use umbrella terms like just "immigration", that is meaningless without context. They even added Stephen Elop to the immigration talk here, like the CEO of Nokia has anything to do with the real problems we face because of uncontrolled immigration.
Robert Knolles, i've heard many similar stories here too. It makes me so angry that people that actually would provide for the government (i.e. work & pay taxes) are refused entrance. Yet people that have no education, means to provide for themselves etc are taken in. Bad business.
Alert moderatorEdited by - whispering on 2012/12/19 16:32:18
Hard2Get Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts Joined: Jun, 2001
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 16:31:47
quote:Originally posted by whispering:
They even added Stephen Elop to the immigration talk here, like the CEO of Nokia has anything to do with the real problems we face because of uncontrolled immigration.
whispering Moderator
Finland
8,453 posts Joined: Nov, 2002
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 16:51:08
quote:Originally posted by jenks:
The reason nobody can ever provide any data to back up the claim that immigrants proportionally cost the state any more than the rest of us do is because they almost certainly don't, if anything, they're probably cost less.
People from former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and Somalia, after staying 9 years in Finland 10-15% are working (working finns of the population is 55-60%).
Lilley Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts Joined: Jul, 2006
Posted - 2012/12/20 : 08:43:16
Interesting. I believe Australia doesn't offer support to non-permanent residents, but does to permanent. I could be wrong and it is only citizens. Whispering, are you saying Finland has a 30%+ unemployment rate?
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
whispering Moderator
Finland
8,453 posts Joined: Nov, 2002
Posted - 2012/12/20 : 09:56:35
quote:Originally posted by Lilley:
Whispering, are you saying Finland has a 30%+ unemployment rate?
No, some have retired, some are in school, some are handicapped etc. Its counted from 15-64 year olds that are working or not. However the one i linked might have a slight variation from how its officially counted. EDIT: the one i linked is counted from 15-74 year olds. The official Employment-to-population ratio would be about 70% here.
Employment-to-population ratio gives a much better view on the cost for government then just unemployment rate.
Alert moderatorEdited by - whispering on 2012/12/20 10:00:48
deathproof627 Junior Member
United States
122 posts Joined: May, 2011
Posted - 2012/12/20 : 12:16:48
Enoch Powell is more relevant than ever but British politics are too politically correct to tackle immigration head on. This goes for both labour and conservative, and groups such as the bnp and ukip are labelled facist and racist.
Lilley Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts Joined: Jul, 2006
Posted - 2012/12/20 : 12:20:54
quote:Originally posted by whispering:
quote:Originally posted by Lilley:
Whispering, are you saying Finland has a 30%+ unemployment rate?
No, some have retired, some are in school, some are handicapped etc. Its counted from 15-64 year olds that are working or not. However the one i linked might have a slight variation from how its officially counted. EDIT: the one i linked is counted from 15-74 year olds. The official Employment-to-population ratio would be about 70% here.
Employment-to-population ratio gives a much better view on the cost for government then just unemployment rate.
Of course it is. My mistake.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
jenks Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,687 posts Joined: Feb, 2003
19 hardcore releases
Posted - 2012/12/20 : 14:45:14
quote:Originally posted by whispering:
quote:Originally posted by jenks:
The reason nobody can ever provide any data to back up the claim that immigrants proportionally cost the state any more than the rest of us do is because they almost certainly don't, if anything, they're probably cost less.
People from former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and Somalia, after staying 9 years in Finland 10-15% are working (working finns of the population is 55-60%).
If Finnish laws are anything like UK laws, then that's probably because they're asylum seekers, and their refugee status is either being reviewed or has been denied and they haven't been deported yet. In both instances they wouldn't be allowed to work in the mean time.
Printer friendly
Posted - 2012/12/19 : 07:50:43
