IMMIGRATION

[Deleted member 1418]

I never understand the argument that we need immigrants to fill the low skilled jobs when we have hundreds of thousands of British nationals sat on their backsides at home claiming benefits because they are too lazy to work. 'But the jobs are in different parts of the country!!' So what, I moved from Scotland to the south of England for work so what is stopping others from moving too?

Totally agree - if you are able to physically work then you should do so and not be able to claim benefits.

And on your final point, remember you did move from a 3rd world country though...............!!!

 

[Deleted member 1147]

ONe of the issues with unemployment numbers is that governments find clever ways to remove people from lists. So they are not actually indicative of the numbers of people looking for work.

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

nothing to see here, just another racist off on a fact free rant

So, if one dares to talk about immigration they area racist. This thought process is indicative of a liberal fascist

 

[bluewolf]

Ok, so what do you think happens to the population and it's demographic if you have Zero Net Immigration?

 

[SocketRocket]

Whilst unemployment is low, I really don't believe the figures. For example, I know several people who can work but choose not to. I also know several people who claim to be disabled and can't work, when in actual fact they are fitter than me.

You just have to look around you when out and about.

 

[Grant85]

Just picked up on a post made on another thread about immigration, so thought it justified a thread of it's own.

I will put my cards on the table and say I believe the UK should work towards a net immigration of zero. I accept we aren't ready for this yet, but it should be our aim. I am passionate about population control, and believe our huge population is the underlying issue for most of our problems. There are those who would argue that our ageing population is the reason we need immigrants, but I would point out that these people will get old also. It's evident in so many areas throughout Europe that mass immigration has catastrophic effects on culture. Regardless of what liberals may tell us, multiculturalism creates far more problems than the few benefits it brings with it. An increased population through immigration puts to much of a strain on the infrastructure. We have thousands upon thousands of homeless indigenous people, yet we are happy to allow poor immigrants in and pay for their accommodation. For years now immigration has held wages back, and allowed employers to stop training.

I am fully aware that some of you will hold very different opinions to me, so bring it on !!

A HUUUUUUGE problem with this is that the UK would not have sufficient people of working age to be productive members of society, pay taxes, fulfil important roles in our economy and drive our economy (and tax take) forward. Not for many decades AND not without increasing the retirement age quite a bit or aggressively means testing benefits for people of pensionable age (something that would not be morally or politically justified in most cases).

Retired people, generally, do not contribute to the tax take. And even well off ones with income at or above national average will pay in a lot less than they draw out in state pension, health care, bus passes and other benefits etc. Obviously they don't pay NI for a start, and if they are living off a carefully managed investment / pension portfolio can legitimately pay very little tax on £30,000 or so of income.

This is not a criticism of retired people and I'm not laying any blame at their feet at all, it is just simple demographics that the people who are now retired or are now retiring were generally one of 5, 6 or 7 children and the people who are of working age were 1 of 2.4 children. and this is now reducing for children born this century to being 1 of 1 or 2 children.

In short, having a net immigration of zero would actually be extremely harmful to the economy, public services and would serve no positive purpose.

Yes - those people will get old, but in 3 or 4 decades several trends will have alleviated some problems for this. One is, the people born in the population booms either side of the 2nd world war will no longer be about and there will be greater balance within the generations. The other is a trend generally of people working longer and paying taxes longer and generally living healthier lives (i.e. not smoking, drinking as much or working in physical jobs and not living lives that are as unhealthy).

Other point - and I do not live in the SE of England, but I work with people who do I appreciate the problems with regards to access to services, transport, housing etc. In my view, it is a complete failure of the government not to have done more to encourage people (not just immigrants) to live and work in the regions where there is greater capacity. The government have made several HORRENDOUS decisions with regards to this. Transport infrastructure i.e. the billions spent on London Underground, Cross Rail and now High Speed rail is a foolish waste of money that will continue to suck everything INTO London. Heathrow expansion is on a similar level. Instead improve the road and rail network that already exists around the country to encourage people and business to stay or relocate in Midlands, North, Wales, Scotland etc. Even if many / most will still retain a base in the SE.

Instead policy, politics and culture are so London centric that even UK people are economically drawn to London and London would have housing / infrastructure / service problems even without non UK people basing themselves there, meanwhile cities like Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc. lose thousands of their brightest and best to the London lifestyle every month.

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

Ok, so what do you think happens to the population and it's demographic if you have Zero Net Immigration?

It's a very complex subject, mainly because of the ageing population. The governments plan up to now is to allow mass immigration. As a result we have a host of problems, mainly the creaking infrastructure, although other issues are prevalent. As the country becomes more mechanised, and computers reduce the need for so many employees, we should in theory need a smaller workforce, in which case the ageing demographic shouldn't be the problem some may think it is. My wish for eventual net zero immigration is tightly tied up with my wish for a stable population. The world population is growing at a frightening rate, and human beings will happily flock to the land of milk and honey.

Going back to your question. The simple answer is that the demographic will remain fairly constant, whereas, if we don't work towards zero immigration the problems we already have will continue to get worse.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

How does a nation manage the zero immigration figure. Assuming all illegals are banned, after them who do we let in & who do we refuse?

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

A HUUUUUUGE problem with this is that the UK would not have sufficient people of working age to be productive members of society, pay taxes, fulfil important roles in our economy and drive our economy (and tax take) forward. Not for many decades AND not without increasing the retirement age quite a bit or aggressively means testing benefits for people of pensionable age (something that would not be morally or politically justified in most cases).

Retired people, generally, do not contribute to the tax take. And even well off ones with income at or above national average will pay in a lot less than they draw out in state pension, health care, bus passes and other benefits etc. Obviously they don't pay NI for a start, and if they are living off a carefully managed investment / pension portfolio can legitimately pay very little tax on £30,000 or so of income.

This is not a criticism of retired people and I'm not laying any blame at their feet at all, it is just simple demographics that the people who are now retired or are now retiring were generally one of 5, 6 or 7 children and the people who are of working age were 1 of 2.4 children. and this is now reducing for children born this century to being 1 of 1 or 2 children.

In short, having a net immigration of zero would actually be extremely harmful to the economy, public services and would serve no positive purpose.

Yes - those people will get old, but in 3 or 4 decades several trends will have alleviated some problems for this. One is, the people born in the population booms either side of the 2nd world war will no longer be about and there will be greater balance within the generations. The other is a trend generally of people working longer and paying taxes longer and generally living healthier lives (i.e. not smoking, drinking as much or working in physical jobs and not living lives that are as unhealthy).

Other point - and I do not live in the SE of England, but I work with people who do I appreciate the problems with regards to access to services, transport, housing etc. In my view, it is a complete failure of the government not to have done more to encourage people (not just immigrants) to live and work in the regions where there is greater capacity. The government have made several HORRENDOUS decisions with regards to this. Transport infrastructure i.e. the billions spent on London Underground, Cross Rail and now High Speed rail is a foolish waste of money that will continue to suck everything INTO London. Heathrow expansion is on a similar level. Instead improve the road and rail network that already exists around the country to encourage people and business to stay or relocate in Midlands, North, Wales, Scotland etc. Even if many / most will still retain a base in the SE.

Instead policy, politics and culture are so London centric that even UK people are economically drawn to London and London would have housing / infrastructure / service problems even without non UK people basing themselves there, meanwhile cities like Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc. lose thousands of their brightest and best to the London lifestyle every month.

Much of your post I agree with, a little I don't. To expect people to work longer is great if they work in an office. Much of our population consists of manual workers, and simply asking people to have healthier lives won't make a 70 year old man fit to work on a building site. As mechanisation improves, and computers reduce the need for a larger work force, the ageing population becomes less of a problem. Remember, my wish to work towards zero net immigration is a long term goal, not a short term desire. The government have indeed failed to deliver a better infrastructure, and I agree that spending billions of pounds so we can get to Birmingham from London 20 minutes quicker is criminal. However, the additional taxes raised from mass immigration could never have been enough to support the people who moved here. Any immigration needed to be slow and controlled.

 

[User62651]

Totally agree - if you are able to physically work then you should do so and not be able to claim benefits.

And on your final point, remember you did move from a 3rd world country though...............!!!

I work full time but get child benefit, should that be banned too?
if you're moving for work you need somewhere to stay, yes? How can someone from Hull or Motherwell or wherever moving to be paid minimum wage pay for accommodation in say London. Only way that'll work is with more social housing. Not the fault of those on low incomes that private property prices or rental rates has increased massively more than wages.
You're living in dreamland and I'd guess a benefactor of inheritance to get to where you are in life, not self made? Am I wrong?

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

How does a nation manage the zero immigration figure. Assuming all illegals are banned, after them who do we let in & who do we refuse?

That's the easy bit. We know approximately how many people leave, so we therefore know how many we can let in. I am totally opposed to the UK letting in asylum seekers and refugees, therefore the people we would then let in would have to meet a set criteria. That would almost certainly mean they would be skilled and be required for industries where we have a lack of people.

 

[bluewolf]

It's a very complex subject, mainly because of the ageing population. The governments plan up to now is to allow mass immigration. As a result we have a host of problems, mainly the creaking infrastructure, although other issues are prevalent. As the country becomes more mechanised, and computers reduce the need for so many employees, we should in theory need a smaller workforce, in which case the ageing demographic shouldn't be the problem some may think it is. My wish for eventual net zero immigration is tightly tied up with my wish for a stable population. The world population is growing at a frightening rate, and human beings will happily flock to the land of milk and honey.

Going back to your question. The simple answer is that the demographic will remain fairly constant, whereas, if we don't work towards zero immigration the problems we already have will continue to get worse.

Ok, with a current birth rate of 1.76 then the population would start shrinking. Unfortunately, the shrinkage would occur much faster at the lower end of the age scale, resulting in a significant balance shift. This would then result in the Tax burden on the working population rising to such a degree that it would be unsustainable. If we changed nothing else then we'd be bankrupt within 2 generations.
If we reacted to the balance shift then we'd have to restrict the number of people receiving a pension and any other benefits. This would result in the retirement age being raised into the late 70's and all other social programs being cut/ended.
This would be hugely beneficial for the top 1%, but probably not ideal for everyone else. Unless you like working till you die.

 

[Blue in Munich]

That's the easy bit. We know approximately how many people leave, so we therefore know how many we can let in. I am totally opposed to the UK letting in asylum seekers and refugees, therefore the people we would then let in would have to meet a set criteria. That would almost certainly mean they would be skilled and be required for industries where we have a lack of people.

Can't agree with that, I believe we have a duty, along with other countries, to assist people who genuinely need refuge. However if you are talking about economic migrants claiming to be refugees then that's a different matter.

 

[Old Skier]

We need an open, sensible and logical 'managed' system.

In the NHS, you must be kidding. Firstly they would have to find managers with the ability to manage.

 

[Grant85]

people to have healthier lives won't make a 70 year old man fit to work on a building site.

No, but it will make them access fewer NHS services and probably mean he can help out with child care for his 35 year old daughter, who will then be happier working more hours and thus paying more tax.

As mechanisation improves, and computers reduce the need for a larger work force, the ageing population becomes less of a problem. Remember, my wish to work towards zero net immigration is a long term goal, not a short term desire. The government have indeed failed to deliver a better infrastructure, and I agree that spending billions of pounds so we can get to Birmingham from London 20 minutes quicker is criminal. However, the additional taxes raised from mass immigration could never have been enough to support the people who moved here. Any immigration needed to be slow and controlled.

I don't really get this as a general trend. Mechanisation is improving, but this increases capacity as much as it reduces the need for labour. Factories building cars will still need several thousand workers doing round the clock shifts to keep the production line ticking over, as one example.

And obviously the service sector, tourism, leisure, transport, retail, hospitality, will always have a need for people at some level to deliver the service, sell thing and manage things.

If an economy isn't growing, it's going backwards and NET zero immigration is not going to be conducive to a growing economy.

Look at the current government, who are certainly not pro immigration and have had a 100,000 target since Cameron came in 8 years ago... they have missed this spectacularly over this period. Simply because it is not possible and businesses simply won't stand for it if they couldn't hire in people they need to keep delivering financial returns.

 

[HughJars]

What a lazy bigoted post.

Really? You read the OP's drivel? Get rid of all migration? They live on handouts? No-one with a functioning brain believes that absolute pap. It's long since proven very few (except refugees) live off the state, and are net contributors. It's the sort of drivel that has led to this incredible "we're ending free movement" garbage from Maybot, as if she's cured cancer, as if in any way free movement is a bad thing.

Is that "un-lazy" enough for you?

 

[bluewolf]

Hey @Mrs Wiggles. Could I be so bold as to ask what current political party best suits your opinions? I'll go first as it's only polite. I'm a lifelong Labour voter but struggle currently as they don't really represent my views.
Oh, and I'm directly descended from Economic migrants who came here to escape abject poverty and raised a family who all work and contribute healthily to the coffers of this country.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Whilst unemployment is low, I really don't believe the figures. For example, I know several people who can work but choose not to. I also know several people who claim to be disabled and can't work, when in actual fact they are fitter than me.

Well no I don't suppose you would...

 

[HughJars]

So, if one dares to talk about immigration they area racist. This thought process is indicative of a liberal fascist

Nope, talk about it is fine, I quoted the bit where you went off on the tired trope of the racist, which has no basis in fact.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

ONe of the issues with unemployment numbers is that governments find clever ways to remove people from lists. So they are not actually indicative of the numbers of people looking for work.

In the same way that folks on zero hours contracts are deemed by the government to be 'in work' ?

I am sure you are aware that many on zero hours contracts some weeks get no work whatsoever and so have no income whatsoever - and some weeks and months the level of income can be way beneath that which would qualify them to claim support - but that trying to register and claim benefits to support themselves and their families during such periods is so difficult and problematic that many just don't bother...

So for every scrounger sitting on his/her backside whilst claiming benefits there are others working away very hard and not claiming benefits that they are entitled to.