Oh No!! Not the 'I' Word again.

[SocketRocket]

I would like to know how many of these immigrants are not migrants but are refugees fleeing war torn countries?

Migrant = a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.

Refugee = a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster

Should mankind show no compassion and close it's doors to these people?

Did someone suggest they did Val?

 

[Papas1982]

Definitely not Val, especially as those leaving countries such as Iraq and Syria are fleeing from a situation that he UK helped to create.

I'm not trying to sound dismissive of their plight. But, having been back and forth to France during the strikes. Their seemed to be an awful lot of immigrants / refugees fleeing with nice shiney trainers and smart phones. Not something I'd necessarily consider readily available to people suffering true hardship.

Also, from Iraq to Syria there are quite a few countries in between that are probably more appealing than their homes.

 

[Foxholer]

I would like to know how many of these immigrants are not migrants but are refugees fleeing war torn countries?

Migrant = a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.

Refugee = a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster

Should mankind show no compassion and close it's doors to these people?

The 25000 Asylum applications are not included in those figures.

Here are the raw figures - from ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migra...rterly-report/may-2015/stb-msqr-may-2015.html

 

[vkurup]

As someone who has worked around the world, I think all these numbers are overplayed by the politicians. The worlds greatest cities/states e.g. London, New York, California etc will always attract talent from across the world. These economic workers - most of whom end up in senior managerial capacity - earn more, spend more, employ more people etc and will help the economy. However, these folks will also be followed by relatively junior staff who in the short term may not be so effective but can still contribute to the economy. The NHS is very dependent on staff from India, Philippines et al to provide front line care. Secondary care for the elderly is heavily staffed with lovely folks from Eastern Europe. Recently we had a few Polish gardeners come around to do a clear out - and the guys worked non stop for 8 hours without much of a fag break.

 

[Aztecs27]

Wonder if that 8.3M includes people like me? Born outside the UK to British parents living and working elsewhere.

Didn't want to say anything but you did seem like a bit of a wrong'un.

This whole ridiculous argument reminds me of this:

Immigration happens in every country. If people from Syria or other war-torn countries want to come here and make a better life for themselves I'm all for it.

Of course there are those that abuse the system, but there's also plenty of Brits that do that.

People are people, wherever they are born, and deserve the best chance in life.

 

[Val]

Did someone suggest they did Val?

No, Im asking the question mainly on what number are migrants and what are refugees.

 

[Hobbit]

The numbers are acceptable if the people moving to the country are contributing to the country

My concern is do we have the infrastructure to support those coming here? If we haven't, then no I don't want them here. If 61% of immigrants coming here have a job, as has been reported, 31% aren't contributing. And of those 61% who do have a job, how many of them are low paid and claiming tax credits?

I'd hazard a guess that a decent percentage aren't contributing, and are a burden on everyone else. And to take it further, how many of those 330,000 will need classroom places. Only last year several LEA's, local education authorities, approached the DoE for permission to exceed the permitted classroom sizes.

Please, please, please don't get me wrong. If we can support those coming I have no problem with them being here. If we can't support them I don't want them here.

 

[SocketRocket]

Didn't want to say anything but you did seem like a bit of a wrong'un.

This whole ridiculous argument reminds me of this:

Immigration happens in every country. If people from Syria or other war-torn countries want to come here and make a better life for themselves I'm all for it.

Of course there are those that abuse the system, but there's also plenty of Brits that do that.

People are people, wherever they are born, and deserve the best chance in life.

I dont think many of those numbers come from Syria or are claiming asylum. Most come from places like China, India Pakistan and the EU.

 

[londonlewis]

Are the numbers acceptable? Yes, I think they are. We are living in a growing economy with a sound infrastructure.
The numbers suggest that 270,000 Brits emigrated. Surely we can't get upset with people coming here, if our populous are doing the same thing.

Can we supply suitable public services if this trend continues or increase? We haven't had an issue with providing suitable public services with an increasing population previously, so why would it suddenly become a problem now?

The economy is expected to grow, so that will help us.
Unemployment is at a low level, which is a positive.

Housing shortages could be a pretty big issue.

I am pretty confident that Britain will be ok.

 

[londonlewis]

People are people, wherever they are born, and deserve the best chance in life.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Hacker Khan]

My concern is do we have the infrastructure to support those coming here? If we haven't, then no I don't want them here. If 61% of immigrants coming here have a job, as has been reported, 31% aren't contributing. And of those 61% who do have a job, how many of them are low paid and claiming tax credits?

I'd hazard a guess that a decent percentage aren't contributing, and are a burden on everyone else. And to take it further, how many of those 330,000 will need classroom places. Only last year several LEA's, local education authorities, approached the DoE for permission to exceed the permitted classroom sizes.

Please, please, please don't get me wrong. If we can support those coming I have no problem with them being here. If we can't support them I don't want them here.

Or alternatively the government could actually fund schools in local authority control. Instead of doing their best to run them into the ground to force them into becoming academies. Of course Local authority schools will need to do something if they have not got any money to build extra classrooms and then employ more teachers to teach in said classroom. So increasing class sizes is the last option available. Unless of course they want to be a lovely academy, out of nasty labour loving local authority control, but sponsored by News International instead.

This has very little to do with immigration but more to do with the government's very ideologically driven education policy.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

New British Border arrival information.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...&mid=C1DD6314635123C66569C1DD6314635123C66569

 

[SocketRocket]

Are the numbers acceptable? Yes, I think they are. We are living in a growing economy with a sound infrastructure.
The numbers suggest that 270,000 Brits emigrated. Surely we can't get upset with people coming here, if our populous are doing the same thing.

Can we supply suitable public services if this trend continues or increase? We haven't had an issue with providing suitable public services with an increasing population previously, so why would it suddenly become a problem now?

The economy is expected to grow, so that will help us.
Unemployment is at a low level, which is a positive.

Housing shortages could be a pretty big issue.

I am pretty confident that Britain will be ok.

I'm not sure if those leaving are Brits. I think many of them are Students that have completed their courses.

 

[SocketRocket]

Are the numbers acceptable? Yes, I think they are. We are living in a growing economy with a sound infrastructure.
The numbers suggest that 270,000 Brits emigrated. Surely we can't get upset with people coming here, if our populous are doing the same thing.

Can we supply suitable public services if this trend continues or increase? We haven't had an issue with providing suitable public services with an increasing population previously, so why would it suddenly become a problem now?

The economy is expected to grow, so that will help us.
Unemployment is at a low level, which is a positive.

Housing shortages could be a pretty big issue.

I am pretty confident that Britain will be ok.

Is it sustainable though? 8.2 million people is around the population of London and these people will have children which will boost that number by a great deal over the next decade while another say 8 million will arrive and so on. can the country create enough work, schooling, housing, health services etc for a population growing at this rate. I doubt it very much.

I cant buy into the case that they are paying their way either, if that was the case why are the tax coffers not brimming over with gold? Some will be contributing but far too many are on low wages such that they are below income tax levels but receive tax credits and housing allowances. IMO the lunatics are running the asylum with regards to immigration.

 

[londonlewis]

I'm not sure if those leaving are Brits. I think many of them are Students that have completed their courses.

Would that be classed as emigration though?

1. Emigration is the act of leaving one's native country with the intent to settle elsewhere. Conversely, immigration describes the movement of persons into one country from another. Both are acts of migration across national boundaries.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As someone who has worked around the world, I think all these numbers are overplayed by the politicians. The worlds greatest cities/states e.g. London, New York, California etc will always attract talent from across the world. These economic workers - most of whom end up in senior managerial capacity - earn more, spend more, employ more people etc and will help the economy. However, these folks will also be followed by relatively junior staff who in the short term may not be so effective but can still contribute to the economy. The NHS is very dependent on staff from India, Philippines et al to provide front line care. Secondary care for the elderly is heavily staffed with lovely folks from Eastern Europe. Recently we had a few Polish gardeners come around to do a clear out - and the guys worked non stop for 8 hours without much of a fag break.

But NHS recruiters are already finding things harder to recruit from abroad these days since the government stated that those recruited must be earning £35,000 within six years or have to leave. As a result many who would have come are not as they know it would be hard to earn at that level in such a period and they are looking for stability. As a result they aren't so willing to tear themselves away from family and home for six years - just to be told they have to leave if they haven't reached the threshold. Good thinking BatCam and Hunt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33201189

Mind you I haven't heard anything much from the gov on this for a while - so maybe (having now consulted with the NHS) they realise that it's a load of tripe and have quietly dumped the idea.

 

[londonlewis]

Is it sustainable though? 8.2 million people is around the population of London and these people will have children which will boost that number by a great deal over the next decade while another say 8 million will arrive and so on. can the country create enough work, schooling, housing, health services etc for a population growing at this rate. I doubt it very much.

I cant buy into the case that they are paying their way either, if that was the case why are the tax coffers not brimming over with gold? Some will be contributing but far too many are on low wages such that they are below income tax levels but receive tax credits and housing allowances. IMO the lunatics are running the asylum with regards to immigration.

This is pretty interesting reading - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

[TABLE="width: 580"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: center"]Total Public Spending
in the United Kingdom
Central Government and Local Authority
-5yr -1yr Fiscal Year 2016 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Public Pensions [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]£153 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]National Health Care [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £138 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]State Education [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £89 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Defence [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £45 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Social Security [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £110 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]State Protection [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £29 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Transport [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £27 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]General Government [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £14 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Other Public Services [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £106 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Public Sector Interest [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]+ £47 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Total Spending [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]= £760 billion[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[SocketRocket]

Would that be classed as emigration though?

1. Emigration is the act of leaving one's native country with the intent to settle elsewhere. Conversely, immigration describes the movement of persons into one country from another. Both are acts of migration across national boundaries.

Yes, the figures do include students leaving, just as the immigration includes students arriving. It wouldn't make sense otherwise

 

[SocketRocket]

But NHS recruiters are already finding things harder to recruit from abroad these days since the government stated that those recruited must be earning £35,000 within six years or have to leave. As a result many who would have come are not as they know it would be hard to earn at that level in such a period and they are looking for stability. As a result they aren't so willing to tear themselves away from family and home for six years - just to be told they have to leave if they haven't reached the threshold. Good thinking BatCam and Hunt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33201189

Mind you I haven't heard anything much from the gov on this for a while - so maybe (having now consulted with the NHS) they realise that it's a load of tripe and have quietly dumped the idea.

NHS recruitment from abroad is a National disgrace and we should be ashamed. We are poaching Nurses, Doctors etc from less well off countries that have paid the costs of their training. We should be training suitable numbers ourselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs...-thirds-of-local-applicants-are-rejected.html

 

[londonlewis]

Yes, the figures do include students leaving, just as the immigration includes students arriving. It wouldn't make sense otherwise

Based on the definition of emigration, it doesn't include students leaving. It only covers those leaving their native country.
It definitely does make sense.

Immigration - people leaving their native countries to come to ours
Emigration - people leaving our native country to go to another.

I am very confident that the emigration figure of 270,000 is the number of British people that have left the UK to live overseas.