Immigration

WindupMerchant · 31-10-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4391766.stm

Quote:

The Commission for Racial Equality has said that the Scottish Executive is no doing enought to help new immigrants to integrate INTO phpbb_the community.

Looks like they got an immigrant with fairly poor English in to do this report.

Quote:

It recommends a bigger focus on making Scottish communities more welcoming and respectful of newcomers and also calls for greater economic diversity.

Nasty Scottish people. They need educating on being nicer.
:roll:

Try being respectful to each other first like. Glasgow Rangers v Glasgow Celtic fo example :roll:

mkpdavies · 17-11-2005, 06:23 PM

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20051114

Quote:

Conventional wisdom says immigrants are not a financial burden to taxpayers because they work hard, pay taxes and rarely go on the dole. But it's a myth, and a new study blows another hole in it.

The University of Florida finds that immigrant families have been costing that state a net $1,800 per household per year, a financial burden much larger than previously thought.

The findings surprised the study's author, who is a pro-immigration Democrat. After crunching the numbers, economist David Denslow discovered immigrants — legal and illegal — were consuming much more in public services and paying much less in taxes than the average resident.

Chief among the government services they were consuming were education and Medicaid.

But wait a minute. Didn't last decade's welfare reform push a lot of immigrants off the dole?

Yes, but the decline in immigrant cash aid and food stamps has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers, because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the cost of providing Medicaid to immigrant households.

In fact, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average welfare payout to immigrant households, both legal and illegal, has changed little and remains about $2,000 a year, which is 50% higher than the payout for natives.

In 1996, 22% of immigrant households were on the dole (compared with 15% for natives), according to CIS. By 2001, the share rose to 23%. Over that period, average Medicaid payments to immigrants jumped to $1,495 from $1,203.

Immigrant households account for a growing share of the welfare caseload.

The number of immigrants using at least one major welfare program has steadily increased, with the exception of a small drop in 1997.

Between 1996 and 2001, the number of immigrant households using the welfare system grew by 750,000 to more than 3 million — accounting for almost 18% of all U.S. households on welfare. That share is expected to rise with continued high rates of immigration.

And if you think immigrants, most of whom are poor Mexicans, will stop depending on U.S. welfare as they settle INTO phpbb_jobs and even careers here, think again.

CIS found that welfare use actually increases significantly with duration of stay in the U.S. Not until they have lived here more than 20 years does it start to go down on average.

"To some extent, assimilation for many immigrants means assimilation INTO phpbb_the welfare system," the report said. "This is the case for both immigrants in general and for legal immigrants."

The Florida and national studies show that immigrant use of the welfare system remains well above that of natives and creates a significant cost to taxpayers. Their findings tip the debate over the cost of immigrants in favor of immigration reformers.

I wonder if the figures are similar for the UK. I guess we will never know.

mkpdavies · 17-11-2005, 06:29 PM

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005530529,00.html

Quote:

LOTTO chiefs have dished out £33MILLION to asylum-seeker groups under Labour, it emerged last night.

Lottery funds gave just under £120,000 to groups helping asylum seekers in Britain in 1997 — but the figure soared to nearly £8.5million last year.

MPs were stunned by the huge sums.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds were even given to the National Coalition for Anti-Deportation Campaigns, which was accused by David Blunkett of undermining the Government’s purge on immigration abuses.

But Sports Minister Richard Caborn insisted awards to asylum-seeker groups were a very small proportion of all grants.

He claimed: “One fifth of one per cent of all Lottery awards have gone to these groups.”

Tory home affairs spokesman Patrick Mercer said: “I simply can’t understand why a sum like this needs to be given to asylum groups.”

It would be nice to know how much per head that is.

claire stone · 18-11-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051114

Quote:

Conventional wisdom says immigrants are not a financial burden to taxpayers because they work hard, pay taxes and rarely go on the dole. But it's a myth, and a new study blows another hole in it.

The University of Florida finds that immigrant families have been costing that state a net $1,800 per household per year, a financial burden much larger than previously thought.

The findings surprised the study's author, who is a pro-immigration Democrat. After crunching the numbers, economist David Denslow discovered immigrants — legal and illegal — were consuming much more in public services and paying much less in taxes than the average resident.

Chief among the government services they were consuming were education and Medicaid.

But wait a minute. Didn't last decade's welfare reform push a lot of immigrants off the dole?

Yes, but the decline in immigrant cash aid and food stamps has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers, because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the cost of providing Medicaid to immigrant households.

In fact, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average welfare payout to immigrant households, both legal and illegal, has changed little and remains about $2,000 a year, which is 50% higher than the payout for natives.

In 1996, 22% of immigrant households were on the dole (compared with 15% for natives), according to CIS. By 2001, the share rose to 23%. Over that period, average Medicaid payments to immigrants jumped to $1,495 from $1,203.

Immigrant households account for a growing share of the welfare caseload.

The number of immigrants using at least one major welfare program has steadily increased, with the exception of a small drop in 1997.

Between 1996 and 2001, the number of immigrant households using the welfare system grew by 750,000 to more than 3 million — accounting for almost 18% of all U.S. households on welfare. That share is expected to rise with continued high rates of immigration.

And if you think immigrants, most of whom are poor Mexicans, will stop depending on U.S. welfare as they settle INTO phpbb_jobs and even careers here, think again.

CIS found that welfare use actually increases significantly with duration of stay in the U.S. Not until they have lived here more than 20 years does it start to go down on average.

"To some extent, assimilation for many immigrants means assimilation INTO phpbb_the welfare system," the report said. "This is the case for both immigrants in general and for legal immigrants."

The Florida and national studies show that immigrant use of the welfare system remains well above that of natives and creates a significant cost to taxpayers. Their findings tip the debate over the cost of immigrants in favor of immigration reformers.

I wonder if the figures are similar for the UK. I guess we will never know.

Who is going to ask anyway on such a sensitive subject?

Mikeuk · 19-11-2005, 10:45 AM

It's good to see that some erstwhile 'liberals' have woken up to the menace of immigration.

This week I attended the AGM of our local branch of CPRE, an organisation all UKIP members should support. The government's plans for turning the South-East INTO phpbb_a nightmare conurbation were explained and discussed in detail.

Too many people in this area have not yet woken up to the truth about their future. Actually these EU-linked plans are a prime area for action by UKIP.

A lot of this is of course down to immigration. It has to stop!

mkpdavies · 23-11-2005, 01:44 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Quote:

Workers from the eastern European countries that joined the EU last year continued to pour INTO phpbb_Britain over the summer, official figures showed yesterday.

Between July and September, there were nearly 60,000 applicants for work permits from the eight former Soviet bloc countries. That was the highest quarterly figure since the registration scheme was set up in May last year.

It brought the total number of workers from the accession countries to almost 300,000, which is 20 times the original estimate given by the Government.

Scaremongers UKIP were called. Mmmmmm

Quote:

The Government said at the time that there would be little impact on economic migration and ministers dismissed suggestions of a major influx. The Home Office forecast an increase of up to 13,000 workers a year but that was exceeded in the first few weeks.

Shouldn't someone be getting sacked for this huge lies/miscalculations. We have millions of unemployed or econimically inactive people here. If we have so many jobs, then why are we letting them sit around doing nothing?

Quote:

Since May last year, 353,000 applications to work have been received, although they included some who were registering to stay on. The highest proportion was Polish - more than half - followed by Lithuanians and Slovaks.

More than 80 per cent were aged 18 to 34 and most were men, with few families. Nearly 30 per cent of registered workers took jobs in administration, business and management; a quarter were in hospitality and catering; and 13 per cent in agriculture.

So we are slanting our society towards a male dominated enviroment. Smashing.

Quote:

Tony Blair promised that by the end of this year deportations of unsuccessful asylum seekers would be higher than the number of unfounded new claims. But Tony McNulty, the Home Office minister, said the target would not now be reached until February.

Like that's supposed to make much difference.

claire stone · 23-11-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/23/nmigrant23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/23/ixnewstop.html

Quote:

Workers from the eastern European countries that joined the EU last year continued to pour INTO phpbb_Britain over the summer, official figures showed yesterday.

Between July and September, there were nearly 60,000 applicants for work permits from the eight former Soviet bloc countries. That was the highest quarterly figure since the registration scheme was set up in May last year.

It brought the total number of workers from the accession countries to almost 300,000, which is 20 times the original estimate given by the Government.

Scaremongers UKIP were called. Mmmmmm

Quote:

The Government said at the time that there would be little impact on economic migration and ministers dismissed suggestions of a major influx. The Home Office forecast an increase of up to 13,000 workers a year but that was exceeded in the first few weeks.

Shouldn't someone be getting sacked for this huge lies/miscalculations. We have millions of unemployed or econimically inactive people here. If we have so many jobs, then why are we letting them sit around doing nothing?

Quote:

Since May last year, 353,000 applications to work have been received, although they included some who were registering to stay on. The highest proportion was Polish - more than half - followed by Lithuanians and Slovaks.

More than 80 per cent were aged 18 to 34 and most were men, with few families. Nearly 30 per cent of registered workers took jobs in administration, business and management; a quarter were in hospitality and catering; and 13 per cent in agriculture.

So we are slanting our society towards a male dominated enviroment. Smashing.

Quote:

Tony Blair promised that by the end of this year deportations of unsuccessful asylum seekers would be higher than the number of unfounded new claims. But Tony McNulty, the Home Office minister, said the target would not now be reached until February.

Like that's supposed to make much difference.

Anyone who's raises this subject is called scaremongering or a lot worse!

Phat Boy Fat · 13-12-2005, 06:27 PM

Claire Stone wrote:

Quote:

Anyone who's raises this subject is called scaremongering or a lot worse!

Quite so! The Times Jounalist Anthony Browne wrote a book, available through Civitas, called 'Do We Need Mass Immigration'. In this well researched, referenced and well written book Anthony Browne used government figures to demolish the pro immigration arguments. He demonstrates that immigrants are not the economic wonder pill we are lead to believe, proves that we don't relly have an ageing population, and that there is no shortage of labour. He also had the temerity to suggest that with an estimated 60 million cases of HIV worldwide, it might be a good idea to screen immigrants for HIV/AIDS. Predictably this produced screeches of outrage from the left. No less an authority than David Blunkett stood up in the House of Commons and denounced Anthony Browne as a faschist ! :x

It is interesting to note Mr Blunketts disgraceful accusation was made from the floor of the House, where MPs are immune from libel / slander laws. He was not so keen to reproduce his slur without this protection.

It boils down to this. The majority of immigrants vote Labour, or for 'Socialist' parties, and this is true across the EU as a whole. Therefore it is in the interests of the left to allow as many immigrants in to the country as they possibly can during their time in office. Of course our asylum and immigration policy is now run by a bunch of menschaviks in Brussels, where the left has ensured a permanent built in majority via patronage. There will be no change to this situation for as long as we are in the EU.

This is why the left are always ready to shout "Racist' racist, racist, you're a dirty racist" everytime the issue is raised as an effective attempt to silence criticism of their (not so) secret agenda. :evil: :evil:

johnwest · 21-12-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phat Boy Fat

Claire Stone wrote:

Quote:

Anyone who's raises this subject is called scaremongering or a lot worse!

Quite so! The Times Jounalist Anthony Browne wrote a book, available through Civitas, called 'Do We Need Mass Immigration'. In this well researched, referenced and well written book Anthony Browne used government figures to demolish the pro immigration arguments. He demonstrates that immigrants are not the economic wonder pill we are lead to believe, proves that we don't relly have an ageing population, and that there is no shortage of labour. He also had the temerity to suggest that with an estimated 60 million cases of HIV worldwide, it might be a good idea to screen immigrants for HIV/AIDS. Predictably this produced screeches of outrage from the left. No less an authority than David Blunkett stood up in the House of Commons and denounced Anthony Browne as a faschist ! :x

It is interesting to note Mr Blunketts disgraceful accusation was made from the floor of the House, where MPs are immune from libel / slander laws. He was not so keen to reproduce his slur without this protection.

It boils down to this. The majority of immigrants vote Labour, or for 'Socialist' parties, and this is true across the EU as a whole. Therefore it is in the interests of the left to allow as many immigrants in to the country as they possibly can during their time in office. Of course our asylum and immigration policy is now run by a bunch of menschaviks in Brussels, where the left has ensured a permanent built in majority via patronage. There will be no change to this situation for as long as we are in the EU.

This is why the left are always ready to shout "Racist' racist, racist, you're a dirty racist" everytime the issue is raised as an effective attempt to silence criticism of their (not so) secret agenda. :evil: :evil:

Agreed.

Mikeuk · 28-12-2005, 12:22 PM

A challenge we have never faced before
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 28/12/2005)

In 2005, immigration became an election issue for the first time since 1970, a development caused in part by a record number of arrivals that 35 years ago would have beggared belief.

Last year, 2004, saw the highest net migration on record, with an inflow of 223,000 - 72,000 more than the previous year, largely as a result of the EU's expansion.

The number of Britons alone leaving increased to 208,000 - the highest annual outflow on record. This year, 2005, net migration is forecast to be even higher at 255,000, before reducing to an annual rate of about 145,000 from 2008.

When Labour took office in 1997 net migration was about 50,000 a year.

For the first time in its history, Britain's population is growing primarily because of immigration.

Government figures indicate that the population is projected to rise by more than seven million in the next 25 years and more than half of this will be the direct result of immigration, with another 30 per cent formed by the children of recent immigrants.

This great movement of people, a trend seen across Europe, is a dilemma for politicians. The indigenous populations of their own countries have largely stagnated and in many cases would, without immigration, decline.

But the sheer volume of arrivals places a strain on public services and cultural tensions are never far below the surface, as witnessed recently in France.

Both these tendencies are on show in Britain.

Politicians have sought to make a virtue of practically porous borders by welcoming the influx of new workers on economic grounds.

Then again, they have been required to respond to public concern about immigration, as evinced by poll findings before the general election which suggested that it was the most important issue facing the country.

At the election, the Conservatives promised to impose a ceiling on immigration, the only issue on which they held a consistent lead throughout the campaign.

But, after their defeat, they were concerned that they had become associated with harsh rhetoric on the subject and, under David Cameron, are anxious to tone it down.

The Government, meanwhile, has responded by proposing a points-based entry system, similar to that in Australia, under which certain workers will be allowed in but only the highly-skilled will have the right to settle.

It is due to be introduced in 2007. But critics say that, without an annual limit, such a system will become an open door to ever-rising numbers because of the ease of travel in a "globalised" world. The question that arises is: can this be sustained without changing the country irrevocably?

Immigration over the past 10 years has been unprecedented. More than 4.3 million people born abroad were living in Britain at the time of the 2001 census - an increase of around one million compared with 1991 and two million higher than 30 years ago.

Across the country, the proportion of overseas-born residents is 7.5 per cent; but in London, one in four was born abroad and in some parts of the capital, one in two.

Such record levels, plus greater longevity, have caused the Government actuaries to recalculate population growth.

They now think it will pass the 65 million mark in 2023, reach 67 million by 2031 and keep growing until 2074, placing huge pressure on public services and pensions.

Much of the increase will be in England, and especially in the South-East.

By contrast, Scotland's population will increase only slightly until the year 2019 and then start to fall. The Government says high rates of immigration are needed to sustain the economy.

With unemployment at a low rate, most settlers are easily absorbed INTO phpbb_the workforce, though many are in the black economy.

But the policy now being adopted will have perverse effects here and abroad. A points-based immigration system will make it almost impossible for the lower-skilled to stay indefinitely.

Yet it is often the low-skilled that an advanced country needs most - to do the jobs the indigenous population shuns.

On the other hand, the scheme will encourage the immigration of highly-skilled and well-educated workers, mainly from the Third World, denuding poorer countries of doctors, nurses, teachers and entrepreneurs while professionals here find it increasingly difficult to get jobs.

For the modern, western economy, attracting such people may seem a clever thing to do.

But there are ethical considerations and, increasingly, negative consequences such as housing shortages, transport congestion, pressures on the NHS and on schools.

In a world on the move, however, it is a phenomenon to which we will have to adapt. If we do not, the political and social consequences 20 years from now could be bleak.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-11-2005, 10:45 AM	#55 (permalink)
Mikeuk Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,758 Party: Conservatives	It's good to see that some erstwhile 'liberals' have woken up to the menace of immigration. This week I attended the AGM of our local branch of CPRE, an organisation all UKIP members should support. The government's plans for turning the South-East INTO phpbb_a nightmare conurbation were explained and discussed in detail. Too many people in this area have not yet woken up to the truth about their future. Actually these EU-linked plans are a prime area for action by UKIP. A lot of this is of course down to immigration. It has to stop!

28-12-2005, 12:22 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mikeuk Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,758 Party: Conservatives	A challenge we have never faced before By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor (Filed: 28/12/2005) In 2005, immigration became an election issue for the first time since 1970, a development caused in part by a record number of arrivals that 35 years ago would have beggared belief. Last year, 2004, saw the highest net migration on record, with an inflow of 223,000 - 72,000 more than the previous year, largely as a result of the EU's expansion. The number of Britons alone leaving increased to 208,000 - the highest annual outflow on record. This year, 2005, net migration is forecast to be even higher at 255,000, before reducing to an annual rate of about 145,000 from 2008. When Labour took office in 1997 net migration was about 50,000 a year. For the first time in its history, Britain's population is growing primarily because of immigration. Government figures indicate that the population is projected to rise by more than seven million in the next 25 years and more than half of this will be the direct result of immigration, with another 30 per cent formed by the children of recent immigrants. This great movement of people, a trend seen across Europe, is a dilemma for politicians. The indigenous populations of their own countries have largely stagnated and in many cases would, without immigration, decline. But the sheer volume of arrivals places a strain on public services and cultural tensions are never far below the surface, as witnessed recently in France. Both these tendencies are on show in Britain. Politicians have sought to make a virtue of practically porous borders by welcoming the influx of new workers on economic grounds. Then again, they have been required to respond to public concern about immigration, as evinced by poll findings before the general election which suggested that it was the most important issue facing the country. At the election, the Conservatives promised to impose a ceiling on immigration, the only issue on which they held a consistent lead throughout the campaign. But, after their defeat, they were concerned that they had become associated with harsh rhetoric on the subject and, under David Cameron, are anxious to tone it down. The Government, meanwhile, has responded by proposing a points-based entry system, similar to that in Australia, under which certain workers will be allowed in but only the highly-skilled will have the right to settle. It is due to be introduced in 2007. But critics say that, without an annual limit, such a system will become an open door to ever-rising numbers because of the ease of travel in a "globalised" world. The question that arises is: can this be sustained without changing the country irrevocably? Immigration over the past 10 years has been unprecedented. More than 4.3 million people born abroad were living in Britain at the time of the 2001 census - an increase of around one million compared with 1991 and two million higher than 30 years ago. Across the country, the proportion of overseas-born residents is 7.5 per cent; but in London, one in four was born abroad and in some parts of the capital, one in two. Such record levels, plus greater longevity, have caused the Government actuaries to recalculate population growth. They now think it will pass the 65 million mark in 2023, reach 67 million by 2031 and keep growing until 2074, placing huge pressure on public services and pensions. Much of the increase will be in England, and especially in the South-East. By contrast, Scotland's population will increase only slightly until the year 2019 and then start to fall. The Government says high rates of immigration are needed to sustain the economy. With unemployment at a low rate, most settlers are easily absorbed INTO phpbb_the workforce, though many are in the black economy. But the policy now being adopted will have perverse effects here and abroad. A points-based immigration system will make it almost impossible for the lower-skilled to stay indefinitely. Yet it is often the low-skilled that an advanced country needs most - to do the jobs the indigenous population shuns. On the other hand, the scheme will encourage the immigration of highly-skilled and well-educated workers, mainly from the Third World, denuding poorer countries of doctors, nurses, teachers and entrepreneurs while professionals here find it increasingly difficult to get jobs. For the modern, western economy, attracting such people may seem a clever thing to do. But there are ethical considerations and, increasingly, negative consequences such as housing shortages, transport congestion, pressures on the NHS and on schools. In a world on the move, however, it is a phenomenon to which we will have to adapt. If we do not, the political and social consequences 20 years from now could be bleak.