Exploit economic discontent to win anti-immigration votes

[alemcodon]

This is undoubtedly selective interpretation. Sometimes I come to expect better from you, I don't know why.

It is one thing to acknowledge a problem, it is another entirely to suggest how that problem should be addressed. Allow me to demonstrate:

Insufficient controls on immigration will burden the welfare state with a slew of people of limited means. (Acknowledging a problem)

Persecuting those people (once they have arrived) will alienate them from society leading to greater levels of crime (from benefit fraud to racial assault). (Addressing the problem).

Did you spend half an hour searching through threads just to be waspish? Really Dan...

It’s a ‘problem’ we hear a lot about, maybe hundreds of thousands of times on this forum alone, but how many times were numbers quoted and what do they mean?

People born abroad make 14%+ of our workforce, but contribute to only 7-8% of the population. Based on average salaries (and even minimum wage) they contribute relatively quite a lot more than British citizens to tax revenues.

We hear how ‘immigrants cost the welfare £3bn every year’, but relative to their tax contributions it’s not significant, no legitimate economists would make a bold statement as above, this is a journalists statement, economists have to put numbers into perspective, models are used, comparisons are made, proper analysis is done.

We can’t source exact figures except from the inland revenue, so we can only go by averages, even if your assumed every immigrant was on a minimum wage they still end up with favourable numbers. I’ve given these numbers quite s few times so all the racists here are well aware of what they are.

Total welfare bill costs the state £100, so £3bn is 3%, which relative to their numbers of 7-8% of the population, is again favourable. They cost less and contribute more than the average British citizen.

People also argue about the lack of job opportunities for British youngsters, if you remember 15+yrs ago there were actually shortages in labour supplies, and although unemployment figures showed x number unemployed, the people WILLING to work was actually a lot lower – hence the creation of JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE to combat the problem.

The collapse of various industries since then is a situation caused the credit crunch and not by immigrants, so the problem of unemployment will not rectified with immigration control, it will be fixed by restoring our industries, and fixing the problems with banking/international finance.

Most the people who complain about jobs/immigrants are people who have wasted their lives, but don’t have the courage to point the fingers at their own failures, so start pointing fingers at others.

Take Francis for example, we know he’s got kids, what do they do? Did they get their degree’s? They’ve taken the life of their parents, miserable, moaning, racists. So if they’re struggling in life, who’s fault is it? Maybe if they had proper guidance from their parents they might be Dr’s or Lawyers (I’m sure if they were we would have heard about it by now). Instead a family like that sits together and talks about how immigrants have ruined their lives.

You can’t fix a problem if you can’t even acknowledge it exists.

[Traditionalist]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-7718581.html

Whilst the links between Greece's economic woes and immigration may be limited, it is clearly finincial hardship that leads to a massive boost in votes for far-right parties (0.29% to 7%).

Violence against ethnic minorities has also increased.

A Nationalist party got 6% at the last Greek election.

[Traditionalist]

It’s a ‘problem’ we hear a lot about, maybe hundreds of thousands of times on this forum alone, but how many times were numbers quoted and what do they mean?

People born abroad make 14%+ of our workforce, but contribute to only 7-8% of the population. Based on average salaries (and even minimum wage) they contribute relatively quite a lot more than British citizens to tax revenues.

We hear how ‘immigrants cost the welfare £3bn every year’, but relative to their tax contributions it’s not significant, no legitimate economists would make a bold statement as above, this is a journalists statement, economists have to put numbers into perspective, models are used, comparisons are made, proper analysis is done.

We can’t source exact figures except from the inland revenue, so we can only go by averages, even if your assumed every immigrant was on a minimum wage they still end up with favourable numbers. I’ve given these numbers quite s few times so all the racists here are well aware of what they are.

Total welfare bill costs the state £100, so £3bn is 3%, which relative to their numbers of 7-8% of the population, is again favourable. They cost less and contribute more than the average British citizen.

People also argue about the lack of job opportunities for British youngsters, if you remember 15+yrs ago there were actually shortages in labour supplies, and although unemployment figures showed x number unemployed, the people WILLING to work was actually a lot lower – hence the creation of JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE to combat the problem.

The collapse of various industries since then is a situation caused the credit crunch and not by immigrants, so the problem of unemployment will not rectified with immigration control, it will be fixed by restoring our industries, and fixing the problems with banking/international finance.

Most the people who complain about jobs/immigrants are people who have wasted their lives, but don’t have the courage to point the fingers at their own failures, so start pointing fingers at others.

Take Francis for example, we know he’s got kids, what do they do? Did they get their degree’s? They’ve taken the life of their parents, miserable, moaning, racists. So if they’re struggling in life, who’s fault is it? Maybe if they had proper guidance from their parents they might be Dr’s or Lawyers (I’m sure if they were we would have heard about it by now). Instead a family like that sits together and talks about how immigrants have ruined their lives.

You can’t fix a problem if you can’t even acknowledge it exists.

Your figures are way out.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.
This back in 2007.
It does not include NHS costs, education of immigration children, costs of paying benefits to displaced indigenous workers, increased infrastructure costs etc etc.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1uTWFeogp

Immigration is an economic disaster of the highest order.

[alemcodon]

Your figures are way out.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.
This back in 2007.
It does not include NHS costs, education of immigration children, costs of paying benefits to displaced indigenous workers, increased infrastructure costs etc etc.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1uTWFeogp

Immigration is an economic disaster of the highest order.

Perfect exmaple of people with no idea about interpreting statistics.

If you want to compare the 'COST TO THE TAXPAYER', then you COMPARE it to the COST TO THE TAXPAYER to BRITISH CITIZENS, which would be what? Take the cost of those mentioned elements out of the total government expenditure and youll have a figure in the region of about £500bn at least,

Therefore £8bn/£500bn = ?% You cant source these figures, so how can you make a conclusion. Its like saying 1 + x = 10 but i dont know what x is.

So how can you even iterate that statement when you have NOTHING to compare it to.

A few months ago a daily mail article said 'IMMIGRANTS COST THE WELFARE £3bn'. So my calculations were RELATIVE to that statement and the calculations were comparing the cost of the WELFARE to Brits and Non-Brits as well as comparing the tax revenues from both groups. if you want to compare 'cost to tax payers' or 'cost to uk economy' then source figures for both groups and not just one.

We know about David Coleman, one of the co founders of ImmigrationWatch - ive proven his statistics are full of dog poop already, he might be working at oxford uni because his dad sucked some chaps schlongs in the 1850's but thats doesnt mean he knows the difference between his a*ss and his elbow.

Show me his study in detail, does he consider the tax revenues at all? This guy is not an economist, hes demographer (ie a geography teacher). He is not in a position to be analysing statistics. ive read nearly all of this guys papers already, these sort of comments do not make his papers because he knows they deserve no place in a study.

Would you go to a Dr for legal advice? Because thats practically what your doing.

Tax revenues are currently in the region of about £400bn, of which about £50-60 is from foreigners. if you want to factor costs, you have to factor revenues as well.

Brits contribute £350 in revenues, and cost £100bn alone in welfare, so what is the government left with from british citizens, hence, borrowing and debt accumulating for decades (until the immigration boom of the 90's)

Looking at his breakdown in more detail, hes included money sent abroad as a cost to the UK and its households, and thats included in the cost to households....its just complete ballonians because that money would have been from work/employers/business which are more than likely owned by foriegn firms in the first place.

How much we lose in those quoted figures is nothing compared to the value of the mobile phone market, all of which is owned by foriegn firms (currently worth about £15bn just on handsets), therefore a booming mobile phone market costs the UK househould about £600 a year = does that make any sense or is it complete b*llox? well its the same b*llux youve already acknowledged

[Dan Dare]

It simply remains for me to repeat what I wrote the previous time you offered up this tripe as an 'economic argument':

The problem with this kind of statement is that it fails to distinguish between the contributions of different types of migrant. On the one hand we have highly-paid corporate transferees with multinational companies who stay for a few years, pay extravagant amounts of tax and full NI, and then return home after a few years, without costing the taxpayer a penny. On the other we have subcontinentals and other third-worlders who arrive penniless and jobless and then spend a lifetime on benefits, as will many of their offspring.

[internetcynic]

hers a fact:

Immigrants have taken almost all of the 1.4 million new jobs created in the last 10 years. Every day Nu Labour was in power, on average, 560 immigrants got jobs here and 540 british people lost there jobs.

This isnt rocket science to add together.

[CSgt]

hers a fact:

Immigrants have taken almost all of the 1.4 million new jobs created in the last 10 years. Every day Nu Labour was in power, on average, 560 immigrants got jobs here and 540 british people lost there jobs.

This isnt rocket science to add together.

Where did you find this 'fact'? Did a bloke down the pub tell you this?

[flamingreen]

People born abroad make 14%+ of our workforce, but contribute to only 7-8% of the population

Wrong.
The fact is that while we know with soem degree of accuracy what percentage of the workforce they make up, nobody has a clue what percentage of the popualtion they form. I suggest at least 20%. the popualtion has sky rocketted in the last ten years and this is entirelyy due to people born abroad. If it is true that it is now 80 million then the additonal 20 million are all foreigners as well as some of the 60 million counted in the 2001 census.

[clockwork]

Wrong.
The fact is that while we know with soem degree of accuracy what percentage of the workforce they make up, nobody has a clue what percentage of the popualtion they form. I suggest at least 20%. the popualtion has sky rocketted in the last ten years and this is entirelyy due to people born abroad. If it is true that it is now 80 million then the additonal 20 million are all foreigners as well as some of the 60 million counted in the 2001 census.

Are you just plucking figures out of the air?

[flamingreen]

Are you just plucking figures out of the air?

NOt at all I am using the Tesco estimate of 80 million for the population and my own observations, from which its very obvious that foreigners make up more than 7% of the popualtion. Even relatively UNenriched towns have a foreign population of at least 10% while many of our cities are majority foreign or close to.

Alemcodons 5-7% however IS plucked from thin air.