The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was reading in New Statesman Magazine... The recon that nearly 1/3 of the White British Population in the next General Election will vote either BNP or UKIP, as they believe that New Labour have given very little to the British People... instead more money goes to imigrants. Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK.. SCREW THAT... should have left them at Cuba. I'm not a facist, but I can see their point about controlling imigration, you have not got the slightest clue who the hell the people are coming in; they might bomb a school (like what happened in Russia), or commit acts of evil things against the British citizens.
Page:
Kevstar, I don't know if you were around when Forest Fan was frequenting these forums, but you remind me hugely of him.
kevstar wrote:
> If you use immigration to solve the problem of filling jobs that
> people don't want to do, you create throughout the economic system an
> incentive not to take certain jobs seriously, just to regard them as
> things that can be done by people coming in from outside. And this
> doesn't solve the problem because those people then come in. They're
> rightly, treated as full citizens with choice of what they want to do
> themselves. And their children won't want to do those jobs, so that
> you're setting yourself into a position where you constantly need new
> immigrants in order to balance your economy and I think that the
> overall indirect effects of this are very harmful to the economy.
Ah, so you've now abandoned the report and are moving back into straightforward "This is my opinion, and it's right" territory? Okay then...
YOU think the effects of this are harmful to the economy? Based on what exactly? Because, y'know, the report you so kindly provided me with to destroy every single ill-informed statement you've made...that report says no such thing. In fact, it says that with a little help, the immigrants performing godawful jobs can have their social situation improved and thus they'll pull far more money into the economy.
In other words, you've created another fantasy scenario in your head to try and back up why nasty darkies should be kept out. I grant you that you've at least had the good sense to couch it in terms of "people will want to better themselves and will no longer want to do those jobs". But if they DO better themselves, they're bringing in more money for our economy. So it's a win-win situation when it comes to letting in immigrants, isn't it?
>
> Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this
> is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build
> effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the
> additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would not
> take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South
> East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to
> live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going
> to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country
> very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues
> of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one
> planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will
> come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed
> for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part of
> the country.
Well, at least you've made a tiny effort to hide the fact that you got that figure from ImmigrationWatch UK, that well known organisation with links to the BNP. They always use the city of Cambridge as an example. You've gone for Oxford. Nice.
Amazingly, you haven't bothered to take account of the number of people who leave the UK each year, whether by emigration or just good old fashioned death. So all you've done is given one side of the story and said "So this PROVES immigrants are evil!".
Y'know, it's funny; not 3 post ago you were agreeing that there are no reliable stats on immigration figures. Yet here you are, trying to claim that you know the correct figures. It's almost as if you've forgotten what you've previously said in your haste to try and prove why brown people shouldn't be allowed in the country.
I'm guessing you live in the South. And if I'm right, your opposition to immigration becomes increasingly clear; you assume that the majority will live near you, and you don't want to see an increased number of brown faces in your neighbourhood.
>
> Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you
> had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll
> have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It
> will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough as
> it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even
> further.
You mean apart from all the facts and evidence I've given you showing that your assertion about overcrowding and population growth is an utter lie? What do I say to you? I say that you're a vile little bigot who has absolutely no interest in finding out what the facts are, or in having a reasoned debate on the matter. Your ignorance is astounding, and the fact that you've simply tried to ignore the many reasons why your arguments are factually incorrect demonstrates your bigotry and racism in crystal clear terms. You keep talking about overcrowding, then produce discredited evidence at best, or no evidence at all at worst. You also admit that you personally have no experience of the overcrowding you warn about, and further admit that it's solely based on a Worst Case scenario that you've conjured up in your tiny little brain. And also, I'd say that you're a scaremongering little cocktard who, upon having every single argument conclusively dissected and disproved, falls back on what the Sun told him to think. Reduce quality of life? And just how will that happen when immigrants bring in 3 billion more than they cost? More overcrowding and congestion? Where's your evidence for that?
Finally I would say to you that, given the choice, I'd like to deal with your horrendously unpleasant and entirely unsupported arguments by deporting one bigoted little chav like you for every single immigrant that comes in.
> If you use immigration to solve the problem of filling jobs that
> people don't want to do, you create throughout the economic system an
> incentive not to take certain jobs seriously, just to regard them as
> things that can be done by people coming in from outside. And this
> doesn't solve the problem because those people then come in. They're
> rightly, treated as full citizens with choice of what they want to do
> themselves. And their children won't want to do those jobs, so that
> you're setting yourself into a position where you constantly need new
> immigrants in order to balance your economy and I think that the
> overall indirect effects of this are very harmful to the economy.
Ah, so you've now abandoned the report and are moving back into straightforward "This is my opinion, and it's right" territory? Okay then...
YOU think the effects of this are harmful to the economy? Based on what exactly? Because, y'know, the report you so kindly provided me with to destroy every single ill-informed statement you've made...that report says no such thing. In fact, it says that with a little help, the immigrants performing godawful jobs can have their social situation improved and thus they'll pull far more money into the economy.
In other words, you've created another fantasy scenario in your head to try and back up why nasty darkies should be kept out. I grant you that you've at least had the good sense to couch it in terms of "people will want to better themselves and will no longer want to do those jobs". But if they DO better themselves, they're bringing in more money for our economy. So it's a win-win situation when it comes to letting in immigrants, isn't it?
>
> Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this
> is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build
> effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the
> additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would not
> take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South
> East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to
> live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going
> to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country
> very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues
> of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one
> planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will
> come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed
> for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part of
> the country.
Well, at least you've made a tiny effort to hide the fact that you got that figure from ImmigrationWatch UK, that well known organisation with links to the BNP. They always use the city of Cambridge as an example. You've gone for Oxford. Nice.
Amazingly, you haven't bothered to take account of the number of people who leave the UK each year, whether by emigration or just good old fashioned death. So all you've done is given one side of the story and said "So this PROVES immigrants are evil!".
Y'know, it's funny; not 3 post ago you were agreeing that there are no reliable stats on immigration figures. Yet here you are, trying to claim that you know the correct figures. It's almost as if you've forgotten what you've previously said in your haste to try and prove why brown people shouldn't be allowed in the country.
I'm guessing you live in the South. And if I'm right, your opposition to immigration becomes increasingly clear; you assume that the majority will live near you, and you don't want to see an increased number of brown faces in your neighbourhood.
>
> Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you
> had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll
> have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It
> will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough as
> it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even
> further.
You mean apart from all the facts and evidence I've given you showing that your assertion about overcrowding and population growth is an utter lie? What do I say to you? I say that you're a vile little bigot who has absolutely no interest in finding out what the facts are, or in having a reasoned debate on the matter. Your ignorance is astounding, and the fact that you've simply tried to ignore the many reasons why your arguments are factually incorrect demonstrates your bigotry and racism in crystal clear terms. You keep talking about overcrowding, then produce discredited evidence at best, or no evidence at all at worst. You also admit that you personally have no experience of the overcrowding you warn about, and further admit that it's solely based on a Worst Case scenario that you've conjured up in your tiny little brain. And also, I'd say that you're a scaremongering little cocktard who, upon having every single argument conclusively dissected and disproved, falls back on what the Sun told him to think. Reduce quality of life? And just how will that happen when immigrants bring in 3 billion more than they cost? More overcrowding and congestion? Where's your evidence for that?
Finally I would say to you that, given the choice, I'd like to deal with your horrendously unpleasant and entirely unsupported arguments by deporting one bigoted little chav like you for every single immigrant that comes in.
If you use immigration to solve the problem of filling jobs that people don't want to do, you create throughout the economic system an incentive not to take certain jobs seriously, just to regard them as things that can be done by people coming in from outside. And this doesn't solve the problem because those people then come in. They're rightly, treated as full citizens with choice of what they want to do themselves. And their children won't want to do those jobs, so that you're setting yourself into a position where you constantly need new immigrants in order to balance your economy and I think that the overall indirect effects of this are very harmful to the economy.
Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would not take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part of the country.
Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough as it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even further.
Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would not take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part of the country.
Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough as it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even further.
kevstar wrote:
> Naaa, the report clearly shows there is some sort of 2 tier system.
> The ones who want to work are basically covering the ones who don't.
> So yeahh, as your correct in saying we arn't loosing money overall,
> but that doesn't mean theres not a problem with the ones who don't
> work.
There really is no limit to your ignorance is there? Tell me, after you've read this quote;
This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
Do you STILL think that the report says there's a problem with "the ones who don't work"? Because the report doesn't seem to be saying they're not working. It seems to be saying that they simply don't get enough income to make a net contribution. So using your logic, that means anyone who is on, for example, housing benefit should be deported. Oh, nope; silly me. It's only the brown ones who should be deported, right?
The "2 tier" system you're blathering on about is the split between educated immigrants, and the poor sods who end up doing all the sh!tty work. It is NOT a split between working and non-working (did you even read the quote mentioning the MYTH of migrants on benefit?) Would you like to explain your plans for filling those dirty, unpleasant jobs using nice white english people?
And finally; "the ones who work cover the ones who don't". What, as opposed to white people on benefit? You absolute f*((&ng idiot; that describes every welfare and social security system on earth. And that's before we even get onto the fact that the report doesn't state anywhere that the immigrants aren't working...
>
> The fact is, they are people who seem to be abusing our system, as
> the graph shows not just a few. The number of immigrants claiming
> child benefit has always been high, and there ment to come here to
> work?
>
> Quote
>
> In terms of economic activity, migrants are less likely to be
> employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
> by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the
> high proportion of international students.
>
> Yep, theese are some of the people i'm talking about who don't
> contribute.
Oh for fu...
Yes, it says high proportion AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BOX OF OLD MANS DEATHSMELL. International student are here temporarily. To study. Tell me, should be ban dirty foreigners from coming to our great land to go to University?
You'll also note that it mentions female migrants. Well now; don't you think that maybe, just maybe, their husbands are working?
I'm constantly astounded by your blatant racism. You've had it pointed out to you, in words of one syllable, that there is not one single report or one piece of evidence that shows "these people" are here to abuse our system. Yet you continue to insist there are lots. The graph you mention has been, as I've covered above, misinterpreted by you. I find myself wondering if the misinterpretation is due to stupidity, or is deliberate and cos of racism.
>
> Also, the ILO rate of unemployment for the foreign born is higher
> than that for the UK-born.
>
> Hmmm, well theres a suprise.
Yes it is; thanks to racists like you who refuse to employ nasty dirty foreigners. Yet despite that, we make a net profit from immigrants. If only those pure, white chavs were so determined to work, eh?
>
> Of those
> employed, migrants exhibit higher rates of self-employment, perhaps
> supporting anecdotal evidence that they
> are more entrepreneurial than the UK-born population.
>
> Theese are the people I don't mind coming here, people who are
> willing to work.
Which, as I constantly keep telling you, is the same basis that UK Immigration lets people into the country.
>
> Self-employment may also be a response to labour
> market barriers and may reflect disadvantage faced in gaining
> employment.
Heh. I can't quite believe you've added this paragraph, as it entirely backs up my point of racism making it difficult for immigrants to get work.
I despair of you, I really do; you've ignored entirely the conclusion of the report which states, graphically, that immigrants give us a net financial benefit, and the ones who are a net financial loss can very easily be made into a profit by means of a few simple schemes. Yet you selectively pick about 2 quotes and try to state that they prove what you're saying. You've learned quite a lot from Kilroy, haven't you?
> Naaa, the report clearly shows there is some sort of 2 tier system.
> The ones who want to work are basically covering the ones who don't.
> So yeahh, as your correct in saying we arn't loosing money overall,
> but that doesn't mean theres not a problem with the ones who don't
> work.
There really is no limit to your ignorance is there? Tell me, after you've read this quote;
This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
Do you STILL think that the report says there's a problem with "the ones who don't work"? Because the report doesn't seem to be saying they're not working. It seems to be saying that they simply don't get enough income to make a net contribution. So using your logic, that means anyone who is on, for example, housing benefit should be deported. Oh, nope; silly me. It's only the brown ones who should be deported, right?
The "2 tier" system you're blathering on about is the split between educated immigrants, and the poor sods who end up doing all the sh!tty work. It is NOT a split between working and non-working (did you even read the quote mentioning the MYTH of migrants on benefit?) Would you like to explain your plans for filling those dirty, unpleasant jobs using nice white english people?
And finally; "the ones who work cover the ones who don't". What, as opposed to white people on benefit? You absolute f*((&ng idiot; that describes every welfare and social security system on earth. And that's before we even get onto the fact that the report doesn't state anywhere that the immigrants aren't working...
>
> The fact is, they are people who seem to be abusing our system, as
> the graph shows not just a few. The number of immigrants claiming
> child benefit has always been high, and there ment to come here to
> work?
>
> Quote
>
> In terms of economic activity, migrants are less likely to be
> employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
> by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the
> high proportion of international students.
>
> Yep, theese are some of the people i'm talking about who don't
> contribute.
Oh for fu...
Yes, it says high proportion AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BOX OF OLD MANS DEATHSMELL. International student are here temporarily. To study. Tell me, should be ban dirty foreigners from coming to our great land to go to University?
You'll also note that it mentions female migrants. Well now; don't you think that maybe, just maybe, their husbands are working?
I'm constantly astounded by your blatant racism. You've had it pointed out to you, in words of one syllable, that there is not one single report or one piece of evidence that shows "these people" are here to abuse our system. Yet you continue to insist there are lots. The graph you mention has been, as I've covered above, misinterpreted by you. I find myself wondering if the misinterpretation is due to stupidity, or is deliberate and cos of racism.
>
> Also, the ILO rate of unemployment for the foreign born is higher
> than that for the UK-born.
>
> Hmmm, well theres a suprise.
Yes it is; thanks to racists like you who refuse to employ nasty dirty foreigners. Yet despite that, we make a net profit from immigrants. If only those pure, white chavs were so determined to work, eh?
>
> Of those
> employed, migrants exhibit higher rates of self-employment, perhaps
> supporting anecdotal evidence that they
> are more entrepreneurial than the UK-born population.
>
> Theese are the people I don't mind coming here, people who are
> willing to work.
Which, as I constantly keep telling you, is the same basis that UK Immigration lets people into the country.
>
> Self-employment may also be a response to labour
> market barriers and may reflect disadvantage faced in gaining
> employment.
Heh. I can't quite believe you've added this paragraph, as it entirely backs up my point of racism making it difficult for immigrants to get work.
I despair of you, I really do; you've ignored entirely the conclusion of the report which states, graphically, that immigrants give us a net financial benefit, and the ones who are a net financial loss can very easily be made into a profit by means of a few simple schemes. Yet you selectively pick about 2 quotes and try to state that they prove what you're saying. You've learned quite a lot from Kilroy, haven't you?
Naaa, the report clearly shows there is some sort of 2 tier system. The ones who want to work are basically covering the ones who don't. So yeahh, as your correct in saying we arn't loosing money overall, but that doesn't mean theres not a problem with the ones who don't work.
The fact is, they are people who seem to be abusing our system, as the graph shows not just a few. The number of immigrants claiming child benefit has always been high, and there ment to come here to work?
Quote
In terms of economic activity, migrants are less likely to be employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the high proportion of international students.
Yep, theese are some of the people i'm talking about who don't contribute.
Also, the ILO rate of unemployment for the foreign born is higher than that for the UK-born.
Hmmm, well theres a suprise.
Of those
employed, migrants exhibit higher rates of self-employment, perhaps supporting anecdotal evidence that they
are more entrepreneurial than the UK-born population.
Theese are the people I don't mind coming here, people who are willing to work.
Self-employment may also be a response to labour
market barriers and may reflect disadvantage faced in gaining employment.
The fact is, they are people who seem to be abusing our system, as the graph shows not just a few. The number of immigrants claiming child benefit has always been high, and there ment to come here to work?
Quote
In terms of economic activity, migrants are less likely to be employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the high proportion of international students.
Yep, theese are some of the people i'm talking about who don't contribute.
Also, the ILO rate of unemployment for the foreign born is higher than that for the UK-born.
Hmmm, well theres a suprise.
Of those
employed, migrants exhibit higher rates of self-employment, perhaps supporting anecdotal evidence that they
are more entrepreneurial than the UK-born population.
Theese are the people I don't mind coming here, people who are willing to work.
Self-employment may also be a response to labour
market barriers and may reflect disadvantage faced in gaining employment.
kevstar wrote:
> Light wrote
>
> >Wheres the evidence
>
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ77migrant.pdf[/URL]
>
> You see, I had a look to see what effects immigration is having in
> this Country. Have a look at the graphs regarding immigrants claiming
> benefits and whatever else. You will see that there are indications
> indeed that people are taking advantage which you were so quick to
> dismiss.
Let me just paste a few quotes from this report;
"The public debate over migration into the UK is often over-simplistic and ill informed, sometimes distorted by
myths about the extent to which migrants draw on our welfare state, and without sufficient appreciation of the
benefits they can bring. "
Which would seem to address your stupendously bigoted idiocy re "Immigrants come over here and rely on benefits!"
"In addition, original analysis of the fiscal effect in the UK has been carried out. This
suggests that migrants do make a net fiscal contribution. Although the fiscal impact is positive overall for the
migrant population, it is likely that this aggregate result masks the differential performance of subsections of
this population."
"...it is estimated that in 1999/2000 migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes
and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and state services, a net fiscal contribution of approximately £2.5
billion after rounding. "
In other words, overall immigrants boost the economy. Certain groups of immigrants, apparently, do not. Which leads me to...
"Though migrants are
found to make a positive net fiscal contribution overall, some do less well economically than others, and are
likely to have a negative fiscal impact. Domestic policies aimed at improving access to the labour market and
tackling social exclusion can help to address this."
Do you see that kevstar? See how the report fails to say "So lets deport them dastardly darkies!!"? Have you noted how it's said "Let's do our best to ensure that immigrants at the lower end of the social scale are integrated and have a chance to earn a living". Did you notice kevstar? Did you even read the report? And if you did, did you understand it?
Finally, I'd like to quote the entire conclusion to the report;
"Conclusions
This paper has undertaken to explore the fiscal impact produced by migrants living in the UK through analysis
of the theoretical, empirical and statistical material and by attempting to estimate the Net Annual Fiscal Impact
of current first-generation migrants in the UK. The new analysis suggests that current migrants are not a burden
on UK taxpayers, but on the contrary make a net fiscal contribution. Although this analysis is fairly tentative it
gives some indication of the economic and fiscal importance of the migrant population living in the UK.
Although the fiscal impact is positive overall for the migrant population, it is likely that this aggregate result
masks the differential performance of subsections of this population. However, the aims of government are
wider than the purely economic and there may be some entirely legitimate government policies related to
immigration and asylum which do not necessarily produce a positive fiscal impact – where the aims may be,
for instance, humanitarian.
The analysis identified a number of characteristics that have a significant impact on fiscal outcomes. These
include age, economic activity, skills and qualifications, and route of entry.
The entry of migrants with a high probability of finding employment, especially high-income employment, is
likely to generate fiscal gains. But migrants also produce indirect fiscal effects, for example, by introducing
new industries and/or increasing the productivity of existing labour and capital, thereby stimulating the level
and growth rate of production. This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
So you see (or you would have you done anything other than look at the graphs; what kind of a person, when faced with a report, looks only at the pictures?!), the conclusions are that immigration has a positive effect, that it can be made to have EVEN MORE of a positive effect, and that the myths about overreliance on benefits are just that; myths.
You my dear boy are fast proving yourself to be a number of things;
1. A bigot; you've read a paper that is in favour of immigration, and you've fixated on a graph or two that you misunderstood anyway. Which also means you're
2. Remarkably stupid. You've given me a link to a paper that backs up my arguments, and utterly opposes every single one you've made. Which leads me onto why you're such
3. A tool.
> No we don't, if thats the case why is there more people inactive and
> also more people unemployed? You also ask why I havn't mentioned the
> white folks who our also making our NHS struggle by drinking on
> friday and getting into accidents. Well this topic isn't about white
> folks, is it.
Ah, now we get to it; because immigrants are never white are they? Have a read of what gerrid has to say about white european immigration. Lets see if you have anything to say about that.
And the point of the NHS thing is that you keep bleating about how "our services are stretched and it MUST be the fault of immigrants". I'm simply pointing out one of the many reasons WHY our services are stretched. And you...are trying to ignore it. Presumably in order to maintain your xenophobic prejudice.
Are there more people inactive and unemployed? Well now; the report that you've linked to states, very clearly, that immigrants produce a net profit in terms of the UK economy. Do you understand what that means? It means that we make more money out of immigration than we lose.
>
> And ohh, come on, calling me a bigot for saying what the home office
> has indicated in there reports, well it seems the bigot may just well
> be you. Notice one of the quotes in the links...."although
> migrants are previlent at the high end of the earnings distribution,
> however, there is also a high proportion foriegn born
> residents in the lower income catagory"(which i'm assuming are
> people on benefits).
Heheheheheh. No, because you see, I've in fact read the whole of the report. Unlike you. The home office report has directly contradicted what you've said;
You said: "that maybee because more migrants are claiming
unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit."
The report said: "The public debate over migration into the UK is often over-simplistic and ill informed, sometimes distorted by
myths about the extent to which migrants draw on our welfare state, and without sufficient appreciation of the
benefits they can bring. "
You noted the point about how there is a high proportion of foreign born residents in the low income category. However, you clearly didn't bother to read the point where they said;
This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
In other words, the report singularly fails to say "deport 'em". In fact, it makes a point of stating the overall fiscal gains, and methods to improve the fiscal outcome. Do you see?
Oh, and do you actually understand what a bigot is? I ask because your accusing me of being one smacks of a "I know you are but what am I?" piece of childishness. Which is fine; all kids say that when they don't understand what they've been called.
So then; thus far you've ignored the majority of the points I and others have raised in favour of posting a single link. You've then given one quote and a graph from that link that you say backs up what you're saying. I've read the report, and given numerous quotes from it that undermine and destroy your increasingly shrill, illogical, xenophobic, bigoted arguments. Would you like to go on? I'm happy for you to try and produce more "evidence" as it's clear that you don't read it properly in the first place.
> Light wrote
>
> >Wheres the evidence
>
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ77migrant.pdf[/URL]
>
> You see, I had a look to see what effects immigration is having in
> this Country. Have a look at the graphs regarding immigrants claiming
> benefits and whatever else. You will see that there are indications
> indeed that people are taking advantage which you were so quick to
> dismiss.
Let me just paste a few quotes from this report;
"The public debate over migration into the UK is often over-simplistic and ill informed, sometimes distorted by
myths about the extent to which migrants draw on our welfare state, and without sufficient appreciation of the
benefits they can bring. "
Which would seem to address your stupendously bigoted idiocy re "Immigrants come over here and rely on benefits!"
"In addition, original analysis of the fiscal effect in the UK has been carried out. This
suggests that migrants do make a net fiscal contribution. Although the fiscal impact is positive overall for the
migrant population, it is likely that this aggregate result masks the differential performance of subsections of
this population."
"...it is estimated that in 1999/2000 migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes
and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and state services, a net fiscal contribution of approximately £2.5
billion after rounding. "
In other words, overall immigrants boost the economy. Certain groups of immigrants, apparently, do not. Which leads me to...
"Though migrants are
found to make a positive net fiscal contribution overall, some do less well economically than others, and are
likely to have a negative fiscal impact. Domestic policies aimed at improving access to the labour market and
tackling social exclusion can help to address this."
Do you see that kevstar? See how the report fails to say "So lets deport them dastardly darkies!!"? Have you noted how it's said "Let's do our best to ensure that immigrants at the lower end of the social scale are integrated and have a chance to earn a living". Did you notice kevstar? Did you even read the report? And if you did, did you understand it?
Finally, I'd like to quote the entire conclusion to the report;
"Conclusions
This paper has undertaken to explore the fiscal impact produced by migrants living in the UK through analysis
of the theoretical, empirical and statistical material and by attempting to estimate the Net Annual Fiscal Impact
of current first-generation migrants in the UK. The new analysis suggests that current migrants are not a burden
on UK taxpayers, but on the contrary make a net fiscal contribution. Although this analysis is fairly tentative it
gives some indication of the economic and fiscal importance of the migrant population living in the UK.
Although the fiscal impact is positive overall for the migrant population, it is likely that this aggregate result
masks the differential performance of subsections of this population. However, the aims of government are
wider than the purely economic and there may be some entirely legitimate government policies related to
immigration and asylum which do not necessarily produce a positive fiscal impact – where the aims may be,
for instance, humanitarian.
The analysis identified a number of characteristics that have a significant impact on fiscal outcomes. These
include age, economic activity, skills and qualifications, and route of entry.
The entry of migrants with a high probability of finding employment, especially high-income employment, is
likely to generate fiscal gains. But migrants also produce indirect fiscal effects, for example, by introducing
new industries and/or increasing the productivity of existing labour and capital, thereby stimulating the level
and growth rate of production. This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
So you see (or you would have you done anything other than look at the graphs; what kind of a person, when faced with a report, looks only at the pictures?!), the conclusions are that immigration has a positive effect, that it can be made to have EVEN MORE of a positive effect, and that the myths about overreliance on benefits are just that; myths.
You my dear boy are fast proving yourself to be a number of things;
1. A bigot; you've read a paper that is in favour of immigration, and you've fixated on a graph or two that you misunderstood anyway. Which also means you're
2. Remarkably stupid. You've given me a link to a paper that backs up my arguments, and utterly opposes every single one you've made. Which leads me onto why you're such
3. A tool.
> No we don't, if thats the case why is there more people inactive and
> also more people unemployed? You also ask why I havn't mentioned the
> white folks who our also making our NHS struggle by drinking on
> friday and getting into accidents. Well this topic isn't about white
> folks, is it.
Ah, now we get to it; because immigrants are never white are they? Have a read of what gerrid has to say about white european immigration. Lets see if you have anything to say about that.
And the point of the NHS thing is that you keep bleating about how "our services are stretched and it MUST be the fault of immigrants". I'm simply pointing out one of the many reasons WHY our services are stretched. And you...are trying to ignore it. Presumably in order to maintain your xenophobic prejudice.
Are there more people inactive and unemployed? Well now; the report that you've linked to states, very clearly, that immigrants produce a net profit in terms of the UK economy. Do you understand what that means? It means that we make more money out of immigration than we lose.
>
> And ohh, come on, calling me a bigot for saying what the home office
> has indicated in there reports, well it seems the bigot may just well
> be you. Notice one of the quotes in the links...."although
> migrants are previlent at the high end of the earnings distribution,
> however, there is also a high proportion foriegn born
> residents in the lower income catagory"(which i'm assuming are
> people on benefits).
Heheheheheh. No, because you see, I've in fact read the whole of the report. Unlike you. The home office report has directly contradicted what you've said;
You said: "that maybee because more migrants are claiming
unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit."
The report said: "The public debate over migration into the UK is often over-simplistic and ill informed, sometimes distorted by
myths about the extent to which migrants draw on our welfare state, and without sufficient appreciation of the
benefits they can bring. "
You noted the point about how there is a high proportion of foreign born residents in the low income category. However, you clearly didn't bother to read the point where they said;
This means that even if migrants do not make a fiscal contribution directly they
may still produce indirect and overall fiscal gains.
Policies which would improve the rate of employment, skills, especially English language fluency, and social
inclusion are among those suggested to improve migrants’ fiscal outcomes."
In other words, the report singularly fails to say "deport 'em". In fact, it makes a point of stating the overall fiscal gains, and methods to improve the fiscal outcome. Do you see?
Oh, and do you actually understand what a bigot is? I ask because your accusing me of being one smacks of a "I know you are but what am I?" piece of childishness. Which is fine; all kids say that when they don't understand what they've been called.
So then; thus far you've ignored the majority of the points I and others have raised in favour of posting a single link. You've then given one quote and a graph from that link that you say backs up what you're saying. I've read the report, and given numerous quotes from it that undermine and destroy your increasingly shrill, illogical, xenophobic, bigoted arguments. Would you like to go on? I'm happy for you to try and produce more "evidence" as it's clear that you don't read it properly in the first place.
kevstar wrote:
> which i'm assuming are people on benefits.
You know what they say about assuming..........
> which i'm assuming are people on benefits.
You know what they say about assuming..........
Light wrote
>Wheres the evidence
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ77migrant.pdf[/URL]
You see, I had a look to see what effects immigration is having in this Country. Have a look at the graphs regarding immigrants claiming benefits and whatever else. You will see that there are indications indeed that people are taking advantage which you were so quick to dismiss.
>Pardon me but, currently, we DO pick and choose on the basis of who is likely to contribute. That is EXACTLY how the immigration service operates.
No we don't, if thats the case why is there more people inactive and also more people unemployed? You also ask why I havn't mentioned the white folks who our also making our NHS struggle by drinking on friday and getting into accidents. Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it.
And ohh, come on, calling me a bigot for saying what the home office has indicated in there reports, well it seems the bigot may just well be you. Notice one of the quotes in the links...."although migrants are previlent at the high end of the earnings distribution, however, there is also a high proportion foriegn born residents in the lower income catagory"(which i'm assuming are people on benefits).
>Wheres the evidence
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ77migrant.pdf[/URL]
You see, I had a look to see what effects immigration is having in this Country. Have a look at the graphs regarding immigrants claiming benefits and whatever else. You will see that there are indications indeed that people are taking advantage which you were so quick to dismiss.
>Pardon me but, currently, we DO pick and choose on the basis of who is likely to contribute. That is EXACTLY how the immigration service operates.
No we don't, if thats the case why is there more people inactive and also more people unemployed? You also ask why I havn't mentioned the white folks who our also making our NHS struggle by drinking on friday and getting into accidents. Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it.
And ohh, come on, calling me a bigot for saying what the home office has indicated in there reports, well it seems the bigot may just well be you. Notice one of the quotes in the links...."although migrants are previlent at the high end of the earnings distribution, however, there is also a high proportion foriegn born residents in the lower income catagory"(which i'm assuming are people on benefits).
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Stuff
An excellent point actually. I'd forgotten how much those ethnicity forms one has to fill in for application forms annoy me. Stats on race and crime would probably send me to boiling point.
And as you say, stats are no guarantee; look at the way that nice Mr Kilroy twists figures in order to fit with his own prejudice.
gerrid wrote:
> More Stuff
All of which I agree with. It's actually been reasonably distressing seeing kevstar essentially unmask himself as a bigot over the last week. I'm guessing it's a surprise to him as well; as you say, he thinks he's just being sensible.
> Stuff
An excellent point actually. I'd forgotten how much those ethnicity forms one has to fill in for application forms annoy me. Stats on race and crime would probably send me to boiling point.
And as you say, stats are no guarantee; look at the way that nice Mr Kilroy twists figures in order to fit with his own prejudice.
gerrid wrote:
> More Stuff
All of which I agree with. It's actually been reasonably distressing seeing kevstar essentially unmask himself as a bigot over the last week. I'm guessing it's a surprise to him as well; as you say, he thinks he's just being sensible.
People just assume that immigrants are job stealling scumbags who come into our country and eat up our benefits, because that's what the Daily Mail tells them.
Page: