Has immigration had an overall positive or negative effect on Britain?

Fratton Fred

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Ha Ha, I think 56 out of 59 Seats says otherwise!!

Lol, omg, ha ha etc.

You specifically said Scotland (who voted no to independence 6 months ago), Cornwall (entirely conservative with no form of an independence party) and Wales (where PC, the only nationalist party got a massive 12%).

Your argument is a false one and using it in a thread about immigration is irrelevant.

Eric Cartman

I think if the NHS and the welfare state were not in play , immigration would be an overall positive thing for britain. If you imposed the australian model , a 10 year welfare ban and 5 years of NI payments before NHS coverage you'd only have positive immigration.

FreudianSlippers

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think if the NHS and the welfare state were not in play , immigration would be an overall positive thing for britain. If you imposed the australian model , a 10 year welfare ban and 5 years of NI payments before NHS coverage you'd only have positive immigration.

I think that's a bit temporally excessive, but in theory I agree.

Lt J.R. Bell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not as easy to be defined a worker as you'd think.

D.M. Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-53/81, 23 March 1982



Steven Malcolm Brown v The Secretary of State for Scotland, C-197/86, 21 June 1988


The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen, C-292/89, 26 February 1991


I will agree that the bar is quite low, but the argument being that people are coming over and going straight on welfare without ever working isn't necessarily accurate.

Find the statement , where I said that people are coming over and going straight on welfare without ever working".

I do not have the remotest interest in what you thought I said or what you thought I implied. I did not say or imply that all they have to do is come here and get welfare


This is what I said

"Once you fall into that category, and maintain that status, [S]even if you aren't working[/S], right and access to welfare shall be there, regardless of habitual residency rules"


What I did say was that they have to come here , become a worker, which is extremely easy to prove and hardly a huge hurdle, work for a period of time, and even though they might loose their job, depending on the circumstances, they might still fall into the category of a "worker". Job seekers are also considered "workers"


If you maintain that status of worker and thus be entitled to welfare without the restrictions such as period of residency.

As for the definition of worker, I assume you know the facts of many of these cases, and how easy it was to prove that a job was a pursuit of effective and genuine activities. Hence, it is pretty easy for prove that you are a worker. No need for 20-40 hours work, 10 -15 may suffice .

FreudianSlippers

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Find the statement , where I said that people are coming over and going straight on welfare without ever working".

I do not have the remotest interest in what you thought I said or what you thought I implied. I did not say or imply that all they have to do is come here and get welfare

I think you're over-reacting a bit here. I clearly did misread your post, but I was hardly attacking you.

This is what I said

"Once you fall into that category, and maintain that status, [S]even if you aren't working[/S], right and access to welfare shall be there, regardless of habitual residency rules"

Agreed, and I think that once one has contributed for a requisite amount of time to the tax pool of that MS they should be entitled (3-5 years perhaps).

What I did say was that they have to come here , become a worker, which is extremely easy to prove and hardly a huge hurdle, work for a period of time, and even though they might loose their job, depending on the circumstances, they might still fall into the category of a "worker". Job seekers are also considered "workers"


If you maintain that status of worker and thus be entitled to welfare without the restrictions such as period of residency.

As for the definition of worker, I assume you know the facts of many of these cases, and how easy it was to prove that a job was a pursuit of effective and genuine activities. Hence, it is pretty easy for prove that you are a worker. No need for 20-40 hours work, 10 -15 may suffice .

My point was that they have to do work that is "effective and genuine, with the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary" - working 10-15 hours (unless you're in education) would almost certainly count as "marginal and ancillary".

Bob24

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think immigration has been neutral for Britain.

I do think that immigration is far too broad of an idea though:

1) intra-EU immigration has certainly been net positive for Britain. I think there are certainly EU citizens taking advantage of the UK's welfare system, but there are adequate EU/English laws in place to deal with these people - they just aren't adequately enforced (just as they aren't in Ireland either).

2) non-EU immigration (developing world) has been net negative for Britain. I really don't believe there is a lot of desire to work, integrate or contribute to Britain in many sectors of non-EU, non-Western immigrants. I don't believe they are overwhelmingly negative, but I would certainly argue that for every 1 that does attempt to genuinely be a positive contributor, there are 2 that don't/aren't - and I believe for EU/Western immigrants, this figure is reversed.

I think that gives the media and those who are xenophobic concerned about immigration levels a lot of ammunition to tar all immigrants with the same brush. If EU immigration was more controlled, I think it would be easier to tackle some of the problem areas vis-a-vis immigration/integration.

Well said - to look at the effects of immigration you need to allow yourself to separate it into different flows based on time periods, geographical origins, cultural origins, reasons for immigrating, etc. and then give some type of judgement on how well each flow is working (meaning you will have to say some categories of immigrants are better than others for the country). Problem is political correctness and people who support any type of immigration no matter what are making this difficult and prefer a high level view to avoid pointing fingers at anyone.

Overall I think immigration is currently having an overall slightly negative effect as it is poorly managed (but it has not always been the case and of course this is not to say all immigrants are having a negative effect).

MathDebater

EU migration has been a net financial benefit for the UK. Non EU migration has been a net drain.

Immigrants from Poland and the other nine countries that joined the EU in 2004 have contributed almost £5 billion more to the UK’s economy than they used in benefits and public services.

Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EEA arrivals.

Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

Bob24

MathDebater wrote: »

EU migration has been a net financial benefit for the UK. Non EU migration has been a net drain.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

Interesting ... I assume because migrants from Europe tend to come on their own to work while migrants from further or less well-off locations tend to bring more family members which are not in a position to work for one taxpayer (and as FreudianSlippers alluded to, some are also attracted by a welfare state which their home country might not have - whereas this doesn't apply that much to EU immigration especially since the UK probably isn't the most generous one in Europe).

And while it is an important factor, immediate financial benefits to the country should definitely not be the only criteria to say immigration is having a positive effect. Social, cultural, and economic integration of the migrants (and their kids) in the longer term is probably more important (at least for those migrants who are intending to settle and not to return home - if it is short term studies or work assignments, social and cultural integration doesn't really matter to me). I am also a firm believer in assimilation and I think migrants who are refusing to adopt local customs after several generations will cause issues at some point even if they are doing well in terms of economic integration (saying this as a migrant from the EU to Ireland myself).

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think if the NHS and the welfare state were not in play , immigration would be an overall positive thing for britain. If you imposed the australian model , a 10 year welfare ban and 5 years of NI payments before NHS coverage you'd only have positive immigration.

Most immigrants don't claim welfare and are in their 20s and 30s so don't really use the NHS and are therefore not a drain on it for the most part.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most immigrants don't claim welfare and are in their 20s and 30s so don't really use the NHS and are therefore not a drain on it for the most part.

well then my plan won't cause a problem will it.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most immigrants don't claim welfare and are in their 20s and 30s so don't really use the NHS and are therefore not a drain on it for the most part.

If you are only looking at economic migrants, and ignoring their family members which are not in employment.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well then my plan won't cause a problem will it.

It would be discriminatory for one thing. Surely if one isn't entitled to NHS care then they shouldn't be expected to pay for it. The Australian system is fraught with bureaucracy and would stop a lot of people getting in by that alone.

Lt J.R. Bell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you're over-reacting a bit here. I clearly did misread your post, but I was hardly attacking you.



Agreed, and I think that once one has contributed for a requisite amount of time to the tax pool of that MS they should be entitled (3-5 years perhaps).

3-5 years ,agreed .

The Directives and Treaty specifically prohibit restrictions on entitlements on nationality, as you know., if you are a worker and workers of the host Member State has no such requirements to contribute (after 3-5 years). The German must be treated similarly to an Irish person , in similar situations . All workers, irrespective of nationality must be considered on the same basis (of course unemployment benefit does require contributions, while unemployment allowance is means tested)

If you are a student however, and only a student (and not a part time worker) then, the German might be expected to reside in the Host state for 3 years, compared to whatever is required of an Irish person , if any (Article 20 or 25 of Directive 2004/38EC)

That's really not a big deal, what is a big deal is the definition of a worker, and, for how long you can still be considered a worker if you are merely job searching;)

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My point was that they have to do work that is "effective and genuine, with the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary" - working 10-15 hours (unless you're in education) would almost certainly count as "marginal and ancillary".

Is that an opinion or a fact?

If it is an opinion, fair enough, personally I would agree with you.

If it is a fact, (according to you) , well, then, I am afraid, you are grossly misinformed . You are wrong.

Working 10-15 hours a week in a supermarket , cleaner , or any other manual labour, provided that you are working for another person IS NOT deemed as marginal and ancillary by the European Courts. It is accepted that you are a worker. Speaking as a person who has assisted people in those circumstances in getting their non eu spouses residency, I can attest to it. If need be, I could spend a considerable period of time outline the facts of the case law.

If you read the facts of the cases that you cited, and many of the other ones, you could be under no illusion that labour between 10 -15 hours ain't marginal or ancillary . It all depends on the circumstances as well. Europe has seen far more questionable cases than the examples I have set out.Suffice to say, some of the stuff over the years is bonkers, as standards from the more lean years of 1980's still apply today

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

If you are only looking at economic migrants, and ignoring their family members which are not in employment.

I'd say it's more likely that people come over alone as moving with a spouse is more difficult.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say it's more likely that people come over alone as moving with a spouse is more difficult.

More difficult but it is definitely not impossible (especially in the case of a spouse and children). Realistically any migrant which is coming on a medium to long term basis will only stay if they can have their family around. Most people who have been in the UK for years and already had a family before coming would have brought the wife and kids at some point (ost people would not accept to be separated in the long term).

Aslo someone posted a report earlier which confirms that on average the drag on public funds is higher than the tax paid. So even though there are many we cannot only be looking at 20-30 years old healthy and employed migrants.

ancapailldorcha

I certainly would't say that families never come over as well. If the spouse moves over as well then they're very likely to work and contribute also. A lot of migrants settle, marry a national and start a family.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It would be discriminatory for one thing. Surely if one isn't entitled to NHS care then they shouldn't be expected to pay for it. The Australian system is fraught with bureaucracy and would stop a lot of people getting in by that alone.

you pay first then get the care. think of it like health insurance and the waiting period here.

the australian system doesn't have to be carbon copied , but id rather red tape keeping a few good ones out than letting all the bad ones in.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you pay first then get the care. think of it like health insurance and the waiting period here.

the australian system doesn't have to be carbon copied , but id rather red tape keeping a few good ones out than letting all the bad ones in.

But almost all of them are ok. And it's not insurance if you're not covered in the first 5 years.

gallag

MathDebater wrote: »

EU migration has been a net financial benefit for the UK. Non EU migration has been a net drain.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

Is that report calming that EU migrants had a net of £5billion over 17 years? Also what services that the immigrants access has been included in the calculation? Housing demand? NHS? schooling and child benefits etc also I am pretty sure the immigrants send a lot of cash "home" would this have been figured? Also, if they are displacing the host population working class causing them to remain unemployed is that really being a net+?

gallag

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

3-5 years ,agreed .

The Directives and Treaty specifically prohibit restrictions on entitlements on nationality, as you know., if you are a worker and workers of the host Member State has no such requirements to contribute (after 3-5 years). The German must be treated similarly to an Irish person , in similar situations . All workers, irrespective of nationality must be considered on the same basis (of course unemployment benefit does require contributions, while unemployment allowance is means tested)

If you are a student however, and only a student (and not a part time worker) then, the German might be expected to reside in the Host state for 3 years, compared to whatever is required of an Irish person , if any (Article 20 or 25 of Directive 2004/38EC)

That's really not a big deal, what is a big deal is the definition of a worker, and, for how long you can still be considered a worker if you are merely job searching;)




Is that an opinion or a fact?

If it is an opinion, fair enough, personally I would agree with you.

If it is a fact, (according to you) , well, then, I am afraid, you are grossly misinformed . You are wrong.

Working 10-15 hours a week in a supermarket , cleaner , or any other manual labour, provided that you are working for another person IS NOT deemed as marginal and ancillary by the European Courts. It is accepted that you are a worker. Speaking as a person who has assisted people in those circumstances in getting their non eu spouses residency, I can attest to it. If need be, I could spend a considerable period of time outline the facts of the case law.

If you read the facts of the cases that you cited, and many of the other ones, you could be under no illusion that labour between 10 -15 hours ain't marginal or ancillary . It all depends on the circumstances as well. Europe has seen far more questionable cases than the examples I have set out.Suffice to say, some of the stuff over the years is bonkers, as standards from the more lean years of 1980's still apply today

16 hours selling the big issue is enough to qualify for in work benefits in the UK.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But almost all of them are ok. And it's not insurance if you're not covered in the first 5 years.

explain that to VHI for their waiting period, perhaps 5 years could be flexible, but the idea that somebody could land in the UK on monday and be receiving heart surgery on the NHS for free on the friday without contributing anything is madness.

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Is that report calming that EU migrants had a net of £5billion over 17 years? Also what services that the immigrants access has been included in the calculation? Housing demand? NHS? schooling and child benefits etc also I am pretty sure the immigrants send a lot of cash "home" would this have been figured? Also, if they are displacing the host population working class causing them to remain unemployed is that really being a net+?

If it's a net figure then that will have been calculated.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

explain that to VHI for their waiting period, perhaps 5 years could be flexible, but the idea that somebody could land in the UK on monday and be receiving heart surgery on the NHS for free on the friday without contributing anything is madness.

How often does that scenario arise?

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How often does that scenario arise?

enough to cost between £70-£300 million a year. (daily mail say £2 billion but ill do us both a favour and not link that story)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

enough to cost between £70-£300 million a year. (daily mail say £2 billion but ill do us both a favour and not link that story)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

You're conflating Health tourists with immigrants.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it's a net figure then that will have been calculated.

I dont believe that, have you a link to the study?

ancapailldorcha

I do. Anyway, you can google it.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're conflating Health tourists with immigrants.

those are both immigration problems.

ancapailldorcha

No, they're not.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I certainly would't say that families never come over as well. If the spouse moves over as well then they're very likely to work and contribute also. A lot of migrants settle, marry a national and start a family.

Both family members of the household working would not be a clear majority (if a majority at all) in the case of migrant workers I think; even qualified ones. Saying this from my own experience in an IT multinational company: most non EU colleagues are from India and Russia (due to the fact the the company has been outsourcing in these countries and has now hired many of the best ex-contractors as full time employees here). All brought in wife and kids and none of their wives are working.