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

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, you're ignoring a contribution and then having a pop at me? And I'm not good at debating?

Ignoring what contribution? So far that study has not included negative effects of displacing host population workers, wage deflation or money sent back to migrants home country but has placed a massive value on the education the migrant has brought to do mostly min wage unskilled labour! And I am on page 4 of 55. Now I am wondering how they appraised the Value of the migrants education? Do they Base it on average cost of first and second level UK wide or private schooling in a region.

Hang on, are you the guy that was recently arguing with me that every migrant man, woman and child contributed £70,000 per year to the exchequer?

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Ignoring what contribution? So far that study has not included negative effects of displacing host population workers, wage deflation or money sent back to migrants home country but has placed a massive value on the education the migrant has brought to do mostly min wage unskilled labour! And I am on page 4 of 55. Now I am wondering how they appraised the Value of the migrants education? Do they Base it on average cost of first and second level UK wide or private schooling in a region.

Hang on, are you the guy that was recently arguing with me that every migrant man, woman and child contributed £70,000 per year to the exchequer?

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

Of course they should be free to send it home, that was not my point, my point is that the fact they send it home should be included in any calculations trying to figure if migrants have a positive or negative on the economy.

Also if you truly believe that every migrant man, woman and child contribute £70,000 pound sterling to the UK exchequer then I am done even talking to you, that would be the most ridiculous argument the pro immagrant side has ever uttered and you would be an embarrassment to critical thought.

fryup

For Reals wrote: »

The descendants of German immigrants, such as the Queen, have done very well indeed, and do bring in tourist coin. Her Greek husband seems to do well too.

and not to mention the Paddys

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Of course they should be free to send it home, that was not my point, my point is that the fact they send it home should be included in any calculations trying to figure if migrants have a positive or negative on the economy.

Also if you truly believe that every migrant man, woman and child contribute £70,000 pound sterling to the UK exchequer then I am done even talking to you, that would be the most ridiculous argument the pro immagrant side has ever uttered and you would be an embarrassment to critical thought.

Do I really need to explain this to you? Actually, no. I'm done. It should be obvious but never mind.

MathDebater

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

The study found no such thing.

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

Do the maths. Overall, immigration has been a drain on the British exchequer.


It must also be remembered that the co-author of the report, a Mr Christian Dustmann, is extremely pro immigration and previously concluded that between 5k-13k accession state nationals would come to the UK each year. It later transpired that more than one million citizens from the accession states arrived between 2004 and the end of 2009 – an average of around 200,000 a year. In this report, he completely ignored the physical pressure migrants place on schools, hospitals and roads etc.

British immigration minister James Brokenshire on Dustmanns report:

It ignores issues that matter to hardworking people, the impact on schools, on hospitals, on roads, on housing. It tells us nothing about how uncontrolled, mass immigration can make it harder to maintain social cohesion.The report takes no account of the future costs associated with those who stay, grow old and make greater demands on our public services.’

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do I really need to explain this to you? Actually, no. I'm done. It should be obvious but never mind.

Ahh, Your doing that now, as I said, your not very good at this debating lark, are you?

ancapailldorcha

The UCL study is solely based on EU immigrants. I wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the section dealing with non-EU migrants being a drain. I suspect a lot of that might be down to illegal immigrants being exploited as cheap labour.

Also, what's your basis for saying Mr. Dustmann is extremely pro-immigrant?

Why do people keep saying that there is uncontrolled immigration to the UK? Of course there are controls?

Bob24

MathDebater wrote: »

British immigration minister James Brokenshire on Dustmanns report:

It ignores issues that matter to hardworking people, the impact on schools, on hospitals, on roads, on housing. It tells us nothing about how uncontrolled, mass immigration can make it harder to maintain social cohesion.The report takes no account of the future costs associated with those who stay, grow old and make greater demands on our public services.’

Exactly - the debate is ofter focusing on the immediate financial benefit or deficit, but really if you are allowing immigrants to settle what matters is the medium to long term economic and social impact on the country, which is much more difficult to estimate.

Lt J.R. Bell

gallag wrote: »

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

Good question.

Would they have an employee? Under their direction? How are they paid? or are they self employed?

Possibly, yes, still enough to qualify as a worker, provided, they are classed as an "employee",

That might be enough to be classed as a worker.

The hours wouldn't be my concern, it would be whether they are, legally, an employee. Don't these lads get commission? Or they answerable to anyone?

jank

Curiously, does anyone actually oppose an Australian Immigration points based system or is the argument running on auto-pilot?

ancapailldorcha

I do. I believe it's completely unnecessary, would be a waste of resources and would be ultimately detrimental.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do. I believe it's completely unnecessary, would be a waste of resources and would be ultimately detrimental.

Yet, Australia has none of the issues with immigration the UK has. Case in point. I am now an Australian Citizen and it is only next year that I can have full access to the same benefits as everyone else, this is after living here over 5 years already, fully employed. Australia also has no major party that advocates immigration control. Now in the UK even Labour are or at least were promising more control on immigration.

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Yet, Australia has none of the issues with immigration the UK has. Case in point. I am now an Australian Citizen and it is only next year that I can have full access to the same benefits as everyone else, this is after living here over 5 years already, fully employed. Australia also has no major party that advocates immigration control. Now in the UK even Labour are or at least were promising more control on immigration.

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

What issues would these be exactly? I've met one person who wanted to move to Australia as a skilled migrant and it's taken him well over a year to get through the red tape.

Manach

My own 2c, to the OP's question, is depends on the numbers involved. Borrowing from a recent book by John Lancaster he mentions the long and short term consequences of immigration. Former is overwealming local services with new incomers, latter is new workers to support the welfare state. Thus the underlying reason for such polities would need to be put in context.

ancapailldorcha

Manach wrote: »

My own 2c, to the OP's question, is depends on the numbers involved. Borrowing from a recent book by John Lancaster he mentions the long and short term consequences of immigration. Former is overwealming local services with new incomers, latter is new workers to support the welfare state. Thus the underlying reason for such polities would need to be put in context.

Would you have the name of that book? I've added Immigrants: Your country needs them to my list but not got round to it yet.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What issues would these be exactly? I've met one person who wanted to move to Australia as a skilled migrant and it's taken him well over a year to get through the red tape.

Ok let me clarify again. Australia does not have issues (as in social issues as a result of) with immigration at present as none of the major parties support stricter controls.

The opposite is true in the UK, hence the issues that were put to the forefront at the election and the promised forthcoming referendum on the EU.

The Australian system may be long sometimes buts its transparent, fair and race/colour/sex blind. The Uk system actually discriminates more against people as you get in by accident of birth, not qualifications or skills.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Ok let me clarify again. Australia does not have issues (as in social issues as a result of) with immigration at present as none of the major parties support stricter controls.

The opposite is true in the UK, hence the issues that were put to the forefront at the election and the promised forthcoming referendum on the EU.

The Australian system may be long sometimes buts its transparent, fair and race/colour/sex blind. The Uk system actually discriminates more against people as you get in by accident of birth, not qualifications or skills.

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

So, overwhelmed NHS, strained schools and a shortage of houses and you need people to explain why adding a third of a million people a year will add to the problems?!?!? This from the person that believes every migrant man, woman and child contributes £70,000 to the exchequer.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What social issues arise as a result of immigration specifically? Not a single shred of evidence was produced in the election that immigrants were detrimental to schools, hospitals, etc...

You are barking up the wrong tree. Are you denying that there is a perception of an immigration problem in the UK, if so then why do Labour advocate immigration control? Why did Labour admit that their policy in 2004 was a huge mistake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10445585/Labour-made-a-spectacular-mistake-on-immigration-admits-Jack-Straw.html

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

You are barking up the wrong tree. Are you denying that there is a perception of an immigration problem in the UK, if so then why do Labour advocate immigration control? Why did Labour admit that their policy in 2004 was a huge mistake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10445585/Labour-made-a-spectacular-mistake-on-immigration-admits-Jack-Straw.html

Perception? I thought we were talking about immigration itself, not perception. Of course there is a perception problem.

And at no point have I claimed that Labour are the perfect party, just preferable to the Tories.

jank

Ah progress! So there is a perception issue that immigration is too lax and Labour along with the Tories have vowed to control it.

There is no such wide-spread perception problem in Australia with political parties vowing to control immigration. Hence why a I mentioned the success of the skilled based points system.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Ah progress! So there is a perception issue that immigration is too lax and Labour along with the Tories have vowed to control it.

There is no such wide-spread perception problem in Australia with political parties vowing to control immigration. Hence why a I mentioned the success of the skilled based points system.

Such a system would violate the EU constitution fortunately. In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

Who are the anti-immigration crowd? Are you talking about the BNP?

ancapailldorcha

I was speaking generally.

Well_H0ly_God

Positive effect.

Sure aren't the foreigners paying for the Brits welfare..?

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such a system would violate the EU constitution fortunately. In any case, the anti-immigration crowd would find a new angle to moan about.

Yahtzee!!

Much appreciated for proving my point I made in this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95405590&postcount=104

The points based skills system has merit but I have not really heard it argued against. I have heard arguments regarding EU treaties as in, well they signed up to the treaties, end of discussion.... Which is not really a debate in fairness. Then of course we get the cat calls of racism and xenophobia but has anyone actually done a real examination and study of the actual system it self with the pros/cons?

So it seems that there is really no argument I have heard of or have been put forward which would invalidate the reasoning behind an Australian pointed based skills system.

Hence there here and now regarding a referendum on membership of the EU and the major parties promising controls on immigration.

Also, there is no EU constitution at least one that was widely ratified. Lots of treaties though.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Yahtzee!!

Much appreciated for proving my point I made in this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95405590&postcount=104

I didn't prove any point you made.

jank

Au contraire, no one has actually opposed the idea itself of an Australian skills based points system. One can debate the pros and cons on the merits of such a system, yet no one does.
Invariably, the debate leads up the tried and well worn cul de sac of "EU Treaties /end debate..."

Now of course for the next two years we will have talk of a UK referendum on the EU and what concessions and reform they can get, if any.

ancapailldorcha

I strongly oppose the idea on the basis that it's unnecessary. The only party who are in favour of it thankfully have only one seat.

Incidentally, we already have an Australian-style points system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642