Immigration

[steveo]

Record levels of immigration have had "little or no impact" on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said.

Instead, competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on the low paid, training for young UK workers and has contributed to high house prices.


This took them 8 months. Most...ok some people on this board could have told them that in about 3 minutes.

 

[TrueBlue]

You cant say that! The leftys on this board will shout you down and they are frightened of the truth!

 

[* ORM *]

Why can't we just do an exchange scheme. One hard working immigrant for one lazy benefit sponger, or a Welshman ?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Why can't we just do an exchange scheme. One hard working immigrant for one lazy benefit sponger, or a Welshman ?

...or a politician? That would work.

 

[londonblue]

From the same article on the BBC:-

"Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant," it said.

Or to translate, there is either no impact or a small positive impact. Either way we haven't lost...

But Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, head of migration at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said that to say there were no economic benefits was "simplistic and misleading".

"Recent immigration has brought immense benefits to the UK in terms of economic growth, increased competitiveness and the delivery of public services," he said.

Supermarket chain Sainsburys was among those to praise foreign workers in evidence to the committee. it said it had found foreign-born workers to be highly motivated with a strong work ethic which rubbed off on the British-born staff.

I'm not saying it's a good thing either way, but let's look at both sides of the same article.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Personally, I have no problem with genuine immigrants, it's the spongers and scroungers I have no time for. That goes for UK nationals as well, especially the ones that think it's fine to pop out half a dozen kids or more because the state picks up the cost of benefits.

 

[londonblue]

Personally, I have no problem with genuine immigrants, it's the spongers and scroungers I have no time for. That goes for UK nationals as well, especially the ones that think it's fine to pop out half a dozen kids or more because the state picks up the cost of benefits.

And then have the temerity to blame immigration for all their woes.

 

[steveo]

But Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, head of migration at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said that to say there were no economic benefits was "simplistic and misleading".

Cant think why this bloke would possibly claim it was misleading.

 

[londonblue]

Cant think why this bloke would possibly claim it was misleading.

Maybe because it is?

Whatever his motivation, the point I was making was that you shouldn't just look at one side of an article. Read both and get a balanced view.

Even in your reply to me you have ignored these bits:-

"Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant," it said.

Supermarket chain Sainsburys was among those to praise foreign workers in evidence to the committee. it said it had found foreign-born workers to be highly motivated with a strong work ethic which rubbed off on the British-born staff.

 

[steveo]

Just a shot in the dark but someone with the name of Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is probably an immigrant who wants to support imigrants.

Like a lot of other people in this country I am fed up with more immigrants. See if you can accept any of these fairly basic and general points:
1) The country is full up
2) Immigrants don’t integrate – so we are not a multi racial society – just a bunch of different races living in their own communities
3) They come here to earn money, which they send home.
4) When they have sent enough money home, they go back there.
5) In the meantime, English people who have got money and are fed up with the way the country is filling up, leave and go and live elsewhere, taking their money with them.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but surely we have to draw the line on how many can keep turning up here.

 

[londonblue]

Just a shot in the dark but someone with the name of Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is probably an immigrant who wants to support imigrants.

Like a lot of other people in this country I am fed up with more immigrants. See if you can accept any of these fairly basic and general points:
1) The country is full up
2) Immigrants don’t integrate – so we are not a multi racial society – just a bunch of different races living in their own communities
3) They come here to earn money, which they send home.
4) When they have sent enough money home, they go back there.
5) In the meantime, English people who have got money and are fed up with the way the country is filling up, leave and go and live elsewhere, taking their money with them.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but surely we have to draw the line on how many can keep turning up here.

I tell you what, I'll reply to these when you reply to the points I raised. Fair?

 

[loz]

Just a shot in the dark but someone with the name of Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is probably an immigrant who wants to support imigrants.

Like a lot of other people in this country I am fed up with more immigrants. See if you can accept any of these fairly basic and general points:
1) The country is full up
2) Immigrants don’t integrate – so we are not a multi racial society – just a bunch of different races living in their own communities
3) They come here to earn money, which they send home.
4) When they have sent enough money home, they go back there.
5) In the meantime, English people who have got money and are fed up with the way the country is filling up, leave and go and live elsewhere, taking their money with them.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but surely we have to draw the line on how many can keep turning up here.

1) firstly, that's a very general statement. secondly, if we had a decent social housing policy and didn't have a tonne of empty properties due to 2nd homes, buy-to-let and speculative developments standing unused, there would be a lot more room.
2) Again, really generalised. I'm only speaking from personal experience here, but from what I can tell class is a bigger barrier than race/nationality to integration. Go to a lot of poorer areas in London and you'll see a bunch of different cultural groups integrating, but within their own economic networks (i.e. housing estates).
3) and 4) this is how global capitalism works- if we want the right to be able to export our cheap goods into worldwide markets, buy up companies and resources in the developing world etc, then global labour and wage markets are part of that too- indeed, the system doesn't work if people can't move to where they can make money. I don't have a problem with what they do with their money providing that they pay tax on it, and I think chasing down Tax evasion in the City would be a more useful priority there.
5) English people with money generally don't live in the areas where immigration has strained public services, so I'm not sure that works. Pretty consistently in research evidence, the areas with most opinion against immigration are those where there is the lowest proportion of immigrants.

After all that, I would say that we've handled EU immigration terribly, and that there probably does need to be a limit on numbers in place for the moment while we can conduct a proper analysis of what immigration the country needs, where, and how to deal with the negative effects it can have. But if you want a globalised economy, economic migration is a fact of that.

 

[Napster]

I agree with loz. It's nothing to do with leftyism, but global politics. Every major global producer has the same issues, including e.g. the Gastarbeiter of Germany

 

[Firestorm]

Just a shot in the dark but someone with the name of Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is probably an immigrant who wants to support imigrants.

Like a lot of other people in this country I am fed up with more immigrants. See if you can accept any of these fairly basic and general points:
1) The country is full up
2) Immigrants don’t integrate – so we are not a multi racial society – just a bunch of different races living in their own communities
3) They come here to earn money, which they send home.
4) When they have sent enough money home, they go back there.
5) In the meantime, English people who have got money and are fed up with the way the country is filling up, leave and go and live elsewhere, taking their money with them.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but surely we have to draw the line on how many can keep turning up here.

But surely points 3 4 & 5 would mean that the GDP would go down, something the very report you are championing said isn't happening.

The report also said that ""The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a a small positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers."

Plus points 3 and 4 do not refer to immigrants but Economic migrants those who work abroad for two years or so (that may also explain the non integration as they are only on a working holiday)

 

[Pubey]

Just a shot in the dark but someone with the name of Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is probably an immigrant who wants to support imigrants.

Like a lot of other people in this country I am fed up with more immigrants. See if you can accept any of these fairly basic and general points:
1) The country is full up
2) Immigrants don’t integrate – so we are not a multi racial society – just a bunch of different races living in their own communities
3) They come here to earn money, which they send home.
4) When they have sent enough money home, they go back there.
5) In the meantime, English people who have got money and are fed up with the way the country is filling up, leave and go and live elsewhere, taking their money with them.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners, but surely we have to draw the line on how many can keep turning up here.

I don't know if Dr Danny Sriskandarajah is an immigrant or not... but he seems very highly qualified, very influential and the kind of people we need in this country... someone who can give a balanced, reasoned and evidence-based answer.

In response to your points, some evidence to back them up would be much appreciated, it seems you are so well informed that you don't even need to refer to anyone... is this all your own research or something?

Call me a lefty or whatever, I'm open to persuasion and am more than happy for people to provide me with evidence. Cutting out the favourable paragraphs of an article and then making sweeping generalisations just doesn't really persuade me unfortunately.

 

[steveo]

Cutting out the favourable paragraphs of an article and then making sweeping generalisations just doesn't really persuade me unfortunately.

I cut the first part of the article, thats all. I made a load of generalisations at I dont have the time or inclination to break it all down, and I suspect long messages are boring and wont get read.

It was something I heard on the radio this morning so I thought I would throw it in for discussion. Looks like its mainly the "leftys" who responded, and theres not even any sign of MK yet.

 

[number11]

Maybe because it is?

Whatever his motivation, the point I was making was that you shouldn't just look at one side of an article. Read both and get a balanced view.

Even in your reply to me you have ignored these bits:-

Quote:
"Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant," it said.

Quote:
Supermarket chain Sainsburys was among those to praise foreign workers in evidence to the committee. it said it had found foreign-born workers to be highly motivated with a strong work ethic which rubbed off on the British-born staff.

Purely playing Devil's advocate here, and Im sure Steveo can speak up for himself if he wanted, but dealing with your quotes......

I find the phrase "economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant" a strange one. By 'Positive Net Immigration' is he merely referring to more people coming in then out? (which is how it reads to me). Therefore he is not actually saying there is a net positive benefit, only that the benefits of immigration are small or insignificant, whilst saying nothing on the burdens of immigration....which if they are any greater than small would leave a net burden.

With regard to the Sainsbury's quote, this is one company praising the workforce who it can probably employ competitively and therefore has a vested interest. I don't think using a limited example to justify your own view point is particularly pursuasive. I have a friend who was robbed by 3 Eastern Eurpopeans, but I wouldnt expect this to be a pursuasive point against immigration.

Think this matter is far from black and white, yet people seem to take polar positions in their views, meaning neither can be right. (In my opinion :) ). Whilst it may be that stricter controls (and enforcement) is needed, understanding towards those that are here for right reasons, and appreciation of what they will bring will greatly improve the situation.

 

[Napster]

With regard to the Sainsbury's quote, this is one company praising the workforce who it can probably employ competitively and therefore has a vested interest. .

with all due respect that's rubbish. the working time directive and minimum wage would stop "competitive employment" as you dub it.

 

[Napster]

Looks like its mainly the "leftys" who responded, and theres not even any sign of MK yet.

I'm about as right-wing as they come. Unfortunately, xenophobia is not part of any political leaning I am aware of.

 

[number11]

with all due respect that's rubbish. the working time directive and minimum wage would stop "competitive employment" as you dub it.

Working Time Directive and Minimum wage stop competitive employment. Interesting.

Do Sainsbury's employees work for the minimum wage? From my understanding their wage is above the minimum wage, so with all due respect your point on that and the working time directive is irrelevent.

I always thought 'competitive employment', eg where an influx of workings willing to work for a lesser or similar amount to other workers would keep wages down (to the obvious benefit of the Employer). But then it has been a while since I studied economics.