UKIP - a 'one trick pony'?

[Micilin]

If UKIP stuck to their word and controlled the amount of freeloaders coming into this small island

Except most of the freeloaders are not EU immigrants, and would not be stopped by an aussi points system.

So UKIP fail again.

One of UKIP's stated intentions is to accept only those immigrants (EU or otherwise) who would be of benefit to the country.

I think that might be the goal of targeted admission, but in practice there is a lag between supply and demand that govts are not equipped to deal with.

While all aspects of immigration should be looked at, I think the labour market is more dynamic than some assume. Immigrant workers are good at finding a gap in the market as it happens, rather than X months later.

Flexible, ambitious people will find their niche regardless of what they have been earmarked for.

IMO that's how cities like London, New York etc have economies that rival or eclipse many countries - not by allocating a set number of people to do a set number of jobs, but by having people driving supply and demand as well as exploiting it. The gaps are filled as they are needed rather than after they are identified by a govt and processed.

So a practical question on a quota system - if an immigrant is allowed in on the merit of being able to do Job A, will they be allowed to do Job B?

How will it be tracked and fed back into the quota requirements.

I'm not against a quota system on principle but really not sure how it is proposed to work ie where is the detail?

 

[EFLImpudence]

...and, of course, reciprocal arrangements could mean Britons cannot go where they want.

(Though, of course, I realise no one here wants to go to nasty abroad.)

 

[Deleted member 63160]

...and, of course, reciprocal arrangements could mean Britons cannot go where they want.

(Though, of course, I realise no one here wants to go to nasty abroad.)

All the people I know that have gone to "nasty abroad" have taken several hundred grand with them and spent it and their pensions whilst there.
They haven't collected fookdiddly from the country they moved to. There lies the difference. I get sick of people comparing Brits abroad who pay their way to freeloaders coming to our shores.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Time for another reminder of the figures.

Non EU immigration cost to UK economy = £120 billion
EU immigrant contribution to UK economy = £4 billion

Therefore, net loss £116 billion to UK economy. Looks like a great plan. Fill the country up with unnecessary people, many of whom despise us and our way of life, and for what? A massive drain on the economy, and lack of schools, housing, hospitals, etc, etc, etc for us and future generations.

But still, we're told they enrich our culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ion-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

 

[EFLImpudence]

...and, of course, reciprocal arrangements could mean Britons cannot go where they want.
(Though, of course, I realise no one here wants to go to nasty abroad.)

All the people I know that have gone to "nasty abroad" have taken several hundred grand with them and spent it and their pensions whilst there.
They haven't collected fookdiddly from the country they moved to. There lies the difference. I get sick of people comparing Brits abroad who pay their way to freeloaders coming to our shores.

Nevertheless they may not be allowed to go.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh. There are no wealthy foreigners here, are there?

 

[Micilin]

Oh. There are no wealthy foreigners here, are there?

Good point .

 

[jockscott]

Oh. There are no wealthy foreigners here, are there?

Hmm, and how much do these "wealthy" foreigners contribute to the countries coffers? (not quite the £120 Bn it's costing for the not so wealthy foreigners, I bet)

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know exactly; I don't like football.

 

[JBR]

Time for another reminder of the figures.

Non EU immigration cost to UK economy = £120 billion
EU immigrant contribution to UK economy = £4 billion

Therefore, net loss £116 billion to UK economy. Looks like a great plan. Fill the country up with unnecessary people, many of whom despise us and our way of life, and for what? A massive drain on the economy, and lack of schools, housing, hospitals, etc, etc, etc for us and future generations.

But still, we're told they enrich our culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html[/QUOTE]

Of course that's true, but I'd suggest that being an EU member makes it easier for NON-EU immgrants to enter the country. As long as they can make it to any EU country - Italy appears to be favourite at the minute - they are free to make their way across the continent with the one intention of entering soft-touch Britain. Then hop on a lorry, cross the channel and they're in!

 

[Whitespirit66]

Time for another reminder of the figures.

Non EU immigration cost to UK economy = £120 billion
EU immigrant contribution to UK economy = £4 billion

Therefore, net loss £116 billion to UK economy. Looks like a great plan. Fill the country up with unnecessary people, many of whom despise us and our way of life, and for what? A massive drain on the economy, and lack of schools, housing, hospitals, etc, etc, etc for us and future generations.

But still, we're told they enrich our culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html[/QUOTE]

Of course that's true, but I'd suggest that being an EU member makes it easier for NON-EU immgrants to enter the country. As long as they can make it to any EU country - Italy appears to be favourite at the minute - they are free to make their way across the continent with the one intention of entering soft-touch Britain. Then hop on a lorry, cross the channel and they're in!

Exactly. Our wide open immigration back door is situated in Italy. Once they've landed, these poor oppressed economic migrants, sorry 'asylum seekers' can leisurely make their way through Europe until they decide where they would like to become a burden. Very often, they find it's not all it's cracked up to be in the land of plenty - and that's when our real problems with them begin.

Trouble is, the Itis keep rescuing this flotsam from their sinking rustbuckets in The Med, which encourages them even more.

 

[Micilin]

Time for another reminder of the figures.

Non EU immigration cost to UK economy = £120 billion
EU immigrant contribution to UK economy = £4 billion

Therefore, net loss £116 billion to UK economy. Looks like a great plan. Fill the country up with unnecessary people, many of whom despise us and our way of life, and for what? A massive drain on the economy, and lack of schools, housing, hospitals, etc, etc, etc for us and future generations.

But still, we're told they enrich our culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html[/QUOTE]

Of course that's true, but I'd suggest that being an EU member makes it easier for NON-EU immgrants to enter the country. As long as they can make it to any EU country - Italy appears to be favourite at the minute - they are free to make their way across the continent with the one intention of entering soft-touch Britain. Then hop on a lorry, cross the channel and they're in!

Exactly. Our wide open immigration back door is situated in Italy. Once they've landed, these poor oppressed economic migrants, sorry 'asylum seekers' can leisurely make their way through Europe until they decide where they would like to become a burden. Very often, they find it's not all it's cracked up to be in the land of plenty - and that's when our real problems with them begin.

Trouble is, the Itis keep rescuing this flotsam from their sinking rustbuckets in The Med, which encourages them even more.

Regardless of your views on immigration as a whole, do you think that there is a percentage who are simply trying to get to the best place to find work and prosper - perhaps even get rich?

 

[Whitespirit66]

Time for another reminder of the figures.

Non EU immigration cost to UK economy = £120 billion
EU immigrant contribution to UK economy = £4 billion

Therefore, net loss £116 billion to UK economy. Looks like a great plan. Fill the country up with unnecessary people, many of whom despise us and our way of life, and for what? A massive drain on the economy, and lack of schools, housing, hospitals, etc, etc, etc for us and future generations.

But still, we're told they enrich our culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html[/QUOTE]

Of course that's true, but I'd suggest that being an EU member makes it easier for NON-EU immgrants to enter the country. As long as they can make it to any EU country - Italy appears to be favourite at the minute - they are free to make their way across the continent with the one intention of entering soft-touch Britain. Then hop on a lorry, cross the channel and they're in!

Exactly. Our wide open immigration back door is situated in Italy. Once they've landed, these poor oppressed economic migrants, sorry 'asylum seekers' can leisurely make their way through Europe until they decide where they would like to become a burden. Very often, they find it's not all it's cracked up to be in the land of plenty - and that's when our real problems with them begin.

Trouble is, the Itis keep rescuing this flotsam from their sinking rustbuckets in The Med, which encourages them even more.

Regardless of your views on immigration as a whole, do you think that there is a percentage who are simply trying to get to the best place to find work and prosper - perhaps even get rich?

I'm sure there are - or at least start off with that intention. But we are full. No more housing, schools holding classes in old offices and portakabins, waiting lists in hospitals getting longer. We are also broke - record national debt and still growing. Jobs are scarce - don't believe the hype. Many new jobs are min. wage, part-time or zero hours. We have the people to do the jobs from EU and our own if only they weren't paid not to do them. Ex Somali goat herders aren't exactly much use to a technically advanced country.

Many will have expensive to treat, communicable diseases and the authorities here will have no way of knowing the criminal background of those that arrive. Also sounds like a great way of importing more terrorists, or people who are likely to be radicalised when they eventually become disaffected. Too many risks for us, and charity should start and stop at home.

Trouble is, the trickle is now starting to become a flood. There are 1.2 billion people in Africa. Where would you draw the line? If you let one in, by the sound of it, you would let all in? Or would you let in half and refuse the other half? Maybe two thirds? Perhaps just 10 per cent? How many would you admit? How many would you disappoint?

 

[Micilin]

WS66(if I may be so familiar)

I think those are questions that need to be examined rather than the extreme view on either side ie open door v total shut down.

Also I think for that debate to make sense we have to acknowledge that there may be nuances within the extremes of intention eg work to get rich v lazy freeloaders .

(Although the lazy are generally not the kind to make difficult or risky journeys, or freeloaders the kind of people that pay to get smuggled through etc )

And my main concern is that we too often make judgements on individuals based on the assumed motives of the majority.

So I find the leap from a considered 'Immigration is bad' viewpoint, to the automatic 'this person is an immigrant, therefore bad' , one that is concerning.

 

[Whitespirit66]

, to the automatic 'this person is an immigrant, therefore bad' ,

But that's just the problem. We know nothing about these people, and they are often devious enough to destroy their papers. You can't run a sensible immigration system on letting completely unknown quantaties in, whose only qualifications for entry are that they are rich enough to pay traffikers and fit enough to survive the journey. That is just asking for huge problems for host populations and society in general - as is being played out all over Europe now.

So, how many of the 1.2 billion would you admit from Africa alone? When would you call a halt - after 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 per cent? Are you saying that there should be zero controls over numbers? If you advocate letting some in, surely you advocate letting all in? Please let me know what numbers you would admit, which you would disappoint? Or do we just keep admitting until life here becomes unsustainable? I'm keen to know.