Immigration: "No proper debate for many, many years"

Atlas wrote:Immigration went out of control in the 1980's and has never caught up or recovered and probably never will until this country is no longer perceived as a honey pot and an easy ride. Try to remedy that and watch for the hue and cry that will follow. No politician would risk it - unless he had first gone insane and had a death wish.   

After many many years, that does seem to wrap up the waited for debate.

Switzerland has just had a referendum which resulted in a 'yes' vote to stop the present system of immigration. (Although not a member of the EU she did agree to follow their policies on the subject). As 55% of Switzerland's economic trade is with the EU this has caused quite a barny over there. This will allow the British government some leeway on its call for a change in the policy and could very well be a start to a collapse of the total freedom of movement of immigrants between EU countries. We should wait and see.  

Did anyone else watch the programme Panorama on BBC1 'Immigration Undercover'?

A report exposing the wholesale scams and fraud taking place in Britain in order to obtain a Student Visa, it was a real eye opener and should be addressed immediately.

There is a thread going on the Scam English Test Poppy.

Thank you Hinch, I didn't notice this thread,

Immigration, mainly from Europe continues to rise, despite David Cameron's political promises. Main settlement seems to be in the London area, where the economy is thought to be recovering, and moving away from the rest of the UK. Is London becoming a 'different country' to the rest of the UK? Has anyone been there to have a look recently?

It has always been a 'different country'??? Where have you been???  

Not very often to London. Yes, London has always been a different society, but the regional divide, and perhaps regional divides generally within the uk seem to be getting more marked. The practical consequence of the idea of freedom of movement within Europe has perhaps made it more difficult for people to relocate within the UK. How practical is it now for a young person from Rochdale to move down to London to get work? Quite problematic I would guess.

No more so than since the 1970's I would guess. If you are fancy free and yearn to wander you can get work almost anywhere - if you are prepared to work and not have great expectations. It's a fallacy to say there aren't any jobs. What there are not, are jobs that pay a good wage as compared to the national average and some benefit totals.

Shall I tell you the biggest problem with our younger end? - Getting out of bed early and making an effort when the alternative of either living off mum and dad, or the State, or the two together provides a much easier route to survival. I see it all the time here. Coupled with the 'black economy' it suits many youngsters who haven't commitments and therefore don't have to try.

But God can they moan -.   

There is a problem with young people's attitudes to work, and must be reasons why that has come about. Much of the population became conditioned to the idea that mass unemployment was necessary and desirable to produce a tighter and leaner economy, that apprenticeships were redundant. Short term working contracts rather destroyed structured career paths. Somehow the entire sequence of events has resulted in loss of motivation. Recent statistics show particularly white working class children doing very badly in schools at even basic subjects.

The reasons are quite simple. Even in my days families (that is mum and dad) couldn't afford to keep children once they became 'big' teenagers, with all that such entailed, without some extra income to make such provisions. So it was traditional that once the child, if not in higher education, at the age of fifteen 'find' work of some description whilst keeping an eye open for the 'type' of job that suited them. The 'day' of mum and dad's bank account didn't figure other than in exceptional circumstances. As for 'State' benefits, they did exist but the amounts one could claim and the Inquisition that it encompassed wasn't for anyone but the most non-caring and thick skinned. Yes. There were jobs available and 'apprenticeships'. Far more choice, in that then heavily industrialised society, than there are today. And even the lowest paid jobs provided far more income than 'dole' monies. I don't 'blame' the children. If you can do what you want and get it for free - then why not. Few,if any, look at the long term and don't realise that at some stage they will need a good job that is well paid as they grow older. The same with 'pensions' (Why bother. I might not live that long). But it is not the way to go. Ah well. C'est la vie mon brave - - - -    

Atlas wrote:The reasons are quite simple.  

Yes, British society has changed out of all recognition, it's been socially engineered into what it is now, but shhhh, don't mention the social engineering, it's supposed to be a taboo word, or phrase.
P.S. I suspect the social engineers may have been enthusiastic amateurs just having a go, rather than anyone who understood what they were doing.

BBC 'Question Time' last night came from Barking in London, where some 'natives' of Barking angrily said they had been recently swamped by a huge influx of immigrants.

Panel members had entirely different views on whether there has been a debate on immigration, some saying it has been suppressed for many years, other saying there has been nothing but an ongoing debate ever since Enoch Powell.

Is history being re-written, or, are both things true?

Whatever debate there may be, the reality of continuing mass immigration into the UK is an inevitable fact. Yes, the effect can be quite localised.

The emerging picture now is London and it's conurbation becoming a world city/conurbation, with a population from around the world, and big money invested in it from around the world. The necessity for that continued momentum of economic expansion seems uncontradictable, always drawing in more immigration.

The older pattern of immigration into the towns of northwest England is rather different. The rest of the UK apart from the southeast has become economically comparatively irrelevant, a sort of pleasantly neglected backyard really.

Technically and statistically, mass immigration can fuel economic boom and expansion, but usually at the expense of and detriment to the native peoples, so not always much fun for them.

Following a report on the economics of immigration into the UK by University College London last year, which claimed immigrants made a substantial contribution to public finances, Immigration Watch have now published a report showing the opposite, that immigration into the UK has cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10693022/Immigrants-cost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html

Economics uses an uncertain mathematics, answers depending how things are categorised and presented. Opinions on the cost or benefit of immigration from political leaders are even less reliable, being based on the mysterious calculations involved in party politics. What is clear is that a lot more housing and services will be needed in the next few years.

The article ends quoting one of the authors of the UCL report;

"Prof Dustmann rebutted MigrationWatch's criticisms of the original report.

"The report is written in a derogatory language seemingly attempting to undermine our reputation with suggestions that we do not adequately describe our methodology or comment on all our results. We are in fact very open about our methodology - which has been acknowledged even by earlier critics of our work," he said.

"Their strongly worded criticism is all the more surprising as the MigrationWatch report is based on a substantial amount of guesswork, does not provide clear indication of how their figures are computed, and is at times sloppy or simply wrong." "

Another opinion about immigration, from the immigration minister.
http://www.jamesbrokenshire.com/immigration-minister

The immigration debate tends to be based on personal experience rather than facts and figures, nearly always disputed. Immigrants from one country tend to congregate in one area, so opinion reflects how that community behaves, and how many there are. It may be different in London, where there are so many immigrants they may tend to mix up more.

The present government is failing on promises to reduce net immigration. We have to accept mass immigration is happening, has been for many years, and will continue. It's no more avoidable than the weather, and similarly has root causes globally.

The debate should not be whether it's happening or not, it should be about some sort of planning to make the best of it, preferably without losing a lot more countryside to new housing and infrastructure, and expanding education, health and other services to cope. Otherwise, it looks like England will eventually be a continuous network of towns of heavy traffic, crowded populations and poor quality of life.

The MigrationWatch report challenges the idea that immigrants make us better off. It's understandable a certain amount of immigration has economic and cultural benefits, but when it becomes huge numbers, that idea breaks down.

Could the opposite idea work, that if the population of the UK was reduced by emigration to a very small number, those that remained would have a much better standard of living?

You are misunderstanding the reason for immigration and why it has been an acceptable part of this country's governments since the First World War (which in itself posed a formidable problem with the then acceptable norms of family life).

cyfrifia wrote: Could the opposite idea work, that if the population of the UK was reduced by emigration to a very small number, those that remained would have a much better standard of living?

Reduced numbers produce reduced birthrates and therefore less taxes in due course to sustain the very young and the old. It's all about sustaining the overall economy by having sufficient means (people) to keep the rest going. Consider if you will all those below working age, all those above retirement age, all those ill and disabled (whose cost is tenfold to the exchequer) and you will see where it is all coming from. Is there a finite number? No is the answer to that one.

What is required is 'selective' immigration whereby the end result is justified by the outcomes. Something Oz has practiced for decades and is now having to come to grips with ref it's 'boat people'. The more successful we are both in terms of economy and fairness (not forgetting stupidity), the more will want to come here. And looking around the world today - who can blame them???

It probably is easy to misunderstand the reasons for, quote: "immigration and why it has been an acceptable part of this country's governments since the First World War", as a lot of water has passed under the bridge during that time, circumstances, ideas, expediencies and directions have changed, and famously, the British public have never been directly informed, consulted or involved in decisions or policies on immigration.

As far as most are concerned, immigration has just happened, often in a chaotic and uncontrolled way, and they have just had to adapt to it.

The theory you put forward, Atlas, of ever more young working immigrants needed to pay taxes to provide services for the ill and the elderly doesn't quite seem to work out in practice, but does add up to an exponentially infinite number of new immigrants always needed.

Is it the search for prosperity, and for individual wealth that drives everything that happens in the UK? Historically it was the search for new lands to claim that drove Europeans to explore and colonise all around the world, and that brought great wealth. Eventually that collapsed, and with the industrial revolution, capital was put into manufacturies that more or less enslaved the poor to make money for the masters. Then when that collapsed, we started to import people to work and pay taxes. It all seems to be about making wealth, but who for? It seems to be a small elite who have too much wealth, and the majority of the population scrape by. Do we never tire of this economic hoo-hah reaching the stage now where the land we live in is disappearing under a tide of development and traffic. We may not be quite there yet, but that seems to be the way it's going.

cyfrifia wrote: The theory you put forward, Atlas, of ever more young working immigrants needed to pay taxes to provide services for the ill and the elderly doesn't quite seem to work out in practice, but does add up to an exponentially infinite number of new immigrants always needed.

Far more than a theory. Ask the Japanese.  And, as is fast becoming clear, the Chinese following their 'one child' policy. 

China and Japan are in a very different situation to Europe. Neither has much immigration, apart from some exchange of peoples between Japan and Korea.

You seem to have missed the point?

Perhaps so, going back to what you said,

Atlas wrote: It's all about sustaining the overall economy by having sufficient means (people) to keep the rest going. Consider if you will all those below working age, all those above retirement age, all those ill and disabled (whose cost is tenfold to the exchequer) and you will see where it is all coming from. Is there a finite number? No is the answer to that one.

Your point seems to be, that if the UK takes in immigrants to expand the economy because the general population, especially the ill and elderly etc, need more wealth to be generated to look after them, then more immigrants are always needed to look after the needs of the immigrants and their families as they grow older, so an infinite number of immigrants are needed?

Yes I am puzzled what exactly the point is.

The point is whereby an indigenous drop in the birthrate requires greater efforts by those in service, and by that I mean others contributing towards the economy sufficient means to keep everything moving forward, is an unlikely scenario, then the only alternative is immigration to increase the numbers available for the State to plan a successful economic strategy and maintain growth. The point you are trying to make regarding 'less' numbers and thus a 'better' outcome doesn't work in a modern society. Where will it all end? 100 million? 200 million? 500 million? I don't know. There will be a 'breaking' point somewhere along that line - but I wouldn't like to guess at what point. The same of course goes for global population. We are now approaching 7 billion. How many more 8.9.10.20.30.50. The only sure outcome will be when the planet has had enough of us screwing it about. Then, I suggest, it would be best not to be around.