EU Freedom of movement, has there ever been a more idiotic idea in history?

Three hundred thousand additional immigrants come here every year and you're saying this doesn't have much of an effect on public services?

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say it doesn't have much effect (even though its pretty obvious it does), so ****ing what? Why accept any negative effects?

Do you agree the same non-EU immigration points system should be applied to EU immigrants to prevent us from accepting useless leaches?


Example, country of 100 (easy numbers) 90 working and 10 job openings:

10 school leavers are just leaving school. Sddenly 10 immigrants arrive and take those jobs. Instead of full employment, we now have 110 people in the country, with 10 British being unemployed.

So whereas previously we had zero unemployment, we now have 10. The next year another 10 school leavers are about to get jobs, when another 10 immigrants come over and take the jobs, so now we have another 10 unemployed British. So now we have 20 unemployed

the next year 30 unemployed

the next year 40 unemployed

etc

Its unrealistic numbers, but you get the basic premise. You are increasing the number of people on social welfare, with people coming here who our infrastructure has not accounted for and do not earn enough to fund the infrastructure.

I find it amusing that all the arguments you put forward don't just apply to immigrants in specific. People are born a lot more often than people immigrate here. Does that mean the babies are actually to blame? Damn those babies for requiring all this extra attention, funding and healthcare, safe conditions to live in and yet the little bastards aren't contributing to society at all. When's the last time you saw a baby pulling his own weight around here? ****ing never, that's when!

Anyway, my point is, when you phrase an argument like that without any true facts that relate specifically to the case of the Freedom of Movement it comes across as more absent minded immigrant shaming and the drivel spouted by any UKIP candidates...
Many of the immigrants came here for a better life because, yes while it stretches our system thinner, it's still a better life for them because their government isn't as secure to be able to offer them all these things. If it was the other way round, would you be able to say that you wouldn't emigrate over here? I certainly would.

Our non-EU immigration policy is points-based, only admitting highly-qualified people. I am referring to open-borders EU immigration, which is not points-based.

The majority of immigrants from the EU are Eastern European (or French finance workers working in the city- extremely good at Maths), working in lowly-paid jobs. I dont have figures, I have my eyes. The majority of EU immigrants (excluding those French quants) are lowly-paid. It follows a normal distribution, just like the average British worker doesn't earn much, immigrants will earn even less.

Trust me, this is a serious ****ing problem. You have hundreds of thousands of people coming here, earning between £13k and £20k and they are completely swamping our public services.

All I want is for our EU immigration policy to mirror our non-EU immigration policy. If we need you, you're allowed in.

How can it be fine to have points-based immigration for non-EU immigrants, yet I'm a bad nasty person for wanting the same for EU immigrants? Some countries in the EU are easily as poor as African/Asian nations!

I read an article that said immigrants aged 18-25 contribute more to the country's GDP than British males aged 18-25.

They pay their taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed access to the NHS, to an education?

Of course you get immigrants who won't follow this fashion, but the same can be said for a lot of British people

So we can choose which babies are born then can we? Since you're comparing them to immigrants (who we can pick and choose if it weren't for free movement which is obviously OP's argument).

A minority of the UK support foxhunting, a majority of Spain supports bullfighting.

I read an article that said immigrants aged 18-25 contribute more to the country's GDP than British males aged 18-25.

I suspect that once we include the welfare bill of the unemployed person who's potential job vacancy has been filled by a newly arrived immigrant than the GDP contribution significantly falls.

It's perhaps short sighted to judge this purely on tax contribution from the single person. Regardless; if you're earning less than about 30k in this country you're still an overall drain on public services as your tax contribution does not match what you cost the system overall.

To argue that we need more immigration because they pay taxes when working here is pretty flawed.

It's a tradition, what do you want to do about that? If it's Idiotic or not it's their problem.

This whole thread is troll mode...


Posted from TSR Mobile

GDP isn't just taxes though. It is the total value of all goods and services in the UK. So all the stuff the buy is contributing to the UK's GDP

So in other words you have no evidence or data to support the foundation on which your argument is based.
'Your eyes' as good as they are billy do not count as good evidence for the point you are trying to make.

Again I'm not saying it necessarily isn't the case but you have to actually be able to back up what you're saying with strong evidence rather than sensationalism, personal anecdotes and hypotheticals.

No, I don't need to back-up ****, its pretty ****ing obvious:

Moreeeeee people = more demanddddd

Or, are you honestly going to suggest that immigrants with kids do not increase the demand on the British education system, as an example?

But you do actually.
When making an argument based on a foundation, you must be able to prove the foundational point is true.

More demand is not a problem if supply is provided.

And since immigrants contribute far more then they take both individually and as a collective it really is not a problem.

Want to tell me how uneducated, unskilled people benefit the UK?

I need to prove extra children using British schools increases the demand on schools?



Why should more supply be provided? Why should British citizens have to fund schools due to Eastern Europeans?


The study which summed up immigrants' tax contributions and the amounts they receive in benefits. Erm, which part of this includes the cost of immigrants on public services? Oh thats right, none of it!

Do you honestly not realise how stupid you sound when you keep referring to that study? Lets say there are one million immigrants. A few of them are like Warren Buffet, offsetting 900,000 scummy immigrants leeching from the UK. According to you, because we have Warren Buffet-types here, that means its fine to accept 900,000 scummy immigrants? Do you honestly not see how daft this makes you look? Pretty stupid.