Why are so many people clueless about immigration?

Tip: I didn't just tell you I could beat you all day- I elaborated and told you your study was silly because it said the EXACT thing mentioned in my post: using "net" figures and I then asked you where was the analysis on public service burden.

So erm, where is their inclusion of the burden to public services?


A European family come here, two parents, two kids. The Father picks Strawberries, earning £15,000 a year. How exactly are they beneficial when he will only be paying about £880 a year in tax and yet they're:

-Costing us in terms of education
-Costing us in terms of NHS
-Costing us in terms of house price/rent increase
-Costing us in terms of other public services
-Costing us in terms of social welfare benefits



The Strawberry pickers, shelf-stackers and Costa Coffee employees will be paying for this investment, will they? From their £880 a year tax contribution?

Immigrant children are far more likely to be hardworking than the average British child, therefore providing a benefit in the long run.

Somebody cannot read:



So its fine to admit thousands of useless immigrants so long as we admit the occasional wealthy one?



Where is the analysis on the burden to public services?

Seriously, this is just so easy.... all day- I could beat your arguments all day!

The irony of your offensive stereotyping.

From the Mirror article:

It said immigrants from Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia contributed almost £5billion more in taxes between 2000 and 2011 than they took out in benefits and use of public services.

The study factored in use of public services in the net contribution calculation, and hence they are no burden on public services. Bear in mind also that the average worker coming over here would be relatively healthy and therefore not likely to use the NHS or necessarily have kids in schools - at least not £880 worth.

European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services – according to new research by the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM). - See more at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.d7qhgT2L.dpuf

European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. - See more at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.d7qhgT2L.dpuf

Important also to consider that those on low incomes have very high average propensities to spend. A large portion of this £15,000 will go straight back into the economy and stimulate demand - certainly not a burden during one of the slowest post-crisis recoveries in the western world.

Using schools certainly is no strain, either. Immigrant children are far more likely to be hardworking than the average British child, therefore providing a benefit in the long run.

So the tens of millions of native Britons don't put pressure on services, but the far smaller number of migrants do? Get a clue.

If by "useless" you mean filling in gaps in the labour market and contributing to the economy of the UK.

I did realise that as I was typing - but the 'stereotype' is certainly based on a truth. Immigrants by and large have a greater work ethic, and it is fair to assume that this can be passed down onto their children.

From UCL:





https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

They did not measure the burden immigrants place on public services......

Oh and you reckon contributing £2bn per year covers the burden to public services?!




Recycling money doesn't generate wealth...... bringing money in to the country does. Reckon these people brought money IN to the country?


Pupils don't cost money to teach?

Just watching QT on iPlayer and I keep hearing the same old rubbish from the Lefites time and time again:

1) I do not care about NET benefits/figures. If you're going to spout "net" then you are saying for every Donald Trump admitted we should also admit 100,000 immigrants who leach off the state, simply because netting their contributions would be positive.

2) If its fine to have a strict non-EU immigration policy then why is it wrong to apply it to EU immigrants?

3) Picking Strawberries for a living, however commendable does NOT pay enough taxes to cover the costs of that individual to public services. The majority of immigrants who come here will not earn much (the normal distribution of wages- even the UK average salary is £25k and that's with our MUCH better education system).

4) Tim Farron says 2.7 million Brits are abroad in the EU, what proportion of them are low-earners compared with the proportion of immigrants in the UK? Do any of them sleep in parks? Receive free houses? £20k a year in benefits?

5) Every additional person in this country increases the pressure on housing.

6) Every low-skilled immigrant increases the supply of Labour and suppresses wages.

7) The increase of immigrants increases the burden on schools, hospitals, police, transport etc. As mentioned earlier, immigrants generally don't earn high salaries and therefore pay little tax in the grand scheme of things. So who do you think will be funding the increase in public services caused by immigration? Clue: British taxpayer.

My view:

Get out of the EU/Freedom of EU movement and apply our points-based non-EU immigration policy to ALL immigrants. This even silences the "our NHS would be finished without immigrants" argument because nurses are favoured within our non-EU immigration policy.

I was merely quoting the Mirror article. Either way, as I originally said the problem lies more with the lack of investment due to current austerity measures over anything else. We could easily cope if we invested more heavily than the current levels - all of which would be within our means.

Increasing the size of the labour force has numerous benefits for the UK economy - how you fail to acknowledge this is beyond me. It is quite obvious that workers filling low end jobs and spending income is beneficial to our economy.

Even where immigration merely increases competition for jobs available, better candidates can fill roles to the benefit of our businesses. More jobs do need to be created, but that is a separate issue.

You seemed to think educating did cost earlier: 'Costing us in terms of education'.

This country was built on slaves/immigrants and the cheap labour they provide/provided. I hope we get over run by 'them'.

I couldn't give a damn if Britain was 70% non 'British' people. I couldn't care less if Britain became a non white country.

Why don't you go and live in Africa then?

The 'net benefit' answer is indeed spectacularly, infuriatingly, stupid.

The fact that immigration is a net (economic) benefit overall does not mean that each instance of immigration is a net (economic) benefit (let alone more general benefit). If we took action against negative instances of immigration, the net benefit would obviously go up. That really isn't hard to figure out.

No, I love England too much.

I said that? Okay........ The answer is British taxpayers pay for those services...... and the UCL study shows immigrants don't...... £2bn a year is pathetic and covers nothing.


Gaps in the Labour market? I didn't realise we had 100% employment. When was this?

Wouldn't it be better if unemployed British people worked these jobs? No population increase, no extra demand on public services AND smaller social welfare bill, no?

Do more people = more demand on public services? Yes. So why invite more?


Then tell me, where did the immigrants bring wealth IN to the country? They didn't- they simply worked the same job a British person would have done.

All I can see is an immigrant spending the wages an unemployed British person would have spent- the exact same money. However, you have also increased the population by one, the British person is on the dole, increasing welfare expenditure, costing the taxpayer and because you increased the population without bringing money IN to the country, you have now reduced GDP per person...... GDP/(N+1) < GDP/N

You are aware our GDP per person, adjusted for inflation is the same as it was in 2004? So was it really worth admitting 2 million people in the last 11 years?


You don't think it would be smarter for a British person to work these jobs?

-No population increase
-No additional demand to public services
-Lower social welfare bill

?



And I still do..... that was my point- you said immigrants don't cost us anything to teach them?