Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Stop quoting net immigration benefits and only admit contributors! watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i get so fed up of hearing the same thing every time:

    "there was a study proving immigration provides a net contribution"

    Well firstly, if you read the study carefully it:

    -Doesn't even consider the impact of immigrants on housing, schools, healthcare, transport (and pretty much every other ****ing important thing)

    -Secondly, the actual "benefit" was something like £20bn over 15 years. So we increased the population by 3% to gain £1.3bn a year..... great!

    Now engage your brain and consider this:

    Only admit immigrants who are either high earners (and will commit to pay tax here) or highly-skilled (including NHS workers).........

    It will reduce the numbers of immigration significantly and any increased usage on public services is funded by their taxes and this skilled person is also assisting our economy (and I don't mean by pouring cups of coffee in Starbucks).

    How could anybody economically disagree with this?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    i get so fed up of hearing the same thing every time:

    "there was a study proving immigration provides a net contribution"

    Well firstly, if you read the study carefully it:

    -Doesn't even consider the impact of immigrants on housing, schools, healthcare, transport (and pretty much every other ****ing important thing)

    -Secondly, the actual "benefit" was something like £20bn over 15 years. So we increased the population by 3% to gain £1.3bn a year..... great!

    Now engage your brain and consider this:

    Only admit immigrants who are either high earners (and will commit to pay tax here) or highly-skilled (including NHS workers).........

    It will reduce the numbers of immigration significantly and any increased usage on public services is funded by their taxes and this skilled person is also assisting our economy (and I don't mean by pouring cups of coffee in Starbucks).

    How could anybody economically disagree with this?
    But aren't those high skilled immigrants taking jobs from more deserving Brits? Why can't firms in Britain be forced to employ natives? They do in lots of other places.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    But aren't those high skilled immigrants taking jobs from more deserving Brits? Why can't firms in Britain be forced to employ natives? They do in lots of other places.
    So you need heart surgery and you'd rather a Brit perform it because the best cardiovascular surgeon in the world wasn't allowed to move here?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    So you need heart surgery and you'd rather a Brit perform it because the best cardiovascular surgeon in the world wasn't allowed to move here?
    I'll take the risk to keep out immigrants. Farage said he would rather have less prosperity and keep out foreigners.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    i agree with what OP is trying to say, but i have a question and a couple of points to make.
    How do we determine if someone is a contributor or is highly skilled prior to them coming here? What passes for highly skilled in one place may not in another, an opinion may vary from person to person.
    And we should not let people in based on the amount of money they have. Having lots of money does not mean that they are more or less likely to pay their taxes than any other person, so as a criterion for immigration it is insufficient.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an_atheist)
    i agree with what OP is trying to say, but i have a question and a couple of points to make.
    How do we determine if someone is a contributor or is highly skilled prior to them coming here? What passes for highly skilled in one place may not in another, an opinion may vary from person to person.
    And we should not let people in based on the amount of money they have. Having lots of money does not mean that they are more or less likely to pay their taxes than any other person, so as a criterion for immigration it is insufficient.
    Well plenty of other counties manage it, including Canada and Australia. Take the points system for example. Canada regularly updates a list of skill shortages they have and you get more points if your profession is on there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an_atheist)
    i agree with what OP is trying to say, but i have a question and a couple of points to make.
    How do we determine if someone is a contributor or is highly skilled prior to them coming here? What passes for highly skilled in one place may not in another, an opinion may vary from person to person.
    And we should not let people in based on the amount of money they have. Having lots of money does not mean that they are more or less likely to pay their taxes than any other person, so as a criterion for immigration it is insufficient.
    You do realise we implement what I suggested already, except its only for non-EU immigrants? I am simply saying extend this to EU immigrants too (i.e. leave the EU).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I'll take the risk to keep out immigrants. Farage said he would rather have less prosperity and keep out foreigners.
    No Farage did not say that! Farage was implying, like I did, its not worth admitting 5 million Romanians to simply increase GDP by £1bn a year.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    No Farage did not say that! Farage was implying, like I did, its not worth admitting 5 million Romanians to simply increase GDP by £1bn a year.
    I'm sure Farage is right.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I'm sure Farage is right.
    Shockingly, he often is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    i get so fed up of hearing the same thing every time:

    "there was a study proving immigration provides a net contribution"

    Well firstly, if you read the study carefully it:

    -Doesn't even consider the impact of immigrants on housing, schools, healthcare, transport (and pretty much every other ****ing important thing)

    -Secondly, the actual "benefit" was something like £20bn over 15 years. So we increased the population by 3% to gain £1.3bn a year..... great!

    Now engage your brain and consider this:

    Only admit immigrants who are either high earners (and will commit to pay tax here) or highly-skilled (including NHS workers).........

    It will reduce the numbers of immigration significantly and any increased usage on public services is funded by their taxes and this skilled person is also assisting our economy (and I don't mean by pouring cups of coffee in Starbucks).

    How could anybody economically disagree with this?
    I see your point but I don't agree with all of it. I'm a skilled worker myself and make a pretty tidy living. Personally, I don't want more skilled workers flooding the country (Canada in my case) and driving down my salary.

    It's all very well you talking about NHS workers but their salaries and benefits are protected by unions. People like me who work in the private sector have no such protection and are at the mercy of market forces. The last thing I want is hundreds of qualified competitors driving down my hourly rate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    So you need heart surgery and you'd rather a Brit perform it because the best cardiovascular surgeon in the world wasn't allowed to move here?
    Well, the best cardio-vascular surgeon in the world is hardly likely to want to move to the UK and work for the NHS when he can move to California and bring in $5 million a year. Just saying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I'm sure Farage is right.
    I'm not saying he's wrong? However, Farage was not saying ban immigration completely. He advocates controlled immigration- i.e. only admit those who would be extremely useful to our country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's all very well you talking about NHS workers but their salaries and benefits are protected by unions. People like me who work in the private sector have no such protection and are at the mercy of market forces. The last thing I want is hundreds of qualified competitors driving down my hourly rate.
    I don't disagree- my point is we should only be admitting AMAZING individuals, like mentioned earlier- best cardiovascular surgeons, amazing scientists/researchers etc.

    I'm not saying admit anybody with a degree who will earn £30,000. The numbers of the people I am referring to would be extremely small.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I don't disagree- my point is we should only be admitting AMAZING individuals, like mentioned earlier- best cardiovascular surgeons, amazing scientists/researchers etc.

    I'm not saying admit anybody with a degree who will earn £30,000. The numbers of the people I am referring to would be extremely small.
    But truly AMAZING individuals don't want to come to the UK. They can go to the US and make ten times as much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Repeal the racist Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and basically set a yearly cap on the number of immigrants, say 100,00 a year or so, 50,000 from commonwealth countries and 50,000 from EU countries. That way you open immigration to countries with British institutions without walling the country off from the EU altogether.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lardeedahdeedah)
    Repeal the racist Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and basically set a yearly cap on the number of immigrants, say 100,00 a year or so, 50,000 from commonwealth countries and 50,000 from EU countries. That way you open immigration to countries with British institutions without walling the country off from the EU altogether.
    I can't say I care whether they come from the commonwealth or not.

    (I can say there is one particular culture I would rather see less of)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I can't say I care whether they come from the commonwealth or not.

    (I can say there is one particular culture I would rather see less of)
    I think immigration should be banned by default, with the following exceptions:
    - students.
    - immigrants who have found a 25K job.
    - immigrants who will bring at least 500K in capital.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I'll take the risk to keep out immigrants. Farage said he would rather have less prosperity and keep out foreigners.
    Well then he, like you, is an idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well then he, like you, is an idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why is he an idiot?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.