For example?

I see Pete's right hand man has been let out of his cage! :lol1:

I can think of no finer SN compliment!:)

That doesn't surprise me!

It's interesting to see the title of this thread, given that the actual reports states 'small benefit'.

I suspect this betrays the poster (and supporters) unbalanced feeling about this key issue.

Try look at this issue without fear and resentment and you never know, you might actually start seeing things differently.

There is no way you can say that being concerned about gross overpopulation of our country is being racist. That is the standard mode of attack from those who mindlessly advocate mass immigration. I am disappointed that you avoided my earlier question, and Alcazar's description of the true effects of this government's total loss of control is what is truly important in this respect.

Les

The government justify immigration by lying about it being worth £6bn, this is because mass immigration in itself is a bad thing, so it needs to be justified.

If there is little or no benefit to unprecedented mass immigration, then financially it is neither good nor bad, but most people would see it as a bad thing socially, so overall, immigration at this level is bad for the country.

So Prime minister Brown has stated no cap on immigration as he believes immigrants are massively contributing to the British economy.I am afraid there is no hope for a once Great country if an unelected buffon like Brown is permitted to make irrational decisions like this . God help us all!

'Once Great' - when was that exactly?

1997 was the last time I believe! :)

hmmmm........

Tell me why mass immigration at the current level is good for the country.

Given that the financial benefit is now acknowledged to be nothing, what else makes this a good thing?

I'm not talking about controlled immigration, I am talking about the level we have now, eg: 23% of all children born in England were born to mothers who were born abroad. This number will only increase and I don't believe it is sustainable.

Well to start with I wouldn't be able to buy my regular Latte every morning without immigration, because there wouldn't be anyone to serve me. (95% of the cafe / bar / resturant staff in the West End are immigrants):)

Why is having children born to mothers who were born abroad a bad thing - I don't understand your point there. It should also be remebered that a significant number of people emigrate each year, so the net numbers are nearly as high as being peddled by the usual suspects in the press.

The financial benefits are still £6bn, as it was yesterday - the issue was how GDP per capita has gone down as a result, the overall amount remains £6bn.

I don't know anybody who believes in uncontrolled immigration, you'd have to be crazy to believe this, but this issue is being hyped into something it is not?

Unless the birth rate radically outstrips the death rate, then what's the problem?

You want the numbers to be farily evenm (which they are https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/uk.html) - So without that 23% we would probably be in a spot of bother.

The financial benefits are not £6bn at all, have you even read the report?

Immigrants generate £6bn, but cost the country about the same, so they are of no benefit overall financially.

As I said before, given the fact they don't benefit the country financially what is the benefit of having uncontrolled immigration?

All you have come up with is someone to serve you a latte. :lol1:

Another point made by the report is that house prices will rise by 10% due to this immigration.

When I suggested on here that house price rises were linked to immigration you condemned me for being mad, well now it's a bit more official perhaps you will believe it!

But that's the situation we have now under brave Nu Labia!!!

Dave

You obviously haven't
That not what the report says at all.

It says that they add £6billion to GDP, but the per capita amount is pennies.

What they are saying is that the average Briton is no better off due to immigration in terms of productivity to GDP - It's not about "cancelling out" the £6 billion at all.

I read somewhere the other day that the CCTV statistic was based upon a study that extrapolated from the number of cameras on Putney High Street (or was it Peckham High Street - I forget). If true then it explains the supposed high number.

Dave

Is this report the final word on this then?

But let's take 'no overall benefit arguement' if thats the case, and the impact in neutral, which I believe is highly unlikey (just using my eyes), come to London and you'll find 100,000's of jobs that would simply not be done by anyone else. If the impacts are neutral then why are you getting so worked up about this issue?

Quote:
"That not what the report says at all.

It says that they add £6billion to GDP, but the per capita amount is pennies.

What they are saying is that the average Briton is no better off due to immigration in terms of productivity to GDP - It's not about "cancelling out" the £6 billion at all. "


So are you saying that the cost to the NHS, Police, housing, etc. is on top of the fact that they generate nothing per capita? If that's the case it's even worse than I thought, I apologise for my misunderstanding. :lol1:

"But let's take 'no overall benefit arguement' if thats the case, and the impact in neutral, which I believe is highly unlikey (just using my eyes), come to London and you'll find 100,000's of jobs that would simply not be done by anyone else. If the impacts are neutral then why are you getting so worked up about this issue? "


I don't believe the social impact is neutral, I think it is disastrous. To answer your worry about your latte, if the government cut the ridiculous amount of benefits given to spongers, they would be able to fill the jobs taken by immigrants, seems like fairly simple economics to me. If people have to work to survive they will do.

Now you're just being dim

Really, so what is the cost of immigration on public services then, you and Pete are very well informed with these figures, you should have them to hand?

The report says that if the UK continued to have an extra 190,000 people per year for the next 20 years. Then you would see inflation of 10% on house prices.

Which with the best will in the world I don't think was the sort of time frame anyone here was looking at.

Thank god that we didn't kick those other immigrants out.... you know, those Romans... we'd still be sh1tting behind bushes :D

You do understand the relationship between total GDP and per capita GDP right?


I.e. if you have 1000 people contributing £10 per capita then you have a total GDP of £10,000.


Add another 100 people @ £10 per capita and your total GDP goes up to £10,100 - but your per capita GDP stay the same.


Public services etc are nothing to do with the report.

What is being said is that per capita we are not better off


Geddit?

Well immigrants are demonstrably putting more in (in tax) than they are taking out in public services. The highest 'drain' (bad word I know) on the public sevices are the elderly, sick and unemployed. Immigrants tend to be young, healthy and working. And that's before you add in the very high numbers of immigrants working in the public services, especially the NHS.

Indeed - Not forgetting the huge amounts we spend each year in State pensions etc (£45 billion at the last count)

What people need to realise is that to pay all these "bills" we need tax revenue, and if needs be, you have to get the revenue by "importing" workers.

When was it ever good??