1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"The economic case for immigration is more bogus than any asylum-seeker"

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by Spie, 27 Nov 2002.

  1. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    Article by Anthony Browne
     
  2. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Hear here.. this country is creaking at the seams in terms of infrastructure, health & education systems, crime.

    It seems to me that economic growth is persued at all costs, because the perceived wisdom is that as the economy grows, everyone will prosper.

    So in order to continue to grow we need an ever-increasing population or somewhere down the line, growth will inevitably stall. But is further overcrowding our tiny island and putting extra burden on our already creaking services a price worth paying - I don't think so.

    Also more people pushes house prices & rents higher as demand is increased even further; demand already far outstrips supply in London and the southeast.

    I agree with everything the article says but is anybody in government or any of the three main parties listening? :mad:
     
  3. wassap

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,337

    Finally a report with credibility imo, in terms of it not coming over as a xenophobic pile of trash, as most reports of this type do, i do feel we in this country are at a point, where we need to take a step back, and only accept qualified professional people, or people who can support their selves, these are policies adopted by the aussies and yanks. as for all of the unskilled jobs out there, we need to get the dole scroungers we have of our own and give em a good kick up the jacksie, imo if there are jobs out there there no excuse to be sitting on the dole.
     
  4. r1cko

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,622

    Indeed! I think it's disgusting that some people say we need immigrants like some sort of supplement Labour force that the govt can dip their grubby mitts into so they can fund the pension timebomb that's going to hit us.

    Get rid of the welfare state, not import people as economic pawns..

    These half baked measures of cramming the country full of immigrants to support a relic socialist dream that was as loony to begin with as it is today need to stop, and right now before untold damage is done..
     
  5. zero

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,913

    maybe we should start importing trailer trash from the us to live off us too? im not saying all assylum seekers are but cant be ignored that a significant number are... i dont realy think that the uk has the infrostructure to sustain people liveing here let alone more people.. but tmo, im sure many think the same and i doubt peoples opinions will get weaker..
     
  6. Ex-RoNiN

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,354

    I think its rubbish.

    Just think about it logically.

    You have a new guy entering this country. He has a job and earns money. By earning money he already pays tax. He lives somewhere, hence he pays council tax. He puts money into a bank account, hence pays the bank money - a british business makes money. If he puts some money into a savings account, then the bank makes even more money, and the government too, because income through a savings account is taxable.

    Then, he needs to buy clothing, food etc., he will buy that at British stores, thus providing more businesses to British stores, plus also providing more money to the government through VAT.

    See what I mean?
     
  7. zero

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,913

    and i quote...

    UK


    Origin of asylum seekers, 2000
    Iraq 7,080
    Sri Lanka 6,040
    Yugoslavia 5,695
    Afghanistan 5,220
    Iran 5,170
    Source: UNHCR



    In 2000, the UK received the largest number of asylum applications of any EU country, leading to fears that the country was being perceived as a "soft touch".

    However, the number of asylum seekers who were recognised as genuine more than doubled to 72.5% between 1998 and 1999, undermining suggestions that most of the asylum seekers are bogus.

    Key facts


    Number of asylum applications 2000: 97,860
    Recognition of asylum-seekers in 1999: 72.5%
    Percentage granted refugee status in 1999: 12.1%
    Cases still pending 1999: 102,870
    Benefits


    Asylum-seekers receive an allowance of roughly $176 a month (£30 a week), two thirds of which is in vouchers.

    They can apply for the right to work after six months, but if they find employment they lose their voucher benefits.

    Asylum seekers must prove they are destitute to qualify for state accommodation. They can be housed either in hostels, local authority housing or detention centres across the country.

    Asylum seekers have access to free health care. Expert psychological treatment for victims of torture is provided for asylum-seekers in London and south-east England.

    Education is compulsory for children up to 16, and is free up to 18.
    (bbc)
     
  8. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    Or, what really happens :-

    A new guy enters the country. He has no job or money, so he's given free acommodation and benefit. He displaces British people that might get state assistance, but they still need acommodation so the taxpayer foots the bill for unreasonable additional housing costs.

    He has no money at all to put into a savings account, nor money to phone home, but the good old British taxpayer gives him £200 per month to phone his folks, just so he can keep in touch.

    He doesn't have any money for clothing or food, but the British taxpayer will give him plenty, which he then spends on cigarettes and mobile phones.

    Taking the pee? No, this is happening every day in your county. You better believe it.
     
  9. zero

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,913

    and....

    2 - What does it mean to claim asylum?
    A person can claim asylum by declaring themselves at their port of entry to the UK, or from within the country by contacting the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office. To be granted asylum under the 1951 UN Refugees Convention it is necessary to demonstrate a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Alternatively, asylum seekers can be granted 'exceptional leave to remain', a discretionary grant of leave made by the Home Secretary, allowing a person to stay in the UK for a limited period of time.

    (http://www.asylumscotland.org.uk/faq.html )

    and unsupriseingly a fair few of them mysteriously dissapear after this limited time...
     
  10. zero

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,913

    53% of asylum seekers in the london area are employed, the rest are not contributeing, also with public opinion being as it is i can see employers rushing to get assylum seekers on there payrole, and even if they are it will be in the most low payed of jobs concieveable..

    http://www.lsc.gov.uk/news_docs/Refugees%20and%20Asylum%20Seekers%20in%20the%20LSC%20London%20North%20Area-%20Summary%20Report.pdf
     
  11. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Does the person in your example arrive in Britain with a couple of grand in his back pocket in order to set himself up with somewhere to live, eg. £500+ rent deposit, £500+ rent in advance, £1000 furniture etc? Or does he just arrive, get a job and immediately find somewhere to live as if by magic? No, he will be helped at the taxpayer's expense of course. None of that assistance is available to the indigenous population who need it.

    Even if you are right about all the tax he would pay.. the flipside is he needs medical care & dental care putting strain on the NHS, he uses a car or public transport putting strain on infrastructure, he may be a victim of crime putting further strain on the police & courts.. he creates waste which has to go into landfill.. he takes a home which could have gone to someone living here already - there is a massive squeeze on housing supply in this country.

    When you look at it in those terms it's not so clear cut is it. And what about factors which can't be measured in financial terms, like diluting our country's culture, or simply making the country a less pleasant place to live by making it intolerably overcrowded.
     
  12. Ex-RoNiN

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,354

    No, technically he doesn't put any further strain on police, NHS etc. as he is paying tax and hence contributes to maintaining those services.

    I do agree with overcrowding though.


    As for asylum seekers, that is not what I am talking about, I am talking about the classical case of an immigrant.

    I have said it many times before, if you give anything more than the basics to asylum seekers then its your own fault really. Tell your politicians to stop that. If they dont wanna listen, kick them out of office. No democratic country can affford to shoot at protesters, so you can only win. Just need to get your act together, stop acting scared, march to London and demand that Tony acts. If he doesn't, march into Downing Street 10 and select someone else.

    I dont have any problem with any immigrant anywhere, as long as they make a reasonable effort to become part of the society they are immigrating to. As for ppl living off benefits, in cases of genuine asylum seekers they deserve shelter and food (and nothing else), for in-genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants that plan on living off benefits, they deserve to be kicked out ASAP and sent back to where they came from.

    Of course, if the government wasnt handing out money to them left right and centre, then the most of them wouldnt be coming here in the first place. :)
     
  13. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    So true. We don't want policies that allow such abuses of our system. In fact, we don't want a system that can be abused.

    We want a system that offers protection for genuine asylum seekers - in other words, people fleeing their country of origin who are in fear of their lives and who are seeking asylum in the nearest safe country. How bleedin difficult is it to work out that 90% + of all those claiming asylum do not fall into that category?

    Get real Blair and listen to your voters, because we've had enough.
     
  14. Marcus

    Closed

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 870

    I agree with every word of that except the 'nearest safe country' bit. On that basis, about the only asylum seekers we'd get would be French or Irish.

    Personally, I feel that there needs to be an international agreement to ensure that all countries that can take asylum seekers do so, and that there is a fair system for organising it. That means taking such factors as employment levels, availability of infrastructure and economic climate into account as well as the wealth of a country. It also means that asylum seekers go where they are told, not where they want. The UK should do its bit, but the sight of asylum seekers in Calais tearing up French asylum forms because they are determined to get to the UK is almost enough to make we want to stop all assistance to all asylum seekers. :mad:

    We are seen as a soft touch and it's about time something was done about it.

    Which brings me back to the last line of Spie's comment. Right on, Bro.
     
  15. Squawbait

    Gangster

    Joined: 24 Oct 2002

    Posts: 131

    In a pigs ear.


    The reality
     
  16. r1cko

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,622

    immigrants take out more than they put in.. how can anyone argue that immigrants who are filthy with disease and come to this country with no assets, no education, cant speak english and has no job prospects could possibly be a net contributor to the honey pot of britain.. it simply isnt true..

    think of what is involved..

    administration costs when they come here..
    setting them up with assets like clothes, housing, stuff for kids if they have any..
    they all need medical attention because they're a threat to public safety
    if they cant speak english and dont have any qualifications they will be on welfare or earning minimum wage.. all low paid workers are subsidised through taxation..

    the realities is the money they spend is then taken from the business in taxation and then given back to them.. theres no wealth creation in this process or any prosperity being spread, only missery for the nationals of this country..
     
  17. Jono

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,262

    Location: Northallerton/Harrogate

    I think asylum seekers should be treated like the rest of the population of this country. The few can spoil it for the many.

    Take for example, the case of 3 or 4 iraqi/afghan ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who stowed away in the back of a lorry from a Danish port, that came to North Tyneside to deliver some things to Eldon Square in Newcastle.

    As soon as the back of the truck was open the leapt out and ran off through tha mass of people in eldon square. I don't think they've been caught yet. They are believed to have spent about 36 hours in the back of the truck, waiting to be free to abuse our country.


    Now, are most handguns legal in this country? No? And why is that? It's because a couple of individuals shot some people and now a lot of sports pistols are outlawed, due to the actions of the few. (I don't know exactly which guns were affected, but I'm sure it's the majority)

    That is NOT FAIR on the people who used the guns for recreation/sport. There are countless examples of this sort of overreaction from the government - why can't the same apply to asylum seekers?
    The ones that get in illegally should spoil it for the legal ones - NO MORE IMMIGRANTS.

    Problem solved.

    And it abso****inglutely takes the **** when WE PAY THEM TO APPEAL if they get refused the first time!!! WTF?? :mad::mad::mad::mad: x 10^100000000
     
  18. kibblerok

    Soldato

    Joined: 21 Nov 2002

    Posts: 5,011

    Location: Manchester

    i do agree we need to take in a certain amount, they did get it half right by having that centre

    what we should do is allow in a reasonable amount, one thats fair and in proportion to other countries.Tthese are then housed in a centre until they are ready/able to mix in with society. they live in the centre until they can speak good enough english, they have a steady job etc

    stage two, they have a job and are put on a list for council houses, they get a council house and pay for it with their job, if they cant afford it they stay in the centre contributing towards their rent.

    this is good enough for them anyway, we are under the illusion that asylum seekers should be given all the rights we have, this is wrong, we are here to look after them and give them shelter.

    at the moment they have houses and benefits, what incentive do they have to get a job and intergrate with society? none!

    i believe something similar was set up but they burnt it down, solution? send them back where they came from. theres so much red tape and euro nonsense its unbelieveable

    if they dont like the situation they go back home, simple! all this human rights and liberty stuff gets on my ****
     
  19. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Why should immigrants coming here get a council house?

    Why should they be allowed to jump the queue when many people wait years to get offered a council property?

    If you are single where I live, you are not even allowed to join the list because council properties are so scarce here! A legacy of the right-to-buy scheme of course.

    It is disgusting if immigrants are given a council house when the rest of us have to fend for ourselves in the very expensive private rented sector.
     
  20. Ex-RoNiN

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,354

    This is getting annoying now:mad:

    There is a difference between immigrants and asylum seekers and economic migrants :mad: :mad:

    Immigrants is what John Smith was in the US so many hundred years ago, immigrants are all those Brits that have moved to Spain/Oz/god knows where.

    Asylum seekers are those people that are fleeing war/disease/god knows what from their country and are looking for shelter somewhere.

    Economic migrants are jobless scum that try to suck Western Europe's societies dry by claiming all kinds of benefits.

    Get yer terms straight, mate.