General Discussion
Bad news for the little englanders who are manning the barricades, as immigrants have made a net contribution of £20,000,000,000 to the British economy between 2000 and 2011. If you don't understand what that means, the article explains. Please read it and take it on board.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study
And the same report reveals that immigration, during the analysed period, from outside the European Economic Area cost the country £118,000,000,000. Though I wouldn't expect The Guardian (or Mrs C) to highlight that particular fact.
More facts here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html
Who's talking about sending anybody home? What I would advocate is restricting access to benefits or public services until any immigrant has paid into the system for a defined period, I think five years sounds reasonable.
What public services would you restrict immigrants from having access to during your arbitrary period?
Heard yesterday that Cameron, Osborne and co are toying with the idea that freedom of movement within the EU should be restricted to those who have a job to go to.
So say, just say, the EU amended its constitution away from freedom of movement per se to freedom of movement for those with jobs to go to.
What about all those Brits wanting to retire to the Costas and the Algarve then? Presumably as they wouldn't have jobs to go to Brits wishing to retire to those EU countries blessed with sunnier climes would no longer be able to do so?
Do retired British ex pats in EU countries have access to those countries health service etc?,
A friend went to Poland recently and a young taxi driver was bragging that he works here for 11 month of the year then goes home, followed shortly by a tax rebate as he is no longer in the country. He said he waits a few months then returns to do it all over again. My friend was really annoyed, how many others are playing the system!
It's a shame the U.K. has had such a laid back approach to immigration over the decades. This goes back long before we joined the E.U. In many cases the introduction, on mass, of immigrants was a decision by the government at the time to obtain large groups of workers who could very easily be manipulated within poor working/pay conditions.
Australia has the right idea and is very strict on controlling flow of immigrants through its borders. Funny really when you consider the first immigrants to land in Australia in their thousands were prisoners and prison staff from the U.K.!
Well Judith funny how this comes out when a By-election is coming up and a possible drubbing for Labour and Conservatives
As for taking it on board many people have different reasons for being concerned about immigration so much so that people
are afraid to even approach the subject.
@Mrs C
The benefits that immediately spring to mind are JSA, child benefit, the NHS. I am sure there are others to consider.
Just to clarify one of your earlier points, the UCL study covered the years 1995-2011. For seven of those years even immigrants from within the EEA were a net burden on the economy.
The picture you would like us all to take on board doesn't seem quite so rosy now, does it?
@OF - rather than British convicts might the first immigrants to land in Australia in their thousands be the ancestors of those people presently known as Aborigines?
I actually asked you about the public services that you'd prohibit access to for immigrants, not the benefits. Selective reading again eh Burneside?
@Lynne - i don't believe that the ancestors of the aborigines actually landed in australaia. the chances are they most probably walked ten's of thousands of years ago. also to be in the same flavour as your comment, i do not believe australia had actually been named back then.
Wikipedia has the following info:
The origin of Aboriginal peoples in Australia has been the subject of intense speculation since the nineteenth century. Until recently no theory of migration had gained wide acceptance. Genetic studies had shown the Aboriginal peoples to be related much more closely to each other than to any peoples outside Australia, but scholars had disagreed whether their closest kin outside Australia were certain South Asian groups or African groups. The latter would imply a migration pattern in which their ancestors passed through South Asia to Australia without intermingling genetically with other populations along the way. A 2009 genetic study in India found similarities among Indian archaic populations and Aboriginal people, indicating a Southern migration route, with expanding populations from Southeast Asia migrating to Indonesia and Australia.
In a genetic study in 2011, researchers found evidence, in DNA samples taken from strands of Aboriginal people's hair, that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the ancestors of the European and Asian populations between 62,000 and 75,000 years ago—roughly 24,000 years before the European and Asian populations split off from each other. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who arrived around 50,000 years ago. This finding is supported by earlier archaelogical finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to 45,000 years ago. The same genetic study of 2011 found evidence that Aboriginal peoples carry some of the genes associated with theDenisovan peoples of Asia; the study suggests that there is an increase in allele sharing between the Denisovans and the Aboriginal Australians genome compared to other Eurasians and Africans. This makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa.The Papuans have more sharing alleles than Aboriginal peoples. The data suggest that modern and archaic humans interbred in Asia before the migration to Australia.
@Mrs C
It's rather rich of you to accuse me of selective reading, when you cherry-picked from UCL report to suit your own ends.
I've already told you what I would restrict to new immigrants.
@OF - okay then howsabout this - the land presently known as Australia had people living there whose ancestors had migrated there long before european immigrants arrived ( in the process bringing their culture/languages etc with them.)
from the Wiki info you posted above :"..........findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who arrived around 50,000 years ago".
How long ago did the european immigrants arrive? 3 centuries or so ago?
Burneside, I cherry-picked nothing. I provided a link to a newspaper article that was about the report!
So you'd ban all immigrants from having access to the NHS for 5 years. Would you also ban them from working for the NHS during the same period?
Say, just say, that immigrants were to be banned from access to the NHS for 5 years from the date of their arrival in the UK. Anyone any idea how this could be enforced?
Could it be - no access to anything. In which case how would immigrants access medical care? Or, access but have to pay. In which case how would the money be recouped and how much would it cost the NHS to do so? How much might end up being written off?
Of course, Mrs C, you provided a link to The Guardian which had already done the cherry-picking for you, then urged us all to take it on board as if their version was the honest truth. Why am I not surprised by that. In answer to your question, immigrants would have the prerogative to work where they please.
There is such a thing as medical insurance, But given that the NHS loses millions (some estimates are £2bn) every year because the authorities fail to collect fees from patients who are not entitled to NHS treatment, then I doubt the situation would change very much.
So......... a person turns up at A&E. The hospital people think (from that person's command of English and/or accent) that they might be an immigrant. How do the hospital people ascertain that 1. the person concerned is indeed an immigrant and that 2. they have been in this country the required 5 years. (Do they have to have been working for 5 years by the way and if so how would the hospital ascertain this?.)
I would imagine the medics would give what treatment necessary first off and then ask questions later, wouldn't you?
Additional thought; if people are unconscious when arriving at A& E (which, let's face it, is not unknown) how could the medics know anything at all about their residential/immigration history?
So Burneside, you'd tolerate immigrants (and presumably their UK-based dependents) receiving NHS treatment only if they'd worked in the UK for 5 years. Have I got that right?
What I cannot get is how the figure of £20,000,000,000 was arrived at because if true the banking crisis was easily
affordable.
If anyone is interested in the current debt we owe have a look at this website.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
Presumably Old Fart, your mantra applies to everyone - native Britons as well as immigrants. Would it also apply to those Brits who emigrate overseas but come back here for NHS treatment etc?
So......... Brits working in, or having retired to, another EU country would also have to have had residency in that particular country for at least 5 years? or would it just apply to those with jobs? so what about the health care of ex pat retirees then?
No Old Fart, I've merely asked for clarification on a point you raised followed by a sensible question to you - on a thread that I started. If you're unable or unwilling to answer the request and/or question, then just say so, instead of turning the thread into a personal attack on me. Ironically, Lynne raised a similar question to mine...