Should immigration always be perceived as ‘a problem’?

First topic message reminder :

Writing for ‘Compass’ in July this year, Lisa Nandy MP said: “For most of my lifetime, politics has been based on a belief that the only way to win elections is to seek out the centre ground, but it is surely an essential plank of a democracy that politicians should provide leadership and not just follow; as Robin Archer of the LSE says, to seek to define and not just seek the centre ground”. She continued by saying that people on the left in politics have to tackle the issues which make us feel uncomfortable – welfare reform, law and order and immigration.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=13151&offset=50

Let’s tackle the issue of immigration. The right-wing press has been indoctrinating us for years with claims that most immigrants are living on benefits, while at the same time saying that they’ve taken many of our jobs, and of course both scenarios can’t possibly be true. We’re told that the country is already overcrowded; it’s not, only S.E. England is, although we are now the most densely populated country in Europe. We’re told that immigration increases crime (our prisons do indeed hold a disproportionate number of people who weren’t born here) and increases the threat to our security. By increasing the labour force, does immigration suppress wage levels?

In the 1970s, the National Front used to peddle the spurious argument that as there were a million people unemployed in the UK at the time, all we had to do was repatriate a million immigrants and there would be no unemployment. Anyone with half a brain can work out that by reducing the population by a million, you would have a million fewer consumers to buy goods and services, thereby reducing demand and creating unemployment. There would also be a million fewer taxpayers (even those not working pay VAT).

So why have successive UK governments over the last fifty years allowed and even encouraged immigration?
Not out of charity but out of necessity. Firstly, to do jobs which the indigenous population didn’t want to do, or didn’t have the skills to do. The NHS would have collapsed years ago without immigrant doctors and nurses. Secondly, Europe has a declining birth rate, which is threatening to make it difficult to pay for pensions for future generations. Most immigrants are of working age, which means they consume less of the services provided by the state, such as health care and education, and pay more in taxes. Home Office research in 2002 suggested that immigrants paid £2.5bn more in taxes than they took in benefits.

Perhaps if more of us showed a positive attitude to immigrants, welcoming and celebrating diversity instead of perceiving it as ‘a problem’, immigrants might feel less of a need to retreat into ghettos, where some of them succumb to religious fanaticism and terrorism.

"who presents reasoned and logical arguments supported by factual evidence from reliable sources"

 
Much of the evidence we use is simply someone else’s opinion as in the cases of many of the journalists we quote. What I have a problem with is why is their opinions worth more than mine, TLTTF or blueturando’s, when we who post on this forum have had and still are having many day to day experiences which moulds our views one way or another. I believe all views are valid be they fair or foul.
 
I certainly do not go along with “if you oppose immigration you are automatically a racist” It could be to do with numbers and the quality of many of the immigrants.
 
When I was considerably younger, my Dad was a London Transport Bus Driver, back then it was not only a reasonably well paid job, but was considered a good job carrying a certain amount of respect. When London Transport opened labour exchanges in the West Indies, wages, standards and conditions started to go down at around the same time, even to the point where a Bus Driver had very little standing in the community, similar things happened with the railways and the NHS. What happened then is what is happening now only now there are many more people prepared to work for less money. Like blueturando I don’t blame the immigrants but the politicians who have allowed and assisted this happening.
 
Some say and I agree, we need some immigrants to help pay for the pensions of our ever ageing population, I also think we should vet those we allow in, emphasis on allow keep those who commit crime or come purely to leech of us and our benefits system.
 
Australia and Canada have good systems whereby immigrants need a job before you go and have a sponsor if things go tits up so you do not become a burden on the State.

It's possible that British residents may have an imperfect grasp of the practicalities of our Immigration Laws, because of course we are not personally involved in that system.

For some time now, would be Asian immigrants have only been able to make application for an entry visa to the British Consular office in their own Country, not on arrival in Britain. Questions about self-sufficiency and continuing employment, etc., of course have to be resolved before they even leave home.

The downside is that wealthy Chinese tourists, for example, find it easier to visit other countries in Europe than to bring their spending-money here.

bobby. I agree that if you oppose immigration, it doesn’t automatically make you a racist. The UK is now the most densely populated country in Europe, and the continual expansion of the population in the south east will put a strain on services, especially water supply.
 
So, is the issue the size of the population or who is in it? If net migration was zero – that is, if as many people were leaving the country as coming into it – would you be happy with that? Opposing immigration doesn’t make you a racist, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a racist who didn’t oppose immigration, and the use of negative connotations such as “floodgates”, “nicking work” or “leeching” doesn’t exactly help. Take a look at the prejudicial language used by the tabloid press:-
 
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/08/08/comment-this-is-how-the-press-breeds-hatred-for-immigrants
 
I also agree that much of what journalists write is just their opinions, but the more responsible ones will use facts to support their arguments. There is a world of difference between a ‘Daily Express’ hack giving us his opinion that he doesn’t like Diane Abbott, and another journalist quoting the fact that 95% of London Underground cleaners were born abroad, or the fact that the birth rate in the UK in 2001 was only 1.6 per woman. If I held the opinion that the moon is made of cheese, when scientists and astronomers have factual evidence that it isn’t, how on earth could my opinion possibly be as valid as theirs?

 I guess everyone is ENTITLED to an opinion, but the VALIDITY of an opinion will depend on the evidence that backs it up.

You could even construct a hierarchy of evidence, with personal prejudice at one end, and evidence from more than one piece of serious research at the other.

Somewhere in there will stand the opinions of people one respects, and personal experience, both of which form the basis of many of the judgements we make.

If a person has only respect for the views of right (or left) wing journalists, the suggestion, at least to me, is that that person is interested only in evidence that supports a particular biased world view, or set of prejudices, and that the opinions they express may have somewhat less validity than those of a person who takes into account a range of views and information in forming her/his opinions.

\"boatlady wrote: If a person has only respect for the views of right (or left) wing journalists, the suggestion, at least to me, is that that person is interested only in evidence that supports a particular biased world view, or set of prejudices, and that the opinions they express may have somewhat less validity than those of a person who takes into account a range of views and information in forming her/his opinions.

Which explains why most people buy a Daily Newspaper that reflects their prejudice.

The Agricultural Wages Board was established in 1948. It was formally abolished by the Tories in June this year, and AWB rates will cease to be legally binding in October. This affects over 150,000 workers in agriculture, horticulture and other rural industries who have had their pay and conditions set by the Agricultural Wages Board for decades. Wage rates will be replaced by the national minimum wage, and that could lead to pay cuts for thousands of workers and deepen rural poverty.
 
UKIP has made much of the fact that Bulgarians and Romanians will be able to come to the UK next year. Well firstly, they already can come here through a government scheme for seasonal workers run by the Home Office, the same ministry of hypocrites who were behind those ‘Go Home’ vans. Secondly, fruit growers are worried that when the Romanians and Bulgarians get the freedom of the whole EU, they won’t want to come here. Why? Because the UK under the Tory-dominated coalition is seen as such a low-wage economy, and so expensive to live in, that they would rather work on farms in other EU countries.
 
One could have a little sympathy for the need of growers to attract workers if it were not for the fact they were also the leading lights in abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which used to guarantee slightly higher pay than the minimum wage. Maybe if the fruit growers paid decent wages they wouldn’t need to recruit workers from abroad?
 
Sources:-
 
http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/unitewarnsofrogueemployersexploitingagriculturalwagesboardconfusion/
 
http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/immigration-hypocrisy-from-the-home-office-to-waitrose-and-marks-and-spencer/

An excellent article dealing with the overall effect of mass immigration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10279556/Now-for-Labours-lies-about-immigration.html

Interesting opinion piece that; a bit short on facts I thought.

tlttf wrote:-
An excellent article dealing with the overall effect of mass immigration.

Firstly, it most certainly isn’t "excellent", and I note that you haven’t even bothered to tell us why you hold that opinion. Is it because it panders to, and reinforces, your grubby ‘Little Englander’ sentiments and covert racism?
 
Secondly, Jeff Randall doesn’t “deal” with the overall effect of mass immigration at all; he glosses over the relevant points by simply saying: “There are, I accept, some economic benefits from high levels of immigration.”
 
No doubt you enjoyed Randall's repetition of the lie about "open-door immigration", when there's never been any such thing. It’s hardly surprising that 60% of people polled think immigration is mainly disadvantageous, when you look at the negative language constantly used by the press to discuss the topic. All the poll proves is that brainwashed morons can be made to believe anything with a constant drip-drip of propaganda, as your postings prove time and again. I can’t understand why you’re not embarrassed by some of the utter tripe with which you pollute this forum.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/08/08/comment-this-is-how-the-press-breeds-hatred-for-immigrants
 
The rest of that “excellent” article contains breathtaking hypocrisy, such as complaining about what Labour did or didn’t tell voters before polling day. I wonder what Randall has to say about Cameron’s hidden plans for the NHS? Nothing I guess. Then he tries to claim that Ed Miliband “orchestrated the vote” last Thursday “to purge Labour’s shame”. No, Mr Randall, it isn’t “all Labour’s fault” that we’re not going to risk lives and waste colossal amounts of money attacking Syria. It's because of Cameron’s arrogance, incompetent tactics and the fact that 30 of his own MPs voted against him.
 
If you think that pile of crap is “excellent”, it speaks volumes about you and your nasty little mindset.

Controlled immigration is not a bad thing, but mass immigration is covert racism against the British working class, designed to drive down wages and reduce the number of available jobs. The only people that benefit are the rich, business owners and the Guardianista luvvies who can create 'Non' jobs for their mates tackling community cohesion and their multi-cultural agenda

Controlled immigration is a good thing. There is evidence on this thread of how, in 2001, the birth rate in the UK was well below what was necessary for the population to sustain itself (a problem which Germany is facing right now), and how the OBR has shown why we need 6 million more immigrants to support our ageing population.
 
I guess the key word is “controlled”. We’ve never had “uncontrolled immigration”, as some Tory liars like to pretend. (That would mean that anyone in the world could enter this country without any border checks, and presumably they wouldn’t even need to seek asylum!) However, following the enlargement of the EU in 2004, there was a sudden influx of immigrants from the new member countries, and they tended to settle in clusters (for example, a large number of Poles arrived in Southampton), which placed an enormous pressure on local facilities such as schools, housing and healthcare.
 
What some people seem to forget about immigrants is that they are also taxpayers and consumers who spend money and therefore create work for other people. The way to deal with the problem of “driving down wages” is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage and to enforce it rigorously, but we all know there’s no chance of the Tories doing anything which might help workers.

What some people seem to forget about immigrants is that they are also taxpayers and consumers who spend money and therefore create work for other people. The way to deal with the problem of “driving down wages” is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage and to enforce it rigorously, but we all know there’s no chance of the Tories doing anything which might help workers.

Agreed Ivan, perhaps Ed Miliband can garner some much need support by pledging this in his manifesto...make a cast iron promise to the working class and the unions. Bosses will only pay workers what they have to or can get away with and when their are people willing to undercut/work for less, then the bosses and share holders are rubbing their hands with glee

The HR director of a large employer said today on BBC Radio that above any paper qualifications, his Company favoured candidates possessing skills such as reliably turning up on time, of clean appearance and suitably dressed, with a willingness to learn and follow instructions.

If there’s two things the Tories hate the most, it’s welfare and immigration. In fact, the vast majority of Conservative policy consists solely of tackling these two supposed issues. However, Cameron and his Cabinet are beginning to be confronted over the evidence (or lack of) to support his claims that immigration, welfare tourism and claimant fraud are costing Britain a lot of money. To the voter, it would make perfect sense. Times are tough, must be those pesky foreigners coming here, claiming benefits and sucking all of the money out the economy. Aside from a dwindling cult of Daily Mail readers, it’s apparent that virtually nobody thinks like that anymore. In fact, more and more evidence (coming from across the political spectrum) is suggesting that immigrants are in fact more economically active than their UK-born counterparts.* Many of our public and private institutions would cease to exist without the foreign labour they rely upon. Yet, even if immigration were to stop tomorrow, unemployment would still be rife in the de-industrialized heartlands of the North. For it isn’t outside forces which have crippled the British nation, but as many would put it - the enemy within.

I’ve always found that phrase rather ironic, the enemy within. Thatcher originally used it to describe the Union opponents she loathed, however now the phrase has been coined by the left to describe herself and the devastation left in the wake of her domestic policy. However for Cameron, the enemy certainly isn’t within - or at least in his mind, shouldn’t be. Immigration and benefit fraud have been the focal points of the Conservative Party’s rise to power, and have also been the overarching ideas they return to when their other policies are challenged. Just look at the bedroom tax, a new burden placed upon ordinary working families, that was justified with the fictitious Conservative fantasy of small benefit-fraudulent families living in huge mansions paid for with ill-gotten taxpayers’ cash.

As mentioned above, the times are changing and people aren’t settling for the dodgy justifications for policies that are literally forcing families into food food banks for their daily meals. People aren’t as stupid or ignorant as the Tories might think they are, and this is shown in the almost unanimous opposition to the ‘flagship’ policies of the Conservative Party such as bedroom tax and privatization. Even immigration isn’t as big of an issue to the public as it once was; just look at the rise and subsequent decline of UKIP, the EDL and BNP. Bigger issues for the public are now to do with the NHS, Royal Mail and a host of progressive points such as government spying, interventionist foreign policy and corruption. These are all issues that the Conservative Party is very reluctant (if not staunching against) dealing with, and furthermore – this presents a prime opportunity for Labour to seize the movement and rethink its policy for the upcoming election.

*http://www.cebr.com/reports/migration-benefits-to-the-uk/

---

This article has been cross-posted from the Critical Proletariat. http://www.criticalproletariat.com

blueturando wrote (on another thread):-
I will point out the contradiction here......Most on the left keep saying we need more immigration, but then say there are no jobs for our unemployed...How does that make sense????

 
Some right-wingers complain that “immigrants come here and take our jobs”, while others complain that “immigrants come here and claim our benefits”. Is that a contradiction? It used to be, but it may not be now. Since the housing shortage (for which both main parties can be blamed) is so acute, sending rents sky high, 60% of those who receive housing benefit are actually working.
 
The UK does need more immigrants, as a medium term fix to our problem of an ageing population. That’s been discussed almost to exhaustion on this thread. What happens when those immigrants become old themselves is anyone’s guess. However, please remember that immigrants don’t cause unemployment, that’s an old National Front myth. That vile outfit used to tell us that the way to reduce unemployment by one million is to throw one million immigrants out of the country. A simple (and of course erroneous) solution for idiots with only a single brain cell. Immigrants are consumers, who spend money and create demand for goods and services (and thereby create jobs), while those who work are also taxpayers.
 
I’m sure you agree that there aren’t enough jobs for the unemployed, although there is plenty of work that needs doing. Even based on the government’s massaged figures of 2.5 million workless, since there are at any one time about 500,000 vacancies, it means there are five people unemployed for every vacant job. In many cases, the jobs aren’t where the people are, and in many cases the people can’t afford to move. Try selling a house in South Wales so that you can move and take up a job in Surrey.
 
The capitalist system has failed miserably here, just as it has in the USA (as Shirina often reminds us), which is why we require a dose of ‘big government’ with some controlled planning. We need some compulsory purchase orders to make land available for house building. Another round of new towns is needed – but well away from the south-east this time – providing jobs while they’re being built and homes, schools, shops and industrial estates upon completion. Add in incentives for SMEs to relocate, plus some workers’ co-operatives, and we could have many more people housed, working and paying tax, thus reducing both the welfare bill and our debt in due course.

The fact that this discussion is taking place at all is entirely due to the widening gap between have-nots and have-yachts.

A sensible (and overdue) review of Britain's tax system could result in a fairer distribution of the national cake - as we had until the 1960s, and fewer grumbles.

blueturando wrote (off topic on another thread)
" We keep hearing from certain quarters that there are no jobs, but the majority who step off the boat from the EU seems to be able to find jobs despite having English as a 2nd language or not at all."
Indeed many do but only by slave labour. Many are brought over by profiteering gangs and many end up on £250 per hour. Of course greedy employers are encouraging this sort of thing and in many cases putting British workers who are on the min wage out of a job.
The Tories have been slow in addressing anything to do with immigration, particularly illegal immigration mainly because they are hell bent on creating cheap labour. We at last have sight of some growth, this has been achieved on the backs of the British people by pandering to industry by creating cheap labour. Further more the banks have after 3 long years of these tyrants period in power started to lend to industry and these happenings along with quantitative easing by the BOE have inavertantly given these blighters credit for the little as it is growth.

Agree about the overhaul of the tax system OW, naturally I assume you don't mean more tax for some though would love to hear what your opinion is. Perhaps everybody being taxed on a PAYE system irrespective of what they earn would be fairer.

The problem with immigrants arriving at present are basically the unskilled labour taking jobs from idle gits that don't want them or believe they're beneath them.

"....  idle gits that don't want them or believe they're beneath them."

It's always heart-warming to see the Tory faithful straining every sinew to give the benefit of the doubt to the less fortunate...   

".... idle gits that don't want them or believe they're beneath them."

I wonder how many Tory supporters actually clean bogs for a living? 

Looking for a new cleaner Mel? 

I would love to have you land. However, as you profess not to be a Tory, you just wont do I'm afraid. 

Touche. lol  

tlttf wrote:Agree about the overhaul of the tax system OW, naturally I assume you don't mean more tax for some though would love to hear what your opinion is. Perhaps everybody being taxed on a PAYE system irrespective of what they earn would be fairer.

The problem with immigrants arriving at present are basically the unskilled labour taking jobs from idle gits that don't want them or believe they're beneath them.

I do mean more tax, tlttf. More diligence on the part of HMRC in collecting the Corporation Taxes which are legally payable but circumvented by evasion. (PAYE is the low-hanging fruit, but applies mainly to employees - not the self-employed.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-47bn-corporation-tax-lost-through-evasion-and-avoidance-as-royal-mail-is-sold-for-650m-less-than-it-is-worth-8874873.html

Anyone else seen this?

UKBA left red faced after Suresh Grover and Bobby Chan receive texts telling them to leave the country

Less than two weeks since the Home Office anti-immigration vans were banned by the advertising watchdog for using “misleading” statistics, the UK Border Agency has come under fire for telling an anti-racism campaigner and an immigration adviser to leave the country in a text.

On behalf of UKBA, private contractor Capita sent leading campaigner Suresh Grover a text telling him he had no right to live here. The same text was sent to Bobby Chan, an Immigration Caseworker at Central London Community Law.

Mr Grover, who founded the anti-racism charity The Monitoring Group, has campaigned for justice for Stephen Lawrence, Zahid Mubarek and Victoria Climbie. He also runs race relations advice surgeries across London.

He told the Independent “ I was absolutely shocked and quite horrified to receive the text. I thought it wasn’t meant for me. I came here with my parents in 1966, I was born in East Africa and have always had a British passport.”

Full article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/antiracism-campaigner-and-immigration-caseworker-sent-go-home-text-messages-by-home-office-8886200.html

Dear me, apart from the obvious cock-up has it really come to this in the UK, i.e. we're now sending text messages out to people we believe are living here illegally telling them to go home? It's like a parody worthy of Alan B'Stard. It's all just paying lip service anyway. It's clear huge parts of the tourist industry (for example) in places like London would be up in arms if they had to afford their workers full pay and rights if all the illegal immigrants left en masse.

Dan Fante wrote:Anyone else seen this?...

Yup... loved the article. How wonderfully embarrassing!   I loved the claim that only 14 of 50,000 had been wrong.   Bearing in mind that this is the Home Office doing this I would be surprised if 14 out of 50,000 were right.  

If I remember correctly Dan Fante its the same  way that the M.O.D told our armed forces their P45 was winging its way to them, this gov't is so desperate to save money so they can give private contracts to Tory donors and friends of the Tory party,:yeahthat:

The more chilling aspect is the fact that the agents for the government, in this case Capita had his name and telephone number.....How? and Why? what list is he on and why?

They claim that it was mistake....well sending a text to someone who has a different name is a mistake sending it to the wrong number is a mistake.....

The only mistake they made here was the fact that this gentleman knows about immigration law and is now demanding to know why he was on the list......

astradt1 wrote:The more chilling aspect is the fact that the agents for the government, in this case Capita had his name and telephone number.....

Isn't Capita the company that was/is run by one of Tony Blair's chums that he gave a leg up to?

Among (many) other things, collects your TV licence fee.

http://www.capita.co.uk/

Source: IBTimes UK

Very interesting Ivan and thank you.
 
One problem as I see it is London, my birth place, which I loved and where my roots were has changed beyond recognition and I would not wish to go back now to live there. London is roughly 5miles square and my question is, where is the room or the jobs accommodate more people, be they black, white or cream?

There has not been a military invasion of Britain since 1066, but in the ensuing 900 years there have been waves of immigrants to our shores. The history of modern London shows Huguenots, Jews, Hindu, Moslems, Caribbeans and Somalis providing a rich soup of new cultures, cuisines. British women are producing fewer children, so the nation will become more and more dependant upon immigrants and their children to pay taxes.

This little island has been quite successful in accommodating an ever-changing ethnic mix - notwithstanding some isolated 'eruptions' and some unpleasant episodes of xenophobia and discrimination.

We may be well-practised at the art but shouldn't become complacent as fresh challenges arise. We are a generally tolerant bunch, but are prone to fall prey to weaknesses such as reading the Daily Mail, so caution and vigilance are recommended...

The newspaper mentioned will probably be fighting the next Election mainly on the topic of immigration.

Migrants contribute £25 billion to UK economy
 
Migrants coming to the UK since 2000 have been less likely to receive benefits or use social housing than people already living in the country, according to a study that argues the new arrivals have made a net contribution of £25bn to public finances.

People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, according to the findings from University College London's migration research unit. Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received. Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing,

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

The paper argues that damage has been done by actions to cut work-related, student and family migration, harming the UK's reputation as a good place to work and study: "Too much of the debate about international migration in the UK is about 'immigrants' as an undifferentiated group, without getting to grips with who 'they' are, why they come, the jobs they do, the contribution they make and the length of time they stay.”
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

What a marvellous story from the Guardian, shame it overlooks that a majority of migrants take low paid jobs and are more likely to be claiming tax credits than the indigenous population. Tax credits are just another way of paying benefits, so how well researched is the above story and how much has it conveniently overlooked?

tlttf. Why don’t you pay attention to detail for once? ‘The Guardian’ didn’t research this “story”, it reported the findings of the University College London's migration research unit, as did a number of other sources, for example:-
 
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/immigrants-made-25bn-net-contribution-to-uk-economy-since-2000-report-finds.1383636407
 
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/immigrants-contributed-25billion-more-tax-6271752
 
http://www.channel5.com/shows/5-news/features-archived/immigration-brings-25-billion-to-the-uk
 
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3913714.ece
 
Which part of “migrants made a net contribution of £25 billion to public finances” can’t you understand? Where is your evidence that “a majority of migrants take low paid jobs and are more likely to be claiming tax credits than the indigenous population”, or is it just what you ‘think’ (for want of a better term) after years of ‘Daily Mail’ brainwashing? Are you trying to emulate the pathological liar Iain Duncan Smith, who ignores all evidence and insists that what he believes represents the truth?
 
It would be nice if you could make a useful and properly researched contribution to this forum at least once in your life, instead of continually seeking to mislead members with tripe from Redwood, the gutter press and your squalid right-wing prejudices, but I won't hold my breath.