UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[WinstonWolf]

When we have school leavers who can't find employment?

[BGARK]

JustAnotherLogin said:

we need more immigrants of working age to pay for the pensions of the baby-boomers when they retire

Please show us the maths for how using the fact that most immigrants are on minimum wage or less and contribute negligible tax as a percentage their earnings.

[NicD]

JustAnotherLogin
It would certainly help me if peps would start by saying whether they are making constructive and thoughtful comments on unintended consequences or just posturing and stirring.
Just a thought.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So now we have some more information on UKIP's policies, shall we look at them?

Why not start with immigration. UKIP tell us that is the biggest issue so lets start there. Farage recognises that there are good and bad immigrants.

So I guess a good type (in Farage's eyes) might be, shall we say a German technology entrepeneur wishing to start up in Camrbridge, employing 20 people at first. Its a big investment for him as he is quitting his job in a good firm to do this but believes he can make it work. He has a young family.

Bad type might be someone from Pakistan, no skills, strongly Islamic, 50 years old, no family. Just wants to move to UK so that he can get British pension when he retires.

So how do they fare under UKIP policy?
1) Leave EU
2) Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.

So the German has no job in the UK, lost his private health insurance when he quit his job with Siemens, has no money for private education until he gets his company going. So he is out on 3 counts

The Pakistani, has some distant family in Manchester who he can quote will give him a job as a waiter, can set a compliant health insurance on-line (and the cancel it once he is pat immigration because they will never track him down), and he can use their house as an address for accommodation. But he can get in, and then retire on a nice pension and get a council house in a few years time.

The policy is naive and specious. It is easily cheated by some, and would keep other good people out. Ok so I picked 2 extreme examples (because I wanted to highlight many deficiencies), but there are plenty of "good immigrants" that would be put off, and plenty of "bad immigrants" that would get through.


And in case no-one had noticed, we need more immigrants of working age to pay for the pensions of the baby-boomers when they retire

Your reasoning assumes that the border staff are as thick as some of the posters on this thread.

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So now we have some more information on UKIP's policies, shall we look at them?

• *SNIP!***

And in case no-one had noticed, we need more immigrants of working age to pay for the pensions of the baby-boomers when they retire

you have completely missed the point in what UKIP are suggesting.

May I suggest you take a look at the immigration requirements for the Australia?

apart from being a points based system, where your age, qualifications, skills, industry sector, etc are taken into account, they also bar people with long term medial issues (unless you have insurance/money to cover yourself)

so, effectively what UKIP are proposing is the same kind of system.

Now, back to AIDS, who wants to put a figure on just how much a years druggs course for your typical AIDS patient is?

now, unless said person is a real high flier with huge salary, whatever they pay in Tax and NI is NOT GOING TO COVER IT.

so, bleating on about people contributing in these cases is somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.

then we get to the issues of people spreading it, like this guy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085446/HI...

this is not being xenophobic about aids, it;s being f**king sensible.

next people will suggest we are being racist not allowing migrants in with Ebola...

[handpaper]

NicD said:

another self interested lowlife twisting and corrupting, turning an extremely sensible statement about controlling immigration so that it benefits Britain to some snide nonsense (my bold).
From the anythingbutIndependent, of course


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-...

Not many on there agreeing with the author, I think he may have misjudged his audience (and his subject, frankly).

[NicD]

and talking of the admirable Australian immigration model, here is what we should have done with EU movements from day 1.

Oz and NZ have a reciprocal freedom of movement scheme BUT it contains a 'good character' clause. Travellers have to declare convictions on or before arrival and can be turned back if judged unfit. In theory, at least, that would catch a load of the garbage that have infiltrated this country.

[Gogoplata]

Does the US still have a policy that stops people with HIV from entering their country?

[steveT350C]

Gogoplata said:

Does the US still have a policy that stops people with HIV from entering their country?

Google is a very simple thing to use

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/04/us.hiv.vi...

Eta other search engines are available and I am sure equally as effective

Edited by steveT350C on Saturday 11th October 16:47

[Scuffers]

steveT350C said:

Google is a very simple thing to use

http://edition.cnn.comUS 010/TRAVEL/01/04/us.hiv.visa/

Eta other search engines are available and I am sure equally as effective

Edited by steveT350C on Saturday 11th October 16:47

Visitors visas are a.different subject.

We are talking about migration, not visitors.

Take a look how hard it is to get a us green card.

[steveT350C]

Question was about 'entering' US, but yes general discussion is about immigration.

[Gogoplata]

steveT350C said:

Question was about 'entering' US, but yes general discussion is about immigration.

Thanks for clearing it up, I wasn't in a position to goaglee it (is that how you spell it?) and wanted to raise the point in the discussion.

[TheRealFingers99]

Gogoplata said:

Does the US still have a policy that stops people with HIV from entering their country?

So,the answer is no. And I believe it's quite asymptomatic for 6 weeks or so, so testing at the border isn't likely to be a spectacular success.

More Farage the bully making up policy on the hoof following one too many at lunchtime?

If (big if) UKIP manage to gain a significant number of MPs in a general election, his days as leader are surely numbered.

[NicD]

TheRealFingers99 said:

So,the answer is no. And I believe it's quite asymptomatic for 6 weeks or so, so testing at the border isn't likely to be a spectacular success.

More Farage the bully making up policy on the hoof following one too many at lunchtime?

If (big if) UKIP manage to gain a significant number of MPs in a general election, his days as leader are surely numbered.

Its a bit early for you to be drunk but if mentally challenged, that would explain it.
Just read this rather obvious article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/...

[steveT350C]

Gogoplata said:

steveT350C said:

Question was about 'entering' US, but yes general discussion is about immigration.

Thanks for clearing it up, I wasn't in a position to goaglee it (is that how you spell it?) and wanted to raise the point in the discussion.

Gugul is phonetically nice

I believe Farage's is angle is more on the healthcare tourism, free NHS treatment, very expensive HIV drugs angle, but I have not checked up yet.

[Scuffers]

This sentence kind of covers it...

Once HIV treatment is started, patients will probably need to take the medication for the rest of their lives. In total, the cost to the NHS will be up to £1 million per patient if they survive into old age.



Still think we should have open door to anybody?

[0a]

How do other countries deal with immigration applicants with massively costly long term heath conditions such as HIV?

[TheRealFingers99]

NicD said:

Its a bit early for you to be drunk but if mentally challenged, that would explain it.
Just read this rather obvious article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/...

Rather dubious article, I'd say. Like Ebola, HIV is completely unsymptomatic for a (longer) time. Someone could test fine today, positive in a week or so. So the practicalities (at least) were not thought through in the pub.

With Farage's life history of unprotected sex, you might expect him to be a little more reasonable, but.........

[steveT350C]

Scuffers said:

This sentence kind of covers it...

Once HIV treatment is started, patients will probably need to take the medication for the rest of their lives. In total, the cost to the NHS will be up to £1 million per patient if they survive into old age.



Still think we should have open door to anybody?

£1m???? Are you fffing mad???


Free for overseas visitors' ????






Oh......



http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm



The question of who should be able to receive free HIV/AIDS treatment in the UK has been a much debated public health issue and on 1st October 2012 treatment was made free for all overseas visitors. 6

- See more at: http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm#sthash.7...



Funnily enough, Farage has a point.

[TheRealFingers99]

steveT350C said:

Funnily enough, Farage has a point.

A pointy head, perhaps...........