How many Romanian/Bulgarian migrants are you predicting?

[porridge]

Tabloid headlines claim 'In January, the only thing left will be the goat', UKIP thinks 29 million, lefties don't care as we will all live happily ever after and the coalition refuse to give any number at all...

The pull factors are going to be strong due to wage differences (UK recruitment companies are already advertising there for Jan starts), however a fair few are already over under the limited restriction workarounds, other European countries are also lifting the restrictions at the same time and many will stay as they were; how many do you think we will get over 3 years or so?

[porridge]

Esseesse said:

Puggit said:

Newc said:

It was just under 0.5m Polish people from a 30% larger population. Poles are generally better educated which would lead to higher movement, but wage differential not as large as Rom/Bul, implying lower movement. So that all balances out and you're in the half-a-million range.

I believe the often quoted figure was 0.8m?

I believe the often quoted figure of 0.8M was for the first 2 years for Poland.

More than 600,000 unemployed European Union migrants are living in Britain today (source: the EU's own recent report!) That's not including the child benefits we send to EU nationals in other countries where one parent has comes over

[porridge]

GG89 said:

Bring it on. The sooner Britain crashes with devastating consequences the sooner change will come.

No turning back now just got to ride the st storm that is coming our way unfortunately.

What would make it crash.

If you travel around London now, the nice bits are kept nice by way of strict planning laws and high cost of living- the rich don't see any immigration and experience little negative impact, the normal to crap bits though have permissions granted for tiny flats, houses split into bedsits and ten to a 2 bed house.

If it is like under Labour- The rich will continue to have minimal negative impact by immigration and along with the middle class make a lot of money out of proving services, food and shelter to them, migrants will work for minimal and the lower working class will be paid off with benefits.

Add another dozen porta-cabins to the impacted schools and will be business as usual!

Edited by porridge on Monday 11th November 20:51

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

Let them in, send the criminals back and keep the normal people.
Does that sound too much like commonsense?

No it does not and very surprised you think it does.


Common sense if to check people's history 'before' they come.Criminal conviction = No, never worked in your life = No etc
Open borders when country is booming= people will put up with it
Open borders when country is in debt = moronic

The long term plan of the EU lot is a United States Europe in order to compete with the emerging powers, whilst this may well be the a good end game, it is a long way off and cannot be implemented in this ludicrous way.

[porridge]

andymadmak said:

Slightly O/T, but has it been conclusively shown that immigrants ARE net contributors? I read the report a week or so ago that made that claim, but even I noticed that the authors were "selective" about the time period they presented. Moreover I read somewhere else (was it the Telegraph?) that the report was subsequently comprehensively debunked.

As many do low paid jobs, they still get top benefits so would be surprised if net contributors. Overhead costs of the increased demand on existing services also need to be taken into account rather than just income- aside form the schools/health core god knows how many interpreters are needed, legal bills paid, multi lingual docs churned out and so on.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

I think we already do refuse them with a criminal record in most circumstances. You just misunderstood my point I think

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/gui...

Thats visa application rules, eu migrants don't need a visa.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

porridge said:

andymadmak said:

Slightly O/T, but has it been conclusively shown that immigrants ARE net contributors? I read the report a week or so ago that made that claim, but even I noticed that the authors were "selective" about the time period they presented. Moreover I read somewhere else (was it the Telegraph?) that the report was subsequently comprehensively debunked.

As many do low paid jobs, they still get top benefits so would be surprised if net contributors. Overhead costs of the increased demand on existing services also need to be taken into account rather than just income- aside form the schools/health core god knows how many interpreters are needed, legal bills paid, multi lingual docs churned out and so on.

Just google it for Christ sakes.
Instead of ignoring the links that don't fit in with your preconceptions, actually educate yourself.
Of course it's not black and white and it's an impossible figure to come up with - but the most recent reports indicate that immigrants are net contributors. Believe it or not the people who have done them are much cleverer than your or I and did actually think about the things you did.

"the people who have done them" do it from their own paymasters bias. Would these be the clever people Labour used to do their estimations?

Go on then, I dare you to find me the results when all overheads are taken into account.

So not just income tax-benefits from stats, which a reasonable person would assume to be massaged by the government in power but also the cost of all the many costs directly linked

-extra portakabins in schools along with whole new schools
-employment of additional resources due to substantial increase in children whose english is below expected age on joining
-all the multi lingual stuff
-increase in border staff to handle it
- Building of additional shools
- 1 in 10 council house to Migrants
- nhs staff (feel free to factor in the damage to 3rd world countries as we unethically stole their medical staff)
-wealth sent back to homeland
- increase in policing liasing with their home countries
- cost of increased houses & rent to everyone

the list can go on and on, it cannot be simplified by an EU study telling us 10 migrants made £1, 2 migrants took £2 in benefit, We made £8 net

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

2) Fair point, but without them could we afford the lesser infrastructure required for what we have ? The fact they are a net contributer suggest the answer is no

Yes we can. An open door policy is not the same as a sensible needs based policy.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fis...

Pretty objective if you ask me. I dare you to actually read it all

How about we first look at the key points

your link said said:

The existing estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK are few and limited because of a lack of data and accurate information about a wide range of important factors. For this and other reasons, a significant number of assumptions must be made in order to estimate the fiscal effects of immigration, and results tend to change based on these assumptions.

Yup, robust as they come

your link said said:

For the UK (and most other countries), the majority of studies conclude that the overall net fiscal impact of immigration is positive but small. However, results are subject to key assumptions

Small = lets round it up in favour

your link said said:

Immigration may, in the short term, help decrease the dependency ratio – the ratio of those not in the labour force (the dependent group) and those in the labour force. However, this effect is likely to diminish over time as migrants who stay in the UK will become older and retire.

hmmmm

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

So on one hand I have an immigration study by the oxford university
.

Did you reply to my post pointing out how shaky this study is? It cannot be relied upon.

[porridge]

superkartracer said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...

So... lesson learned then?

Jack Straw admits he screwed up over immigration... too late an admission and not a coincidence that this is said after he announced he is retiring as an mp.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

I did, and I felt it was nonsensical and not worth perpetuating.
Even if I thought you had a point, which I didn't, I would still find it infinitely more reliable than an internet person telling an anecdote about a bloke who works cash in hand.

It was 4 direct quotes, you therefore are describing your own evidence as "nonsensical". Your study states clearly that if anything, the benefits are small and likely to be outweighed when the migrants retire.

wake up

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

I realise you think putting in emoticons somehow validates you and undermines my point, but I beg to differ.
I'll rephrase. You took that report, isolated little bits and twisted them to appear to support your argument and ignored everything else in the comprehensive study.
TO me, they didn't merit discussion and still don't. If somewhere within it you had a valid point then Im sorry I missed it but I can't be bothered discussing that kind of 'argument' because as soon as I see someone like you completely ignoring the main points, and sifting through to find the minutae which support your own preconceptions then I realise the discussion is completely pointless as nothing whatsoever I say you will take the blindest bit of notice of.

How can using the "key points" from the summary be translated by you, to "sifting through the minutae".

By definition of "key points" no sifting was done by myself, these are the key finding from your Oxford university study.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

If our economy booms over the next few years then I suspect the Romanians and Bulgarians are going to be a significant contributer to the UK finances and conversely if it slides into another recession then they are going to be an awful drain.

In a boom they will still be doing mostly low paid jobs. In London the average cost of state funding a pupil is £9,000 a year.

We need to have a selective admission policy based on needs regardless of boom or recession. We have well educated, English speaking Europeans and Non-europeans queueing up to come in, so why an open door policy on those who may struggle to integrate?

Calculate the low paid jobs needed and allow that number, this "it will sort itself out in a boom" is a fallacy. In a boom a mass influx of low paid workers are not a "significant contributor", they are swept under the carpet with larger council and welfare budgets.

In a boom a company cares less about paying a bit more for their cleaning staff.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

odyssey2200 said:

BYE!
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Have you actually got anything meaningful to say? You don't seem to actually have any point on this issue, instead come on here to insists "bongo bongo land" is not racist, I am a "twit", before pretending you are a caterer serving words before thinking you run the thread and can send people away. What planet are you on?

Have you actually got anything meaningful to say?

BYE!
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

Hilarious. Quite a comedian.
In the meantime that merely demonstrates exactly what I said that you don't read a single word that anyone says if it contradicts your xenophobic little wk-fest

Have you always modelled youself on Brown?




Go through my posts and let me know where I am xenophobic.

There is a good chance I have met more people around the world than you ever will, probably even on a daily basis. I do not fear nor dislike migrants; an open door policy is where my concern lies.

Pathetic attack to cover your weak views. The Oxford study all your views seem to be drawn from is not credible, deal with it.

[porridge]

THESE ARE ALL FROM THE KEY POINTS ON THE LINK YOU PROVIDED

your link said said:

The existing estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK are few and limited because of a lack of data and accurate information about a wide range of important factors. For this and other reasons, a significant number of assumptions must be made in order to estimate the fiscal effects of immigration, and results tend to change based on these assumptions.

your link said said:

For the UK (and most other countries), the majority of studies conclude that the overall net fiscal impact of immigration is positive but small. However, results are subject to key assumptions

your link said said:

Immigration may, in the short term, help decrease the dependency ratio – the ratio of those not in the labour force (the dependent group) and those in the labour force. However, this effect is likely to diminish over time as migrants who stay in the UK will become older and retire.

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

Oh but that's so irrelevant because Immigration is responsible for all uk's disastrous finances and all our organised crime and I know a ROmanian who works cash in hand

Have you actually got anything meaningful to say? As much as you are a tad liberal, there will always be a few who are on the right.

Rather than take the easy way out and use distraction techniques, backup your own views or...

BYE!
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out

Edited by porridge on Wednesday 13th November 13:12

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

That question a bit difficult for you then porridge?
I posted a link to a survey that shows immigration to be a net benefit and challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
You answer by pretending a forum has a door?
Clever.

You posted a link to a survey, which the authors themselves acknowledge to not be based on strong foundations.

What part of this do you not get? It's a subjective estimate and not factual. And even this guess with a finger in the air says the benefit at best is "small" and will be reversed when these migrants get older.

ADDRESS THIS ISSUE which you keep ignoring.

Edited by porridge on Wednesday 13th November 13:18

[porridge]

blindswelledrat said:

It's the best we have got and it concludes a net benefit.
SO we have two options. Either go with it in the absence of any other stronger data, or to assume that the truth is the exact opposite. Why on earth would you do the latter?

Ok, lets go with it.

"Surver says" small benefit which will be reversed as the migrants will be get older, and that is before these two poorer countries and our stopping of better qualified non-eu migrants to reduce the overall numbers.