How many Romanian/Bulgarian migrants are you predicting?

[superkartracer]

FFS, most of the midlands has turned to st, what areas have improved?

I agree with ONE place tho, Balsall heath... thats slightly better since they removed the brothels in the 90's.

[otolith]

blindswelledrat said:

otolith said:

We allow* a mass influx of poor economic migrants, depressing wages for unskilled and semi-skilled labour. We provide a better life on benefits than can be earned on those low wages. We end up in a situation where we can't afford the benefits bill and start to tighten the screws.

Essentially, the people who have been screwed over by this are our own unskilled and semi-skilled labour, and it has only been the generosity of our benefits system which has deferred their realisation of this.

• in the sense that we choose to be in the EU

Firstly we have the minimum wage to prevent the migrants depressing wages.

That puts a floor on the wage - if there were not sufficient migrant labour to fill the places at minimum wage, employers would have to offer more.

blindswelledrat said:

But disregarding that- think back to the days where there were no easy benefits except for genuine hardship. There was equally minimal migration. Were unskilled jobs paid substantially higher relatively than now?
The answer is no, of course.

The jobs pay what they need to pay, it's simple supply and demand.

[blindswelledrat]

MX7 said:

Yes, but it's not a valid comparison.

The amount of job opportunities in any country is finite. A government has a duty to cater for it's citizens, and if the government permits mass immigration, while our economy and social services struggle, then it's failing it's citizens.

I don't disagree,I was just making a point that London/SouthEast categorically needs the migrants from other parts of Britain and would fail without it, and putting an arbitrary border around the island doesn't equate to the correct cut off of required migration.

My argument is that it should be managed the other way round. I think it would be completely self regulating if we adopted a welfare policy like other European countries where you had to prove NI payments to a certain level before you had the rights to public welfare to ensure that all immigration equated to a net positive. Coupled with making it much harder to claim benefits for UK nationals who don't want to work and I don't think we would have a 'problem'

[Digga]

blindswelledrat said:

My argument is that it should be managed the other way round. I think it would be completely self regulating if we adopted a welfare policy like other European countries where you had to prove NI payments to a certain level before you had the rights to public welfare to ensure that all immigration equated to a net positive. Coupled with making it much harder to claim benefits for UK nationals who don't want to work and I don't think we would have a 'problem'

This, I totally agree with.

It would seem that politicans and those who pull the bigotry card comlpetely miss the facts about benefit tourism that the rest of the not so free world understand quite clearly.

[superkartracer]

Digga said:

blindswelledrat said:

My argument is that it should be managed the other way round. I think it would be completely self regulating if we adopted a welfare policy like other European countries where you had to prove NI payments to a certain level before you had the rights to public welfare to ensure that all immigration equated to a net positive. Coupled with making it much harder to claim benefits for UK nationals who don't want to work and I don't think we would have a 'problem'

This, I totally agree with.

It would seem that politicans and those who pull the bigotry card comlpetely miss the facts about benefit tourism that the rest of the not so free world understand quite clearly.

A total NO brainer so what is stopping such a system being put into action?

[MX7]

blindswelledrat said:

an arbitrary border

Arbitrary?!! Well, I guess that if you think that countries are purely arbitrary there will be no persuading you.

blindswelledrat said:

My argument is that it should be managed the other way round. I think it would be completely self regulating if we adopted a welfare policy like other European countries where you had to prove NI payments to a certain level before you had the rights to public welfare to ensure that all immigration equated to a net positive. Coupled with making it much harder to claim benefits for UK nationals who don't want to work and I don't think we would have a 'problem'

I think the benefit system is a problem, but if this country wants a generous benefits system, and a stricter immigration system, it should be allowed to do so. That's what being a Sovereign nation is all about.

[Mermaid]

If an economic migrant can make a good business case that will add value to the UK, then they should be welcomed. And not otherwise. The EU open door is an own goal with our generous benefit system.

[superkartracer]

blindswelledrat said:

FOr all those who assume migrants are here just to claim benefit, you might want to read this (or many other articles) to put your mind at rest

http://news.sky.com/story/1164087/immigrants-contr...

This doesn't even take into account the fact that without them 90% of our low paid jobs would not be staffed leading to an even bigger impact on our economy.

What about all the costs associated with immigration amounting to millions of new people coming into the Uk.

housing
schools
roads
wind farms
nuclear power stations
nurses
midwives
policemen
crime
food and other imports, etc, etc.

Wheres all the data on this?

[otolith]

I wonder how the contribution of low wage migrants looks under this analysis?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-22...

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

FOr all those who assume migrants are here just to claim benefit, you might want to read this (or many other articles) to put your mind at rest

http://news.sky.com/story/1164087/immigrants-contr...

This doesn't even take into account the fact that without them 90% of our low paid jobs would not be staffed leading to an even bigger impact on our economy.

Is that going to apply with two of the poorest and in the case of Romania , one of the most crime ridden countries ?
When we are talking about a country like Romania getting unrestricted access, the claimed positives as a whole with contributions from countries like France , Germany and the US might well exist, but on a country by country basis, it's going to be far easier to single some out and say you are going to be nothing but a drain. That's the case with Romania I feel.
If you had the ability to pick who came, then yes. Opening the door to anyone and everyone and waving them by at Dover, no thanks.

[The Don of Croy]

Digga said:

blindswelledrat said:

My argument is that it should be managed the other way round. I think it would be completely self regulating if we adopted a welfare policy like other European countries where you had to prove NI payments to a certain level before you had the rights to public welfare to ensure that all immigration equated to a net positive. Coupled with making it much harder to claim benefits for UK nationals who don't want to work and I don't think we would have a 'problem'

This, I totally agree with.

It would seem that politicans and those who pull the bigotry card comlpetely miss the facts about benefit tourism that the rest of the not so free world understand quite clearly.

Hard to disagree with either statement. Why has common sense broken out?

[blindswelledrat]

otolith said:

The jobs pay what they need to pay, it's simple supply and demand.

Exactly my point. Barriers to immigration are artificial manipulation to this, as are unemployment benefits.
All that would happen if low paid jobs suddenly paid £9 per hour is that our economy would be completely uncompetitive, would shrink, and there would be far less jobs available and in the long term there would just be less people employed at the original minimum wage.

[otolith]

blindswelledrat said:

otolith said:

The jobs pay what they need to pay, it's simple supply and demand.

Exactly my point. Barriers to immigration are artificial manipulation to this, as are unemployment benefits.

They are, yes. And they result in a less fair world, where people in the UK are much richer than many people elsewhere. It's essentially protectionism for native labour. But are you willing to drop your standard of living to the global average?

[blindswelledrat]

superkartracer said:

What about all the costs associated with immigration amounting to millions of new people coming into the Uk.

Wheres all the data on this?

You can't have data for the future of course. And listing possible costs in that way is a bit tabloid if you don't mind me saying.
Naturally the answer lies in what happens to the economy. If the economy booms from this point then we will almost certainly get a massive net gain from the future migrants
If it goes into recession again then the opposite will almost certainly be the case.
At least you can rest assured that if the unlikely combination of millions of new immigrants come in and we sink into another recession that we will literally not be able to afford it soe the government will have to do something about it.
I like to think positively though. I think the next few years will be a boom time for the UK and if that turns out to be correct them I welcome them with open arms.

[blindswelledrat]

Mr_B said:

Is that going to apply with two of the poorest and in the case of Romania , one of the most crime ridden countries ?
When we are talking about a country like Romania getting unrestricted access, the claimed positives as a whole with contributions from countries like France , Germany and the US might well exist, but on a country by country basis, it's going to be far easier to single some out and say you are going to be nothing but a drain. That's the case with Romania I feel.
If you had the ability to pick who came, then yes. Opening the door to anyone and everyone and waving them by at Dover, no thanks.

Who knows? Why assume the worst?
Personally I don't think for a moment that ROmania hasn't got it's fair share of hard working people who want nothing more than opportunity to make their own living in a country with a better economy than their own.
I certainly don't think your assumptions are a reason not to try. Let them in, send the criminals back and keep the normal people.
Does that sound too much like commonsense?

[einsign]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442530/Britain-is...

In their original countries those people are saying, ‘If you go to England, you will have everything. You will have a house, you will have money, you will have a job, your family will be able to join you’.

[blindswelledrat]

otolith said:

blindswelledrat said:

otolith said:

The jobs pay what they need to pay, it's simple supply and demand.

Exactly my point. Barriers to immigration are artificial manipulation to this, as are unemployment benefits.

They are, yes. And they result in a less fair world, where people in the UK are much richer than many people elsewhere. It's essentially protectionism for native labour. But are you willing to drop your standard of living to the global average?

No, but I would argue that my standard of living is categorically better off for having immigration, and always will be. Like it or not we are an insular country full of insular clients and insular top bosses. An ambitious native will always do better than his foreign counterpart and because of immigration we have a much better economy with much better opportunities for anyone who wants them.

[otolith]

^^

That's not about intra-EU migration, though.

Also, it's in the Express.

[youngsyr]

The only real issue I have with immigration into the UK is that it brings two compounding effects: lower wages and higher house prices (increased demand for housing), so the net effect is that the average person is even less likely to be able to afford the average property.

This brings all the disadvantages of an economy fueled by rising house prices.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

Mr_B said:

Is that going to apply with two of the poorest and in the case of Romania , one of the most crime ridden countries ?
When we are talking about a country like Romania getting unrestricted access, the claimed positives as a whole with contributions from countries like France , Germany and the US might well exist, but on a country by country basis, it's going to be far easier to single some out and say you are going to be nothing but a drain. That's the case with Romania I feel.
If you had the ability to pick who came, then yes. Opening the door to anyone and everyone and waving them by at Dover, no thanks.

Who knows? Why assume the worst?
Personally I don't think for a moment that ROmania hasn't got it's fair share of hard working people who want nothing more than opportunity to make their own living in a country with a better economy than their own.
I certainly don't think your assumptions are a reason not to try. Let them in, send the criminals back and keep the normal people.
Does that sound too much like commonsense?

We do know, that's the point. If we need people from abroad, lets have them. But why not use the fact that people from all over the world are desperate to live here. Why waste that and let anyone in with an open door ? By all means have people from Romania who can prove an ability to work and live by the rules and who are needed. What is happening is that anyone can come and people are wise to knowing how to play the game on how you get benefits and how you make yourself top of the council list.
Some of what you said with benefits and sending back problem people is common sense. Sadly, none of that is happening. There is no benefits cuts, the benefit bill is fighting to stay the same in the face of much opposition and we deport a tiny percentage. These need to change first before your open the door.

I also don't think you help build communities by letting just anyone regardless. If you just get given access to a country without doing a thing, are you really going to give a toss about that country ? If I had to prove myself and show an ability to work and fit in to a country, I think I'd be keen to fit in and play my part if say I wanted to live in Australia. Just being given the ability backed up with all sorts of rights wouldn't do the same.