Nick Griffin: "Sink Immigrants' Boats"

[Blib]

kenny Chim 4 said:

hairykrishna said:

Where exactly are all of the people assuming that immigrants cost us a load of money getting their figures? I can't find any that seem credible.

Well, here's some rather alarming statistics based on government figures:
"..compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively."

Taken from here:
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2009/05/amnesty-...
Hope this helps

Ah yes, Migrationwatch. That perfectly balanced source of statistics on all things 'foreign'. Such a jolly decent chap, that Mr Green.

[ypauly]

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

Where exactly are all of the people assuming that immigrants cost us a load of money getting their figures? I can't find any that seem credible. All of the (recent) immigrants I've met have been extremely hard working and certainly benefit our economy rather than acting as a drain.

Ok, heres the simple figures.

An immigrant is more likely than not, to be taking a low paid job at minimum wage, so that give you an income of 48*6 or so, £288.

Of that £288 (if you are lucky to get a 48 hour week), then approx £80 of that goes in tax.

For that £80, the immigrant gets a fully insured health service, if he brings his family over which is only humane after all, then they will get council accommodation, they will probably get a reduction in council tax, an education for his children, family credit payments, and so forth.

The £80 is extremely good value.

If the immigrant doesn't bring his family, then a large proportion of his earnings will be sent out of the country, which is also bad for our economy as it acts as a drain on cash.

what about the amount of money he creates with his work for his employer?
this is also taxed and employers national contributions on the employees behalf, does that not contribute to his healthcare?
and the good that he purchases with the rest of his wages, are they not taxed, create employment/wealth for shopkeepers and manufacturers

most will live in private accomodation that creates wealth for the landlord on which more tax is paid.

I would like us to be tougher on all that refuse/do not want to work no matter where they are from, in fact i believe if our very own dole scrounging underclass got off there fat arses and turned off thier taxpayer funded plasma TVs there would be no immigration problem as there wouldn't be jobs for people to come here for.

[tinman0]

Blib said:

Reports such as this one are part of the reason why I was pretty sanguine about the BNP gaining seats in the recent Euro elections.

Griffin and his apes are now free to 'speak their brains' to a media just waiting to ridicule them.

The more they get the oxygen of publicity, the more stupid, backward and downright antideluvian their 'policies' (sic) will be proven to be.

Trouble is that people like Griffin are saying things that some people agree with. Far from the oxygen of publicity destroying the BNP, its simply going to make them stronger. Proportional representation has let this cat out of this particular bag.

I would suggest that far from Nick Griffin being out of step, the people out of step are those that underestimate the power of straight talking politics. The days of spin and presentation are over as people are looking for clear and concise messages, regardless of the revulsion that the intellectual elite shows on some of this stuff. Griffin is giving the people exactly what they want.

[odyssey2200]

tinman0 said:

Griffin is giving the people exactly what they want.

remember the last guy that did that?

Economy in the toilet, immigration a concern, inflation issues?

Germany circa 1930 something.

[hairykrishna]

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

Where exactly are all of the people assuming that immigrants cost us a load of money getting their figures? I can't find any that seem credible. All of the (recent) immigrants I've met have been extremely hard working and certainly benefit our economy rather than acting as a drain.

Ok, heres the simple figures.

An immigrant is more likely than not, to be taking a low paid job at minimum wage, so that give you an income of 48*6 or so, £288.

Of that £288 (if you are lucky to get a 48 hour week), then approx £80 of that goes in tax.

For that £80, the immigrant gets a fully insured health service, if he brings his family over which is only humane after all, then they will get council accommodation, they will probably get a reduction in council tax, an education for his children, family credit payments, and so forth.

The £80 is extremely good value.

If the immigrant doesn't bring his family, then a large proportion of his earnings will be sent out of the country, which is also bad for our economy as it acts as a drain on cash.

So, no, you don't have any credible figures then. What you have is a gross oversimplification based on assumptions.

[Blib]

odyssey2200 said:

tinman0 said:

Griffin is giving the people exactly what they want.

remember the last guy that did that?

Economy in the toilet, immigration a concern, inflation issues?

Germany circa 1930 something.

No comparison whatsoever IMO.

[hairykrishna]

kenny Chim 4 said:

Taken from here:
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2009/05/amnesty-...
Hope this helps

migrationwatch describing themselves as a thinktank

ETA: Their calculation in that article is just as 'sophisticated' as tinmans.

Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 9th July 23:43

[tinman0]

hairykrishna said:

So, no, you don't have any credible figures then. What you have is a gross oversimplification based on assumptions.

Go look them up. They are on your pay slip.

Then put a number of what the various things cost.

NHS = £100bn per annum? Can't find the exact number right now. 60m people. Thats £1660 per person per annum.

Family of 4, gives £6640 in healthcare provision, from a income tax take of £4000. Thats before we get to all the other things we take for granted in the UK.

These aren't difficult figures. Bury your head in the sand by all means, but the figures are easy to see and speak volumes. You don't have to be Einstein to work this out for yourself.

[tinman0]

odyssey2200 said:

tinman0 said:

Griffin is giving the people exactly what they want.

remember the last guy that did that?

Economy in the toilet, immigration a concern, inflation issues?

Germany circa 1930 something.

And thats the worrying thing.

Thankfully, we have first past the post that will keep its boot on the head of the BNP at Westminster.

[hairykrishna]

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

So, no, you don't have any credible figures then. What you have is a gross oversimplification based on assumptions.

Go look them up. They are on your pay slip.

Then put a number of what the various things cost.

NHS = £100bn per annum? Can't find the exact number right now. 60m people. Thats £1660 per person per annum.

Family of 4, gives £6640 in healthcare provision, from a income tax take of £4000. Thats before we get to all the other things we take for granted in the UK.

These aren't difficult figures. Bury your head in the sand by all means, but the figures are easy to see and speak volumes. You don't have to be Einstein to work this out for yourself.

Your calculation is worthless without knowing what percentage of immigrants work at the wage level you use in your calculation. That doesn't even begin to address the more complicated issue of how much their work earns at other levels - for their employer for a start.

The concept that such a calculation tells you all you need to know about the economic impact of immigrants is fking ridiculous. I am perfectly willing to accept that immigration costs the country money; you'll need to do much better than that to convince me though.

[cymtriks]

scorp said:

cymtriks said:

scorp said:

Firstly, we need them, because no one else here is willing to do the work. Blame the welfare system and it's lefty proponents who maintain welfare dependency over generations in order to win themselves more votes.

Surely that means we should fix the tax and benefit system, not base or future on on an endless que of people to do what we don't want to do? Our current strategy is so obviously not sustainable. What happens when the immigrants decide that now they are here they will live as we live and not do those jobs? Import more? And then more when the same happens?

I suggest we fix the cause (welfare dependency) rather than the symptoms (imported labour), and i re-iterate, this accounts only for low skilled migrants. Should we boot out all the doctors, engineers, etc too ?

The solution is not to rely on imported labour except in the short term. To do what we are now doing is unsustainable. What happens when we need more doctors? Import more and then what? Import more again? This is exactly the same problem as with the "they do the jobs we don't want to do" line.

The problem goes far beyond merely benefits though a system which took contributions as well as need into account would be a very good starting point.

Something is wrong, educationally, culturally and economically if your plan is to import more of anything just because your own supplies keep failing and to keep doing this when that fails as well.

scorp said:

cymtriks said:

scorp said:

And over population ? Surely the world would be equally as populated if there was no migration.. I don't see how immigrants are driving national resources to the brink either..

Water stress? Which valleys will be flooded to provide the required water supplies? Will it be enough?

Social housing? Is it fair to make people who have been on the list for years wait longer due to new arrivals?

Education? Language problems.

Housing supply? Where will we build them? Green belts? Flood plains? School playing fields?

We are one of the most densely populated regions on the planet. The worlds resources are not the same as our local ones. We are full, and have been for a very long time.

Most of those things are covered by tax, which our local chav population don't pay for. Not sure i see the water stress argument, i didn't realise we were at breaking point ? Immigrants have increased our population by a few percent only ? I would have thought the tens of thousands of female chav's popping out sprogs in their mid-teens present a bigger problem to consumption ?

The issue of water supply was raised a while ago. It is of course dependent on future demand but more people require more supply, it's that simple. Import a number of people equivalent to a major city and a new reservoir or two will be required.

Stopping paying more benefits just because you have more children might stop the issue you complain about but you did not actually answer my question.

It's not just new houses that have to be squeezed in on the ever diminishing supply of building land. It's also the roads, schools, hospitals, shops, industrial estates, electricity supply, sewage treatment and rubbish dumps. We are having trouble with most of the infrastructure in that list as it is. Where will the extra rubbish go for example?

scorp said:

cymtriks said:

You are right, he's just the only one who isn't patronisng, dishonest and an apologist.

I suspect his views are more down to xenophobia than by any social problems caused by immigrants.

Doesn't change what I said though does it.

[kenny Chim 4]

hairykrishna said:

kenny Chim 4 said:

Taken from here:
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2009/05/amnesty-...
Hope this helps

migrationwatch describing themselves as a thinktank

ETA: Their calculation in that article is just as 'sophisticated' as tinmans.

Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 9th July 23:43

Sir, as you took such a dismissive attitude to the proven statistics that I have posted, the very least you could do was to post opposing ones- other than appear to be the ignorant, blinkered authority that you claim to be.

I have the verification of statistical evidence to prove my point- where's yours to counter it?

[tinman0]

hairykrishna said:

Your calculation is worthless without knowing what percentage of immigrants work at the wage level you use in your calculation. That doesn't even begin to address the more complicated issue of how much their work earns at other levels - for their employer for a start.

The concept that such a calculation tells you all you need to know about the economic impact of immigrants is fking ridiculous. I am perfectly willing to accept that immigration costs the country money; you'll need to do much better than that to convince me though.

I have met plenty of immigrants to the UK through my xwife, to know that the vast majority take low paid jobs, send a huge amount of money back home, and use the UK as a stepping stone to get a better life. Working at minimum wage may be a chore, but its an awful lot more than they earn in their country of origin.

I don't blame them for an instance for finding a better life.

The UK needs to concentrate on getting its own work shy back into employment before we take in more workers from other lands.

If you're argument is that the UK needs skilled labour, then the counter argument, is that those people need to stay in their own countries and make a change, rather than simply escaping sinking ships. Their countries need skilled labour - and we are simply draining those countries of good workers - something the UK has already been accused of in the last couple of years.

[hairykrishna]

tinman0 said:

I have met plenty of immigrants to the UK through my xwife, to know that the vast majority take low paid jobs, send a huge amount of money back home, and use the UK as a stepping stone to get a better life. Working at minimum wage may be a chore, but its an awful lot more than they earn in their country of origin.

This may be true for the immigrants you have encountered. I see no evidence that the vast majority of immigrants work at minimum wage level. The governments own figures suggest that the average immigrant wage is higher than the UK average wage. I'm not sure I trust this entirely but i think it's probably more accurate than your assertion based on your own experience.

[hairykrishna]

kenny Chim 4 said:

Sir, as you took such a dismissive attitude to the proven statistics that I have posted, the very least you could do was to post opposing ones- other than appear to be the ignorant, blinkered authority that you claim to be.

I have the verification of statistical evidence to prove my point- where's yours to counter it?

You are correct, and I apologise, I was wrong to dismiss it out of hand. But can you tell me how they arrived at that 'statistical evidence'?

Glancing at their reports suggest that their cost figures are based on an immigrant wage of 6.50 per hour. A figure which they provide no justification for other than the fact that it's slightly higher than minimum wage.

This gives me little faith in the quoted 'economically inactive' figures. Even if they are accurate, without knowing the actual contribution of the 'active' immigrants, they are irrelevant.

Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 10th July 01:00

[drivin_me_nuts]

I wonder how long this green and pleasant land would stay as a force of any significance without its foreign investments and workforce? It's easy to focus on the poverty end - it makes great scatological feeding material for the Griffinesque supporters of this world, but there is the ever so slightly significant matter of foreign trade, investment and cash movements, property, companies and private imvestments that drive the successes of this country's economy.

We do need stronger controls and a more balanced approach to immigration in certain areas, but it needs to be done with great care and balance. Make a mistake and it runs the risk of relegating this nation to something akin to the Alfa - a negative and damaged repuation that is almost impossible to shake off.

[Parrot of Doom]

odyssey2200 said:

uli sees said:

at least Nick Griffin has got the balls to dare talk about immigration, unlike everybody else who remains politically correct about the issue and dare not speak about it for fear of being called a racist


this country is going down the toilet due to several issues, one of them being the fact nobody will dare tackle immigration and say enough is enough

Nick Griffin is an idiot. Step past the shiny suit and the media-savvy attitude he now has. The man was a national front organiser, where he tried to shake Col. Gadaffi's pockets for change, as well as Ayatollah Khomeini. A holocaust denier and a convicted racist.

I applaud his right to speak his mind. I think his mind is full of barely-suppressed hatred, stemming from fear and ignorance. I spent many hours writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin so I think I've learnt enough to form such an opinion.

[JagLover]

hairykrishna said:

The concept that such a calculation tells you all you need to know about the economic impact of immigrants is fking ridiculous. I am perfectly willing to accept that immigration costs the country money; you'll need to do much better than that to convince me though.

I think a recent study showed that immigration as a whole was only a marginal benefit to GDP per head. If you take out highly skilled migrants then the picture is even worse.

In terms of fiscal impact you have to look at the whole life cost and revenue. It is no good only looking at a fiscal benefit when they are in their prime and ignoring the fact they will retire just like anyone else.

Added to which many immigrant communities have far higher rates of welfare dependcy than the average.

[The Char]

Can only find one link for now -
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3580521/the...

38/100 people on the uk's Rich List are immigrants

[tinman0]

The Char said:

Can only find one link for now -
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3580521/the...

38/100 people on the uk's Rich List are immigrants

And?

They are only here because of our tax laws which don't rape their fortunes. However, you will discover their world wide earnings are kept far away from UK shores and far away from The Revenue.