BBC studiously avoiding reporting top name for boys
Discussion
Wonder what the top name for crash for cash perpetrators is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41360891
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41360891
TooMany2cvs said:
del mar said:
I have found the report that makes reference to the cost of Immigration.
The initial published paper only looked at recent arrivals from the EU, these people do indeed pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits as opposed to 11% for the Native population. Their Net Contribution was £22 billion.
They're the ones that "the UK has no control over"...The initial published paper only looked at recent arrivals from the EU, these people do indeed pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits as opposed to 11% for the Native population. Their Net Contribution was £22 billion.
del mar said:
When they factored in non EU migration the real figure over the period 1995 - 2011 was a cost of £114 billion with the potential to reach £159 billion.
...while they're the ones the UK has, and has always had, 100% control over.The one thing that leaps out to me from that is that there's no timeframe on the "recent arrivals from the EU", compared to a 16 year period for non-EU.
Whilst we had control over Non EU migration, Labour didn't do much to control it - they actively encouraged it.
Somebody had posted earlier about the "scary brown people".
If the numbers are even 50% accurate, then from an Economic aspect we should be terrified of these people.
del mar said:
Agreed, and there could be all manner of failings with the report, but the overall impression is that EU immigrants are positive, non Eu ones are not.
Whilst we had control over Non EU migration, Labour didn't do much to control it - they actively encouraged it.
Easy to say "They could have controlled it", but when you write the legal basis for that control in a way that is almost imposable to act on then where does that leave everybody ?Whilst we had control over Non EU migration, Labour didn't do much to control it - they actively encouraged it.
TooMany2cvs said:
del mar said:
Whilst we had control over Non EU migration...
Always have had 100% control, and still do.Are you getting confused with Schengen?
Would this information have changed the Brexit vote ?
If it is assumed it was a vote about immigration, if it was clear that EU migration was positive to the economy whilst recognising that Non Eu nationals were a financial disaster would people have voted differently ?
Stickyfinger said:
Easy to say "They could have controlled it", but when you write the legal basis for that control in a way that is almost imposable to act on then where does that leave everybody ?
Meaningless twaddle.https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa
Stickyfinger said:
Rubbish, it is why there are so many immigration lawyers. Quite easy to circumvent as you know.
Perhaps the opposite is actually true...If it was so easy, there'd be no business there for so many lawyers to specialise in?
Either way, UK visas for non-EU nationals are 100% the UK government's responsibility. End of.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 25th September 14:11
Immigration law is extensive and much harder to get past than people suppose. The myth of a (non EU ) open door is a myth. Farage cashed in on fear of non EU migration to stoke anti EU sentiment - there is nothing in the lying demagogue handbook that says your position has to be logical. Indeed, the more illogical, the better.
del mar said:
Had / have - sorry.
Would this information have changed the Brexit vote ?
If it is assumed it was a vote about immigration, if it was clear that EU migration was positive to the economy whilst recognising that Non Eu nationals were a financial disaster would people have voted differently ?
No. Nobody voting leave gave a sWould this information have changed the Brexit vote ?
If it is assumed it was a vote about immigration, if it was clear that EU migration was positive to the economy whilst recognising that Non Eu nationals were a financial disaster would people have voted differently ?
t about the predictions of economic doom. Breadvan72 said:
Immigration law is extensive and much harder to get past than people suppose. The myth of a (non EU ) open door is a myth. Farage cashed in on fear of non EU migration to stoke anti EU sentiment - there is nothing in the lying demagogue handbook that says your position has to be logical. Indeed, the more illogical, the better.
That all assumes the immigrant is applying through the correct legal channels. What is beyond doubt is that a perplexing number of illegals can and do circumvent the system. Here is the latest initiative to combat the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk...The Guardian said:
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
Digga said:
Breadvan72 said:
Immigration law is extensive and much harder to get past than people suppose. The myth of a (non EU ) open door is a myth. Farage cashed in on fear of non EU migration to stoke anti EU sentiment - there is nothing in the lying demagogue handbook that says your position has to be logical. Indeed, the more illogical, the better.
That all assumes the immigrant is applying through the correct legal channels. What is beyond doubt is that a perplexing number of illegals can and do circumvent the system.Immigration law isn't stopping people being here illegally.
Right. Gotcha.
Umm, don't you think that tends to support the view that it's not easy to be here legally? I mean, who'd be illegal - with all the concomitant fears and restrictions - if it was so easy to be here legally?
TooMany2cvs said:
So lemme get this straight...
Immigration law isn't stopping people being here illegally.
Right. Gotcha.
Umm, don't you think that tends to support the view that it's not easy to be here legally? I mean, who'd be illegal - with all the concomitant fears and restrictions - if it was so easy to be here legally?
Of course it supports the view it is not easy to get here legally.Immigration law isn't stopping people being here illegally.
Right. Gotcha.
Umm, don't you think that tends to support the view that it's not easy to be here legally? I mean, who'd be illegal - with all the concomitant fears and restrictions - if it was so easy to be here legally?
However, it also clearly supports the argument that the present powers or use of them is relatively ineffective in weeding out illegals and, worse still, undesirables.
It is possible for both arguments to be correct. They are, by no means, mutually exclusive.
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
However, it also clearly supports the argument that the present powers or use of them is relatively ineffective in weeding out illegals and, worse still, undesirables.
So what do you suggest as a good way to "weed out" those in the country illegally?What did you want me to say? Re-purpose all the fox hounds as immigrant hounds?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff