Let’s get real about migration

Firstly I don’t agree with migrants being trained as, say, doctors or nurses in their own countries and then coming here thus depriving their own countries of their skills.

They may want to, just as our own doctors and nurses emigrate.

However, I do agree that poaching qualified medical staff from countries which desperately need them is wrong. It's big business, apparently.

Firstly I don’t agree with migrants being trained as, say, doctors or nurses in their own countries and then coming here thus depriving their own countries of their skills.
I also believe in overseas aid from wealthy countries such as the UK to help people stay where they belong with education and jobs. After all, people only try to come here because there are so few jobs and opportunities in their own countries. The world’s wealth should be more fairly distributed.

Skydancer

friendlygingercat

Mass immigration did not begin post Brexit. Its a post WWII phomenon. I dont ever recall the referendum where I was asked to vote for or against a multi cultural society. My country was changed, without my knowledge or consent. into something I do not recognise.

I don’t recognise it either. There’s so much discussion about legal and illegal migration. But it’s really about numbers. This small country simply cannot keep absorbing more and more people. I don’t want to hear about how many more people other European countries are taking in. It’s MY country I care most about. This level of immigration is out of control.

If you look at the ‘This is totally unprecedented’ graph attached to my original post, you will see that there has been a very steady rise in the number of migrants over the last 125 years, it’s not a post WW2 phenomenon at all. Numbers have increased significantly post Brexit, but are now reducing again.

What I’d love to hear is what people think the solutions to reduce migration are, bearing in mind that the vast majority of migrants come legally, to work in our shortage areas.

A significant percentage of the people I meet in my volunteering at a food bank have issues around mental health or substance abuse.
I'm not sure that more/ fewer people would change this.

Skydancer

friendlygingercat

Mass immigration did not begin post Brexit. Its a post WWII phomenon. I dont ever recall the referendum where I was asked to vote for or against a multi cultural society. My country was changed, without my knowledge or consent. into something I do not recognise.

I don’t recognise it either. There’s so much discussion about legal and illegal migration. But it’s really about numbers. This small country simply cannot keep absorbing more and more people. I don’t want to hear about how many more people other European countries are taking in. It’s MY country I care most about. This level of immigration is out of control.

Well said Skydancer.

friendlygingercat

Mass immigration did not begin post Brexit. Its a post WWII phomenon. I dont ever recall the referendum where I was asked to vote for or against a multi cultural society. My country was changed, without my knowledge or consent. into something I do not recognise.

I don’t recognise it either. There’s so much discussion about legal and illegal migration. But it’s really about numbers. This small country simply cannot keep absorbing more and more people. I don’t want to hear about how many more people other European countries are taking in. It’s MY country I care most about. This level of immigration is out of control.

I don't think the newcomers want to hang around on street corners. Many of them want to work in reputable jobs. As people seeking asylum they are not permitted to do so.

Some people seem wilful in their wish to ignore this fact.

As I said previously many other countries have a far better way of " fast tracking" people.

Still waiting for an apology re misinformation on this subject.

Growstuff, interesting to see you assigning your interpretation of what you think I am saying.
Do keep on.

A bigger population doesn't mean that people have less because there are other factors in play.

Well, there is another factor at play, isn't there? The government won't put enough money into the economy. That will inevitably mean more people have less. In fact, current population already has less.

I'm puzzled. I thought you might agree with me 🤔

Mollygo

Before I go hunting for that, maybe you’d like to identify how many people are using food banks, finding it hard to get homes, hospital appointments etc. before adding any more people to the island.

A significant number are students or are working.

Like you and many others we have immigrants living quite close by,

We do have people who are not immigrants, living next door, paying tax and NI. but I can’t match your next door neighbours claim.

We also have endless foreign uni students, being a university city, and friends and family members who are uni students, paying vast amounts for accommodation and tuition.

The concern is not over those who do pay, but over those who don’t and who continue to arrive in their thousands, for whatever reason.
We already have a society in which for some, benefits are the new wages.

When you say that the concern is not over those who do pay, but over those who don’t, is that really what you think Mollygo? If it is, I don’t think you can say that you don’t like the changing society of the UK, or complain about the lack of housing or services, because when migration exceeds emigration, society will keep on changing, and pressures on the UK infrastructure will not ease.

GDP is based on economic activity, not on the amount of money in the economy; £100 circulating can produce £2 or £300s worth of transactions. If the money isn't there, it can't circulate.

That's the bit I was trying to explain in my clumsy way. The point I was trying to make is that more people in a country doesn't mean that they have a smaller share of a finite pie (unless the government chooses). If we suddenly only had a 1000 people in the UK, the survivors wouldn't become multi-billionaires overnight because there would be far fewer trading transactions.

A bigger population doesn't mean that people have less because there are other factors in play.

What I'm really saying, growstuff is that there isn't enough money in the economy because the government won't spend enough to properly support the state services which everyone needs (and the state itself needs for a healthy, well educated populace to live in a secure environment and to access the law if needed). Additionally, what money it does put into the economy doesn't so much 'trickle' as gushes upwards to the wealthy, leaving less and less to serve the needs of everyone else.

There's no problem with trade, per se, but government doesn't seem to realise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the private and the public sector in that the private sector provides all the goods and services needed by the public sector. Without those goods and services the public sector couldn't exist because the state doesn't provide any of them.

Conversely, when the state withholds money the private sector suffers. When Osborne imposed his entirely unnecessary punishment beating on the hated state sector in the form of 'austerity' the private sector suffered badly as well because it no longer had contracts to supply goods and services to the public sector. My DH worked for such a firm, he was made redundant and other staff were laid off as the firm had less work coming in and could no longer afford to pay them. (DH didn't mind as he was nearing the end of his working life anyway but what of the younger employees?)

GDP is based on economic activity, not on the amount of money in the economy; £100 circulating can produce £2 or £300s worth of transactions. If the money isn't there, it can't circulate.

I, of course, absolutely agree with your point about immigrants working and contributing.

less hanging around on street corners terrifying the fearful natives.
Who said that? Sounds a bit emotive.

I see no argument. If we're going to let them in, then let them work. Give them visas, there's plenty of jobs. Once they're here, far better to let them try and support themselves.

escaped Are you totally unaware that asylum seekers from places such as Iran can't get visas? Some of those arriving now were involved in the protests against the regime a couple of years ago (in protest against the treatment of women). If they were to put their heads above the parapet, they'd probably find themselves punched off a high building.Eritreans are only ever given passports in exceptional circumstances. They cannot do what you did. You are denying them the privilege you once had.

escaped If it's down to finances, how much would be saved? Not only would useful work be done, which would benefit everybody, but asylum seekers would be given work for "idle hands", so less hanging around on street corners terrifying the fearful natives.

Thanks for that Maizie.

You'll probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a significant amount of GDP is inhabitants buying and selling from and to each other - in other words, passing the money and wealth around (and being taxed on the way).

If 100 people lived in the UK, they'd presumably find some way of trading, so that the person who can produce x,y or z would do it most efficiently and sell the surplus to others. If everybody worked, they could possibly sustain themselves.

Multiply that number a few million times and essentially that's what people are still doing. Some work is deemed to be worth more than others, some people can't (or won't work) and wealthy tends to trickle upwards, but the wealth of individuals doesn't depend on the number of people in the economy. There is no evidence that immigrants don't pull their weight.

How many potholes need filling? 😆

I don't think it's as simple as that! It's naive to think that groups of immigrants will simply fill potholes. It requires machinery, equipment, materials, training, supervision, planning, risk assessments, road closure applications etc. Local authorities do NOT have the finances to mobilise something like this. It's down to money, or lack of it, again.
Anyway, machinery is quickly replacing manual pothole repairs too in a fraction of the time.

The immigrants who have already come here and have been granted residence etc aren't the issue. They are contributing to the country by working and paying their way. (I was one such, for 7 years in France). If they then fall by hard times, they will be supported. No emotions towards them either way. That's normal. The numbers are proportionate, even if they increase they will help care for our aging population.
No emotions either about how immigration evolved in the past, that's how it was then.

It's the thousands who are now just hanging around inactive and still arriving, who drain the coffers who cause others a feeling of frustration. It's not their fault they aren't allowed to work, but neither is it anyone's fault to feel this frustration. This is a rational reaction.

Before I go hunting for that, maybe you’d like to identify how many people are using food banks, finding it hard to get homes, hospital appointments etc. before adding any more people to the island.

The fact that these people exist has nothing to do with too many people in Britain. It is the result of the economic system that governments have adhered to since Thatcher in which the interests of 'the markets' and private enterprise, and people with wealth predominate and state services are cut to the bone.Also to her completely untrue statement that the state only has money raised by taxation.

If the government had the political will it could, among other things, put as much money as it liked into state services and investment in creating enough to serve the needs of all citizens, it could introduce progressive taxation which would result in a more equable distribution of the money* it issues into the economy* (because contrary to Thatcher's assertion, the greater amount of money in the economy comes from the government, with a small amount coming from foreign earnings) and prevent the already wealthy from amassing even more.

Instead, it pretends that there is a finite amount of money available and allows the wealthy to take, and hold onto, most of it.

Overcrowding is not our problem, very poor economics is.

Mollygo Do you have any evidence that immigrants are being supported by benefits?

My impression is that immigrants tend to be quite hard-working. If anything, they're propping up the non-working "indigenous" population.

I have no facts or figures. If I were to see something which suggested immigrants are costing the country billions, I'd have a re-think.

Supporting refugees and asylum seekers is a price the UK pays to be a respected first world country.

Before I go hunting for that, maybe you’d like to identify how many people are using food banks, finding it hard to get homes, hospital appointments etc. before adding any more people to the island.

A significant number are students or are working.

Like you and many others we have immigrants living quite close by,

We do have people who are not immigrants, living next door, paying tax and NI. but I can’t match your next door neighbours claim.

We also have endless foreign uni students, being a university city, and friends and family members who are uni students, paying vast amounts for accommodation and tuition.

The concern is not over those who do pay, but over those who don’t and who continue to arrive in their thousands, for whatever reason.
We already have a society in which for some, benefits are the new wages.

... and Council Tax.

Before I go looking for an answer to that, maybe you'd like to find out just how many immigrants have no jobs, homes or food.

My personal experience of immigrants suggests that they do have jobs, homes and food. Both my next-door-neighbours are immigrants. There are four working adults, paying at least an average amount of income tax and National Insurance.

growstuff

"So the question is, how do we deal with the existing problems of housing, homelessness, food banks, child poverty, etc. whilst needing to fund the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK?"

OK! At least this is being discussed rationally now. Dig a bit deeper. You'll find that the UK isn't funding the additional number of people wanting to live in the UK.

For a start, a significant number of those people are students, who have no recourse to public funds. They usually pay about three times the amount home students do for their fees. They're actually subsidising UK students and propping up a number of universities and providing employment for all the people who work in them.

Many other immigrants work for the NHS. Without them, the NHS would be in an even worse state. The irony is that, in addition to paying income tax and National Insurance, these people have to pay an immigration health surcharge (£3,105 for a 3-year visa) as part of their application process.

It would be interesting to see a full break-down of the cost of immigrants to the UK.

So where exactly are the funds for those without jobs, without homes, without food coming from?
If the government aren’t funding them . . .

Casdon

Caring, as opposed to nursing, has never been a profession that attracted many young people though. I can understand why, because carers carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and life experience is so important when dealing with others in a one to one situation. Historically it was middle aged women who made up the bulk of carers, but for a multitude of reasons, less are available then in the past. .

I have first hand evidence that middle aged (and older) women were carers in the 19th and early 20th century. A search of the censuses from 1841-1921 shows the number of widows who worked firstly in workhouses (which is where the elderly, very sick and demented were sent) and later in various homes and hospitals. I have one ancestor who was till working in a workhouse when she was in her 80s.

I guess that even in those days being a carer was unpopular work. Young women would have gone into service, found somebody to marry, then if the husband died without a pension (as most would have done), the woman had to find some way to support herself - there would appear to have been plenty of vacancies in caring.