Forum menu
asylum seekers legally cannot work so they wont be job seeking
You are a British citizen and our priority should be to put our own citizens interests first.
Isn't it just about the best candidate for the job?
I would've thought you would've advocated market forces to sort things out.
asylum seekers legally cannot work so they wont be job seeking
They probably just get the free cars because the massive driveways of their free mansions look daft with nothing parked on them ?
rosscore - Memberour local community new arrivals from external sources, get:
A case handler
A Translator
Head of the queue at our local surgery
Accommodation paid for and made available instantly
A car purchased to save taxi fares whilst job seeking.That's the difference.
CITATION NEEDED.
(Which for clarity means "everyone knows this is bullshit, including you")
We don't just import low skilled immigrants, we also import high qualified/skilled immigrants as well(not just from the EU).
Does anyone know what the average level of education/skill is for an immigrant? I do object to the word "just" in that sentence, because it implies that the majority are unskilled. I don't' know what the truth of that is.
You are a British citizen and our priority should be to put our own citizens interests first.
Why? Personally I would rather support someone on the merits of their behaviour and attitude, rather than place of birth.
So much bullshit around this issue.
My wife and I do some work for a refugee support network. Mostly people are very supportive of the cause and people are extraordinarily generous and empathetic. You do get the odd "charity begins at home" arsehole, who I simply ask, "off you go then, what do you do to help?". Never fails to shut them up.
One refugee we helped used to work logistics and infrastructure in Syria for the UN. He knew the regime was watching him, then, when helping out with a project in Kenya, he got a phone call from a colleague telling him that if he returned to Syria, he would be killed. Friends got his wife and kids into hiding in Syria while he made his way to the UK, due to our global reputation for fairness and compassion. For six months, he slept on sofas, received little to no support from official channels for months, all while his wife and kids were being smuggled around Syria, far from safe. He finally got refugee status in June and was able to get his family to the UK. He now has a proper roof over his head, but has had to rely on charity for so much.
This guy is broken, broke and very lucky to be alive but don't think for a second he isn't grateful. I could tell you similar stories all night, but I wont bore you (besides, it's not what the OP asked about).
So please, list all the things Asylum seekers (don't) get for free. You clearly know **** all about it.
To answer the OP's question, borders are the best way to keep the poor away from the rich, which is why they only seem to be a barrier to the poor.
Good answer lunge, but surely the price is dictated by the market and if the job can be done for £25 then that's the cost of the job. Is the builder charging £50 for the work doing the job to a higher standard or simply funding a lifestyle that they have chosen? Not saying one answer is right or wrong, just interested in all aspects.
Correct. But if you've always charged £50, as has every other builder in the area and then a group comes in who are happy with a much lower standard of life and half your rates your not going to be happy. You could argue that it's just the market or even supply and demand and you'd not be wrong. But when those things don't go in your favour you won't like it at all.
[quote=molgrips ]So it's been discussed on other threads that people in some parts of the country are unhappy that people from other countries are coming and putting pressure on their jobs.
What's the difference between that and me moving within the UK to look for a job?
What is the net outcome on housing demand/ school places / NHS between you moving from place A to place B vs you staying in place A and another person + family entering the country and working in place B ?
Good spot, atp.
Couple of points though:
If I come from place A to place B, net effect on the exchequer is zero because I have vacated a job.
If someone comes from outside to place B and I'm still working in place A, then there must be by definition a new job and the exchequer therefore gets more money.
Unless the incomer just claims benefits. But how often does that really happen with EU migrants? I mean real numbers not Daily Mail waffle or justlookarounds.
[quote=molgrips ]
If someone comes from outside to place B and I'm still working in place A, then there must be by definition a new job and the exchequer therefore gets more money.
We still have more load on NHS/schools/roads/etc though don't we. And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?
Not sure i could be called an economic migrant as i came to the uk to learn english . i found a job in the uk whilst still living in france .
that was 8th of october 1996 .
i started work the day after arriving in the country . i got live in accomodation , and went to register for national insurance with my job contract .
i am on my 3rd job in the uk , and had several interviews . i think i got the jobs on merit .
i have always worked and never received any special benefits because of my nationality .
my wife and children have british nationality , and we recieve child benefits like any other families .
Interesting question from molgrips, and I'll turn it around to where it started...
When we all voted, I was a Cornishman living and working in Cardiff / valleys. I love S Wales - the people, landscape, industrial heritage etc, but...
I've often posted on here about the inequities of rural versus city, people selling in (mainly) England, buying in the countryside, and pricing out the rural unskilled / poor / unfortunate not to have capital, of their home communities - or the making of economic exiles of those of us with the ability to go elsewhere and earn a crust...
"Stop whinging", "get on with it", "it's a free market" has been the general response - from those (mainly) English with the wherewithal and general (English?) sense of self-righteousness / self-entitlement to take themselves into any community that their money allows them too. I'm not a Welsh speaker, but for those Welsh communities of the Lleyn concerned about their linguistic identity, I totally agree that uncontrolled English immigration is a huge threat to your traditions, culture, language and lifestyle.
Which is one reason why the Brexit "immigration" issue made me very, very angry. Irony? Hypocrisy? Or just mind numbed stupidity?
weve become accustomed to strawberries at a couple of quid a punnet
so we cart over immigrants to make sure they stay that way
the supermarkets rake in the cash, , the CEOs get a squillion pound bonus, the government gets some tax money, blow it all on keeping our aging population in statins and winter fuel allowances
nothing gets put back into the communities supporting the immigrants
demagogues and media barrons tell people that immigrants = the root of all evil
idiots vote accordingly and racists get a hard-on
We still have more load on NHS/schools/roads/etc though don't we. And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?
Overall, it should be. Employers should pay a living wage.
In other words, if the economy's providing jobs but the system is still so ****ed up that people in work can't afford to live, it's the government's fault. Doesn't matter if the person is from elsewhere in the UK or abroad, does it?
Reminds me of one of my drinking companions who runs a local farm.
One night he sang the praises of one of his workers: never seen anything like it, works like a machine non-stop, nothing is too much bother for him, always cheerful, very diligent, great initiative, etc etc.
Then later he announced he was voting Leave "because of the immigrants".
We pointed out that his faultless worker was an immigrant. He said "Yeah but it's not him that's the problem, [i]it's those other ones[/i]."
[quote=molgrips ]We still have more load on NHS/schools/roads/etc though don't we. And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?
Overall, it should be. Employers should pay a living wage.
In other words, if the economy's providing jobs but the system is still so **** up that people in work can't afford to live, it's the government's fault. Doesn't matter if the person is from elsewhere in the UK or abroad, does it?
What about the load on the public services though ? It's now double isn't it ? You did ask....
What about the load on the public services though ? It's now double isn't it ? You did ask....
Absolutely, that the discussion I wanted to have.
Public services should be scaled up using the tax money generated by the immigrant's economic activity.
if an immigrant works , his contributions will pay for public services .
What about the load on the public services though ? It's now double isn't it ? You did ask....
We are a wealthy country, we can afford it.
Mike Ashley could cough a few quid, couldn't he?
Actually cchris2lou, not if by being a better worker he displaces one of the indigenous population onto the dole.
Still feel I'm pro-immigration overall, or more correctly pro-freedom of labour movement, but it's not necessarily black and white.
ok, but more people mean we need more services , more jobs created , more food produced , more houses built . it creates more jobs .
I agree generally, but it's always nuanced - which is where clever but twisted people corrupt the discussion
yes , as you said it is not black and white .
Actually while we're on a thread discussing things like people turning up, enjoying the benefits but paying nothing in...
I note that Jamba you have a P.
Most of the other leavers seem to be freeloading. 😉
Is there an irony emoticon?
Still feel I'm pro-immigration overall, or more correctly pro-freedom of labour movement, but it's not necessarily black and white.
B&W it isn't, which I think is the purpose of this thread. Why is the movement of people between countries deemed unacceptable, but within a country acceptable?
For every immigrant who's taking advantage of the system, there must be a number of UK residents who are taking advantage too.
For every immigrant, there must be an expat.
For every bit of pressure on salaries, there must be a customer asking for the best place to buy a decent set of forks.
We are tribal and until we get over this, we're ****ed.
we are all immigrants
weve been doing it ever since we became human
its in our genes
some people have trouble accepting that populations and culture are dynamic, not static
[img] 
[/img]
if an immigrant works , his contributions will pay for public services .
The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person. So whether they pay for themselves very mich depends on what they do
I have every confidence with a visa system you would have got a work permit, at least a short term one like they have in Australia.
Once again we are going round in circles. Controlled Immigration vs Freedom of Movemnet. Rest ofnthe World vs European Union
What exactly is this controlled immigration that you keep harping on about that doesn't exist now?
The circles are of your own making and failure to do anything but soundbite.
You sound more and more like Trump by the day.
We have the data - eu immigrants make a positive impact on the economy and a greater impact than non-eu immigrants. Not hard to know what to do...
jambalaya - Member
Once again we are going round in circles. Controlled Immigration vs Freedom of Movemnet. Rest ofnthe World vs European Union
Agreed - let's get shot of this whole silly Brexit mess
jambalaya - Member
The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person. So whether they pay for themselves very mich depends on what they do
My inflation's been a git recently, 'cos in 2014 (last year I found data for) it was £27k per [b]household[/b] (so that includes paying for kids school places etc) or a pre-tax salary of £35-38k.
Sure you didn't get mixed up between household and individual (an individual with no dependents would be much lower)?
The breakeven salary is £38k pa
but that takes no account into the value of someones job
Of 350,000 nurses in the UK over 50,000 are from overseas, I doubt any earn over 38k, but we'd be stuffed without them
that 38k (or is that just [b]another[/b] jambafact) cuttoff is essentially meaningless
especially when the biggest factor in that number being the demographics our aging population,
The positive effects on 'our' economy depend of one's definition of the economy .
This "paying for themself" thing is also dodgy because it includes paying for things like care of the elderly, which I presume isn't a cost working age immigrants are incurring. Remind me again where it is OAPs are emigrating from and immigrating to?
The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person.
Figures? Citation?
Be fair, it might be me that's wrong. The most recent number I had was from the Telegraph in 2014 - and the Telegraph is occasionally inaccurate.
And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?
My wife earns £9 an hour. So no, she is not a net beneficiary. She works as a Teaching Assistant, so is doing a pretty valuable job. She also has a masters in pedagogy, so is better qualified than almost all other TAs. I think she's an asset to our society, you are free to disagree.
The alleged breakeven only makes sense if you think paying tax is the only way a worker contributes to the country and the economy, which is too absurd to really reason with.
As a lot of you know, I work in the prison service. A large majority of prisoners will never ever lead useful or productive lives (apart from being allowed to breed & produce more of the same & creating more of a burden on society) while in the meantime we can take in immigrants who can help our society & integrate with our values & contribute to the economy.
However..It's not a case of letting everyone in is it.
kimbers - Memberwe are all immigrants
weve been doing it ever since we became human
its in our genes
some people have trouble accepting that populations and culture are dynamic, not static
Yes, we are all immigrants if you want to go that far.
We are all dynamic as we have evolved to compete with each others.
The moment we have brain activities we compete. Now competition has become the blueprint of our genes.
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
We may be human but that is the only similarity we have. i.e. intelligent being walking on two feet.
All the troubles/conflicts etc you see in the world now - competition.
Very ugly nasty competition. i.e. the ones that dominate the resources (whatever that is) refuse to share and those without the resources want them yesterday.
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
Speak for yourself.
You do not compete for resources in order to live?RichPenny - Member
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
Speak for yourself.
Majority and if not all of our lives are based on competition.
Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.
.The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person
It's for household take home and not [b]single[/b] income.
It's an awful article that messes around with the concept of average NHS usage and things like that (which comes later in life when you've paid all your Taxes before hand.)
It also doesn't take into the account the benefit to Landlords/Agency's/Employees of paying low wages to give them their big net benefit.
It's a crooked mean way of interpreting facts.
If you want to correct it then these so called few that pay all the tax could pay better wages and thus more tax can be collected from the bottom? But you can't have it both ways.
Torygraph.The point at which a [b]household[/b] switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000
Also what's the point of a snapshot in time? People's contributions change at different times of their life.
I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.
Whether it is a mean way to do things - well I can certainly see that particularly with respect to working benefits and minimum wage and the like. I object to subsiding Tescos profit.