Britain hysterical over immigration

[Mich the Tester]

13 million British naationals abroad (estimated), some born abroad to British parents, some born in Britain, some born in Britain because their British parents flew over for the birth to avoid the jus sanguinis/ just soli distinction that made Boris Johnson's kids Belgian (as if that's such a disaster). Plus Hong Kong; British nationals but not citizens, and various others.

It's a consequence of sending colonialists, aid workers, missionaries, oil workers, soldiers, embassy staff, academics, techies and so on all over the world to screw the locals. Except of course for the last 40 years or so the screwing has taken on a different form to the days of the empire.

[MicrosoftBob]

Mode 4 is far more of a threat to a lot of people on here I'd imagine

[Mich the Tester]

Mode 4 is far more of a threat to a lot of people on here I'd imagine

That depends on whether you see competition as a threat or as an opportunity. I'd say that either way, it's a necessity.

[OwlHoot]

Totally agree with you there, it's about space not race.

But voting UKIP? They won't win any seats. They will just take votes from Tories.

That will present Labour with many seats they wouldn't otherwise have won. Enough to prevent a Tory majority. Perhaps enough to allow Labour to form a government.

So if you think Cameron is bad on immigration, your alternative would welcome back the party that caused all these problems in the first place.

and if the Tories do lose like that, they'll know all too well the reason and will perhaps better address the electorate's wishes next time.

This smart-ass tactical voting just leads to a cosy consensus - If you feel strongly enough about something important you should vote, come what may, for the party whose declared aim is to address it.

[Mich the Tester]

and if the Tories do lose like that, they'll know all too well the reason and will perhaps better address the electorate's wishes next time.

This smart-ass tactical voting just leads to a cosy consensus - If you feel strongly enough about something important you should vote, come what may, for the party whose declared aim is to address it.

No you shouldn't. You should vote for the party that promises the absolute opposite of what you want so that when they backtrack on their promises you can celebrate.

[vetran]

Thanks but no. I'm an EU immigrant from a western European country where the social benefits are about three times as high as in the UK, but I plan to stay here forever and British citizen ship application has been filed with the Home Office.
I bet you have no idea how many Brits work or live (pensioners in Spain for example) abroad in the EU using the exact same rules as EU immigrants coming to the UK

Pensioners importing cash into Spain from UK pensions are probably quite welcome in the economy.
High value migrants supporting them self and paying tax in the top 10% of the countries workforce are welcome in almost any country. We let the Oligarchs in and have enjoyed their money.

What we have an issue with is the low end employees being used to undercut local low end employees. A million poles many of whom are self selecting intelligent / qualified supplant lower skilled locals (of all ethnic origins).

we at the middle top may see it as an opportunity, those at the bottom will see it as a catastrophe and the benefits bill will rise.

[sasguru]

Pensioners importing cash into Spain from UK pensions are probably quite welcome in the economy.
.

Not really. They take much more in health costs than they bring in. Pensioners, unless they are super-wealthy, which Brits in Spain are not generally, are always a drain on resources.

[darmstadt]

A lot of what Cameron is babbling on about is bluff and bluster, as any fule know much of what he is proposing is already in place. For example he wants to cut rights to benefits and deport homeless migrants, well, stopping out of work benefits unless the recipient has a real chance of a job is already law. If you don't believe it then have a look on the CAB website which states:

“If you’re looking for work and have registered as a jobseeker at Jobcentre Plus… you will … have to take the Habitual Residence Test [to prove residence in the UK] and prove you intend to settle in the UK and make it your home for the time being. Usually, you can only have jobseeker status for six months. However, this period can be extended if you’ve a genuine chance of finding work.

“If you lost your job in the UK and it wasn’t your fault and you’re still genuinely looking for work you won’t have to take the HRT. This is called involuntary unemployment. For example, you might have been made redundant or your fixed-term contract ended. You must also have been employed for one year before you lost your job, and be now registered as a jobseeker. If you’ve been employed for less than one year you can only keep the status of worker for six months after you lose your job. However, you can keep the status for longer if you show that you’ve a genuine chance of finding work.”

In fact migrants who are already claiming benefits and then move country need to fill in an E308 to receive benefits in their new country and then for 3 months these are paid at the same rate as their old benefits and if they don't find a job within those 3 months then its loss of benefits or deported back to their country of origin.

Then there is the one about immigrants claiming housing benefit straightaway, not quite so clear cut but once again check the CAB website:

“If you are from overseas or have recently come to live in the UK you may have difficulty claiming the benefit, depending on your immigration status.”

As for deporting people, well have a look at the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 which already allows this.

The C4 Fact check program found that:

“immigrants are generally net contributors to the British economy, paying more into the system in taxes than they take out by accessing public services.

“Migrants from the A8 countries of central and eastern Europe who joined the EU in 2004 were 60 per cent less likely than native-born Brits to claim benefits, and 58 per cent less likely to live in council housing. In every year since 2004 the A8 immigrants had paid in more than they had taken out.”

Also CReAM (Centre for the Research and Analysis of Migration) found that:

“Whereas [European Economic Area] immigrants have made an overall positive fiscal contribution to the UK, the net fiscal balance of non-EEA immigrants is negative – as it is for natives.”

This basically means that UK citizens are more of a drain on the state than migrants, in fact figures from the Department for Work and Pensions even bear that out.

In other words, your government, your right-wing political parties and your scurrilous facist press are once again lying to you in order to further their own agenda. As The Who once said "Won't get fooled again", sadly you are...

[Zero Liability]

Looking forwards to the general election, when I plan to vote UKIP.

Ditto.

[Churchill]

sieg heil!!!Ditto.

ftfy.

Spod - In "NSA/GCHQ" mode!