Immigrants cost Britain £3,000 a day each, says report

[sasguru]

Someone can't be an expert on everything, but this particular someone doesn't particularly like looking at other human beings in terms of 'are you a net contributor or a net lossmaker?' so it's difficult for this particular someone to work out precisely what we should consider a 'contribution' to society and what we should consider as taking from society.

The argument was wrong even on the basis of Migration Watch terms as anyone who did a basic sense check could see.
Problem is the vast majority of the population are poorly-educated credulous plebs who will pick whatever bit of loony crap justifies their already-held opinion.
We really need evidence-based thinking to be taught in schools from an early age.

[doodab]

Answer the ******* question!

Lets have a bash.

Public spending is ~ £720 billion. There are ~ 63 million people. That's £11,500 per person give or take £100.

8 million of those people are immigrants. So take the immigrants and what they cost away (going on £3000/yr each here)

£720 bln - (8 million * £3,000) = £720 bln - £24 bln = £696 bln

63mln - 8mln = 55 million people

Which works out just over £12,600 per annum each. Quite pricey these natives.

[vetran]

My original post was about London.

I believe immigrants in London must make a net contribution since (1) they are in the majority and (2) London is so successful.

I can't speak of immigrants in other parts of the country but I would be surprised if they were more lazy than their British counterparts.
And it would be very surprising if they were so extraordinarily lazy that they dragged the figures down so much.

It's far more likely that MigrationWatch, having an axe to grind, have made up some spurious figures, especially as other studies, from more respectable institutions, show the opposite.

The study was about the whole of the UK. Your journey to London makes the point that there are a number of migrants we want, something that was never in doubt. Even Migration watch are in favour of managed migration.

The willingness to work has no effect on the reality of the figures, the numbers are facts so its a spurious and biased comment . So you are just attacking figures with emotional and anecdotal arguments I think that makes those comments worthless.

More respected organisations don't have an axe to grind or make assumptions?

Migrationwatch made a few points that seem sensible. By all means attack their points with a logical argument not bias & bluster - I'm surprised anyone pays for your opinion!

[sasguru]

Sure, all Indian born came to UK in 1940 and contributed and all Polish born came to UK three months ago to claim benefits and live in council housing.

If you're any example, all Polish born came to the UK to make cretinous comments on internet forums.
We have our own home-born cretins already, the cretin market is saturated, that's why you're finding it difficult to get a good job.
So fook orf back to Poland.

ITSHTH (In The Sincere Hope That Helps)

[sasguru]

The study was about the whole of the UK. Your journey to London makes the point that there are a number of migrants we want, something that was never in doubt. Even Migration watch are in favour of managed migration.

The willingness to work has no effect on the reality of the figures, the numbers are facts so its a spurious and biased comment . So you are just attacking figures with emotional and anecdotal arguments I think that makes those comments worthless.

More respected organisations don't have an axe to grind or make assumptions?

Migrationwatch made a few points that seem sensible. By all means attack their points with a logical argument not bias & bluster - I'm surprised anyone pays for your opinion!

I've just pointed out that a basic logical sense check suggest MW are wrong.
For an example of bias and bluster I refer you to the post you made before this one

[mos]

If you're any example, all Polish born came to the UK to make cretinous comments on internet forums.
We have our own home-born cretins already, the cretin market is saturated, that's why you're finding it difficult to get a good job.
So fook orf back to Poland.

ITSHTH (In The Sincere Hope That Helps)

I came here to study the art of writing cretinous comments from the Master. Please do not send me back home, I have yet so much to learn from you!

[vetran]

Not strictly true. If you look at the top 5 sources of "foreign born" immigrants, two of them (US & Germany) consist almost entirely of British nationals or those with dual citizenship.

those countries make up 451,000 of the 7.5 million so in the unlikely event all of them are working for the British government its still only 5% , you can have dual nationality for a number of reasons including one parent or grandparent being British.

Not sure how you would define an immigrant for these purposes the census seems to like foreign born as a value :

The 2011 Census uses three ways to define an international migrant:

A person who was born outside the UK; this is a stable definition of an international migrant as it cannot change over time.

A person who holds a non-UK passport (while country of birth remains constant, people may change their nationality over time or acquire dual nationality).

A person who was usually resident outside the UK one year prior to census day, indicating they may have migrated to the UK in the year up to 27 March 2011. This excludes any international migrant who arrived in the UK prior to 28 March 2010 and will include some people who are UK born or UK nationals.

[vetran]

I've just pointed out that a basic logical sense check suggest MW are wrong.
For an example of bias and bluster I refer you to the post you made before this one

you said - i'll paraphrase my immigrant friends are all highly paid professionals who I believe make up a great part of London's success therefore the figures for the whole country must be wrong. If you can't see that is an opinion devoid of relevant facts then I'm sorry you really are a bit thick.

This morning I'm wearing grey socks and so is my friend therefore logically everyone must be wearing grey socks.

[Mich the Tester]

The 2011 Census uses three ways to define an international migrant:

A person who was born outside the UK; this is a stable definition of an international migrant as it cannot change over time.

A person who holds a non-UK passport (while country of birth remains constant, people may change their nationality over time or acquire dual nationality).

A person who was usually resident outside the UK one year prior to census day, indicating they may have migrated to the UK in the year up to 27 March 2011. This excludes any international migrant who arrived in the UK prior to 28 March 2010 and will include some people who are UK born or UK nationals.

I guess this makes me triple foreign! Waheey!

[vetran]

Lets have a bash.

Public spending is ~ £720 billion. There are ~ 63 million people. That's £11,500 per person give or take £100.

8 million of those people are immigrants. So take the immigrants and what they cost away (going on £3000/yr each here)

£720 bln - (8 million * £3,000) = £720 bln - £24 bln = £696 bln

63mln - 8mln = 55 million people

Which works out just over £12,600 per annum each. Quite pricey these natives.

now take it away from what they contribute. Its net contribution.

I would assume on this board we all pay more tax than that (admitted probably via Vat & corporation tax as you are all tax avoiding contractors.)