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

[Old Greg]

Hence my agreement with SAS, ironically expressed, that "there would not be much difference between the natives and immigrant population overall because we don't have a selective immigration policy".

Although TBH I did tend, before I became ill, to go to superior gaffs full of superior people with my mixed group of friends some of whom are real live immigrants. Merkins, Hermans, Poles, Spaniards, Sri Lankans, we'll take anyone with a brain really, even Scotsmen at a pinch.

Although according to vetran, Sri Lankans are not immigrants because they are not foreign born, so please get it right.

[vetran]

Have to stop you there. He was not born in a foreign country because Commonwealth countries are not foreign countries so how can he be 'foreign born'?

As I understand it for nationality they are 'foreign'. They are commonwealth citizens see the right to abode link. If you have a source that advises differently would be interested to see it, I may be wrong.

British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[doodab]

The trouble is not having access to data with the required granularity on things like earnings by nationality, benefits claims by nationality etc. Without it all of these reports are at least partially guesswork.

One wonders if such data is actually gathered and looked at by policy makers. It seems like a glaring omission if it isn't.

[mos]

Currently the figures proffered and propaganda always seem to show all immigrants are good and anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

I agree with you on that. "Immigration is always Good" and "Capital flow (read: asset stripping) is always good" = propaganda. Britons are now allowed to question benefits of the EEA immigration, but non EU is still a taboo.

But the propaganda that predatory capital is good for the host country, is still alive and well.

[Old Greg]

As I understand it for nationality they are 'foreign'. They are commonwealth citizens see the right to abode link. If you have a source that advises differently would be interested to see it, I may be wrong.

British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commonwealth citizen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In British nationality law, a Commonwealth citizen is a person who is either a British citizen, British Overseas Territories citizen, British Overseas citizen, British subject, British National (Overseas) or a national of a country listed in Schedule 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (see below). Under the law, British protected persons are not Commonwealth citizens. The list of countries in Schedule 3 at any time may not accurately reflect the countries actually within the Commonwealth at that time. For example, when Fiji left the Commonwealth in 1987 and 1990, its name was not removed from Schedule 3. This may have happened because the British Government at the time wished to avoid the consequences of Fijian citizens in the United Kingdom suddenly losing the benefits of Commonwealth citizenship.
In the United Kingdom, as in some other Commonwealth countries, Commonwealth citizens (together with Irish citizens and British protected persons) are in law considered not to be "foreign" or "aliens", although British protected persons do not have all the civic rights that are enjoyed by Commonwealth and Irish citizens. Commonwealth and Irish citizens enjoy the same civic rights as British citizens, namely:

[vetran]

The trouble is not having access to data with the required granularity on things like earnings by nationality, benefits claims by nationality etc. Without it all of these reports are at least partially guesswork.

One wonders if such data is actually gathered and looked at by policy makers. It seems like a glaring omission if it isn't.

I suspect it is intentional. Let's hope they are forced to do so and start revising policy from a position of knowledge not anecdotes.

[doodab]

I suspect it is intentional. Let's hope they are forced to do so and start revising policy from a position of knowledge not anecdotes.

I'm all in favour of evidence based policy making, and if you don't have the evidence you need to go and get it, not just make some tulip up.

I'd have hoped that someone somewhere had at least done some sort of statistical study of immigrant earnings distributions, it does appear that the preferred methodology is to have a bit of a guess.

[vetran]

OK so do the same sum with the deficit rather than gross spending. I'm sure you can work that out for yourself and prove your point.

why the deficit?

GDP is about the only thing the population can directly affect. Government spending they have a slight effect on.

[Mich the Tester]

The trouble is not having access to data with the required granularity on things like earnings by nationality, benefits claims by nationality etc. Without it all of these reports are at least partially guesswork.

One wonders if such data is actually gathered and looked at by policy makers. It seems like a glaring omission if it isn't.

It's rather difficult when demographers can't even agree a satisfactory scientific definition of such things as nationality, 'immigrant', 'citizen' and while the UK has several different categories of citizenship, nationality, subject, and so on.

Population dynamics is complicated stuff; it breaks the brains of some of the brainiest people around so it doesn't surprise me that the meejah and various other cretins struggle with it. I struggled with it too, but managed to get my turd bachelors and then went to do something altogether less complicated, i.e. IT where my brain is generally not fried to charcoal every day.

[Old Greg]

It's rather difficult when demographers can't even agree a satisfactory scientific definition of such things as nationality, 'immigrant', 'citizen' and while the UK has several different categories of citizenship, nationality, subject, and so on.

I think vetran's nearly cracked it.