Thoughts on immigration ?

danlikesbikes

mr_eddy wrote:

In ref to the 3rd comment there seems to be some confusion - my point abourt 2/3rd generation welfare support was based on british caucasian famalies. I completely agree, from my personal experience those whotend to rely on welfare handouts (especially in my local area) are 90% british born white famalies. This is my point, in my experience its EU workers who tend to have a good work ethic.

Cheers mate that was the clarification I was looking for - sounds like were on the same wave length now.

Tom Butcher

Danlikesbikes wrote:

mr_eddy wrote:

In ref to the 3rd comment there seems to be some confusion - my point abourt 2/3rd generation welfare support was based on british caucasian famalies. I completely agree, from my personal experience those whotend to rely on welfare handouts (especially in my local area) are 90% british born white famalies. This is my point, in my experience its EU workers who tend to have a good work ethic.

Cheers mate that was the clarification I was looking for - sounds like were on the same wave length now.

A quick google suggests certainly as far as unemployment rates go your impressions are wrong. That's not to say one ethnic group is work shy compared to another - these issues are complex and social class and background are important - but nationally those relying on "handouts" are not more likely to be white british born families.

danlikesbikes

Tom Butcher wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

mr_eddy wrote:

In ref to the 3rd comment there seems to be some confusion - my point abourt 2/3rd generation welfare support was based on british caucasian famalies. I completely agree, from my personal experience those whotend to rely on welfare handouts (especially in my local area) are 90% british born white famalies. This is my point, in my experience its EU workers who tend to have a good work ethic.

Cheers mate that was the clarification I was looking for - sounds like were on the same wave length now.

A quick google suggests certainly as far as unemployment rates go your impressions are wrong. That's not to say one ethnic group is work shy compared to another - these issues are complex and social class and background are important - but nationally those relying on "handouts" are not more likely to be white british born families.

My impressions are wrong or the OP's???

As my initial question to the OP was after clarification simply as it could have been seen as being a bit (no offence OP as you have clarified your point) racist.

As for my opinion it was simply of my current street & I was asked if I had specific evidence of this & I confirmed the position. Though should perhaps add as a clarification point that my street is the only one I really know of for fact and my views do not represent the whole country as I would simply be a Daily Fail reader if I applied my logic to the whole of GB.

Tom Butcher

My point is simply that lazy stereotypes about white (non) working class are no better than lazy stereotypes about other ethnic groups if they aren't backed up by more than personal anecdotes.

finchy

mr_eddy wrote:

Take my GF's home town in Slovakia for example if you believe that you cannot work for whatever reason then you do get welfare support but instead of just money you get your support in practical solutions so for example instead of money towards food you get given food vouchers

Which town does she come from?

mr_eddy wrote:

In addition if you feel that you need the internet to search for a job then you given a pre programmed 3G router that allows access to only certain types of sites.

The problem is, who chooses which sites are allowed aren't which aren't allowed? For example, newspapers often have loads of job adverts, but people might read them for pleasure. Many other companies might also advertise jobs on their own website.

mr_eddy wrote:

I think that is the point here - in the UK there is a system in place that makes living off benefits just as rewarding in terms of lifestyle and quality of life as you get if working full time. If we put in place measures so that those who chose to remain unemployed despite having the ability to work are forced to accept a lower standard with regards to entertainment / food provisions etc then it would hopefully encourage work.

I would imagine that anyone who is living a rewarding life on benefits is either making fraudulent claims or is doing black market work on the side.

verylonglegs

Tom Butcher wrote:

My point is simply that lazy stereotypes about white (non) working class are no better than lazy stereotypes about other ethnic groups if they aren't backed up by more than personal anecdotes.

Yes, it's not that their productivity is any greater, they aren't super-human after all, they are just more open to the fact they may have to travel further to find work.

team47b

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I favour it - no boundaries - ever. Why should a climate of distrust and fear be encouraged when all thats happening is new people with new stories and old lives are coming to visit.

just thought a breath of fresh air is worth repeating

Carry on with 'your' opines...

danlikesbikes

Tom Butcher wrote:

My point is simply that lazy stereotypes about white (non) working class are no better than lazy stereotypes about other ethnic groups if they aren't backed up by more than personal anecdotes.

Tend to agree that based on the latest numbers available from the office of statistics (excluding minority groups) does back this up.

the playing mantis

can of worm times.

in short limited, selective immigration (skilled workers in areas of shortage, fit women, limited numbers of unskilled workers at times of high demand, massive infrastructure projects etc) is good.

Unlimited is very bad, and simply unteneable.

at the moment the country is pretty much the latter. Sure free movement of people for all in an ideal world would be great. But it isnt an ideal world. ultimately it boils down to the fact that th UK is a small island, with finite resources. unlimited immigration simply wont work as eventually there will be a tipping point.

the south east is overcrowded as it is. white flight from london is putting pressure on infrastructure in the surrounding counties to an unprecedented level. trains are packed, schools are full, house prices are too high, council house lists are too long, roads are jammed, hospitals are bursting at the seams. this is down to population growth. poulation growth has been fuelled almost predominatbtly in the last few years by immigration.

some people will argue that we should just build more infrastrucure in the south east or move develpoment to other regions to ease the pressure on the south east, well the latter is a pipe dream and simply wont happen. the former, well you could do that, but who wants to live in a mass urbanised conurbation that the whole south east could very easily become. i for one dont. the charachter of this country would change from a green and pleasent land, and thats what makes us so unique and ideal. the south east needs to be protected from increased development that population pressure that unlimited immigration is bringing.

there are other factors too. i walk through parts of london now and dont here an english voice/accent. areas of east london have become enclaves of foeign countries to all intents and purposes and you feel out of place walking through them. should that occur, should you feel like that int he country you were born in?

now for jobs. a spotty area, but i will give it a go. the main problem here is the lazy benefit culture of the 'indigenous' unskilled 'worker' they dont need to work or have to to enjoy a decent life, as benefits allow them that. if benefits were not as generous then these people would be forced to do the jobs at the moment they refuse/dont want to do, and which are thus filled by immigrants who are not as fussy and willing to work at anything, it may also require these jobs to pay a bit more (increased minimum wage), hand in hand with a reduction in benefits, to get people working.

at the moment immigrants are needed for these low level unskilled jobs as the natives wont do them, and have no need to. if benefits were reformed and these people had to work to be better off than on benefits, then the need for unskilled immigrants wouldnt be there nearly as much. in an ideal world we would 'look after our own' first and get native unemployment down, and only then invite immigration to fill work gaps/growth as the economy allowed. that said in the banking and financial services industry, in the back office areas there are large numbers of foreign nationals who work in these areas, and these are not low paid jobs in the grand scheme of things, low paid in the industry no doubt, but there is no reason these positions could not be filled by 'natives', as they are semi skilled, and pretty much require computer literacy and not being a moron. In these type of jobs i can potentially see how immigration is taking the work of 'natives', as i probably can in certain trades...plumbing, etc.

but in trades at least there is lack of skill for native workers, there are not enough people taking apprentiships and far far far too many people going to university, for no other reason than its the done thing and for the 'life expereince' universities roles have changed from what they are designed to do. there are too many of them too. moast people shouldnt, and dont need to go to university.

Drfabulous0

I am all for a closed door policy, half the folk on my street are legal immigrants from the EU, I am on good terms with them as they like to party. They all work crazy amounts of hours but not a single one of them earns minimum wage, with some getting paid under £3 an hour for cleaning work with large companies and agencies. This all looks above board because they simply get paid for a lot less hours than they work, because of their low incomes they get topped up with benefits, which is fair enough, so do I. In fact I recently lost a £20k a year job and it only reduces my household income by £300 a month which is messed up. But the point is that if these people are willing to take jobs which are paid at an illegelly low rate and employers are happy to do this then they are causing unemployment among the indiginous population, which is wrong.

Frank the tank

I've asked the question before.

If an employer pays such a low wage the employee has to claim benefits to top up their wage in order to fund the basics of life (not shiney bikes etc).
Who is the state actually subsidising, employer or employee?

AchillesLeftKnee

Frank the tank wrote:

Who is the state actually subsidising, employer or employee?

If the employer sells to a market without effective price competition, it's the employer. However, where price competition is a significant issue, the subsidy is ultimately aimed at the customer.

(Edited to clarify a bit)