Immigration

[IC1967]

624,000 people immigrated to the UK last year. Ffs. What the hell is going on? Don't politicians know the country is full to bursting? Don't they know there aren't enough houses to accommodate such a huge influx? Don't they know our infrastructure can't cope?

The only solution is to vote Tory where they have the best chance of winning and UKIP to damage Labour where possible. Only then can we have a referendum on Europe and regain control of our borders when we leave the EU.

[Mike_F]

I would've thought a landlord of multiple properties such as yourself would be delighted with demand outstripping supply in the housing market.

[Filo]

When the current Government came to power they said they would reduce net migration before the next General Election. Net migration when they came to power was 244k, it is now 298k!

[IC1967]

I would've thought a landlord of multiple properties such as yourself would be delighted with demand outstripping supply in the housing market.

I don't need to rely on mass immigration to let my properties. I have such an excellent reputation as a landlord I have a queue of people wanting to rent off me. I believe I am the best landlord in the country. My tenants are customers and as such I bend over backwards to ensure they are very happy in my properties.

I am a shining beacon in landlord world. I do prefer Polish tenants as they are hardworking and very easy to get along with. They take a pride in living in my properties and don't want to live anywhere else. They are so appreciative of the service I give them that they even bring me gifts when they come back from holiday. I could teach other landlords a thing or two.

Of course demand outstripping supply in the housing market is very good news for me financially but I'm not all about money. I would prefer my houses to fall in value because this would mean young people could actually afford to buy a house rather than be condemned to renting all their lives. My children are lucky that they have me as a father. I can make sure they don't fall into the renting trap as I am so wealthy. However I would like children who don't have wealthy parents to be able to afford to buy a house.

Unlimited immigration is making this harder and harder as every year passes. That's only one problem. There are many more. Of course there are some benefits to immigration but to maximise these benefits it needs to be controlled.

[Boomstick]

Hate to think what it would have been under NU labour. Scary thought.

Time the powers that be realise this island is full.

[BobG]

Like f**k it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

So you want thousands of immigrants flocking here to bleed our country dry? Really ?

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

So you want to live in an overcrowded, smog filled polluted country like Hong Kong and Singapore? Really?

[River Don]

Are you comparing like with like there Bob?

London is quite a lot more densely populated than New York for instance, it's one of the most densely populated cities in Europe. While there are many more densely populated cities in the world, I'd question whether the quality of life they offer is what we would like to see in London.

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

So your happy paying hundreds in extra tax to pay for the immigrants? Really?

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

Are you happy for the already overburdened and overstretched NHS to have to treat all the thousands of immigrants? At a cost of the quality of care offered is much lower in order to cope? Really?

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

So your happy for the already overcrowded trains and motorways to be almost permanently gridlocked due to overpopulation? Really?

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

Are you happy for school class sizes to be much higher in order to accommodate thousands more each year? Really?

[Boomstick]

Like f*** it's full you idiot. Take a look at population density in New York. In Singapore. In Hong Kong.  We're light years away from being full - except full of piss and wind from arseholes who can't ever bother to check any 'fact' before they post their emotional drivel.

BobG

Are you happy for the overstretched justice system to struggle on and offer a poorer service, in order to shoe horn more immigrants in? Really?   

[BobG]

All entirely irrelevant. You made a statement that is demonstrably wrong. I pointed that out. Neither comment has anything to do with schools, health or anything else.

Don: Of course London is densely populated. But Boomstick wasn't talking about London. He was talking about England (or was it the Uk? Or GB?). Some kind of nation state anyway. I gave two nation state examples to prove he talked out of his arse.

Bob

[River Don]

I think the SE corner is begining to feel the strain of the weight of population which is growing quickly at the moment. London is the economic pull. England itself is quite densely populated and a few English cities appear in that list a little further down. Yes if you take the UK as a whole there are quite empty bits but the pressure is on the SE.

On a number of measures I think we should be concerned, I think we're struggling to keep up with housing. London houses are being divided up and ever more inhabitants pushed in. Infrastructure and services are under stress.

I'm a bit of a greeny and stats about the alarming decline in British wildlife and habitat. Why worry about animals and parks? I really think we should. I'm staggered the Green Party propose to build 250,000 new houses every year, if that rate is even possible. Consider the pollution that would create.

Lot's of space in England? I'm really not so sure.

[IC1967]

It really makes my piss boil that lefties are so casual about the huge influx of immigrants coming in every year. Of course the country is full. It's overpopulated. That's a fact whichever way you want to look at it. Bear in mind that immigrants tend on the whole to have larger families and as the years go on we'll get more and more over populated.

Another point to consider is that most of these immigrants don't speak good English. That also puts increased strain on our public services as translators will be charging a fortune so these people get their human rights. It costs the police a fortune and takes up much more time to try and charge an immigrant that can't speak the language.

Don't you lefties want your children to be able to buy a house? Don't you want to be able to get a doctor's appointment within a reasonable time? Why are you happy with British workers having their wages cut?

I could go on. Get a grip ffs.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Boomstick I despair at your posts. There is a world of information out there and you could access it all if you wanted to. But you don't. You repeat baseless assertions because they support what you want to believe.

The fact is that there have been many studies done on the fiscal effect of immigration in this country which have demonstrated that immigrants have a POSITIVE effect on growth and make a net contribution to the Treasury (they pay more in taxes than they get in services or benefits).

Your arguments about school places and GP waiting queues are utterly without foundation. If we have problems there it is NOT because of the fiscal effect of immigration. It is because of Government decisions about what to do with the tax income.

But I appreciate that you will ignore this because it suits you to ignore it. You'll go on believing the incorrect assertions that you posted because they appear to give some form of intellectual basis to the fact that you just don't like immigrants.

And for me, this is very personal. I don't like people like YOU who try to stir up attitudes to people who you decide  are not British enough for you.

[Savvy]

Sorry Billy but your wrong, European immigrants make a positive impact but when non-EU immigration is also taken into account the effect is negative!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy. You care to give me a source for that?

[Savvy]

Remember it being debated on question time the last time it was the hot topic, was surprised to hear it myself so it was one statistic that stuck!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Who said it? That comment means nothing unless you can go and check the source and see if it stands up.

The most authoritative recent research that I've seen covered ALL immigration (it didn't differentiate between EU and non-EU immigration). It said that if the Govt succeeded in cutting net immigration to <100,000 per year, the cumulative effect to 2050 would be to lose us £200bn in GDP. That pays for a lot of roads and GPs.

[IC1967]

Just because they come here and work and pay tax it doesn't justify letting so many in. It's not as simple as saying they add so much to the economy.

It's now happening so fast  and we haven't got a clue how many are going to come every year that it is impossible for governments to plan the amount of housing and infrastructure that is needed. 

For governments to be able to plan the country's infrastructure they need to know what the size of the population is going to be years in advance.

We've had nearly 5 years of a government that thought it could get immigration down to the tens of thousands. So they have based our infrastructure on this amount which is wildly inaccurate. They still talk as if they can control the numbers and will again in future years underestimate the numbers and therefore not plan our infrastructure properly.

I'm not against immigration. What I am against is uncontrolled immigration. We do need some immigration but what is now happening is off the scale.

UKIP are the only party to say it as it is regarding this subject. If it carries on for many more years and we don't leave the EU then I would get prepared for a UKIP government at the election after this one.

[Glyn_Wigley]

To all those who say the country is overcrowded: what do you think is the optimum population of this country? If you think we're overcrowded you must know at what number the scales were tipped from full to overcrowded.

[IC1967]

To all those who say the country is overcrowded: what do you think is the optimum population of this country? If you think we're overcrowded you must know at what number the scales were tipped from full to overcrowded.

There is no optimum level. It's not an exact science. If I was the benevolent dictator of the country I'd want to see it at no more than 50 million.

[Savvy]

Who said it? That comment means nothing unless you can go and check the source and see if it stands up.

The most authoritative recent research that I've seen covered ALL immigration (it didn't differentiate between EU and non-EU immigration). It said that if the Govt succeeded in cutting net immigration to <100,000 per year, the cumulative effect to 2050 would be to lose us £200bn in GDP. That pays for a lot of roads and GPs.

So does that mean your original comment is meaningless then seeing as you didn't state a source, its a message board not a University submission. However, just for you I'll google it, but just so as you know I'm not in the habit of telling oeople their wrong without having some basis for making such a statement!  So where is this "authoritive" source that you speak of but appear to be reluctant to share?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

Here is the source I was quoting.

http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/long-term-economic-impacts-reducing-migration#.VNFhAMXgHa8

Here's another one.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

"The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn."

Entirely contrary to what your person said.

So, if there's any reason why we can't afford roads, schools and hospitals, it's that us "indigenous" Brits are taking out more than we are paying in.

[Savvy]

"MigrationWatch UK (2014) criticised the assumptions of Dustmann and Frattini (2013). The criticism covers many factors, but overall it suggests that Dustmann and Frattini (2013) exaggerated the revenues the government obtains from migrants and underestimate the cost of public service provision to migrants. Using new multiple assumptions, MigrationWatch UK (2014) finds that during the 1995-2011 period the fiscal impact of EEA migrants was GBP -13.6 billion and the fiscal impact of non-EEA migrants was GBP -135 billion. Looking at the recent EEA migrants, MigrationWatch UK (2014) estimates that the total fiscal impact of recent EEA migrants for the 2001-2011 period was GBP -0.25 billion and the impact of recent non-EEA migrants was GBP -27 billion for the same period."

That ok for you Billy?

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've no idea Savvy because I don't know where you got that from. The UCL researchers are open to peer review and criticism AND are able to respond to that. They set out their methodology and justify it.

Migration watch is a political pressure group that has a political axe to grind. They can say what they want because their careers do not depend on being right (like academics' careers do). They depend on convincing people.

Tell me where your quote comes from and I can look at it.

[Savvy]

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1113/Salt_Dobson_291013.pdf

Is this your source Billy?