|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 9, 2024 6:46:06 GMT
I haven’t read the backward and forwarding of posts that you have been involved over the last few pages but the statement you’ve made is intriguing. Do you mean that if we were given time to sort out our economy to provide the infrastructure to support the immigration policy and everybody regardless of where they were born? That sounds pretty sensible but would take years to do this wouldn’t it? In the meantime immigrants continue to cross the channel in their 1000s costing the taxpayer millions to temporarily accommodate them, causing social problems, overstretching our resources and the possible crime increase. What do we do with these people until we have an economy to support them? Genuine question Paul. Hope the link works It's not that difficult to trace when the problem began On page 9 of 26 in the link there is a visual depiction of the number of Houses built since WW11 both Local Authority and Private Developers The most was in mid 1960s with about 350K Houses built roughly half Local Authority Skip forward to 1980 and virtually no Local Authority Houses were built that year or in the 25 years since. In the same period the number of Houses built by Private Developers has remained steady at about 200K per year. Successive Governments from Thatcher through Blair and the last lot have abdicated housing provision to the Private Sector. In order to keep prices high the Private Sector will artificially manage the number of houses it will build irrespective of how many are needed In the same period 1980/2024 UK Population has increased from 56M to 70M or 25% the result a mess. If we compare the 1981 census there were 3.5M Foreign Born Citizens versus 10.7M in 2021 Census. So immigration has contributed about 50% to the increased population. My takeaway is that of course Immigration has placed pressure on the housing market but successive studies show on average that immigrants contribute more to GDP than people born in UK. Also some Services like NHS and Social Care would collapse without the immigrant population The failure has been in successive Governments failing to allocate resources to the basic needs of ALL Citizens in Housing and other Public Services like Health, Education etc What I'm talking about above is people born in UK or legally invited to be in UK. The best Government Data available shows about 40K entered UK by irregular means in 2023. This is a large number but surely not an unsurmountable problem with a proper plan. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81fa8ced915d74e623521f/EHS_50th_Anniversary_Report.pdfThanks for the link. For sure it answers the question of why we are so short of housing. It’s shocking and link this with the current issues with water companies and we have little chance of increasing the housing stock to anything like what is required. [/quote]Your sentence about immigrants contributing more, that has been outed recently, those reports focuses on the educated legal people. Extended families and illegals cost the tax payer a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 9, 2024 6:47:44 GMT
What do you want us to do when you post something (you didn't quote another post) go back and read the thread again page by page I'd like to hope that you could be bothered to read the dialogue that has taken place SINCE the post that you quoted, especially when it appeared only on the previous page. Although I accept that a lot of people don't. It is a continual bug bear of mine because it often leads to misinterpretation and misrepresentation and I feel that having to make the same point again results in the thread being spammed for absolutely no reason. Maybe start the post with "as ***** said previously" if the quoting wasn't working |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 9, 2024 7:20:47 GMT
Hope the link works It's not that difficult to trace when the problem began On page 9 of 26 in the link there is a visual depiction of the number of Houses built since WW11 both Local Authority and Private Developers The most was in mid 1960s with about 350K Houses built roughly half Local Authority Skip forward to 1980 and virtually no Local Authority Houses were built that year or in the 25 years since. In the same period the number of Houses built by Private Developers has remained steady at about 200K per year. Successive Governments from Thatcher through Blair and the last lot have abdicated housing provision to the Private Sector. In order to keep prices high the Private Sector will artificially manage the number of houses it will build irrespective of how many are needed In the same period 1980/2024 UK Population has increased from 56M to 70M or 25% the result a mess. If we compare the 1981 census there were 3.5M Foreign Born Citizens versus 10.7M in 2021 Census. So immigration has contributed about 50% to the increased population. My takeaway is that of course Immigration has placed pressure on the housing market but successive studies show on average that immigrants contribute more to GDP than people born in UK. Also some Services like NHS and Social Care would collapse without the immigrant population The failure has been in successive Governments failing to allocate resources to the basic needs of ALL Citizens in Housing and other Public Services like Health, Education etc What I'm talking about above is people born in UK or legally invited to be in UK. The best Government Data available shows about 40K entered UK by irregular means in 2023. This is a large number but surely not an unsurmountable problem with a proper plan. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81fa8ced915d74e623521f/EHS_50th_Anniversary_Report.pdfThanks for the link. For sure it answers the question of why we are so short of housing. It’s shocking and link this with the current issues with water companies and we have little chance of increasing the housing stock to anything like what is required. Your sentence about immigrants contributing more, that has been outed recently, those reports focuses on the educated legal people. Extended families and illegals cost the tax payer a lot of money.[/quote] The mix up with the quote boxes are making this thread difficult to follow, it was wannabee who said immigrants were contributing more to the GDP. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 9, 2024 7:36:47 GMT
Hope the link works It's not that difficult to trace when the problem began On page 9 of 26 in the link there is a visual depiction of the number of Houses built since WW11 both Local Authority and Private Developers The most was in mid 1960s with about 350K Houses built roughly half Local Authority Skip forward to 1980 and virtually no Local Authority Houses were built that year or in the 25 years since. In the same period the number of Houses built by Private Developers has remained steady at about 200K per year. Successive Governments from Thatcher through Blair and the last lot have abdicated housing provision to the Private Sector. In order to keep prices high the Private Sector will artificially manage the number of houses it will build irrespective of how many are needed In the same period 1980/2024 UK Population has increased from 56M to 70M or 25% the result a mess. If we compare the 1981 census there were 3.5M Foreign Born Citizens versus 10.7M in 2021 Census. So immigration has contributed about 50% to the increased population. My takeaway is that of course Immigration has placed pressure on the housing market but successive studies show on average that immigrants contribute more to GDP than people born in UK. Also some Services like NHS and Social Care would collapse without the immigrant population The failure has been in successive Governments failing to allocate resources to the basic needs of ALL Citizens in Housing and other Public Services like Health, Education etc What I'm talking about above is people born in UK or legally invited to be in UK. The best Government Data available shows about 40K entered UK by irregular means in 2023. This is a large number but surely not an unsurmountable problem with a proper plan. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81fa8ced915d74e623521f/EHS_50th_Anniversary_Report.pdfThanks for the link. For sure it answers the question of why we are so short of housing. It’s shocking and link this with the current issues with water companies and we have little chance of increasing the housing stock to anything like what is required. Your sentence about immigrants contributing more, that has been outed recently, those reports focuses on the educated legal people. Extended families and illegals cost the tax payer a lot of money.[/quote] Do you have a link to those studies you refer to? All previous and recent studies I have seen say the complete opposite In the most recent UK Budget which was delivered by Jeremy Hunt the assumption on the number of long term migrants needed to be increased so that the financial forecast out to 2028/29 would allow Hunt to give away £6Bn in reducing NI. This then allowed OBR that Hunts Fiscal Forecast did balance. ukandeu.ac.uk/has-higher-immigration-saved-the-chanceEdit: Hopefully this has replied to Northy |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 9, 2024 8:21:42 GMT
Immigration is good for society and the economy more broadly. Where? The best for Sweden economically would be to almost split the population in half. If you think about real wages, inflation, labour market, queues to housing, crime, health care and just about everything else. But again, the need to help and the need for help might be bigger. That's why immigration isn't a crystal clear decision. Those needs might be more important than anything else! Oh, I accept that an opinion is not a fact - it's simply my take on immigration in the UK more broadly. I think it's largely a matter of perception, and when facts are allowed to speak for themselves they tend to tell a certain story. My own view is that increased migration leads to a larger economy, (basically, I agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility, (OBR - the UK fiscal watchdog)). I accept that immigration has a minor effect on GDP per capita, depending on the skill levels of migrants and the proportion that are working or in the UK as dependants. But the research broadly shows that while immigration hits lower-paid workers harder than higher-paid workers, the overall effects are actually miniscule. For e.g., between 1994 and 2016, immigration had reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners in the bottom 20% of the labour market by about 0.5p per year, while the top 10% experienced a gain of 1.7p per year. Most people in the UK feel immigration places extra pressure on the NHS. Around 30% think migrants use the NHS more than those born in the UK. However, a 2018 report by the MAC assessing the impact of EU immigration found that new arrivals contributed “much more” to the health services and social care than they consumed. As well as paying taxes and an annual NHS surcharge of around £1,000, immigrants who arrive via legal routes are more likely to be young, so they use health services less. Also worth pointing out that immigration is vital for staffing the NHS, which the BMA says had over 100,000 vacancies in secondary care in England as of March 2024. (https://www.ft.com/content/5a00c171-8194-4c54-9ac6-63ca292522e2) So, for me at least, the perception of immigration is always far more vociferous than the social economic and political effects ever will be. By that, I mean this: "British people make clear distinctions between migrants based on their country of origin. In 2017, just 10% said that no Australians should be allowed to come and live in Britain, compared to 37% saying that no Nigerians should be allowed. In between are migrants from France (similar to Australia), Poland (more middling), and Romania and Pakistan (more similar to Nigeria). Such patterns have sometimes been described as an ‘ethnic hierarchy’. At the preferred end of the scale are those who are white, English-speaking and from European and Christian countries, while the least preferred are non-white migrants from non-European or Muslim countries. Romania is an interesting anomaly. Despite being a European and Christian country, opposition to immigration from Romania is at similar levels to opposition to immigration from Pakistan. This may reflect an association with the Roma minority.
(When British people are asked) how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer), results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high. Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution. (In addition to that), when asked about professional migrants, British people do not appear to distinguish between countries of origin."(https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/) The pros and cons of immigration almost contradict each other  Basically, dislike of immigration in the UK is strongest in communities where the rate of immigration is very low, whereas areas with high rates of immigrants are more likely to appreciate the benefits of immigration. My view is that immigration is broadly good for both society and the economy, given that the positive and negative effects of immigration are only outweighed by the perception of it which, by the way, I think is a huge political failure in the UK. The economic disadvantages are always exaggerated and exacerbated during downturns or periods of political upheaval because political actors (almost but not exclusively on the political right in the UK) seek to glean advantage (economic and/or political) by blaming a single demographic for all socio-economic problems. In other words - people use immigration as a simple tool to pin every ill on. The facts don't tend to support that worldview, but your perception will if you're from a socially and economically disadvantaged background and the political society allows political actors to glean advantage from pinning all economic and social ills on one single demographic group. |
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Oct 9, 2024 9:05:38 GMT
Where? The best for Sweden economically would be to almost split the population in half. If you think about real wages, inflation, labour market, queues to housing, crime, health care and just about everything else. But again, the need to help and the need for help might be bigger. That's why immigration isn't a crystal clear decision. Those needs might be more important than anything else! Oh, I accept that an opinion is not a fact - it's simply my take on immigration in the UK more broadly. I think it's largely a matter of perception, and when facts are allowed to speak for themselves they tend to tell a certain story. My own view is that increased migration leads to a larger economy, (basically, I agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility, (OBR - the UK fiscal watchdog)). I accept that immigration has a minor effect on GDP per capita, depending on the skill levels of migrants and the proportion that are working or in the UK as dependants. But the research broadly shows that while immigration hits lower-paid workers harder than higher-paid workers, the overall effects are actually miniscule. For e.g., between 1994 and 2016, immigration had reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners in the bottom 20% of the labour market by about 0.5p per year, while the top 10% experienced a gain of 1.7p per year. Most people in the UK feel immigration places extra pressure on the NHS. Around 30% think migrants use the NHS more than those born in the UK. However, a 2018 report by the MAC assessing the impact of EU immigration found that new arrivals contributed “much more” to the health services and social care than they consumed. As well as paying taxes and an annual NHS surcharge of around £1,000, immigrants who arrive via legal routes are more likely to be young, so they use health services less. Also worth pointing out that immigration is vital for staffing the NHS, which the BMA says had over 100,000 vacancies in secondary care in England as of March 2024. (https://www.ft.com/content/5a00c171-8194-4c54-9ac6-63ca292522e2) So, for me at least, the perception of immigration is always far more vociferous than the social economic and political effects ever will be. By that, I mean this: "British people make clear distinctions between migrants based on their country of origin. In 2017, just 10% said that no Australians should be allowed to come and live in Britain, compared to 37% saying that no Nigerians should be allowed. In between are migrants from France (similar to Australia), Poland (more middling), and Romania and Pakistan (more similar to Nigeria). Such patterns have sometimes been described as an ‘ethnic hierarchy’. At the preferred end of the scale are those who are white, English-speaking and from European and Christian countries, while the least preferred are non-white migrants from non-European or Muslim countries. Romania is an interesting anomaly. Despite being a European and Christian country, opposition to immigration from Romania is at similar levels to opposition to immigration from Pakistan. This may reflect an association with the Roma minority.
(When British people are asked) how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer), results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high. Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution. (In addition to that), when asked about professional migrants, British people do not appear to distinguish between countries of origin."(https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/) The pros and cons of immigration almost contradict each other View AttachmentBasically, dislike of immigration in the UK is strongest in communities where the rate of immigration is very low, whereas areas with high rates of immigrants are more likely to appreciate the benefits of immigration.
My view is that immigration is broadly good for both society and the economy, given that the positive and negative effects of immigration are only outweighed by the perception of it which, by the way, I think is a huge political failure in the UK. The economic disadvantages are always exaggerated and exacerbated during downturns or periods of political upheaval because political actors (almost but not exclusively on the political right in the UK) seek to glean advantage (economic and/or political) by blaming a single demographic for all socio-economic problems. In other words - people use immigration as a simple tool to pin every ill on. The facts don't tend to support that worldview, but your perception will if you're from a socially and economically disadvantaged background and the political society allows political actors to glean advantage from pinning all economic and social ills on one single demographic group. sounds a bit vague to me .
normacot is an area with high rates of immigrants . i suspect residents of normacot would appreciate the benefits of immigration , i suspect residents of lightwood are heading in the same direction.
i suspect that if the question had been put to normacot residents 40 years ago the response would have been profoundly different .
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 9, 2024 9:51:30 GMT
musik Oh, I accept that an opinion is not a fact - it's simply my take on immigration in the UK more broadly. I think it's largely a matter of perception, and when facts are allowed to speak for themselves they tend to tell a certain story. My own view is that increased migration leads to a larger economy, (basically, I agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility, (OBR - the UK fiscal watchdog)). I accept that immigration has a minor effect on GDP per capita, depending on the skill levels of migrants and the proportion that are working or in the UK as dependants. But the research broadly shows that while immigration hits lower-paid workers harder than higher-paid workers, the overall effects are actually miniscule. For e.g., between 1994 and 2016, immigration had reduced the hourly wage of UK-born wage earners in the bottom 20% of the labour market by about 0.5p per year, while the top 10% experienced a gain of 1.7p per year. Most people in the UK feel immigration places extra pressure on the NHS. Around 30% think migrants use the NHS more than those born in the UK. However, a 2018 report by the MAC assessing the impact of EU immigration found that new arrivals contributed “much more” to the health services and social care than they consumed. As well as paying taxes and an annual NHS surcharge of around £1,000, immigrants who arrive via legal routes are more likely to be young, so they use health services less. Also worth pointing out that immigration is vital for staffing the NHS, which the BMA says had over 100,000 vacancies in secondary care in England as of March 2024. (https://www.ft.com/content/5a00c171-8194-4c54-9ac6-63ca292522e2) So, for me at least, the perception of immigration is always far more vociferous than the social economic and political effects ever will be. By that, I mean this: "British people make clear distinctions between migrants based on their country of origin. In 2017, just 10% said that no Australians should be allowed to come and live in Britain, compared to 37% saying that no Nigerians should be allowed. In between are migrants from France (similar to Australia), Poland (more middling), and Romania and Pakistan (more similar to Nigeria). Such patterns have sometimes been described as an ‘ethnic hierarchy’. At the preferred end of the scale are those who are white, English-speaking and from European and Christian countries, while the least preferred are non-white migrants from non-European or Muslim countries. Romania is an interesting anomaly. Despite being a European and Christian country, opposition to immigration from Romania is at similar levels to opposition to immigration from Pakistan. This may reflect an association with the Roma minority.
(When British people are asked) how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer), results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high. Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution. (In addition to that), when asked about professional migrants, British people do not appear to distinguish between countries of origin."(https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/) The pros and cons of immigration almost contradict each other View AttachmentBasically, dislike of immigration in the UK is strongest in communities where the rate of immigration is very low, whereas areas with high rates of immigrants are more likely to appreciate the benefits of immigration.
My view is that immigration is broadly good for both society and the economy, given that the positive and negative effects of immigration are only outweighed by the perception of it which, by the way, I think is a huge political failure in the UK. The economic disadvantages are always exaggerated and exacerbated during downturns or periods of political upheaval because political actors (almost but not exclusively on the political right in the UK) seek to glean advantage (economic and/or political) by blaming a single demographic for all socio-economic problems. In other words - people use immigration as a simple tool to pin every ill on. The facts don't tend to support that worldview, but your perception will if you're from a socially and economically disadvantaged background and the political society allows political actors to glean advantage from pinning all economic and social ills on one single demographic group. sounds a bit vague to me . normacot is an area with high rates of immigrants . i suspect residents of normacot would appreciate the benefits of immigration , i suspect residents of lightwood are heading in the same direction. i suspect that if the question had been put to normacot residents 40 years ago the response would have been profoundly different .
You've sort of hit the nail on the head, as I see it at least. Holistically, an individual's perception of immigration is based on their predicament at the time, and it can also change over time. For example, if you put people from different cultural backgrounds together, whilst at the offset the social and cultural differences will be apparent, over time they get to know each together, work together, play together, love each other in harmony. It's the same psychological thinking that is used to demonstrate that a child walking into school on the first day is more often than not naturally reticent. Over time, they get used to the other children in the class and accept them from whatever background (social or cultural) they are from. What screws that natural pattern of human behaviour up is when that behaviour is antagonised and, much like Big Brother or some other God forsaken "reality" show, people (politicians) manufacture and create inequalities and injustices amongst the group which did not naturally exist amongst that same group of people at the outset, and compound it all by then blaming one specific demographic group for that inequality, injustice, and perceived deprivation - thus dividing the group. This all despite the facts pointing towards politicians causing much of the inequality and injustice in society through their own economic policies, rather than that single demographic group being the cause of (frankly) anything at all. |
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Oct 9, 2024 10:00:39 GMT
the point i was trying to make is , that they don't integrate .
all the non-immigrant people have now left normacot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 9, 2024 10:12:23 GMT
the point i was trying to make is , that they don't integrate . all the non-immigrant people have now left normacot. 1. The immigrant community felt threatened by the non-immigrant community and so refused to integrate. 2. The non immigrant community felt threatened by the immigrant community and so refused to integrate and moved out of the area because they were able to do so. Communities breakdown when there is an antagonistic rhetoric around immigration and one side is subsequently blamed for all social ills, and moreover scapegoated by some people as being the cause of problems which politicians have created. At some point people have to ask themselves who is it that is perpetually winding both sides up? |
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Oct 9, 2024 10:36:19 GMT
On 4 of the last 5 days no one has crossed the Channel in a small boat. On one day just 1 boat crossed, with 59 people on board. Whatever Sir Keir is doing, it seems to be working very well right now. We should direct our anger at the Tories, who have created and facilitated this situation. I suggest they are never again allowed anywhere near Downing Street. So what happened when the weather improved, nearly a thousand in a day ... Out of the last seven days of recorded figures, five days show zero small boat crossings, and zero immigrant arrivals via the Channel. The whole thing is a Tory created mess. It will take time to be resolved, and for now it is simple prejudice to blame Sir Keir for a situation caused by fourteen years of Tory misrule. |
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Oct 9, 2024 10:52:40 GMT
so starmer has sorted it , great .
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 9, 2024 11:01:06 GMT
I'd like to hope that you could be bothered to read the dialogue that has taken place SINCE the post that you quoted, especially when it appeared only on the previous page. Although I accept that a lot of people don't. It is a continual bug bear of mine because it often leads to misinterpretation and misrepresentation and I feel that having to make the same point again results in the thread being spammed for absolutely no reason. Maybe start the post with "as ***** said previously" if the quoting wasn't working Eh? The dialogue in question has got nothing to do with quotation not working. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 9, 2024 11:03:07 GMT
the point i was trying to make is , that they don't integrate . all the non-immigrant people have now left normacot. "They" don't integrate? The fact is some immigrants choose not to integrate and others do and some British nationals won't even try to let them integrate and others do. I live in an ethnically diverse area and there is no antagonism and people just get on. I'd hate to be in an all white, British enclave - sounds awful - but then I suspect others couldn't stand living near people who don't look like them. Each to their own. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 9, 2024 11:18:07 GMT
Thanks for the reply, AM! I will return to it after some things to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Oct 9, 2024 11:19:51 GMT
when i was younger the council estate i lived on had a mixed community , a few asians but mainly more polish . we all used to play football toghether and racism didn't seem significant . there were no racial tensions then but the polish children must have felt some sort of prejudice because they changed their surnames post teenage years.
an asian family has moved into the house my brother used to own ( its in the same street we were brought up in) apparently the women occupants are full hijab wearers and the curtains of the house are never open .
it seems the former immigrant types were prepared to integrate , and perhaps , because of the huge influx or skin colour ,or religious upbringing more recent immigrant types are less likely to ?
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 9, 2024 11:32:50 GMT
when i was younger the council estate i lived on had a mixed community , a few asians but mainly more polish . we all used to play football toghether and racism didn't seem significant . there were no racial tensions then but the polish children must have felt some sort of prejudice because they changed their surnames post teenage years. an asian family has moved into the house my brother used to own ( its in the same street we were brought up in) apparently the women occupants are full hijab wearers and the curtains of the house are never open . it seems the former immigrant types were prepared to integrate , and perhaps , because of the huge influx or skin colour , more recent immigrant types are less likely to ? In terms of the percentages who tried to integrate and those that don't it's probably about the same, it's just that there are more of both. Because of community and family pressure some immigrants are discouraged from integrating but when it gets to the second and third generation the vast majority have broken away from those constraints and on the whole hold the same views as the majority in this country. If the indigenous population don't help them integrate it just perpetuates the problem. Have the recent riots helped those communities integrate? Have they bollocks - they have done the exact opposite, which is what those instigating the riots want. Picking up on the hijab - if a women wants to wear the hijab it is their call. However if they are doing it because of family and community cohersion that's an issue. In practice women in this country who want to live a more Westernised life style leave (or distance themselves) from their families and communities and choose to live among people prepared to accept their right to choose and that isn't an easy thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 9, 2024 11:45:00 GMT
when i was younger the council estate i lived on had a mixed community , a few asians but mainly more polish . we all used to play football toghether and racism didn't seem significant . there were no racial tensions then but the polish children must have felt some sort of prejudice because they changed their surnames post teenage years. an asian family has moved into the house my brother used to own ( its in the same street we were brought up in) apparently the women occupants are full hijab wearers and the curtains of the house are never open . it seems the former immigrant types were prepared to integrate , and perhaps , because of the huge influx or skin colour , more recent immigrant types are less likely to ? In terms of the percentages who tried to integrate and those that don't it's probably about the same, it's just that there are more of both. Because of community and family pressure some immigrants are discouraged from integrating but when it gets to the second and third generation the vast majority have broken away from those constraints and on the whole hold the same views as the majority in this country. If the indigenous population don't help them integrate it just perpetuates the problem. Have the recent riots helped those communities integrate? Have they bollocks - they have done the exact opposite, which is what those instigating the riots want. Picking up on the hijab - if a women wants to wear the hijab it is their call. However if they are doing it because of family and community cohersion that's an issue. In practice women in this country who want to live a more Westernised life style leave (or distance themselves) from their families and communities and choose to live among people prepared to accept their right to choose and that isn't an easy thing to do. You'll have to remind me, of the recent riots, which occurred first 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 9, 2024 13:22:23 GMT
In terms of the percentages who tried to integrate and those that don't it's probably about the same, it's just that there are more of both. Because of community and family pressure some immigrants are discouraged from integrating but when it gets to the second and third generation the vast majority have broken away from those constraints and on the whole hold the same views as the majority in this country. If the indigenous population don't help them integrate it just perpetuates the problem. Have the recent riots helped those communities integrate? Have they bollocks - they have done the exact opposite, which is what those instigating the riots want. Picking up on the hijab - if a women wants to wear the hijab it is their call. However if they are doing it because of family and community cohersion that's an issue. In practice women in this country who want to live a more Westernised life style leave (or distance themselves) from their families and communities and choose to live among people prepared to accept their right to choose and that isn't an easy thing to do. You'll have to remind me, of the recent riots, which occurred first 🤔 The point I was making was that the ideology promoting the recent riots uses the trope that immigrants don't integrate as one of the reasons for being anti immigration but there actions are designed to ensure that thise people feel fearful and less likely to integrate. The last thing the people rioting were concerned with was actually helping immigrants to integrate. But then you know that don't you. 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 9, 2024 17:14:47 GMT
"They" don't integrate? The fact is some immigrants choose not to integrate That's why our Liberal Party (The Liberals) want every new immigrant to prove they can speak Swedish fluently or at least almost fluently so they can manage most jobs on the labour market, before they enter the frontier and our country for real. They will be hold in a room before getting entrance where they will be tested. I don't know what the other parties more to the right on the political scale in our government think about this old suggestion today. Not yet decided, let's see if it comes to action. They changed their name from Folkpartiet (The People's Party) to The Liberals on 25 November 2015, the politics was the same though. The old political leader Lars Leijonborg suggested this with the tough language tests already 20 years ago. If you ask me I think it's just one of the methods to keep decreasing our population, which they managed to do in 2023 according to M Malmer, the Conservatives, as one of a very few countries in Europe, if any. I mean, who the heck knows Swedish? 😁 Do you also think knowing the Language in advance is a good thing to get integrated? |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 9, 2024 17:35:10 GMT
For example, if you put people from different cultural backgrounds together, whilst at the offset the social and cultural differences will be apparent, over time they get to know each together, work together, play together, love each other in harmony. I will return to your post AM. I just come to think of this funny famous clip, not only on national level. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 12, 2024 17:02:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 13, 2024 9:29:46 GMT
AM (Ariel Manto)
I went to that economics help org website
for an explanation why the pros and cons list got that look.
Apparently the pros and cons list regarding immigration aren't applicable on the situation in Sweden. Number 1 was about economic growth.
Economic growth
First of all, if we assume that at least 1(!) person in a million who arrives to us, ceteris paribus, gets a job of course it will increase the production capacity, the tax revenues and the eventual amount the government can spend. But you must count all of them who don't get a job or aren't even trying to look for a job. So on growth per capita it's a different matter. The cake isn't enough.
At the beginning of the 70s Sweden were in fourth place in the OECD's prosperity league, now we have slipped down to twelfth place, says Sven-Olov Daunfeldt chief economist at Svenskt Näringsliv. I don't think there is any other OECD country that has lost as many positions as quickly as Sweden has. So it is a long-term pattern that we are losing growth power compared to other countries. And that is problematic, the goal must be to take positions in this prosperity league, he tells Svenskt Näringsliv (a Swedish industry paper) in June 2024. The greatest decline has been during the periods with massive immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 13, 2024 13:39:18 GMT
Ariel Manto and others ...
Research has shown that regardless of whether one calculates in the short term or in the long term, for example a lifetime, immigration entails significant costs for Sweden.
The expert group for studies in public economics came to the conclusion that immigration in general has cost Sweden up to two percent of GDP each year, so at least SEK 100 billion.
The absolute lowest cost that can be found is calculations made by the researcher Joakim Ruist, who calculated that an average refugee costs Sweden 74,000 kroner a year throughout their lifetime.
PPM, The Pensions Authority has calculated that the cost of the basic protection for elderly foreign-born persons alone is SEK 800,000 per person. If the policy is not changed, this expenditure for foreign-born pensioners will grow to 1.2 percent of GDP in 2060, corresponding to over SEK 60 billion. It is therefore very expensive to import pensioners to Sweden.
Immigrants are also not self-sufficient. Entrepreneurship Forum has calculated that only 27% of all refugees and their dependents are self-sufficient. This can be compared with the corresponding figure of 63% for the native-born. This is very different from the British stats I saw in the flow somewhere today!😲 I'll get back to it if/when I've found it.
A great many costs are also invisible in the statistics. For example, it is not calculated how much school, health care, public transport, housing construction and many other things cost only for those born abroad.
Sweden doesn't have much space left either. The queues for basically most things are long, but especially for accommodation and schools, as it already is.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 17, 2024 15:14:25 GMT
It's been 100+ Days of the Labour Government and I'm almost nostalgic there hasn't been a Conservative Minister/MP type Sex or Financial Scandal Back on topic the first thing Labour did was cancel the ridiculous Rwanda plan saving pouring another £250M down the drain. Instead they used the booked Plane to remove failed Asylum Seekers to Vietnam www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3oBut the central point of the plan is to review Asylum Seekers Applications quickly and grant Refugee Status if valid or schedule for removal if failed and possible The Refugee Council believe that 62,000 of the current backlog will be granted This will mean that they will no longer be eligible to be housed in Hotels saving a conservative (no pun intended) over £6+M per day To be honest these Refugees may have to be supported for a while but they can now legally seek a job and pay tax. I don't condone it but it would be foolish to think that with this number of people hanging around in limbo with time on their hands that some might work illegally or work in illegal jobs. www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/people-labour-government-rwanda-home-office-b1188331.htmlIn the above link Labour have removed 3000 failed Asylum Seekers in 100+ Days. In year 2023 1800 were removed This chart tells you all you need to know how progressively incompetent the Conservative Government became in managing immigration and relied on headline grabbing crap.  Of course in an ideal world there wouldn't be Asylum Seekers because people would not need to flee for their safety or Financial reasons, but we don't live in a perfect world It's refreshing that we now have a Government that is prepared to face reality and have a workable plan to deal with the situation as best as possible To complete the plan for the satisfaction of UK Citizens then Labour must also build houses and provide public services to cater to the indigenous population, the skilled workers, their dependents and students who have been granted Visas as well as those who arrive by irregular means and are granted leave to remain |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 17, 2024 20:24:47 GMT
Maria M boss of the Swedish authority Migrationsverket in an interview on tv right now.
EU have harder rules now, but Sweden in particular. She says very very few choose Sweden these days, they're absolutely avoiding Sweden now.
Some people have suggested the name should change from Migrationsverket to Return Migrationsverket. This since the goal is to diminish the number of people here and not the opposite.
If the situation gets worse in Europe (very likely?), Sweden will reconsider the asylum right and abandon them.
Already, people with only financial reasons to be here, will never have a chance to stay here. Like if they were looking for a job to earn more money than in their home country.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 17, 2024 20:33:30 GMT
They make a difference between Return migration and Re-Migration. Return migration is when they are denied to stay. Re-migration is when they are allowed to stay, but are offered 350.000 SEK to return. The sum was only 10.000 SEK before, 70 people applied, 1 person passed and got it. The higher sum will have an effect, they hope.
Sweden don't want either group apparently.
Personally, I wish they could have increased the aid and relief efforts in other countries. But on the contrary they have decreased that too, with the explanation the way they deliver the help now is much more efficient and that's why it can be decreased. But more people will get the help now compared to before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 17, 2024 22:35:50 GMT
Ariel Manto and others ... Research has shown that regardless of whether one calculates in the short term or in the long term, for example a lifetime, immigration entails significant costs for Sweden. The expert group for studies in public economics came to the conclusion that immigration in general has cost Sweden up to two percent of GDP each year, so at least SEK 100 billion. The absolute lowest cost that can be found is calculations made by the researcher Joakim Ruist, who calculated that an average refugee costs Sweden 74,000 kroner a year throughout their lifetime. PPM, The Pensions Authority has calculated that the cost of the basic protection for elderly foreign-born persons alone is SEK 800,000 per person. If the policy is not changed, this expenditure for foreign-born pensioners will grow to 1.2 percent of GDP in 2060, corresponding to over SEK 60 billion. It is therefore very expensive to import pensioners to Sweden. Immigrants are also not self-sufficient. Entrepreneurship Forum has calculated that only 27% of all refugees and their dependents are self-sufficient. This can be compared with the corresponding figure of 63% for the native-born. This is very different from the British stats I saw in the flow somewhere today!😲 I'll get back to it if/when I've found it. A great many costs are also invisible in the statistics. For example, it is not calculated how much school, health care, public transport, housing construction and many other things cost only for those born abroad. Sweden doesn't have much space left either. The queues for basically most things are long, but especially for accommodation and schools, as it already is. That’s a hugely disingenuous statistic. You’re conflating economic immigrants with refugees and asylum seekers. Neither are illegal, but they aren’t the same thing in the UK and only one group is able to seek full employment and thus become self-sufficient. Once a refugee or asylum seeker is granted indefinite leave to remain they become an economic immigrant. Refugees and asylum seekers by their very nature cannot be economically self-sufficient in the UK. In the UK the Home Office may grant permission to work to asylum seekers whose claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Those who are granted permission to work and have submitted an application on or before 3 April 2024 are restricted to jobs on the Shortage Occupation List published by the Home Office. Any applications submitted on or after 4 April 2024, who are granted, are restricted to jobs on the Immigration Salary List. Almost all refugees and asylum seekers in the UK are encouraged to volunteer, not paid employment. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 17, 2024 22:36:25 GMT
Maria M boss of the Swedish authority Migrationsverket in an interview on tv right now. EU have harder rules now, but Sweden in particular. She says very very few choose Sweden these days, they're absolutely avoiding Sweden now. Some people have suggested the name should change from Migrationsverket to Return Migrationsverket. This since the goal is to diminish the number of people here and not the opposite. If the situation gets worse in Europe (very likely?), Sweden will reconsider the asylum right and abandon them. Already, people with only financial reasons to be here, will never have a chance to stay here. Like if they were looking for a job to earn more money than in their home country. The largest number of people immigrating to Sweden are Ukrainians, the reasons are obvious The largest number of people emigrating from Sweden are Indians, there are a number of reasons not least the downturn in Swedish Tech Industry, more opportunities in India, the weather, the cost of living and language difficulties of spouses to gain employment There is also a strong suspicion that the numbers being counted as emigrating did so in previous years but were not recorded correctly |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 17, 2024 23:07:12 GMT
Ariel Manto and others ... Research has shown that regardless of whether one calculates in the short term or in the long term, for example a lifetime, immigration entails significant costs for Sweden. The expert group for studies in public economics came to the conclusion that immigration in general has cost Sweden up to two percent of GDP each year, so at least SEK 100 billion. The absolute lowest cost that can be found is calculations made by the researcher Joakim Ruist, who calculated that an average refugee costs Sweden 74,000 kroner a year throughout their lifetime. PPM, The Pensions Authority has calculated that the cost of the basic protection for elderly foreign-born persons alone is SEK 800,000 per person. If the policy is not changed, this expenditure for foreign-born pensioners will grow to 1.2 percent of GDP in 2060, corresponding to over SEK 60 billion. It is therefore very expensive to import pensioners to Sweden. Immigrants are also not self-sufficient. Entrepreneurship Forum has calculated that only 27% of all refugees and their dependents are self-sufficient. This can be compared with the corresponding figure of 63% for the native-born. This is very different from the British stats I saw in the flow somewhere today!😲 I'll get back to it if/when I've found it. A great many costs are also invisible in the statistics. For example, it is not calculated how much school, health care, public transport, housing construction and many other things cost only for those born abroad. Sweden doesn't have much space left either. The queues for basically most things are long, but especially for accommodation and schools, as it already is. That’s a hugely disingenuous statistic. You’re conflating economic immigrants with refugees and asylum seekers. Neither are illegal, but they aren’t the same thing in the UK and only one group is able to seek full employment and thus become self-sufficient. Once a refugee or asylum seeker is granted indefinite leave to remain they become an economic immigrant. Refugees and asylum seekers by their very nature cannot be economically self-sufficient in the UK. In the UK the Home Office may grant permission to work to asylum seekers whose claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Those who are granted permission to work and have submitted an application on or before 3 April 2024 are restricted to jobs on the Shortage Occupation List published by the Home Office. Any applications submitted on or after 4 April 2024, who are granted, are restricted to jobs on the Immigration Salary List. Almost all refugees and asylum seekers in the UK are encouraged to volunteer, not paid employment. Thanks for the clarification that the official definitions and reasoning is different between our countries. I have noticed a lot of the discussion on this forum regarding immigration is about whether it's legal or illegal. In Sweden most of the politicians make no difference any longer, they don't want any sort of immigration and don't use those terms. The boss said on tv today, economic immigrants aren't welcome here. And as I said in an earlier post, they have plans to reinstall the suggestion with the crazy language tests, and for real this time, in practice. It would mean you can't cross the border, and will be put in a room to prove you know Swedish already. I see it only as a signal to the world "you are not welcome here whatever the reason might be", since who the heck knows Swedish? And they definitely want you prove you won't need any money from the state. The text you put in bold is how it is presented. Not many make a difference between refugees, asylum seekers and economic immigrants here, when they present. "Refugees and asylum seekers by their very nature cannot be economically self-sufficient in the UK" ?? But that's the whole point with the Entrepeneurship Forum presentation I guess: They should be. They should have searched for and got a job in advance, which they can prove. Personally I know it sounds silly and unrealistic, but you should hear the debates ... I'm not surprised. Last thing. You wrote "once a refugee or asylum seeker is granted indefinite leave to remain they become an economic immigrant". I must make a comment here, economic immigrants aren't welcome here at all, they've said. You can't travel the world to us here and think you can have a better life just because it's Sweden; it's all about what you can give Sweden and if we really need it. They have during the latest debates focused on decreasing the population, re-migration and return migration, and nothing else. So if I understood the boss today, she meant if your reasons just are to get a better household economy you aren't welcome here at all. The asylum right she wanted to keep, for now. But the chance of getting in, be approved, is much tougher. It feels like building a invisible wall against the world outside. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 18, 2024 1:08:17 GMT
Ariel Manto and others ... Research has shown that regardless of whether one calculates in the short term or in the long term, for example a lifetime, immigration entails significant costs for Sweden. The expert group for studies in public economics came to the conclusion that immigration in general has cost Sweden up to two percent of GDP each year, so at least SEK 100 billion. The absolute lowest cost that can be found is calculations made by the researcher Joakim Ruist, who calculated that an average refugee costs Sweden 74,000 kroner a year throughout their lifetime. PPM, The Pensions Authority has calculated that the cost of the basic protection for elderly foreign-born persons alone is SEK 800,000 per person. If the policy is not changed, this expenditure for foreign-born pensioners will grow to 1.2 percent of GDP in 2060, corresponding to over SEK 60 billion. It is therefore very expensive to import pensioners to Sweden. Immigrants are also not self-sufficient. Entrepreneurship Forum has calculated that only 27% of all refugees and their dependents are self-sufficient. This can be compared with the corresponding figure of 63% for the native-born. This is very different from the British stats I saw in the flow somewhere today!😲 I'll get back to it if/when I've found it. A great many costs are also invisible in the statistics. For example, it is not calculated how much school, health care, public transport, housing construction and many other things cost only for those born abroad. Sweden doesn't have much space left either. The queues for basically most things are long, but especially for accommodation and schools, as it already is. That’s a hugely disingenuous statistic. I'm not even going to bother to check what it is You’re conflating economic immigrants with refugees and asylum seekers. Neither are illegal, but they aren’t the same thing in the UK and only one group is able to seek full employment and thus become self-sufficient. This is not correct, an Asylum Seeker is seeking Refuge and if their claim is examined and found to have a basis they are granted Refugee Status which gives them "leave to remain" in UK for 5 years until they can apply for settled status. An Economic Migrant has no Internationally recognised claim to seek Refugee Status but depending on the Country they originated e.g. Afghanistan they will not be returned but given "leave to remain"Once a refugee or asylum seeker is granted indefinite leave to remain they become an economic immigrant. Absolutely not, an Asylum Seeker if granted gains Refugee Status and protection but they are never Economic Migrants and may in fact be financially independent. An Economic Migrant has no legal claim to be granted Refugee Status but may be granted leave to remain depending on whether they have come from a Country that is deemed safe or not i.e. eligible to be returned to.Refugees and asylum seekers by their very nature cannot be economically self-sufficient in the UK. Some Asylum Seekers may become Refugees if their claim is successful, they may have independent means to be self-sufficient In the UK the Home Office may grant permission to work to asylum seekers whose claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Those who are granted permission to work and have submitted an application on or before 3 April 2024 are restricted to jobs on the Shortage Occupation List published by the Home Office. Any applications submitted on or after 4 April 2024, who are granted, are restricted to jobs on the Immigration Salary List. Almost all refugees and asylum seekers in the UK are encouraged to volunteer, not paid employment. Taken directly from Government Website so correct but it only tells half the story
Asylum Seekers who are granted Refugee Status or de facto leave to remain because they can not be returned to an unsafe Country have unrestricted access to the UK Labour Market I only came across your post when Musik quoted it and it is highly inaccurate and misleading |
|
