Migrants crossing the Channel

KUMB's 24-hour rolling news channel. The Forum in which to discuss non sport-related news and current affairs, including politics.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17676
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by mumbles87 »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:10 pm France is a safe country. There is no war in Albania at present yet they are the highest nationality crossing the channel. There is a route for afghans but they are second highest.

If you are so concerned for your safety that you make the journey and end up in a safe and democratic country to then decide your safety isn't that important and risk crossing the channel just seems odd to me. It feels not about safety as a specific aim, more a desire to emigrate than be safe. There's nothing at all wrong with that but it's a different conversation.

1m people came last year. To work, to study and for safety. They came from a myriad of countries using the systems in place. I'd say we are far from stuffing the rest.
Do you actually believe this government are handling our boarders well and affectively? Even the home security has admitted they are not and that grilling she was given is a prime example how useless our schemes are

"
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population."

So France already take their fair share

As do other countries

Don't see why people are so against helping others.
User avatar
chelmsfordhammer91
Posts: 2954
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:59 pm
Location: Broomfield, Chelmsford
Has liked: 867 likes
Total likes: 569 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by chelmsfordhammer91 »

I don't think it's necessarily a case of not wanting to help others. People generally don't like it when someone gets something for free that they have had to work hard and contribute towards.

I'm all for taking in asylum seekers if we can cater for it and have the right infrastructure and costing in place. However, we don't.

It wasn't long ago that we had a footballer campaign for school children to be fed (which I agree with). So it looks to be a case of lets get our ducks in order before we spend money we don't have on people that have chosen to traverse several safe countries because the UK is their preference. It isn't a case of don't let anyone in, it's a case of put some proper effort in at targeted migration so we can at least benefit from it as a country.

I completely appreciate there are other causes that are greater to the current state of this country (our own government being one of the prime ones).
User avatar
Hammer1966
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:40 pm
Has liked: 235 likes
Total likes: 169 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Hammer1966 »

If I understand it correctly the downside economically to a shrinking population is decreased growth. So in order to maintain economic growth you need babies.

And surely we can help feed out own starving children at school (well the ones who don't have feckless, pyjama wearing parents anyway) and take our fair share of immigrants? One shouldn't exclude the other. Migrants in general, as its been proven, put more into the economy than they take out.

As for people getting something for free? If that's a problem for you then migrants are way down the list when it comes to freeloaders. I'd personally start with the Royal family.
Online
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27177
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 699 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by delbert »

mumbles87 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:22 pm Do you actually believe this government are handling our boarders well and affectively? Even the home security has admitted they are not and that grilling she was given is a prime example how useless our schemes are

"
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population."

So France already take their fair share

As do other countries

Don't see why people are so against helping others.
The Royal Navy handle our boarders, and from what I've seen on various TV shows they're doing a fine decent job of it*. A far better job than the shambles the government are making of handling our borders, outside of airports that is.

It's not a competition, but if you want to go down that route how about using a more sensible measure than simply how many people a country has taken in, population density for example. If you go by that marker then to even things up we shouldn't be taking any until those 9 or lower on the linked chart catch us up, for example France would need to more than double it's population density to get to our level, so room for improvement on their part.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/eur ... nsity.html

It's not just about helping others though is it? It's a more complicated issue, I don't see why people can't see that.....

Cheap shot I know...... :smiler:
Online
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27177
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 699 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by delbert »

Hammer1966 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:00 pm If I understand it correctly the downside economically to a shrinking population is decreased growth. So in order to maintain economic growth you need babies.

And surely we can help feed out own starving children at school (well the ones who don't have feckless, pyjama wearing parents anyway) and take our fair share of immigrants? One shouldn't exclude the other. Migrants in general, as its been proven, put more into the economy than they take out.

As for people getting something for free? If that's a problem for you then migrants are way down the list when it comes to freeloaders. I'd personally start with the Royal family.
Do we need economic growth? If so does it really need population increases to achieve it, if so it's hardly a sustainable model, at some point the world will run out of resources.

I think you've gone off at a tangent with the rest of your post there mate.....
User avatar
Ironing Board
Posts: 22075
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:11 am
Has liked: 2082 likes
Total likes: 1791 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Ironing Board »

Hammer1966 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:00 pm If I understand it correctly the downside economically to a shrinking population is decreased growth. So in order to maintain economic growth you need babies.

And surely we can help feed out own starving children at school (well the ones who don't have feckless, pyjama wearing parents anyway) and take our fair share of immigrants? One shouldn't exclude the other. Migrants in general, as its been proven, put more into the economy than they take out.
It’s a very politicised issue, but I’m not sure that is the case.

An old University College London report found immigrants cost more than paid in taxes. Non-European migrants living in Britain cost £120billion between 1995 and 2011.

The EU ones contributed far more. In any case, a small amount of the highly skilled immigrants make most of the overall contribution. The low skilled ones tend to have more kids and overall cost far more than they bring in.
User avatar
chelmsfordhammer91
Posts: 2954
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:59 pm
Location: Broomfield, Chelmsford
Has liked: 867 likes
Total likes: 569 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by chelmsfordhammer91 »

Hammer1966 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:00 pm If I understand it correctly the downside economically to a shrinking population is decreased growth. So in order to maintain economic growth you need babies.

And surely we can help feed out own starving children at school (well the ones who don't have feckless, pyjama wearing parents anyway) and take our fair share of immigrants? One shouldn't exclude the other. Migrants in general, as its been proven, put more into the economy than they take out.

As for people getting something for free? If that's a problem for you then migrants are way down the list when it comes to freeloaders. I'd personally start with the Royal family.
I agree we should be able to give free school meals to all children. I'm not so sure about taking our fair share, as I don't really care what amount other countries choose to take in, what amount we take in is about what we can cater for.

I've no idea what figures you are referring to about immigrants being a net positive for the economy, but we aren't talking immigrants in general, we are talking asylum seekers.

I don't blame the people, they just want the best for themselves and their family, that's fair enough. It's the system that's broke.

Personally, I am more concerned about the corruption at the top of our own system than what benefits/housing/health care and whatever else asylum seekers get. However, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be controlled better.

The core royal family O don't mind so much, as they bring in around 7 quid to the economy for every quid we pay. (Roughly £1 per person on average is paid). The hanger-ons I completely agree with you though. :newthumb:
User avatar
chelmsfordhammer91
Posts: 2954
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:59 pm
Location: Broomfield, Chelmsford
Has liked: 867 likes
Total likes: 569 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by chelmsfordhammer91 »

delbert wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:11 pm Do we need economic growth? If so does it really need population increases to achieve it, if so it's hardly a sustainable model, at some point the world will run out of resources.

I think you've gone off at a tangent with the rest of your post there mate.....
I mentioned the first point you made ages ago and was told it's better to push the problem down the line than have it cause problems today. The end game is clear though but that's more of a global issue than just the UK.

Your second point is my fault, Hammer1966 was responding to my points there so they were relevant :newthumb:
User avatar
bubbles1966
Posts: 66970
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
Has liked: 2437 likes
Total likes: 4292 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by bubbles1966 »

Our 'fair share' is an interesting concept.

If Ireland matched our population density they'd need to take in about 15 million more people.

If the German population had increased at the same rate as ours since 1997 they'd have to find an extra 11 million people.

Germany added no one for twenty years between 1995-2015.

In 1997, Germany's population was about 25m more than ours. Now it's about 14m.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Turns to Stone »

Ironing Board wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:20 pm It’s a very politicised issue, but I’m not sure that is the case.

An old University College London report found immigrants cost more than paid in taxes. Non-European migrants living in Britain cost £120billion between 1995 and 2011.

The EU ones contributed far more. In any case, a small amount of the highly skilled immigrants make most of the overall contribution. The low skilled ones tend to have more kids and overall cost far more than they bring in.
I’d be keen to see that report. The one I found suggests the opposite:-

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-d ... gration-uk
User avatar
Ironing Board
Posts: 22075
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:11 am
Has liked: 2082 likes
Total likes: 1791 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Ironing Board »

Turns to Stone wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:45 pm I’d be keen to see that report. The one I found suggests the opposite:-

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-d ... gration-uk
That isn’t the full report, it’s brief summary giving the facts they wanted to present.

Indeed, the same figures were reported in the pro-immigration and pro-EU Financial Times:

“Researchers calculated that between 1995 and 2011, migrants from outside the EU were a net cost of £118bn compared with the net contribution of £4bn by EU migrants over the same period.

“This is partly because of the higher numbers of children and lower employment rate of non-EU migrants before points-based restrictions were imposed from 2008.”

https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-644 ... 144feabdc0

And one of the FT commenters pointed out it is much more than just an issue of economics:

“Have commentators here actually visited Tower Hamlets recently? Or any of the other virtual ghettos around the UK? Wait till you see a vision of our future: a friend sent me a picture of a street in Marseilles, yards from the town centre - it looks like a third world slum market. Been through Gare du Nord in Paris recently?

“How can the changes on the ground be justified or rationalised in favour of some paper fiscal exercise on whether immigrants have or have not benefitted the UK economy? The evidence that it has harmed is right there: the changes have just not hit the protected areas where most FT commentators live.“
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Turns to Stone »

That article also says that those born in the UK cost £590bn though as the national deficit grew in that time isn’t it?

So non EU migrants cost £118bn in that 17 year period and Britons cost £590bn. Is that the one?
User avatar
Ironing Board
Posts: 22075
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:11 am
Has liked: 2082 likes
Total likes: 1791 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Ironing Board »

Turns to Stone wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:20 pm That article also says that those born in the UK cost £590bn though as the national deficit grew in that time isn’t it?

So non EU migrants cost £118bn in that 17 year period and Britons cost £590bn. Is that the one?
What Britons cost is beside the point. A country is supposed to look after its own citizens.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Turns to Stone »

Ironing Board wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:26 pm What Britons cost is beside the point. A country is supposed to look after its own citizens.
But the country is running at a deficit. So taxes simply weren’t meeting what it cost to care people - meaning that no-one was bringing in a profit at the time. Given the ever-increasing deficit at the time, what reasons can you think of that the British govt were allowing immigration? Because what I see is that financially, it’s always going to cost to allow immigration - so why have consecutive governments not only allowed it, but encouraged it for years and years.

Could it because it is necessary?
User avatar
Ironing Board
Posts: 22075
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:11 am
Has liked: 2082 likes
Total likes: 1791 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Ironing Board »

Turns to Stone wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:35 pm
Could it because it is necessary?
Nobody says you get rid of immigration, but it has to be controlled. Given the fact the politicians are all bought and paid for I doubt it will change though.

But if a business is unprofitable without cheap labour then does it deserve to keep going? And the fact is, if there is a more limited labour supply the poorest workers will get higher wages.

It used to be companies would take on kids, give them apprenticeships and then you had a skilled workforce. Now companies expect employees to pay for their own training and even then the pay is not worthwhile.

The you add in an overly-generous welfare state and you end up with a mess all-around.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Turns to Stone »

The thing is, that the article you shared shows that the welfare system is designed in a way that will always result in a defect. Regardless of where people are from. What it fails to mention is the positives that migrants bring and he fact that they’re bringing money in that wasn’t previously in the UK system.

Tax versus welfare is always going to result in that outcome, but what about all the money that is brought in to the UK coffers from non EU migrants? Why isn’t that being considered in the report? Immigration is needed, but it’s about the right sort of immigration. The report that I shared suggests that non-eu migrants have brought money into the country post 2000 and have been a net benefit. Something that is backed up in surveys across the board.

Therefore what has been happening with migration is of a net benefit to the UK. Yet governments and some parts of thepress still vilify it, whilst not outt8ng measure in place to curb it. Why do you think that is?
User avatar
Hammer1966
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:40 pm
Has liked: 235 likes
Total likes: 169 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Hammer1966 »

delbert wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:11 pm Do we need economic growth? If so does it really need population increases to achieve it, if so it's hardly a sustainable model, at some point the world will run out of resources.

I think you've gone off at a tangent with the rest of your post there mate.....
Do we need economic growth? Great question. Personally I'd like to think we could find an alternative to the constant desire to increasing economic growth but I'm too busy working to figure out what that looks like.

As for going off on a tangent... :grin:
Online
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27177
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 699 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by delbert »

Hammer1966 wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 6:13 am Do we need economic growth? Great question. Personally I'd like to think we could find an alternative to the constant desire to increasing economic growth but I'm too busy working to figure out what that looks like.

As for going off on a tangent... :grin:
Didn't realise you'd answered multiple posts mate...... :oops:
User avatar
Danny's Dyer Acting
Posts: 8983
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:37 pm
Has liked: 642 likes
Total likes: 1853 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by Danny's Dyer Acting »

Capitalism doesn't work without constant economic growth.

Has del finally seen the light? Come on in, the champagne is on ice and Jeremy is just prepping another tray of avocados.
Online
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27177
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 699 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: Migrants crossing the Channel

Post by delbert »

Danny's Dyer Acting wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 10:30 am Capitalism doesn't work without constant economic growth.

Has del finally seen the light? Come on in, the champagne is on ice and Jeremy is just prepping another tray of avocados.
:lol:

You say that, but it'll be Lambrini and fair trade Gooseberries......
Post Reply