Labour "Encouraged Mass Immigration To UK"

[Barrichello]

In case you was wondering why Jack Straw was so tight lipped when questioned on nuLabours Immigration policies on Thursday, although i can only hope that this news is not true........

Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Pol...Was_Deliberate

[spoon_]

Government can't really complain about migrant workers... Treasury is bursting from all the taxes charged and its driving the economy forwards so win-win situation really...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If these people are paying taxes and contributing to the economy then TBH, we could have migrants from Mars for all I care!! OTH, it is in the people who want to sponge off the state for as long as possible(by their own choice not through circumstance) who piss me off. This includes both the homegrown ones and the ones who arrived here recently.

There are also loads of UK citizens working in Europe(something like nearly 300000 in Spain alone!) and around the world in countries like the US and also in the Middle East(places like Oman and Dubai) too.

[Sir Digby]

Why do you hope it's not true?

Immigration provides cheap and hard working labour, the economy wouldn't be able to function without it...

[kalniel]

Government can't really complain about migrant workers... Treasury is bursting from all the taxes charged and its driving the economy forwards so win-win situation really...

Exactly.

[Barrichello]

Why do you hope it's not true?

You are clearly desensitized to the government lying to you? It has got to this stage for many it seems

[Sir Digby]

You are clearly desensitized to the government lying to you? It has got to this stage for many it seems

: Pretty much...

[Perfectionist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...6/article.html

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett [..]said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

[..]

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

[..]

Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain

[..]

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

The "economy" argument is and has always been a sham, the take away deliveries taking cash in hand, the dodgy guy selling CDs and mobile phones, the handymen and windowcleaners taking cash in hand, they are not paying taxes or contributing just filling up holes that plenty of honest unemployed people would otherwise fill... Sure there's plenty of slimy little fiddlers around but the majority of people I've met seem to be more like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/7900449.stm

[Saracen]

As always, the immigration issue is complicated, and not amenable to simplistic analysis.

For instance, one argument trotted out (and presented differently, usually depending on the point the presenter is trying to make), is that 'immigrants sponge off the state'. One side of the story is that they pay taxes and are needed, and to some extent, I've no doubt that's true. The other side of the story is that they deny jobs to UK citizens by working cheap, and I've no doubt that to some extent, that's true too.

But look a bit closer and you realise it's a LOT more complicated than that. For instance, to precisely what extent are each of those true? In both cases, is it a minority situation, fairly common or overwhelmingly true? You certainly can't tell from the kind of anecdotal story typical of the Mail which, even if true, may or may not be representative.

Take the "they pay taxes" line, and assume it's absolutely true, and broadly representative of the typical situation. So yes, they represent a source of tax revenue, but they also represent a cost and a drain on resources. They need medical care, so use GPs services and hospital places, their kids are in schools, their cars add to road congestion, and so on.

Does their presence here represent a net benefit or a net cost? Without a very careful analysis of the figures, we just don't know.

Then there's the other common argument - they do jobs Brits don't want to do or won't do. And I've no doubt there's a lot of truth in that. But, in a good few cases, they're living in close to slum conditions and remitting a good part of their earnings back to their home country, such as Poland or wherever, because the buying power there is a lot higher than the same amount of money buys here. People can't support their family on it here, but a year or two of putting up with foul living conditions can set them up for, as an example, starting a business back home.

And it begs the question .... with fairly high (and rising) numbers of people not working (and including those that are, but shouldn't be, on some form of incapacity benefit but not including those that should be on it), it distorts the Labour market here. The reason many Brits won't do these jobs is because many of them, especially in the service sector like hospitality) can be filled by people that will work at pay levels Brits can't afford to work at. So, if cheap immigrant labour wasn't here to do those jobs, employers running hotels, restaurants etc would HAVE to pay a wage that was workable for and attractive to a native Brit worker, because otherwise, they'd go out of business. And, of course, in doing so, their costs would rise so their prices would too. Instead, we have low-cost immigrant workers keeping pay rates artificially low, resulting not just in a much lower going rate in such sectors, but increased unemployment costs on the state.

But the other side of the coin is that there are plenty of immigrant workers here that we actively recruited because we simply didn't have the home grown capacity. It's not about pay levels in those cases, but about successive governments short-sightedness in training, for example, enough nurses.

So in cases, the argument may be largely an economic one, but in by no means all cases is it such. In many cases, it's about social need. We need nurses (or doctors, or dentists, or whatever) so we recruit them away from other countries. Well, we might fill our needs for those vocations, but we can come close to denuding some often less well off countries of skilled staff they really needed at home too. It doesn't just have a social benefit here, but a social cost in other countries too.

One more thing. Our population trends show an ageing population. The pension crisis is deepening in no small part because life expectancies are growing ever longer as medical technology increases. As the aged element of the population increases, we aren't breeding fast enough to provide the future sources of tax revenue (as government seems to see citizens) that are going to pay for that. We have a long-term shortfall looming. And looming soon.

As far as I'm concerned, it's self-evident that this country needs three things :-

- we do need immigrants, now and in the future. The issue is how many, and with what skills.

- we also seriously need a grown-up debate about it, not least with a large does of refreshing candour from our politicians.

- finally, we need to realise that a debate about immigration and a debate about racism aren't the same thing, and that you can be in favour of a controlled immigration policy without either being a racist, or being called one.

But I'm not holding my breath for any of the above.

[malfunction]

the take away deliveries taking cash in hand, the dodgy guy selling CDs and mobile phones, the handymen and windowcleaners taking cash in hand, they are not paying taxes or contributing just filling up holes that plenty of honest unemployed people would otherwise fill...

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. The country is hardly overrun with any of the above and we already have a large number of 'home grown' lazy sods that intend to spend the rest of their lives on benefits.

By way of example I grew up in a fairly poor area and there were plenty of people in my school that didn't bother turning up for their exams as they couldn't see any point in having any qualifications (which in general was an attitude they picked up from their parents). Many of the same people started having children and put themselves on the council house / housing association list (and more often than not ended up in a house around the corner from the rest of their clan) as soon as they left school. Quite a few of the girls in my year were on their 2nd or 3rd kid by the time I left college. Many people were involved in various levels of crime as there was a large amount of organised crime in the area - the gang that I was vaguely aware of at the time were only brought down a few years ago, ~15 years after I left the place, and only then because a corrupt copper or two was brought down and brought the gang down with them.

Not one of them was an immigrant.

There are plenty of social issues in this country and while I'm in favour of some kind of control (possibly quotas, more likely simple vetting and pre-requisites such as a job to go to or money in the bank) I really don't see why anyone would believe the daily fail type hype that many of the problems in this county are related to immigration. It's just thinly veiled racism.

[Revilgo]

*Sigh* So the immigrants are now the ones to blame for the bankers' co*k ups and those who treated their homes like their personal piggy banks now is it? I guess it's true when they say that crap always ever only flow downwards.

The "economy" argument is and has always been a sham, the take away deliveries taking cash in hand, the dodgy guy selling CDs and mobile phones, the handymen and windowcleaners taking cash in hand, they are not paying taxes or contributing

No, it's call economic/commercial activity and the entrepreneurial spirit. Today that dodgy guy may be selling CDs and mobile phones, tomorrow the same guy may open a shop or a website that provides employment and a tax revenue stream. Besides, someone, somewhere always pay some taxes along the business/consumer supply chain and from the HMRC's perspective, while they may not always get everything, they will always get something.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing I think people are mixing up legal and illegal migration TBH!! People selling dodgy DVDs are unlikely to be legal migrants are they!! Imagine their application for a Visa here!!

Its funny that people think that immigrants "take away" jobs!! What about migrants like Mohamed Al-Fayed , James Caan and Theo Paphitis whose entrepreneurial skills have lead to the employment of many UK citizens.

Looking at this old article from 2007 Asian owned businesses alone actually contributed 60 billion pounds to the UK economy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...st-Asians.html

These people were migrants or are children of migrants themselves.

Of course what about the educated people people from other countries who work here bringing valuable experience and skills without this country paying a single penny in education then??

On top of this over five million of our citizens work and live abroad too(a point which I need to repeat again) so why this issue when people come here then??

Here is the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210358.stm

Here are some of the numbers as of 2007:

Country name Resident Britons
Australia 1,300,000
Spain 761,000
United States 678,000
Canada 603,000
Ireland 291,000
New Zealand 215,000
South Africa 212,000
France 200,000
UAE (Inc Dubai): 55,000
Pakistan: 47,000
Singapore: 45,000
Thailand: 41,000
China: 36,000


If people pay taxes they can claim whatever all of us do, period!! The social system here did not exist to discriminate on terms of wealth,colour or creed!! This is why these mechanisms were initiated in the first place!!


OTH,tax dodgers(both homegrown and the new arrivals) and benefit cheats should prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If people who have never been here before and don't even know the country well can do well it should be an inspiration for us home grown lot to do better, especially since we have the advantage of actually knowing this country by being born here!!

[Dingo]

As always, the immigration issue is complicated, and not amenable to simplistic analysis.

For instance, one argument trotted out (and presented differently, usually depending on the point the presenter is trying to make), is that 'immigrants sponge off the state'. One side of the story is that they pay taxes and are needed, and to some extent, I've no doubt that's true. The other side of the story is that they deny jobs to UK citizens by working cheap, and I've no doubt that to some extent, that's true too.

But look a bit closer and you realise it's a LOT more complicated than that. For instance, to precisely what extent are each of those true? In both cases, is it a minority situation, fairly common or overwhelmingly true? You certainly can't tell from the kind of anecdotal story typical of the Mail which, even if true, may or may not be representative.

Take the "they pay taxes" line, and assume it's absolutely true, and broadly representative of the typical situation. So yes, they represent a source of tax revenue, but they also represent a cost and a drain on resources. They need medical care, so use GPs services and hospital places, their kids are in schools, their cars add to road congestion, and so on.

Does their presence here represent a net benefit or a net cost? Without a very careful analysis of the figures, we just don't know.

Then there's the other common argument - they do jobs Brits don't want to do or won't do. And I've no doubt there's a lot of truth in that. But, in a good few cases, they're living in close to slum conditions and remitting a good part of their earnings back to their home country, such as Poland or wherever, because the buying power there is a lot higher than the same amount of money buys here. People can't support their family on it here, but a year or two of putting up with foul living conditions can set them up for, as an example, starting a business back home.

And it begs the question .... with fairly high (and rising) numbers of people not working (and including those that are, but shouldn't be, on some form of incapacity benefit but not including those that should be on it), it distorts the Labour market here. The reason many Brits won't do these jobs is because many of them, especially in the service sector like hospitality) can be filled by people that will work at pay levels Brits can't afford to work at. So, if cheap immigrant labour wasn't here to do those jobs, employers running hotels, restaurants etc would HAVE to pay a wage that was workable for and attractive to a native Brit worker, because otherwise, they'd go out of business. And, of course, in doing so, their costs would rise so their prices would too. Instead, we have low-cost immigrant workers keeping pay rates artificially low, resulting not just in a much lower going rate in such sectors, but increased unemployment costs on the state.

But the other side of the coin is that there are plenty of immigrant workers here that we actively recruited because we simply didn't have the home grown capacity. It's not about pay levels in those cases, but about successive governments short-sightedness in training, for example, enough nurses.

So in cases, the argument may be largely an economic one, but in by no means all cases is it such. In many cases, it's about social need. We need nurses (or doctors, or dentists, or whatever) so we recruit them away from other countries. Well, we might fill our needs for those vocations, but we can come close to denuding some often less well off countries of skilled staff they really needed at home too. It doesn't just have a social benefit here, but a social cost in other countries too.

One more thing. Our population trends show an ageing population. The pension crisis is deepening in no small part because life expectancies are growing ever longer as medical technology increases. As the aged element of the population increases, we aren't breeding fast enough to provide the future sources of tax revenue (as government seems to see citizens) that are going to pay for that. We have a long-term shortfall looming. And looming soon.

As far as I'm concerned, it's self-evident that this country needs three things :-

- we do need immigrants, now and in the future. The issue is how many, and with what skills.

- we also seriously need a grown-up debate about it, not least with a large does of refreshing candour from our politicians.

- finally, we need to realise that a debate about immigration and a debate about racism aren't the same thing, and that you can be in favour of a controlled immigration policy without either being a racist, or being called one.

But I'm not holding my breath for any of the above.

From where I sit an exceedingly well presented point of view, shared perhaps by many, sadly though the politicians are far too interested in scoring points from the opposition than actually "dealing" with the realities in Britain today.....(aka the X facto).....they are all wannabies, and the general populace is too dumb to realise they are being made to pay for the privilege, so the stagnation continues.

It really is time for the British people to vote not for "what their country can give them", but what "they can give for their country".............and it certainly isn't this current Government!!

[Revilgo]

I say we should have more independent MPs and return more power to Parliament after Blair and Thatcher emaciated it so as to limit irrelevant and damaging party political and narrow sectional interests.

[MadduckUK]

silly, you cant immigrate mass!