Who was right?: 576% rise in number of NI numbers handed to Romania/Bulgaria

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11456944/Immigration-576-rise-in-poorest-Europeans-registering-for-work.html

Immigration: 576% rise in poorest Europeans registering for work/benefits

Official figures (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407501/NINo_Analytical_Report_Feb15.pdf) show 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given National Insurance numbers over the course of 2014 after immigration rules were relaxed, up from 27,700 during the previous year


http://www.ezimba.com/work/150309C/ezimba12149437818800.png
Widely mocked: Ukip's warnings of a surge in numbers were mocked at the time but have been proven correct



Seven times as many migrants from the poorest countries in Europe registered to work in Britain after immigration rules were relaxed last year. Official figures showed 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given National Insurance numbers over the course of 2014, up from 27,700 during the previous year.

This represented a 576 per cent increase in the numbers of migrants from the two most deprived countries in the European Union who registered to work or receive state benefits in the space of just 12 months.

Romanians and Bulgarians (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10822320/Up-to-200000-Romanians-and-Bulgarians-now-in-UK.html) now make up a quarter of all new NI numbers allocated to foreigners, the Department for Work and Pensions said. Experts said the figures suggested that many of these immigrants had been in Britain for months or even years, working illegally “in the shadows”.

http://order-order.com/2015/03/08/new-ukip-video-teases-dan-hodges/

New Ukip video teases Dan Hodges, a journalist who claimed the party were racist and scaremongering over predictions



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Gt3QJiAyA



Jobs that pay “cash-in-hand”, such as construction or cleaning, will have enabled them to support themselves while not paying full taxes, it was claimed. The figures prompted warnings that the sudden increase in the number of eastern Europeans registering for work could make it harder for British people to find jobs.

A National Insurance number is a legal requirement for anyone wanting to work as an employee, or to claim state benefits and tax credits.
The dramatic rise followed the lifting of restrictions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10486480/David-Cameron-faces-unrest-over-EU-migration-from-inside-government.html) on the kinds of work Romanians and Bulgarians could do in the UK, a controversial change which took effect on January 1, 2014. Under “transitional” rules introduced when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, migrants from these two countries could only work in the UK in seasonal jobs such as fruit picking, or if they were self-employed.

These restrictions ended on January 1 last year and all Romanians and Bulgarians were then given the same rights to work in the UK as British citizens. MPs and academics said that the “huge” rise in NI numbers issued last year showed Britain’s borders had not been properly controlled.

Experts at Oxford University said many Romanians and Bulgarians may have moved to Britain while the restrictions were still in place and claimed they were self-employed but were in fact working as employees on building projects or in other “cash-in-hand” jobs, without formal contracts. Then, once the restrictions were lifted last year, they registered for NI numbers so they could work legally as employees.

Carlos Vargas-Silva, an economist at Oxford’s Migration Observatory (http://migratio****ervatory.ox.ac.uk/), said: “These figures give the impression that many of these people were here already doing something but we don’t know what that something was. There is a possibility that many of these people were in that informal economy without the proper permits to work.”

Keith Vaz, chairman of Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee, said the “huge” rise showed migrants who were already working had “come out of the shadows” when the restrictions were lifted. “It is clear that the 1st January last year provided people with the opportunity for the first time of working legally. Romanians and Bulgarians who were working in the black market and in the shadows had to obtain National Insurance numbers in order to become employees,” he said. “There is still a massive problem in tracking and monitoring people who come over.”

Nigel Mills, the Conservative MP for Amber Valley who led a campaign to extend the employment restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians, said voters feared a sudden increase in legally registered workers would make it harder for British people to find employment.

“Nobody objects to having people come here when we need the skills. But equally we can’t just have unlimited numbers of unskilled people turning up looking for work. We have still got a lot of people out there who need jobs. It’s not sustainable,” he said.


http://www.ezimba.com/work/150309C/ezimba12149433611200.png


Well done to Farage, Ukip, Migration Watch and all those who rightly predicted a surge in the numbers. And these numbers are just NI.

Boo hoo to the liars in the media, BBC comedians, Dan Hodges and the politicians like Keith Vaz MP who mocked us. You filthy liars.

You can read the ONS document here before anybody tries to dispute the figures again with the source for the 187,000 number:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407501/NINo_Analytical_Report_Feb15.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407501/NINo_Analytical_Report_Feb15.pdf)

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Finally a source for the 187,000 figure :P although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before. It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

[-:Undertaker:-]

The British people want immigration tightened, and here's the recent polls I read on Twitter that apparently prove it. Although it's nothing new.


YouGov: What should next government do on immigration?

Reduce - 76%
Keep Same - 14%
Increase - 4%
Don't Know - 6%


YouGov: Which party has best policies on immigration?

UKIP - 28%
None of them - 27%
Don't Know -14%
CON - 11%
LAB - 11%
Lib Dem - 4%

Below Tom goes on about how many of these people work. That's true. But the point is, the numbers coming in place a huge strain on hospitals, social services, schools, welfare and housing - as well as wages and jobs. Nobody is against people coming here to work, provided we need them (the job cannot be filled by British workers at all) and that they have the skills. At the moment, this isn't the case and it is a free for all. Unacceptable.


Finally a source for the 187,000 figure :P although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before.

I knew somebody would be able to twist this into a "Well this is good isn't it?" when they were wrong to begin with when they said that the numbers would be small yet they were completely, 100% wrong just as they were wrong over the 2004 estimates regarding Poland etc.

But let's get onto the 'success' bit. Whilst many may be working, they are undercutting British wages which, if British employers are struggling to find Britons to fill the positions (something I don't actually believe as often as it is repeated) they should be increasing wages to match inflation so that those jobs are attractive to British workers. Instead however, to maximise their profits, they're importing unskilled workers in the hundreds and thousands to purposely avoid paying more for British workers. That isn't a good deal for the people here, it is a rotten deal.

And that's without saying the figure will probably be well over 200,000 when you take into account beggars and criminal gangs.


It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

So if 2m immigrants came in tomorrow and paid tax that would be a drop in non tax-paying immigrants? What a warped way to look at the world.

[Firehorse]

Finally a source for the 187,000 figure :P although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before. It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

Sorry, but can you please provide a source for this figure of 37,000 arrivals? I'd be very interested to know since the official figures for 2014 won't actually be published by the ONS until May.

I'd also be interested to know your reasoning behind there being a drop in non tax-paying immigrants. How did you come to that conclusion? You're making an assumption that almost every single Romanian and Bulgarian who was already here was working illegally? What is your source?

Also, these are registrations for NIN's, it does not mean that they are all employed as you like to believe. To receive JSA you need a NIN. And, to pay income tax you need to be on an income which cannot be obtained from only doing unskilled agency work. So your comment about a drop in the number of non tax-paying immigrants is completely unfounded. The only discernible difference is that by having a NIN they can now claim benefits, and you cannot make any other claims until the real statistics are published.

[FlyingJesus]

37,000 comes from Dan's past thread on this issue (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=821561), and the drop in non tax-paying immigrants I wrote wrong, should have been in the same part as the ~150k bit sorry. But yeah essentially what we're seeing is people trying to become British workers, not hundreds of thousands of benefits rats or whatever. I don't support bringing in unnecessary extras for no apparent reason, I support a decrease in illegal employment and people being dealt with outside of the system, so I see mass registration as (potential) UK workers as being a good thing when the alternative is them being here only on short-term non-essential work and then disappearing into the ether as has been the case previously.

[Firehorse]

37,000 comes from Dan's past thread on this issue (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=821561), and the drop in non tax-paying immigrants I wrote wrong, should have been in the same part as the ~150k bit sorry. But yeah essentially what we're seeing is people trying to become British workers, not hundreds of thousands of benefits rats or whatever. I don't support bringing in unnecessary extras for no apparent reason, I support a decrease in illegal employment and people being dealt with outside of the system, so I see mass registration as (potential) UK workers as being a good thing when the alternative is them being here only on short-term non-essential work and then disappearing into the ether as has been the case previously.

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:


The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
The arrivals statistic was an estimate
The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?

Do we have more hospitals than we had 20 years ago? No. If anything we have less.
More A&E facilities? No, A&E's are even being closed.
More GP's? No.
More police? No.
More school places? No.
Increase in reservoir capacity? No. Water is having to be processed from the Thames for the first time in history because the reservoirs cannot cope with the demand.
Has the number of homes risen in line with the rise in population? Far from it, and this is the single biggest money spinner of the entire con being played by politicians.

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

People keep on claiming that more immigration is good for the economy. Rubbish. Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased? The only sector that benefits is big business and they're doing it under your nose.

[FlyingJesus]

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:


The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
The arrivals statistic was an estimate
The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them


Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?
Nope

Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.

[Firehorse]

Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them


Nope

Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.

Well you didn't, because Dan's post very clearly stated:
in the year to September 2014

And fair enough that's your opinion if you are not at all concerned by the unpredictable and unsustainable increase in population.

Referring to my signature is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Are you unable to answer my two other questions? You've avoided them, much like a politician.

[FlyingJesus]

I didn't what? You haven't actually written anything here. You can't just say "you didn't" when there's nothing that I've claimed I did... you're not making a cohesive argument so I have no idea how to respond here. Ask me questions and I'll respond to them but quoting my whole post and saying NO without referring to any specific part of it won't get us anywhere.

Only see one other question not two but do feel free to ask more if you want. So ok -
Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased?
You are equating bricks with services. If you want an extra police station for every X amount like on a computer game then go ahead and play a computer game. Things cost money to run. Things with more people cost more money to run. You're also somehow assuming that big business is ...not part of the economy?



As to your signature, I only brought it up because it was there and it was wrong and I was bored. Lighten up

[Firehorse]

I didn't what? You haven't actually written anything here. You can't just say "you didn't" when there's nothing that I've claimed I did... you're not making a cohesive argument so I have no idea how to respond here. Ask me questions and I'll respond to them but quoting my whole post and saying NO without referring to any specific part of it won't get us anywhere.

Only see one other question not two but do feel free to ask more if you want. So ok -
Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased?
You are equating bricks with services. If you want an extra police station for every X amount like on a computer game then go ahead and play a computer game. Things cost money to run. Things with more people cost more money to run. You're also somehow assuming that big business is ...not part of the economy?



As to your signature, I only brought it up because it was there and it was wrong and I was bored. Lighten up

I answered your points in the same order that you wrote them. There were three lines in your post and mine was very clearly formatted. I'm sorry you had trouble comprehending my post.

To answer your response to my question: I am not disputing that more services cost more to run, that actually backs up the point I am making. If we have more people paying tax, then we have more money to spend on services, which we in turn need to serve the larger population. Your answer doesn't actually make much sense either, because you're answering as if I've claimed that the population pays a lump sum of tax and then walks away. The money you speak of comes from tax as a cash flow and is then spent on the services as required, also as a cash flow. If you have an increase in the tax income but no change in the amount spent then this equates to an income surplus.

Big business is part of the economy, but when referring to big business as being the main recipient of economic benefits, it is the shareholders who are being referred to. The people working for big business have had their wages suppressed by the large surplus in workers, which means that big business has the benefit of being able to pay less to its workers and keep more money for itself. It benefits a small group of individuals, while the majority of society lose out on money which would have been spread more widely among the community.

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.

I find it unbelievable that people like you defend these practices. Surely you are no millionaire yourself? Or maybe you are sadomasochistic when it comes to finance?

The other thing I asked was the following:

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

[FlyingJesus]

I answered your points in the same order that you wrote them. There were three lines in your post and mine was very clearly formatted. I'm sorry you had trouble comprehending my post.

The only post I have here that is comprised of 3 lines is
Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them
Nope
Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.
And your response was "well you didn't". That's not a clear format or a response to anything that has ever been said.


To answer your response to my question: I am not disputing that more services cost more to run, that actually backs up the point I am making. If we have more people paying tax, then we have more money to spend on services, which we in turn need to serve the larger population. Your answer doesn't actually make much sense either, because you're answering as if I've claimed that the population pays a lump sum of tax and then walks away. The money you speak of comes from tax as a cash flow and is then spent on the services as required, also as a cash flow. If you have an increase in the tax income but no change in the amount spent then this equates to an income surplus.

Yes it does. Is there an argument here? We seem to be missing a point of contention


Big business is part of the economy, but when referring to big business as being the main recipient of economic benefits, it is the shareholders who are being referred to. The people working for big business have had their wages suppressed by the large surplus in workers, which means that big business has the benefit of being able to pay less to its workers and keep more money for itself. It benefits a small group of individuals, while the majority of society lose out on money which would have been spread more widely among the community.

ie supply and demand yep that is a thing that exists well done

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.


I find it unbelievable that people like you defend these practices. Surely you are no millionaire yourself? Or maybe you are sadomasochistic when it comes to finance?

What who is a people like me I'm not a millionaire but I'm also not a communist I know that when money comes in the majority goes to the top and it trickles down a little and wow we don't all get everything equally and trading doesn't just go unit by unit like (again) a computer game, magicccccc. People seem to love placing me with people that are nothing like me, it's quite hilarious


The other thing I asked was the following: Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration



Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

[-:Undertaker:-]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.


Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration

Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=792338


Yes, I think our borders should be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria under the EU.


Give me a break, Dan. Your entire argument is built on fabricated lies coupled with exaggerated, scaremongering comparisons


You already know where I stand, that the borders should be opened for Romanians and Bulgarians.


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=775918


Farage really is made to look ridiculous, and somehow still insists the Bulgarians are going to come here.


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=796951


Also worth noting that the number of people immigrating from Romania and Bulgaria didn't increase

Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.


https://31.media.tumblr.com/d309a854ae98bb1ba2832595cc98aad7/tumblr_mu9bozok461sb1ir6o1_500.gif

[The Don]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.



Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.







Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.


https://31.media.tumblr.com/d309a854ae98bb1ba2832595cc98aad7/tumblr_mu9bozok461sb1ir6o1_500.gif


Yes and I was right and you were wrong. You've quoted my post about the polish immigration numbers being lower than the number you claimed (and I was right). How has my comment about you lying about the number of polish people coming here(which I proved in the same post you've misquoted me from) got anything to do with the number of people from Romania and Bulgaria coming here :s
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=792338&p=8075318#post8075318

[FlyingJesus]

I like how the only way certain people can "beat" me in these threads is by tackling arguments I haven't made and lying about what I think. Pretty sure making stuff up and misrepresenting everything isn't putting an end to anything substantial, let alone an imaginary alliance


If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

No because no matter what my stance is on things I don't just "side with" whoever seems to agree with my overall views for the fun of it when they're wrong about stuff - that helps nobody. It's not a playground and I'm not picking sides, I point out when figures and facts are misrepresented and that's all that seems to happen here. Cronyism isn't my game

[Firehorse]

The only post I have here that is comprised of 3 lines is
Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them
Nope
Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.
And your response was "well you didn't". That's not a clear format or a response to anything that has ever been said.

I answered your post in the same order in which you made it. Your first point was about Dan's comment; my first point was also about Dan's comment and it was reasoned with "because Dan's post". I apologise for your lack of comprehension.

My response to your comment on my signature was on the third line of the post only.

I will further simplify everything to assist you with understanding basic logic; starting by breaking this post up into multiple quotes as your cognitive ability to differentiate between subjects seems to be lacking.


Yes it does. Is there an argument here? We seem to be missing a point of contention

Then why did you quote the point I made as if to disagree with it, if you never disagreed with it?




ie supply and demand yep that is a thing that exists well done

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.


Nobody is debating whether supply and demand "is a thing that exists". The point made is that oversupply of workers has a positive impact for business owners, and a negative impact for the average working citizen.

I'm glad to see you agree with the conclusion that it is good for employers and bad for employees. I didn't realise you were an employer yourself.



What who is a people like me I'm not a millionaire but I'm also not a communist I know that when money comes in the majority goes to the top and it trickles down a little and wow we don't all get everything equally and trading doesn't just go unit by unit like (again) a computer game, magicccccc.

You're failing to understand that the issue isn't black and white. It is not communism vs capitalism. You can have private companies which are owned completely by the employees (John Lewis for example). I do not disagree that people running businesses should not keep a profit for themselves and make money while doing so, but there has to be a degree of fairness in the way wealth is spread. For example: reduce profits of £1m by 10% to pay all staff an extra £2 an hour. That's still a significant £900k profit for the business, and all staff are comfortably better off.

Your opinion is businesses should exploit their staff and keep as much money for themselves as possible?

I fail to understand what you are trying to claim with your point about trading units and computer games; would you care to elaborate on this in comprehensible English?


People seem to love placing me with people that are nothing like me, it's quite hilarious

Because unless you yourself own a business, the argument you're making is completely deluded.

Do you make any gain by earning a few thousand less per year than you could be paid if wages had risen at the same rate of the cost of living?
Do you make any gain from anybody in your family earning less in their daily job than they might if wages were 20% higher? Unless your gains are "spiritual", I don't think so; some of us live in the real world.

You are making the argument of somebody you are not, which is why you are placed with those people. And if, as you say, you are nothing like those people, it would seem you have been beguiled by the arguments of these people.



Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration

Then what the hell are you here to argue about?



Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

See my point before last. You're literally rehearsing the things you have heard politicians say without considering the actual implications on society or you personally.


I like how the only way certain people can "beat" me in these threads is by tackling arguments I haven't made and lying about what I think. Pretty sure making stuff up and misrepresenting everything isn't putting an end to anything substantial, let alone an imaginary alliance

This is the most ironic and hypocritical thing you have said. Nobody has misquoted you, nobody has lied about what you have said. In fact you were the one who deliberately misquoted a statistic from Dan in the first place. Also see my response to the second quote in this post.



No because no matter what my stance is on things I don't just "side with" whoever seems to agree with my overall views for the fun of it when they're wrong about stuff - that helps nobody. It's not a playground and I'm not picking sides, I point out when figures and facts are misrepresented and that's all that seems to happen here. Cronyism isn't my game

Again more irony. Putting aside "siding with" someone, you, are the one who in this thread misquoted statistics, and argued against some of my points without actually disagreeing with them. I would call that picking sides.

You may or may not be picking sides, but to me it looks like you'll try to say anything to counter the anti-immigration argument even if that means pretending you haven't understood what someone has said.

[Inseriousity.]

Just because someone is in favour of immigration as a whole does not necessarily mean they support uncontrolled immigration. That's an absurd leap you make very often, Dan.

[Firehorse]

Just because someone is in favour of immigration as a whole does not necessarily mean they support uncontrolled immigration. That's an absurd leap you make very often, Dan.

As stated when quoting Tom, it is not black and white. It is a sliding scale.

Nobody is stating immigration on its own is a bad thing. What is being discussed is the sheer number and specific consequences of this sheer number.

An increase from ~30,000 net immigrants to ~300,000 net immigrants per annum whilst having no control over who can migrate is uncontrolled immigration. This was discussed earlier in this thread, Tom made clear that he was not concerned about this increase in numbers and thus making clear he supports uncontrolled immigration.

In this thread, Tom has been defending the argument for mass immigration by claiming it has economic benefits, therefore Dan's claim as to Tom's motive is not unfounded.

[The Don]

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:


The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
The arrivals statistic was an estimate
The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?

Do we have more hospitals than we had 20 years ago? No. If anything we have less.
More A&E facilities? No, A&E's are even being closed.
More GP's? No.
More police? No.
More school places? No.
Increase in reservoir capacity? No. Water is having to be processed from the Thames for the first time in history because the reservoirs cannot cope with the demand.
Has the number of homes risen in line with the rise in population? Far from it, and this is the single biggest money spinner of the entire con being played by politicians.

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

People keep on claiming that more immigration is good for the economy. Rubbish. Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased? The only sector that benefits is big business and they're doing it under your nose.

I love how you are criticising people for not providing accurate sources yet haven't even bothered to provided a single one yourself. A quick google search shows that the number of GP's per 100k people is higher today than it was 10 years ago meaning it has not only kept up with immigration levels but has increased in ratio which leads me to believe the rest of your claims are unfounded.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/gp-numbers-relative-uk-populations

Also a number of studies have shown that immigration is either good for the economy or that it doesn't damage it, simply refuting it with the word rubbish isn't up to scratch and isn't a 'coherent' argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/immigration-to-britain-has-not-increased-unemployment-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10131876/The-truth-about-immigration-its-good-for-Britain.html

[Firehorse]

I love how you are criticising people for not providing accurate sources yet haven't even bothered to provided a single one yourself. A quick google search shows that the number of GP's per 100k people is higher today than it was 10 years ago meaning it has not only kept up with immigration levels but has increased in ratio which leads me to believe the rest of your claims are unfounded.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/gp-numbers-relative-uk-populations

You're right, I should have worded that one differently. We have more or less the same number of GP's per thousand, but they're doing much more than they used to. They work many more hours than they used to and see many more people than they used to.

So while it can be said we have the same number of GP's per capita, it completely disregards the other factors which are negatively affected.



Also a number of studies have shown that immigration is either good for the economy or that it doesn't damage it, simply refuting it with the word rubbish isn't up to scratch and isn't a 'coherent' argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/immigration-to-britain-has-not-increased-unemployment-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10131876/The-truth-about-immigration-its-good-for-Britain.html

For every article you link to which states immigration has been found to be good, there will equally be an article that can be linked to which states the exact opposite.

"Adding to the economy" is a complete farce. The money added needs to be spent in exchange for the required increase in provision of services.

There was another study that states immigrants were a net contributor to the economy, but after additional spending had been deducted from additional income, the actual contribution to the economy equated to 58p per person per month. This also didn't take into account any required increase of provision of services. Extra hospital beds alone cost considerably more than this, and that's still not taking into account transport, water or energy infrastructure, all of which is subsidised by the taxpayer. Hospital beds we definitely have less of per capita. (See world data bank).

This equates to an average compound growth rates of 0.30% and 0.34% respectively. So, using the governments very simplistic basis of equating growth in GDP with the growth in the working age population, the increase in GDP each year would be 0.34% but the population would increase by 0.3% each year so the benefit per head per year would be about 0.04%. This works out at 7 per head per year or 14p a week. This calculation takes no account of additional infrastructure costs nor of the costs of congestion to which immigration on this scale will add considerably.Source: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.5

So even the reports which state it is good for the economy, fail to take every aspect into consideration, even every financial aspect.

You're also making the mistake of, like everybody else, assuming it is a black and white issue. It is not good or bad, there are many different factors, some of which are good and some of which are bad. You cannot even argue that it is "good overall". How do you determine which factors are more important?

Additionally, for every positive report there is a negative one to speak of. None of your reports mention the increased strain on housing. A person on the national average wage of the time could afford to buy a 2 bedroom flat in London 20 years ago, today on the national average wage you wouldn't even be eligible for a studio flat via an affordable housing scheme in London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRrowthorn
http://news.sky.com/story/1366933/eu-migrants-pay-in-more-than-they-take-study
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11003975/Mass-immigration-could-see-water-shortages-failing-hospitals-and-we-wont-feel-richer-says-Civitas.html

[Kardan]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.



Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.







Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.


https://31.media.tumblr.com/d309a854ae98bb1ba2832595cc98aad7/tumblr_mu9bozok461sb1ir6o1_500.gif


Why have you quoted me saying that the numbers of people immigrating from Romania and Bulgaria didn't increase when 1) the news in this thread doesn't prove otherwise, and 2) it's completely irrelevant?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why have you quoted me saying that the numbers of people immigrating from Romania and Bulgaria didn't increase when 1) the news in this thread doesn't prove otherwise, and 2) it's completely irrelevant?

*shakes head* WHAT

[The Don]

You're right, I should have worded that one differently. We have more or less the same number of GP's per thousand, but they're doing much more than they used to. They work many more hours than they used to and see many more people than they used to.

So while it can be said we have the same number of GP's per capita, it completely disregards the other factors which are negatively affected.

If we have the same number of GP’s per thousand that means the ratio is the same as before meaning the workload should be roughly the same since there will have been an increase in the number of GP’s to maintain the ratio.


For every article you link to which states immigration has been found to be good, there will equally be an article that can be linked to which states the exact opposite.

Let’s not conflate issues here. When we’re talking about immigration in this thread it is referring specifically to that within the EU since that is the only form of immigration we don’t have control over and the thread title is referring to Romania and Bulgaria. The first source you’ve linked is in regards to Non-European migrants. The second source is about issues other than the economic impact of immigration, which is the only aspect I’ve commented on within this thread. Your third source reaffirms what I’ve previously said about immigration providing an economic benefit (from within the EU) and your fourth and final source is in regards to water shortages. Whilst there are undoubtedly negative factors to mass immigration that I’m not disputing, the economic benefit they provide (which you referred to as “rubbish”) is clearly heavily supported from a number of differing sources. Clearly there are other issues such as housing not keeping up with the growing population and other concerns regarding infrastructure.


"Adding to the economy" is a complete farce. The money added needs to be spent in exchange for the required increase in provision of services.

“migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services (that’s not true of every migrant of course, but collectively they make a net contribution)” from the last of my sources in my previous post.


There was another study that states immigrants were a net contributor to the economy, but after additional spending had been deducted from additional income, the actual contribution to the economy equated to 58p per person per month. This also didn't take into account any required increase of provision of services. Extra hospital beds alone cost considerably more than this, and that's still not taking into account transport, water or energy infrastructure, all of which is subsidised by the taxpayer. Hospital beds we definitely have less of per capita. (See world data bank).
Source: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.5

So even the reports which state it is good for the economy, fail to take every aspect into consideration, even every financial aspect.



Reading the methodology from that source it seems they have added British Citizens (British-born children of migrants) to their figures which is obviously going to skew their results?


You're also making the mistake of, like everybody else, assuming it is a black and white issue. It is not good or bad, there are many different factors, some of which are good and some of which are bad. You cannot even argue that it is "good overall". How do you determine which factors are more important?

I’m not making that mistake and I never said that it is “good overall”. If you read through my post again you’ll see that I said immigration is economically good. I haven’t commented on immigration as a whole which you are claiming here.


Additionally, for every positive report there is a negative one to speak of. None of your reports mention the increased strain on housing.

See above.


A person on the national average wage of the time could afford to buy a 2 bedroom flat in London 20 years ago, today on the national average wage you wouldn't even be eligible for a studio flat via an affordable housing scheme in London.

Generally the people buying up property in London are wealthy and would be able to move here and buy property under stricter immigration policies (such as the Australian points system I believe Dan supports). Obviously in the poorer parts that’s not the case (but a worker on the national average wage would be able to afford a mortgage in one of those parts). The extreme prices in London are due to it being a financial capital of the world and not because Romanians and Bulgarians are driving up the prices. That’s not to say that immigration doesn’t affect housing prices at all because I’m sure it does to some extent but in regards to your example of London that’s not something which would have been prevented by stricter immigration policies unless you wanted to limit the amount of wealthy and educated migrants coming here, and when people are discussing immigration policies it tends to be the poorer blue collared workers they want to limit and not the ultra-rich Sheikhs from the House of Saud or Russian Oligarchs who buy up property in Belgravia.

[Kardan]

*shakes head* WHAT

This thread is saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have applied for National Insurance numbers.

This thread is not saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have moved to the UK.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This thread is saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have applied for National Insurance numbers.

This thread is not saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have moved to the UK.

Oh my god. So they are sitting back home in Romania and Bulgaria applying for British NI numbers for the hell of it? No actually, why did I even ask because the logic here is so warped you'll probably say yes and ask for me to prove otherwise. I'd have more luck reasoning with the patients in Ashworth Hospital.

They are immigrants, they have moved to the United Kingdom thanks to EU open borders and you lot were wrong. Now admit it and show some humility.

[FlyingJesus]

I answered your post in the same order in which you made it. Your first point was about Dan's comment; my first point was also about Dan's comment and it was reasoned with "because Dan's post". I apologise for your lack of comprehension.

Apology accepted, it's still not a response


I will further simplify everything to assist you with understanding basic logic; starting by breaking this post up into multiple quotes as your cognitive ability to differentiate between subjects seems to be lacking.

You mean by quoting and writing a post properly, yeah that would be useful rather than plucking random arguments out of the air and pretending I've said them


Then why did you quote the point I made as if to disagree with it, if you never disagreed with it?

I do tend to correct people when they erroneously attempt to put words in my mouth. I would do this even if you said I'd said something that I really do believe, because it's still misrepresentation of my posts


Nobody is debating whether supply and demand "is a thing that exists". The point made is that oversupply of workers has a positive impact for business owners, and a negative impact for the average working citizen.

I'm glad to see you agree with the conclusion that it is good for employers and bad for employees. I didn't realise you were an employer yourself.

The last bit was from your post and I left it in by accident, would have thought you'd get that if your comprehension is as great as you seem to think, and yes well done on realising that not everyone is a winner in business


You're failing to understand that the issue isn't black and white. It is not communism vs capitalism. You can have private companies which are owned completely by the employees (John Lewis for example). I do not disagree that people running businesses should not keep a profit for themselves and make money while doing so, but there has to be a degree of fairness in the way wealth is spread. For example: reduce profits of £1m by 10% to pay all staff an extra £2 an hour. That's still a significant £900k profit for the business, and all staff are comfortably better off.

Your opinion is businesses should exploit their staff and keep as much money for themselves as possible?

Yep. Businesses can do what they want within the law; there is no obligation for them to give away anything that they earn just for the fun of it. Might not be "fair" in the eyes of a Marxist but it's totally fair in the eyes of the real business world


I fail to understand what you are trying to claim with your point about trading units and computer games; would you care to elaborate on this in comprehensible English?

Basically you are completely and utterly failing (you got that bit right) to take into consideration that this is not a simulation of scripted responses, this is real life. People act and react as people, not as "the worker" and "the employer", and trying to offset these groups against each other in some generalised way is of no value whatsoever


Because unless you yourself own a business, the argument you're making is completely deluded.

Do you make any gain by earning a few thousand less per year than you could be paid if wages had risen at the same rate of the cost of living?
Do you make any gain from anybody in your family earning less in their daily job than they might if wages were 20% higher? Unless your gains are "spiritual", I don't think so; some of us live in the real world.

You are making the argument of somebody you are not, which is why you are placed with those people. And if, as you say, you are nothing like those people, it would seem you have been beguiled by the arguments of these people.

Excellent. You are literally saying that I am only ever allowed to have the opinion of those within my set class and rank, or else I'm deluded. My views do not come from wherever I might make the most personal gain, they come from logic and reality. My your reasoning, I should also want white supremacy and state-approved chauvinism because that would serve me well on a personal level. Also in your world of reasoning there is absolutely no scope for agreement anywhere, because you appear to be advocating for everyone looking out for themselves and so unless you magically achieve flat equality nothing will ever be agreed upon. Quite useless


Then what the hell are you here to argue about?

Numbers and where they come from... it's quite easy to work that out if you read my words instead of making them up


See my point before last. You're literally rehearsing the things you have heard politicians say without considering the actual implications on society or you personally.

Am I? Pretty sure I don't actually know what half the politicians are saying and am just analysing the data I see, but thanks for trying to tell me what I think and thanks again for proving that you have no idea what a rational argument is by claiming I should be thinking about my own personal gain over what makes sense


This is the most ironic and hypocritical thing you have said. Nobody has misquoted you, nobody has lied about what you have said. In fact you were the one who deliberately misquoted a statistic from Dan in the first place. Also see my response to the second quote in this post.

You're still doing it so congrats on the continued lies


Again more irony. Putting aside "siding with" someone, you, are the one who in this thread misquoted statistics, and argued against some of my points without actually disagreeing with them. I would call that picking sides.

You may or may not be picking sides, but to me it looks like you'll try to say anything to counter the anti-immigration argument even if that means pretending you haven't understood what someone has said.

Then you're blind as well as stupid and selfish. If (again) you try reading what I've put instead of what you want me to have said, you'd see that what I argue with is things and people being misrepresented; my own personal views on the matter hardly ever come into play. I am not fighting the anti-immigration argument as a whole, I am against people misusing data and coming to utterly crap conclusions for its sake. The statistic I supposedly misquoted is one that was placed alongside all the other data originally by Dan, not something I plucked out of nowhere to demonise anyone, and it being comparatively incomplete by a couple of months still doesn't make up for the actual point that I was making, unless you believe that 150,000 Romanians came to the UK between september and december. You're looking for anything that doesn't match up with your rhetoric to claim as being an opponent of your overall views which is simply not what I am


In this thread, Tom has been defending the argument for mass immigration by claiming it has economic benefits, therefore Dan's claim as to Tom's motive is not unfounded.

No I haven't. Again not reading properly. What I have been saying is that people who are >>>>ALREADY HERE<<<< applying for the proper ability to work is better than them having restricted access to employment and going the illegal route. I have not said that everyone should come here for free, I have not said that I think all immigrants are worth their weight in gold to the country, I have not said that I want open borders with the world, I have made a basic statement about numbers and you have turned it into a massive slanderfest somehow

[Firehorse]

If we have the same number of GP’s per thousand that means the ratio is the same as before meaning the workload should be roughly the same since there will have been an increase in the number of GP’s to maintain the ratio.
Your logic is not flawed, but you haven't been reading the news as this isn't the case. I cannot give you the reasons behind the increase in workload, but some might speculate as to people seeing a doctor for the first time where they haven't had access to free medical care previously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31550423

This is also attributed to the closure of A&E's, and the change from NHS Direct to NHS 111 which is contracted out to a supplier which hires people without medical qualifications to operate the line.



Let’s not conflate issues here. When we’re talking about immigration in this thread it is referring specifically to that within the EU since that is the only form of immigration we don’t have control over and the thread title is referring to Romania and Bulgaria. The first source you’ve linked is in regards to Non-European migrants.You're the only person who has made this exclusively about EU migrants.



The second source is about issues other than the economic impact of immigration, which is the only aspect I’ve commented on within this thread.Three lines above this you were responding on the provision of GP's, so which is it?



Your third source reaffirms what I’ve previously said about immigration providing an economic benefit (from within the EU) Correct, at approximately £258.82 million per year over a 17 year period. This equates to 0.009% of the UK GDP. I cannot find the number of EU born citizens living in the UK, but the total number of foreign born citizens living in the UK is 7.3 million and estimates are that two thirds of migrants are born in the EU. This would mean about 4.8 million EU citizens living in the UK which is 7.5% of the entire population. If you think 7.5% of the population contributing a mere 0.009% to the GDP is good value then you must be living on another planet. Yes the UK-born workers made a negative contribution during this period, but that is a different issue with the welfare structure, and even an argument for getting more UK-born citizens into work to reduce this negative contribution.

You're talking about a net contribution literally of pennies per person.



and your fourth and final source is in regards to water shortages. Whilst there are undoubtedly negative factors to mass immigration that I’m not disputing, the economic benefit they provide (which you referred to as “rubbish”) is clearly heavily supported from a number of differing sources. As stated previously, this discussion is not just about the economic impact, but you want it to be that way because it's clearly the only issue on which you believe to have the upper hand, even if it is only 0.009% of the GDP excluding impact on infrastructure.


Clearly there are other issues such as housing not keeping up with the growing population and other concerns regarding infrastructure.
I'm glad you agree.



“migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services (that’s not true of every migrant of course, but collectively they make a net contribution)” from the last of my sources in my previous post.
Yep, 0.009%.



Reading the methodology from that source it seems they have added British Citizens (British-born children of migrants) to their figures which is obviously going to skew their results?
Care you explain your reasoning? Point 5 is being referred to. Net migration is being calculated as a increase in the overall population of 0.3% and stating the subsequent increase in GDP is 0.34%, which implies the actual benefit to the economy is (increased GDP)-(increased population). I see no attempt to skew the results?




Generally the people buying up property in London are wealthy and would be able to move here and buy property under stricter immigration policies (such as the Australian points system I believe Dan supports). Obviously in the poorer parts that’s not the case (but a worker on the national average wage would be able to afford a mortgage in one of those parts). The extreme prices in London are due to it being a financial capital of the world and not because Romanians and Bulgarians are driving up the prices. That’s not to say that immigration doesn’t affect housing prices at all because I’m sure it does to some extent but in regards to your example of London that’s not something which would have been prevented by stricter immigration policies unless you wanted to limit the amount of wealthy and educated migrants coming here, and when people are discussing immigration policies it tends to be the poorer blue collared workers they want to limit and not the ultra-rich Sheikhs from the House of Saud or Russian Oligarchs who buy up property in Belgravia.

You're INCREDIBLY off the mark here, especially on the part I made bold. I live in London and I can tell you these are entirely different worlds. Property that people buy as a means of storing cash are properties worth millions that the common citizen would never have been able to afford in the first place. This market is flourishing, yes, but buying a £10 million house in Mayfair is not taking away property from the common person.

I can also tell you a studio flat in Zone 4 London will set you back £280,000. This is not affordable to someone on the average UK salary. And the further out of London you go, the more you spend to get back in to Zone 1, in time as much as money.

Buy to let on the other hand is taking property away from the common person. And this is fueled entirely by demand; demand that has increased with the increase in population. 20 years ago landlords would struggle to find tenants at 30% of the common wage for a studio flat, but today you can advertise a bedsit with shared facilities at 65% of the common wage and you'll be able to rent it very easily.

Homes which were designed for families are now let out at 2 or 3 to a room because people can't afford to rent a flat for themselves.

Yes, investors are a big part of the problem, but they wouldn't be as keen to invest to make a profit if the demand was not sky high. Nobody is stating Bulgarians and Romanians are driving up prices, that is an attempt to make it look like minorities are being blamed when they're not. It is a simple matter of statistics, it is nothing to do with where people are from.

My local library was knocked down, the land sold to a private developer to build luxury flats. That is a community facility which is gone forever. And to rub it in, the Singaporean website which advertised the flats as buy to let investments stated that no flats would be owner occupiers or under occupation of key workers.

[Kardan]

Oh my god. So they are sitting back home in Romania and Bulgaria applying for British NI numbers for the hell of it? No actually, why did I even ask because the logic here is so warped you'll probably say yes and ask for me to prove otherwise. I'd have more luck reasoning with the patients in Ashworth Hospital.

They are immigrants, they have moved to the United Kingdom thanks to EU open borders and you lot were wrong. Now admit it and show some humility.

I said a year ago that the number of Romanians and Bulgarians did not increase compared to the year previous.

That was correct. That was not wrong.

Even in that same exact post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=796951&p=8115520#post8115520) I go on to say "you would expect an increase in immigration when the 2014 stats are released"

So please do keep saying I was wrong (at least when the 2014 stats do get released - which they haven't, as I've said before, this is about foreign workers, not foreign people physically moving), because surely if I'm wrong in saying that, then that means you are equally wrong if we're both saying the same thing.

[The Don]

Your logic is not flawed, but you haven't been reading the news as this isn't the case. I cannot give you the reasons behind the increase in workload, but some might speculate as to people seeing a doctor for the first time where they haven't had access to free medical care previously.

Then the increased workload comment of yours is irrelevant to immigration and the topic at hand.


You're the only person who has made this exclusively about EU migrants.

Read the thread title, read the opening post, read the comments about open borders which is specific to the EU (unless we have open borders and mass immigration with countries outside the EU?). It is a fair assumption to make that a thread about Romanian and Bulgarians claiming national insurance is about EU immigration.


Three lines above this you were responding on the provision of GP's, so which is it?

I commented on the GP point to highlight your inaccuracy and hypocrisy (complaining about a lack of sources and whilst in the same breath making false comments without citations). Hence why I didn’t delve into specifics and only used it in reference to your lack of a source and inaccuracy.


You're talking about a net contribution literally of pennies per person.

It doesn't matter if it is only a profit of 1 pence per immigrant it's still not an economic disadvantage which you implied with your 'Rubbish' comment. That’s all I’ve said.


As stated previously, this discussion is not just about the economic impact, but you want it to be that way because it's clearly the only issue on which you believe to have the upper hand, even if it is only 0.009% of the GDP excluding impact on infrastructure.

Not at all, I saw a glaringly wrong comment by you on the economic aspects of immigration so that's what I responded to. This topic has been done to death with three threads on the first page of this section. I commented on the economic aspect to which you falsely quoted me as saying immigration is overall good, which is not what was said. I don’t want this thread to be anything, if I see something that’s inaccurate I’ll call it out, that’s all.


Care you explain your reasoning? Point 5 is being referred to. Net migration is being calculated as a increase in the overall population of 0.3% and stating the subsequent increase in GDP is 0.34%, which implies the actual benefit to the economy is (increased GDP)-(increased population). I see no attempt to skew the results?

If you read through their methodology it says that they’ve included children born to immigrants in the UK (British Citizens). Perhaps I misread it but if they are including British Citizens in their statistics as migrants then it will be inaccurate.

[Firehorse]

I could go on all night here. We can at least agree we all have some valid and invalid points, even if you believe you have no invalid points. I'd rather not waste my time continuing something that will inform no further somebody's opinion because this has turned from a debate on population statistics to a debate on who said what, and specifically in Tom's case a debate exclusively on English comprehension, hypocrisy, and the fundamental way in which the economy functions.

My points have been made, take from it what you will.

[FlyingJesus]

If you don't want a thread to turn into something other than what it started as try not to make up arguments that other people haven't said, then it can stay as just being the things that have actually been claimed