Oh look the Don thinks he's an expert on immigration.
Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice.
Oh look the Don thinks he's an expert on immigration.
Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice.
Struggling to exit the recession?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodafone
We've not been in a recession since 2009.
Perhaps I should be more specific, a government struggling to stabilise its tumultuous growing debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
Yeh because we're still in the recession /sQuote:
Originally Posted by Vodafone
How exactly does people coming over and paying taxes in anyway harm our economy? Do yourself a favour and think for yourself rather than believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. This whole "Dey tuk er jobs" attitude is idiotic and needs to stop.
I don't even read the Dailymail, but your assumptions are cute. As outlined previously, the subject was not skilled immigrants, but those who undercut the minimum wage. Surely you have the know-how to understand that. What happened when mass ammounts of unmeasured immigration were permitted back in the early 2000s? There was an infrastructure crisis. Seriously it doesn't require too much logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
That's funny since this study which focussed on immigrants from the early 2000's and their impact upon public services, both in terms of contributions made through tax and the costs associated with providing them access to welfare and services found that immigrants from the EEA (European Economic Area) paid 34% more in tax than they took out. Chucking in buzzwords doesn't make your argument anymore valid. If you were to somehow form a coherent rebuttal then this debate would seem less ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodafone
I've actually seen that. Don't know what your point is. :s I think Britain is overcrowded as is, deal with it. Since I'm going to have to unfortunately get serious about this, and since I'm pretty sure that study didn't note the increased cost to run public services with the increased population.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/436...ublic-majority
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/exp...-of-immigrants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ort-finds.html
Telegraph extract:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ning-back.htmlQuote:
Researchers found they are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and mental illness, while immigrants in general were more likely to suffer from tuberculosis, HIV and and Hepatitis B.
"This suggests the treatment costs for certain conditions and diseases may be disproportionately attributable to immigrants," the report says.
Migrants also have more children than people in Britain, creating "additional demands for midwifery, maternity and health visiting services".
Their poor levels of English meant that GP appointments took "appreciably longer", leading to longer waiting times for other patients and increasing costs.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-crowdsourcing
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-01-03/i...n-overcrowded/
Ah, "Deal with it", fantastic debating skills right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodafone
My point is to debunk your previously sarcastic message which said "Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice." I've just provided proof (my previous message) which shows that those aforementioned immigrants actually provided more to the economy than they took out.
If you have previously seen that study, why would you claim that immigration from the early 2000's was not economically sustainable, when the study you've supposedly read proves otherwise?
Did you really just ignore everything I posted. Like, your post was last edited three minutes after my last edit. There's no excuse. (Considering I posted quite a number of sources that back my opinion)
The Queen is taking this issue seriously. Why aren't you? Too politically correct are you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ute-to-UK.html
You edited your post 1 minute before my original post, I hadn't seen it until i had already updated mine. I quoted the entirety of your initial post, quickly googling "immigration bad news" doesn't really add any weight to your argument since you can't actually provide a reason yourself for why it's bad. You initially said it was bad for the economy (which i refuted), what are you arguing now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodafone
I too can copy and paste news articles from sources to meet my agenda, it doesn't require any skill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/1...9A40MD20131105
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4212431.html
http://news.sky.com/story/1164087/im...ax-boost-to-uk
http://theconversation.com/revealed-...take-out-19845