Net migration to UK reaches 318,000

[FlyingJesus]

We really need to mesh on these issues

[MKR&*42]

I'm never going to be able to read 'net migration' the same way now Tom.
--
OT; Bit hilarious after their target they set a while ago, let's see if they actually make any effort to reduce it this time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Getting it to below 100,000 is impossible and disgusting. We rely on it.

You must be kidding?

Maybe big corporations and rich middle class northern Londoners do to keep menial/manual wages down, but the rest of the country have had enough.

PS if you support mass immigration at 100,000 a year let alone 300,000 a year, explain the following -

- How is integration supposed to meaningfully take place?
- How is housing supply supposed to keep up with such a demand and why should it?
- How are public services supposed to keep up with such a strain on services and why should they?
- How is the quality of life for a small island of 70m and rapidly rising supposed to cope with this in terms of infrastructure?

[FlyingJesus]

- How is integration supposed to meaningfully take place?

By these people wanting to be here. Your idea of integration is "everyone do what I want them to do" but the real meaning is a merging of lifestyles to include the best of both. BUT WHAT ABOUT PAEDOS!!!!!!!!!!! well yes criminals do exist, congrats

- How is housing supply supposed to keep up with such a demand and why should it?

How: Through the triumphs of capitalism - supply and demand
Why: Well there's no such thing as SHOULD in the real world, but as above

- How are public services supposed to keep up with such a strain on services and why should they?

Yeah having more people pay in to a service is awful

- How is the quality of life for a small island of 70m and rapidly rising supposed to cope with this in terms of infrastructure?

Integration

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here comes Tom again on the immigration topic, yet when you press him to answer the fundamental question of whether it should be controlled he crumbles.

By these people wanting to be here. Your idea of integration is "everyone do what I want them to do" but the real meaning is a merging of lifestyles to include the best of both. BUT WHAT ABOUT PAEDOS!!!!!!!!!!! well yes criminals do exist, congrats

No, by coming and settling in another country you come and become a part of the country. Not live in ghettos/try to change it.

How: Through the triumphs of capitalism - supply and demand
Why: Well there's no such thing as SHOULD in the real world, but as above

So the borders should be swung wide open?

And in any case, don't you understand that the British people *might* actually want to preserve some of their green spaces rather than see them concreted over to cope with the influx of some 300,000+ foreigners every year? Don't you think thats like, a legitimate concern or are they just being waycist?

Yeah having more people pay in to a service is awful

Doesn't even understand how services work, and doesn't even understand that the majority of immigrants are low paid and thus rely on state support.

Integration

Only if the numbers are right, like pre-1997.

[Chippiewill]

and doesn't even understand that the majority of immigrants are low paid and thus rely on state support.

It's pretty widely accepted that immigrants generally pay in more than they take out.

[GommeInc]

We really need to mesh on these issues

We definitely need to reel them in.

- How is integration supposed to meaningfully take place?
- How is housing supply supposed to keep up with such a demand and why should it?
- How are public services supposed to keep up with such a strain on services and why should they?
- How is the quality of life for a small island of 70m and rapidly rising supposed to cope with this in terms of infrastructure?

The problem isn't migration as a whole. Assuming it is fully about migration is ridiculous. Many work and pay into the system, integrating into British life. If they need benefits there is nothing wrong with this as paying into the system or working is greater than taking out. It's not all about money but offering services vital to the economy.

Britain is so daft infrastructurally that it shouldn't need to take that long or be an issue. We just make it an issue. Other countries in the EU seem to be able to do basic things like lay down fibre-optic broadband with little issue, maintain roads and so forth. We have such terrible roads that it's a bit pathetic laughing at countries like Belgium when their roads are designed so much better than ours.

Blaming migrants for British infrastructure just seems like scapegoating and diverting away from just how truly lazy we are at maintaining and improving.

[FlyingJesus]

Here comes Tom again on the immigration topic, yet when you press him to answer the fundamental question of whether it should be controlled he crumbles.

I know you like to make things up and present them as arguments but I don't "crumble" at these questions at all - I quite openly state that I do not support totally open borders, and have said so lots of times. That doesn't stop the fact that you talk a load of absolute nonsense, and regardless of what your views or my views are I think it's hilarious and stupid when people begin to make statements that are easily countered just by making a logical statement. Your "us vs them" attitude is just one of many many reasons why you're completely useless in debates

No, by coming and settling in another country you come and become a part of the country. Not live in ghettos/try to change it.

Fab, didn't say that's what they should do though so well done on shooting that straw man to hell

So the borders should be swung wide open?

Fab, didn't say that's what we should do though so... oh wait, you didn't even bother with a straw man here you just went completely off topic and came to baseless conclusions. Righto

And in any case, don't you understand that the British people *might* actually want to preserve some of their green spaces rather than see them concreted over to cope with the influx of some 300,000+ foreigners every year? Don't you think thats like, a legitimate concern or are they just being waycist?

What the hell are you even on about here this is nothing at all to do with anything that I've said, or that anyone has said as far as I can see. Try staying on topic for once in your life

Doesn't even understand how services work, and doesn't even understand that the majority of immigrants are low paid and thus rely on state support.

Doesn't even understand how benefits work, and doesn't even understand that the majority of immigrants are not eligible to receive anything close to the government aid that "natives" with genuine claims struggle to receive from the red tape and black heart system. Allowing the views that you want to accept to overshadow the facts of the situation is no way to claim any sort of credibility

Only if the numbers are right, like pre-1997.

K cool, again (for like the 50th time) I don't support 100% open borders

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem isn't migration as a whole. Assuming it is fully about migration is ridiculous. Many work and pay into the system, integrating into British life. If they need benefits there is nothing wrong with this as paying into the system or working is greater than taking out. It's not all about money but offering services vital to the economy.

Britain is so daft infrastructurally that it shouldn't need to take that long or be an issue. We just make it an issue. Other countries in the EU seem to be able to do basic things like lay down fibre-optic broadband with little issue, maintain roads and so forth. We have such terrible roads that it's a bit pathetic laughing at countries like Belgium when their roads are designed so much better than ours.

Blaming migrants for British infrastructure just seems like scapegoating and diverting away from just how truly lazy we are at maintaining and improving.

No, the problem is with immigration as a whole. 300,000+ people coming in every year on a net basis is way way way too many both for purposes of integration as well as infrastructure to cope. We have enough trouble supplying housing and updating infrastructure as you point out as it is, why should the British people have to suffer even more upheaval both socially and on a practical level (aka getting to work) to accomodate low skilled workers which in turn keep British workers wages artificially down? Did anybody ask for this? No, we did not.

And in terms of roads, again what you are suggesting is a massive upheaval in widening the roads which would result in what we had in the 1960s when huge areas of people's homes and businesses were shoved aside to build these gigantic American highways which destroyed our cities, blighted our countryside and which are ill-suited to this small island. We do not have the room unlike the vast plains of America, the country was not designed for it in a grid layout and above all: why should we have to put up with it when we can simply control it via passport control?

It is nothing to do with scapegoating or laziness, so don't try that one. It is the fact that this country prior to 1997 has never seen anything on this scale and survey after survey show that the public do not want it either. It's time you and the political class started listening.

It's pretty widely accepted that immigrants generally pay in more than they take out.

Immigration adds to GDP, of course. But so would inviting 100m Africans into the country.

I know you like to make things up and present them as arguments but I don't "crumble" at these questions at all - I quite openly state that I do not support totally open borders, and have said so lots of times. That doesn't stop the fact that you talk a load of absolute nonsense, and regardless of what your views or my views are I think it's hilarious and stupid when people begin to make statements that are easily countered just by making a logical statement. Your "us vs them" attitude is just one of many many reasons why you're completely useless in debates

So you agree with me numbers running at 300,000 is absurd and it should be brought well below 100,000 a year to pre-1997 levels?

Doesn't even understand how benefits work, and doesn't even understand that the majority of immigrants are not eligible to receive anything close to the government aid that "natives" with genuine claims struggle to receive from the red tape and black heart system. Allowing the views that you want to accept to overshadow the facts of the situation is no way to claim any sort of credibility

Immigrants from the EU are entitled to in-work benefits just like the rest of us, to subsidise their low wages.

I have also read before that apparently, if you (immigrant or not) earn something below £17,000 a year then you are actually a net drain on the state as the services you are using and benefits you are recieving make you a net loss overall. If that is true, then the majority of immigrants who are on lower wages would also be a net drain on our finances.

But the + and - argument aside, the fact is we can't cope with 300,000 a year and nor do we want to. It's as simple as that.

[Chippiewill]

Immigration adds to GDP, of course. But so would inviting 100m Africans into the country.

I was referring to taxation and public services - not GDP, Immigrants tend not to use our public services as much as we do (Since they're generally younger, healthier and often don't bring their families) whilst still paying tax. This means from a cash-flow perspective we are better off with the immigrants which means the argument "oh my they take benefits" is mostly bs.