Record immigration figures released. Why we should get out !

[Himaginn]

Again , I refer you to the title within the link. NI numbers issued to adult overseas nationals.. Yes, you are correct, it doesn't mention the number of immigrants.. That's probably far higher (and a figure the government don't want you or I to ever know)

The official figure is lower

• Net long-term international migration = +330,000 (up 94,000 from YE March 2014), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.
• Immigration = 636,000 (up 84,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.
• Emigration = 307,000 (down 9,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

• http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/2015-08-27

As I said before , this is a .gov website, all I have done is shown the figures from HM government. Just because they're at odds with your figures, probably means, your figures are incorrect.

But the two government websites do not agree on migration figures! Why is that?
Oh yes. Its because one website deals with NI numbers, and the other website deals with migration.

 

[Himaginn]

Additionally you are still ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed on migration, in the unlikely event of Turkey ever succeeding.

Rather defeats the EU objective of free unfettered rights to live and work within another EU country then.... I'll put that one down as opinion and conjecture on your part.

With the exception of the UK, Ireland and Sweden, all other pre-2004 EU member states decided to temporarily restrict labour market access to migrants from the A8 countries upon their accession to the EU in 2004. This was possible because the accession agreements allowed member states of the EU to impose restrictions on the immigration of citizens from the new member countries for a maximum of seven years.
The UK imposed restrictions on the access to labour markets of A2 citizens in 2007.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/EU Migration to and from the UK_0.pdf

You don't seem to know much about this subject. Yet you choose to prefer the NI numbers issued as illustrative of migration rather than actual migration figures.

 

[Himaginn]

It's sad and worrying that the summation of the Brexit argument is dislike of immigrants.
What is even more worrying is that the 'Brexit-based-on-migration-concern' bunch is willing to commit economic suicide in pursuit of their dislike of johnny foreigner.

Survey data shows concerns about immigration have surged to become the most important issue facing the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...rn-uk-into-a-safe-haven-triggering-eu-disint/
Who is fueling this concern? "Nigel Farage has put the issue of immigration at the centre of his argument for the UK to leave the European Union" with claims like:

"Mass migration into Britain on this scale is not good for our country.
It is not good for our quality of life, it is not good for social cohesion in our society, and our population inexorably headed towards 70m or 75m will not make this a better, richer or happier place to be.
But as EU members there is nothing we can do about it."
Nigel Farage told his party's conference the government was not telling the truth on immigration
He warned that expansion of EU membership - potentially to Bosnia and Turkey - would add to concerns over immigration,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35679384
It is the main (and as I see it the only) plank of an argument for Brexit. Any discussion about trade, economy, security, investment, sovereignty, regulation, legislation, contributions, etc is a sideshow compared to Brexit campaigners' concern with immigration.

As has been said several times now, a Brexit does not fix broken border controls. Nor will it deal with problems like Middle East refugees, nor will it deal with UK government's failure to apply temporary migration from newly acceded countries.
A Brexit would create more problems, more serious concerns in other aspects.

 

[JohnD]

I did hear that the anti-Europeans have been trying not to mention Nigel Farage in public.

Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Brexit does not fix broken border controls.

Nevertheless, it helps to be able to decide for ourselves who we let in and how, and who we can deport, rather than have Brussels dictate it to us.

 

[woodbine]

It's sad and worrying that the summation of the Brexit argument is dislike of immigrants.

What is even more worrying is that the 'Brexit-based-on-migration-concern' bunch is willing to commit economic suicide in pursuit of their dislike of johnny foreigner.

Great coming from someone living in the wilds, well away from any people - let alone immigrants. OK for others to suffer them, when you don't have to - ain't it?

 

[jockscott]

But the two government websites do not agree on migration figures! Why is that?
Oh yes. Its because one website deals with NI numbers, and the other website deals with migration.

SO the department that deals with issuing NI numbers has issued far more NI numbers than immigrants coming in?? Surely not !!!!!!! Someone better tell Cameron to get the NI dept to do a quick cover up.

 

[Himaginn]

But the two government websites do not agree on migration figures! Why is that?
Oh yes. Its because one website deals with NI numbers, and the other website deals with migration.

SO the department that deals with issuing NI numbers has issued far more NI numbers than immigrants coming in?? Surely not !!!!!!! Someone better tell Cameron to get the NI dept to do a quick cover up.

What is it with you?
You propose that the government migration figures are not reliable, and you present another, only vaguely related, government website, which you misinterpret, as proof.
Have you ever heard of preconceived opinion?
I think in your case it's misinterpreting one set of data to support your prejudicial opinion about immigration.
It's so transparent, you need all those emoticons to hide your twisted grimaces.
Try these in future:

 

[jockscott]

What is it with you?
You propose that the government migration figures are not reliable, and you present another, only vaguely related, government website, which you misinterpret, as proof.
Have you ever heard of preconceived opinion?
I think in your case it's misinterpreting one set of data to support your prejudicial opinion about immigration.
It's so transparent, you need all those emoticons to hide your twisted grimaces.
Try these in future:

Hmmm which part of the .gov site address are you having difficulty with Himmy? Vaguely related? If it ends in .gov.uk, I wouldn't assume it's vaguely related to government business. The truth is out there Himmy.. It's no surprise that government departments, publish data that differs wildly from another department, because the government couldn't organise a proverbial p**s up in a brewery. Thing is, one of these departments is dealing with absolute data, not, hearsay,,, Which department do you think it is??

 

[Himaginn]

What is it with you?
You propose that the government migration figures are not reliable, and you present another, only vaguely related, government website, which you misinterpret, as proof.
Have you ever heard of preconceived opinion?
I think in your case it's misinterpreting one set of data to support your prejudicial opinion about immigration.
It's so transparent, you need all those emoticons to hide your twisted grimaces.
Try these in future:

Hmmm which part of the .gov site address are you having difficulty with Himmy? Vaguely related? If it ends in .gov.uk, I wouldn't assume it's vaguely related to government business. The truth is out there Himmy.. It's no surprise that government departments, publish data that differs wildly from another department, because the government couldn't organise a proverbial p**s up in a brewery. Thing is, one of these departments is dealing with absolute data, not, hearsay,,, Which department do you think it is??

They are both .gov.uk websites!
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/2015-08-27
You choose to believe data from one site, which is only vaguely related to migration!
You choose not to believe the data from another web site that is all about migration!
That's typical of a preconceived opinion and ignoring evidence that you dislike!

As I said, in your case it's misinterpreting one set of data to support your prejudicial opinion about immigration and disbelieving another set of data absolutely.

 

[jockscott]

So am I to assume that the NI website is full of NI number applications from immigrants who have been here for years?? If they've been here for years, what on earth have they been living on? Fresh air? Donations from charities? Can't be unemployment benefits because they'd have to have a NI number before claiming that. Can't be Tax Credits either (again, they'd need a NI number to claim) So back to you Himmy. One department can't be wrong and obviously one department is wildly wrong... Which one though?

 

[Himaginn]

So am I to assume that the NI website is full of NI number applications from immigrants who have been here for years?? If they've been here for years, what on earth have they been living on? Fresh air? Donations from charities? Can't be unemployment benefits because they'd have to have a NI number before claiming that. Can't be Tax Credits either (again, they'd need a NI number to claim) So back to you Himmy. One department can't be wrong and obviously one department is wildly wrong... Which one though?

Why don't you try reading the website, not just grabbing the first number that jumps out at you!

The NINo statistics are not directly comparable to the ..., nor do they necessarily align well with ONS long-term estimates of immigration

 

[Himaginn]

So am I to assume that the NI website is full of NI number applications from immigrants who have been here for years?? If they've been here for years, what on earth have they been living on? Fresh air? Donations from charities? Can't be unemployment benefits because they'd have to have a NI number before claiming that. Can't be Tax Credits either (again, they'd need a NI number to claim) So back to you Himmy. One department can't be wrong and obviously one department is wildly wrong... Which one though?

So the difference between the two figures is striking, but National Insurance numbers are not a better figure to use than the migration figures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=56d986663e0000b7a426ba63&How much do UK farmers get from the European Union?&13:03&ns_fee=0#post_56d986663e0000b7a426ba63
Is this proof that you're an opinionated bigot?

 

[gasbanni]

UK issued more NI numbers than there were migrants.

No, the figures given are, for some reason, always NET immigration - 300,000.

Immigrants 600,000; emigrants 300,000. NI numbers issued.

Really ? There's a big big discrepancy
http://uk.businessinsider.com/migration-and-national-insurance-number-figures-2015-5

The figures don't balance.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You have deleted a number.

What I wrote:

No, the figures given are, for some reason, always NET immigration - 300,000.

Immigrants 600,000; emigrants 300,000. NI numbers issued 600,000.