UKIP - a 'one trick pony'?

[Whitespirit66]

Have a look at this 'rich list' .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/times-rich-list-number-billionaires-3561098

About half of the country's richest people are 'foreign' .

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-10-richest-people-revealed-1438579

Who is subsidising these?

This issue is a bit more complex than the extreme view of migrants being freeloaders.

I'm not quite sure what a list with a tiny fraction of immigrants featuring on it has to do with uncontrolled immigration. Particularly the problem of economic migrants without papers who sneak into this country to be reclassified as Asylum seekers by gullible authorities. I have no problem with a handful of successful immigrants, as long as they arrived here LEGALLY.

It's the potential millions who are intent on getting here who will always be a drain on everything that our society needs to look after it's own.

Perhaps someone could tell me the percentage of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who will end up on the rich list and therefore completely self supporting?

It's relevant as we were discussing the varied motivations of immigrants. Ie it is proof that not all are freeloading benefit seekers.

Once we have proof that some are highly motivated entrepreneurs, then it disproves the theory that all are scroungers i.e. the truth is not at the extremes. ANY percentage of successful immigrants blows the bigot's prejudice out of the water, because it shows that pre judgement of individuals is erroneous and to be frank, stupid.

I will have a look for figures for immigrants who become self supporting. I suspect it compares well with 'indigenous' benefit recipients. if you have them you can post them to save time, as I presume your views are based on something of substance.

That's all very well, but you've moved the discussion from what we were originally discussing, ie. economic migrants/asylum seekers illegally entering EU and UK to now encompass all immigrants - which is something completely different.

Moving back to illegal economic migrants - a very small percentage will become self supporting upon or soon after arrival here. The bulk will be a drain on the taxpayer - most permanently. Also remember that so called 'asylum seekers' aren't allowed to work. Also amongst the numbers will be a minority who will either already be radicalised or soon become so due to disaffection and incompatibility with western culture.

So, to gain a few economically active, industrious immigrants, you will also get a majority who are a burden and another minority who will be a danger to society. The liabilities far outweigh the assets.

 

[handyjack]

They clog up the prison system costing UK millions. Then we let them out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...thugs-without-even-trying-to-deport-them.html

 

[RNReindeer]

Moving back to illegal economic migrants - a very small percentage will become self supporting upon or soon after arrival here. The bulk will be a drain on the taxpayer - most permanently.

Surely an illegal economic migrant has to be self-supporting.
If they're not here legally, then they're in no position to claim anything, or even to make themselves known to the authorities.
Or are you suggesting that illegal immigrants immediately make themselves known to the authorities as soon as they arrive, or sometime later perhaps?

Also remember that so called 'asylum seekers' aren't allowed to work. Also amongst the numbers will be a minority who will either already be radicalised or soon become so due to disaffection and incompatibility with western culture.

Are you now suggesting that radicalised extremists make their way to the UK with the intention of creating some terror related incident?
Or do the British people radicalise them?
Or is it some inate process caused by the differences in cultures?

So, to gain a few economically active, industrious immigrants, you will also get a majority who are a burden and another minority who will be a danger to society. The liabilities far outweigh the assets.

Hasn't micilin just demonstrated with evidential data to disprove your prejudicial opinion?

 

[RNReindeer]

They clog up the prison system costing UK millions. Then we let them out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...thout-even-trying-to-deport-them.html[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, 151 convicted criminals clog up the prison system. Well, that suggests the prison system is not fit for purpose.


The article states:

Scores of foreign violent criminals and sex offenders have been released from prisons straight onto the country's streets by the Home Office without even trying to deport them.
/.........
Of the 151 foreign criminals who were released, 10 remain at large,....

Doesn't this also suggest that the system is failing?
Is that the fault of immigrants in general? Especially the vast majority of law abiding immigrants.

So who do you blame?

Ahh, of course, it's the fault of the immigrants. They're to blame for all the problems.

Actually, the article comes to the right conclusion:

The myriad failings are staggering and show a desperate need to tear up the system and start again,

 

[handyjack]

They clog up the prison system costing UK millions. Then we let them out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...thout-even-trying-to-deport-them.html[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, 151 convicted criminals clog up the prison system. Well, that suggests the prison system is not fit for purpose.


The article states:

Scores of foreign violent criminals and sex offenders have been released from prisons straight onto the country's streets by the Home Office without even trying to deport them.
/.........
Of the 151 foreign criminals who were released, 10 remain at large,....

Doesn't this also suggest that the system is failing?
Is that the fault of immigrants in general? Especially the vast majority of law abiding immigrants.

So who do you blame?

Ahh, of course, it's the fault of the immigrants. They're to blame for all the problems.

Actually, the article comes to the right conclusion:

The myriad failings are staggering and show a desperate need to tear up the system and start again,

British taxpayers are already paying more than £90million a year to fund Eastern Europeans currently in jail, at a rate of £38,000 per prisoner

 

[Norcon]

WS66,

From 'More or Less'

'When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

I'll dig deeper for you to find source material.

For the comparison between UK , EU and Non EU benefit recipients, I thought the Telegraph for balance might be good. It's hardly a left wing rag.

"In 2014, 4.9 million (92.6 per cent) working age benefit claimants were British while only 131,000 (2.5 per cent) were EU nationals."

"What does this all mean? It suggests that whatever the arguments for and against reducing the number of EU migrants receiving British benefits, delivering such a reduction wouldn’t make a significant difference to the overall welfare bill which is estimated to be £208 billion for the year 2013-14. And seeing as the take-up of benefits among migrants is so small, it’s also worth asking how big of a draw Britain’s welfare system really is."

The tables are interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...h-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.html


And from another one


"The notion that foreign-born people are less than half as likely to be claiming benefits as UK nationals is well founded in the available figures from the DWP and the ONS. They indicate that around 15 per cent of UK nationals are currently claiming working age benefits, compared to six per cent of foreign nationals."

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/migrants_foreign_nationals_benefits_claim_likely_UK-27395[/QUOTE]

Scouring the internet will only trawl up more propaganda.
Labour have already admitted their open door policy on immigration has been bad for this country. And that's from the architects of the fiasco.
Nuff said.

When I went to hospital to have my appendix removed I had to sit in a queue behind a load of foreign spongers with tb and fck knows what else.
Luckily I collapsed and was stretchered off.

 

[RNReindeer]

British taxpayers are already paying more than £90million a year to fund Eastern Europeans currently in jail, at a rate of £38,000 per prisoner

Source? Or your opinion?
Or do I just accept your word for it?

 

[RNReindeer]

Scouring the internet will only trawl up more propaganda.
Labour have already admitted their open door policy on immigration has been bad for this country. And that's from the architects of the fiasco.
Nuff said.

How would you know? You only quote gogle.
And your "Ignore" button still isn't working.

 

[Norcon]

British taxpayers are already paying more than £90million a year to fund Eastern Europeans currently in jail, at a rate of £38,000 per prisoner

Source? Or your opinion?
Or do I just accept your word for it?

Its common knowledge for those in the real world.

 

[RNReindeer]

British taxpayers are already paying more than £90million a year to fund Eastern Europeans currently in jail, at a rate of £38,000 per prisoner

Source? Or your opinion?
Or do I just accept your word for it?

Its common knowledge for those in the real world.

I guess my knowledge isn't as common as yours.

 

[Norcon]

British taxpayers are already paying more than £90million a year to fund Eastern Europeans currently in jail, at a rate of £38,000 per prisoner

Source? Or your opinion?
Or do I just accept your word for it?

Its common knowledge for those in the real world.

I guess my knowledge isn't as common as yours.

Not when you keep your head stuck where the sun don't shine.

 

[Micilin]

Have a look at this 'rich list' .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/times-rich-list-number-billionaires-3561098

About half of the country's richest people are 'foreign' .

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-10-richest-people-revealed-1438579

Who is subsidising these?

This issue is a bit more complex than the extreme view of migrants being freeloaders.

I'm not quite sure what a list with a tiny fraction of immigrants featuring on it has to do with uncontrolled immigration. Particularly the problem of economic migrants without papers who sneak into this country to be reclassified as Asylum seekers by gullible authorities. I have no problem with a handful of successful immigrants, as long as they arrived here LEGALLY.

It's the potential millions who are intent on getting here who will always be a drain on everything that our society needs to look after it's own.

Perhaps someone could tell me the percentage of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who will end up on the rich list and therefore completely self supporting?

It's relevant as we were discussing the varied motivations of immigrants. Ie it is proof that not all are freeloading benefit seekers.

Once we have proof that some are highly motivated entrepreneurs, then it disproves the theory that all are scroungers i.e. the truth is not at the extremes. ANY percentage of successful immigrants blows the bigot's prejudice out of the water, because it shows that pre judgement of individuals is erroneous and to be frank, stupid.

I will have a look for figures for immigrants who become self supporting. I suspect it compares well with 'indigenous' benefit recipients. if you have them you can post them to save time, as I presume your views are based on something of substance.

That's all very well, but you've moved the discussion from what we were originally discussing, ie. economic migrants/asylum seekers illegally entering EU and UK to now encompass all immigrants - which is something completely different.

Moving back to illegal economic migrants - a very small percentage will become self supporting upon or soon after arrival here. The bulk will be a drain on the taxpayer - most permanently. Also remember that so called 'asylum seekers' aren't allowed to work. Also amongst the numbers will be a minority who will either already be radicalised or soon become so due to disaffection and incompatibility with western culture.

So, to gain a few economically active, industrious immigrants, you will also get a majority who are a burden and another minority who will be a danger to society. The liabilities far outweigh the assets.

WS66-
I honestly gave you more credit than that. I'm hoping you didn't actually read my post if that is your reply.

 

[Micilin]

WS66,

From 'More or Less'

'When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

I'll dig deeper for you to find source material.

For the comparison between UK , EU and Non EU benefit recipients, I thought the Telegraph for balance might be good. It's hardly a left wing rag.

"In 2014, 4.9 million (92.6 per cent) working age benefit claimants were British while only 131,000 (2.5 per cent) were EU nationals."

"What does this all mean? It suggests that whatever the arguments for and against reducing the number of EU migrants receiving British benefits, delivering such a reduction wouldn’t make a significant difference to the overall welfare bill which is estimated to be £208 billion for the year 2013-14. And seeing as the take-up of benefits among migrants is so small, it’s also worth asking how big of a draw Britain’s welfare system really is."

The tables are interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...h-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.html


And from another one


"The notion that foreign-born people are less than half as likely to be claiming benefits as UK nationals is well founded in the available figures from the DWP and the ONS. They indicate that around 15 per cent of UK nationals are currently claiming working age benefits, compared to six per cent of foreign nationals."

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/migrants_foreign_nationals_benefits_claim_likely_UK-27395[/QUOTE]

Scouring the internet will only trawl up more propaganda.
Labour have already admitted their open door policy on immigration has been bad for this country. And that's from the architects of the fiasco.
Nuff said.

When I went to hospital to have my appendix removed I had to sit in a queue behind a load of foreign spongers with tb and fck knows what else.
Luckily I collapsed and was stretchered off.

Norcon, I didn't have to scour the internet, I just did a simple search. And I thought the Telegraph would provide a bit of balance for you.

What I posted are sourced figures. They may of course be used as propaganda, but they are the facts as far as we can tell.youve offered nothing to counter them.

I think that if I had the choice between two viewpoints, and only one was supported by facts and figures, then I'd plump for the other one as being the propaganda!

Maybe if you actually tried to engage on fact or two it wouldn't always be so disappointing an effort at an argument.

Give me something to work on, otherwise this is just too one sided a debate.

But I must say,
I'm in admiration of your ability to not only identify on sight who is receiving benefit, but diagnose TB as well.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Have a look at this 'rich list' .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/times-rich-list-number-billionaires-3561098

About half of the country's richest people are 'foreign' .

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-10-richest-people-revealed-1438579

Who is subsidising these?

This issue is a bit more complex than the extreme view of migrants being freeloaders.

I'm not quite sure what a list with a tiny fraction of immigrants featuring on it has to do with uncontrolled immigration. Particularly the problem of economic migrants without papers who sneak into this country to be reclassified as Asylum seekers by gullible authorities. I have no problem with a handful of successful immigrants, as long as they arrived here LEGALLY.

It's the potential millions who are intent on getting here who will always be a drain on everything that our society needs to look after it's own.

Perhaps someone could tell me the percentage of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who will end up on the rich list and therefore completely self supporting?

It's relevant as we were discussing the varied motivations of immigrants. Ie it is proof that not all are freeloading benefit seekers.

Once we have proof that some are highly motivated entrepreneurs, then it disproves the theory that all are scroungers i.e. the truth is not at the extremes. ANY percentage of successful immigrants blows the bigot's prejudice out of the water, because it shows that pre judgement of individuals is erroneous and to be frank, stupid.

I will have a look for figures for immigrants who become self supporting. I suspect it compares well with 'indigenous' benefit recipients. if you have them you can post them to save time, as I presume your views are based on something of substance.

That's all very well, but you've moved the discussion from what we were originally discussing, ie. economic migrants/asylum seekers illegally entering EU and UK to now encompass all immigrants - which is something completely different.

Moving back to illegal economic migrants - a very small percentage will become self supporting upon or soon after arrival here. The bulk will be a drain on the taxpayer - most permanently. Also remember that so called 'asylum seekers' aren't allowed to work. Also amongst the numbers will be a minority who will either already be radicalised or soon become so due to disaffection and incompatibility with western culture.

So, to gain a few economically active, industrious immigrants, you will also get a majority who are a burden and another minority who will be a danger to society. The liabilities far outweigh the assets.

WS66-
I honestly gave you more credit than that. I'm hoping you didn't actually read my post if that is your reply.

Thanks, and I haven't disagreed that a small number of immigrants do make a big success. However, you will have to agree that most don't. Given the potential for illegal immigration from Africa in the hundreds of millions, yes maybe a few will make it big. Not sure that will do much for the indigenous, by then hopelessly swamped population. If non-EU immigrants are a net loss to The UK economy, then the figure will grow like topsy.

Don't know how you will justify any tiny gain against the massive cons.

 

[Norcon]

WS66,

From 'More or Less'

'When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

I'll dig deeper for you to find source material.

For the comparison between UK , EU and Non EU benefit recipients, I thought the Telegraph for balance might be good. It's hardly a left wing rag.

"In 2014, 4.9 million (92.6 per cent) working age benefit claimants were British while only 131,000 (2.5 per cent) were EU nationals."

"What does this all mean? It suggests that whatever the arguments for and against reducing the number of EU migrants receiving British benefits, delivering such a reduction wouldn’t make a significant difference to the overall welfare bill which is estimated to be £208 billion for the year 2013-14. And seeing as the take-up of benefits among migrants is so small, it’s also worth asking how big of a draw Britain’s welfare system really is."

The tables are interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...h-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.html


And from another one


"The notion that foreign-born people are less than half as likely to be claiming benefits as UK nationals is well founded in the available figures from the DWP and the ONS. They indicate that around 15 per cent of UK nationals are currently claiming working age benefits, compared to six per cent of foreign nationals."

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/migrants_foreign_nationals_benefits_claim_likely_UK-27395[/QUOTE]

Scouring the internet will only trawl up more propaganda.
Labour have already admitted their open door policy on immigration has been bad for this country. And that's from the architects of the fiasco.
Nuff said.

When I went to hospital to have my appendix removed I had to sit in a queue behind a load of foreign spongers with tb and fck knows what else.
Luckily I collapsed and was stretchered off.

Norcon, I didn't have to scour the internet, I just did a simple search. And I thought the Telegraph would provide a bit of balance for you.

What I posted are sourced figures. They may of course be used as propaganda, but they are the facts as far as we can tell.youve offered nothing to counter them.

I think that if I had the choice between two viewpoints, and only one was supported by facts and figures, then I'd plump for the other one as being the propaganda!

Maybe if you actually tried to engage on fact or two it wouldn't always be so disappointing an effort at an argument.

Give me something to work on, otherwise this is just too one sided a debate.

But I must say,
I'm in admiration of your ability to not only identify on sight who is receiving benefit, but diagnose TB as well.

Labours admission is the only "counter" I need.