Europe feeling the pressure too

[73Zeppelin]

fat_boy wrote:

Sounds like immigrants are considered as nothing more than cheap labour for us.

Are they? You're British... Usually high levels of immigration are allowed so that the target country's economy is bolstered by the additional labour (assumed to be in demand). If labour demand is low, there isn't much justification for high immigration.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[Lost User]

Non-EU economic migrants needs to be better controlled. However, Britain should continue to be a place where Asylum is granted for those fleeing regimes such as Zimbabwe. Regarding families from the Indian sub-continent, although desirable for families to be in close contact with their respective family members, is it right for UK to allow extended family members to come to the UK on a permanent basis? The number of students attending our Universities should also be restricted to those who can only afford to study here, in other words, there should be no subsidies to Universities to underwrite their aspirations to attract foreign students. Although a number of Polish immigrants was at a high, but, just recently, with the rising value of the Polish currency, many are heading off back home.

[Lost User]

John, there are plenty of people in the UK who are unemployed. Above I commented that many are priced out of the Agricultural Services market because of immigration for EU. And where there are holiday resorts in UK such as Blackpool or Great Yarmouth, unemployment does not get better when you consider it is UK policy to house such immigrants within the areas of these holiday resorts, consequently, the problem compounds when you consider that many of these immigrants do not speak English, have no incentive to learn English, are in receipt of various benefits that includes the provision of funds that they can purchase motor vehicles, which is a benefit that the British unemployed person does not qualify for. Also, in terms of housing, there are many UK citizens on the housing waiting list. When Government dictated that, for example, Great Yarmouth, was to be a place to house immigrants, these immigrants received priority treatment from local councils in their housing needs to the detriment of those on the waiting list. So in areas of high unemployment coupled with the resident immigration problem, you can see why some members of our community are not happy.

[73Zeppelin]

I don't think the problem is immigration per se, I think the problem of immigration is representative of the appalling conditions in the underdeveloped countries like Africa, for example. Taking vast numbers of immigrants does nothing to solve the problems of the indigenous populations the immigrants come from. I am not so much opposed to immigration as I am opposed to the way in which underdeveloped countries are treated by more developed nations - i.e. as a source of cheap labour and as scapegoats for certain social problems. Rather than allowing unrestricted immigration, we should be training selected immigrants on an exchange program whereby they return to their native country to use their new skills to aid these developing nations. Simply dumping millions of dollars into these countries does little to solve their problems and aid agencies cannot amass enough staff to make sizable differences. As for universities, the lure for them to attract foreign students is the high tuition fees they receive. But that is another problem altogether.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[73Zeppelin]

I think the U.S. shares the same problem which is why many of the conservatives on here take a strong interest in immigration policy. The situation in Canada is slightly different, but I think because of the low population and vast space of the country, the issue is not so much the number of immigrants, but whether they fit in to Canadian society. I think this is not a large concern since Canada is a nation full of immigrants - so many that t is rather hard to define just what a Canadian is, exactly. I suspect that it takes a little more effort to get to Canada since the north is arctic, the south is the U.S. and the only other way to get there is via airline. England is easily reached by a variety of modes of transportation. However, there is debate in the Canadian government about restricting immigration too since vast numbers have been allowed in in recent years.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[KaRl]

"feeling the pressure" = "little or no impact"? :~

Jouir et faire jouir sans faire de mal ni à toi ni à personne, voilà je crois le fondement de toute morale Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

But when you get people like our Prime Minister saying words like "immigration is good for the UK and has rejected suggestions that an annual limit is needed", I have to question just how divorced from reality our political masters are. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7324485.stm[^]

[73Zeppelin]

Ah, but it is written: "little or no impact on people's economic well-being. Don't forget the last part.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[KaRl]

And? Are immigrants there to have a positive impact on people's economic well being? If so, the far right wouldn't be so much present on the different european political scenes. Immigration is made to 'help' companies not people. Note that the Lords do not answer that question, what impact has immigration on companies, which is a slightly different one...

I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Haydn Chapman]

I can understand the annoyance people feel when they hear about immigrants taking x amount of jobs, not bothering to learn english (which personally annoys me, I don't mind immigrants working here, but if you make no effort to integrate with the society you move into then you're doing youself no favours) and sending all of their earnings back to their home countries. However, I think the major problem is the native UK population who have become accustomed to certain privileges and now deem a large majority of the jobs taken by immigrants (not trying to stereotype them, but vegetable picking up north, cleaners, factory workers etc...), which are generally less skilled jobs, are below them. I think there is an air among certain groups of the UK youth that they shouldn't have to work hard for their money, and the fact that they can get by, through claiming unemployment benefits, they don't seem to have a big incentive to work. It's easier for everyone to blame immigrants living in the UK for them not having jobs, than the fact that a fair number of the latest generation is pretty lazy. I'm not saying that we have no right to be annoyed at the situation and the increasing numbers of immigrants, just that putting the sole blame on one group seems a little unfair. Maybe if we all agreed to pay higher prices for fruit and veg so the farmers could pay enough to interest british workers then immigrants would find it harder to get work. But who wants to pay more? :)

[73Zeppelin]

K. wrote:

Are immigrants there to have a positive impact on people's economic well being?

Yes, and not just an positive impact on the native population, but a positive impact on the immigrants themselves.

K. wrote:

Immigration is made to 'help' companies not people. Note that the Lords do not answer that question, what impact has immigration on companies, which is a slightly different one...

But helping the companies helps the population - higher wages, more jobs, economic benefits, improved quality of life. Too much immigration has the opposite effect and, under high unemployment, is a drain on social welfare systems.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[KaRl]

73Zeppelin wrote:

a positive impact on the immigrants themselves

I guess there is a positive impact for them, or they would not be there in the first place.

73Zeppelin wrote:

helping the companies helps the population

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: - Nice mantra. How many companies fire people even if they win a lot of money? Some companies use immigrants to lower wages, reduce jobs for locals - benefits rise go to shareholders, who are more likely a foreign hedge fund than indigenous workers. Consequence: the company and shareholders are richer, immigrants are less poor, and indigenous workers are fucked.

Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall? Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

Member 2593477, you got a name? What is it, then I will respond ...

[Haydn Chapman]

Yeah it's John, Didn't really think about it to be honest, signed up a while back and then went away for a couple of years, I guess "Member 2593477" is a bit un-friendly.

[Lost User]

Well John, I made some observations above with regards Great Yarmouth and other places. I'll restrict most of my comments to Great Yarmouth. But first ... No doubt there are many young people who just prefer the unemployment cheque, not getting out of bed until after midday, and having their mums and dads doing practically everything for them. Gone are the days when National Service was mandatory. So what are our kids to do after their post 16 education finishes. Many live in depressed regions where jobs are not in abundance and the Normal Tebbit solution of "getting on your bike" is often unworkable. Blaming immigrants is an easy target. But in many cases it is a justifiable reason. I gave (above) that Great Yarmouth as an area that is suffering from high unemployment and high immigrant population. To claim unemployment benefit in such an area can turn into a long term problem unless both Government and industry invest in such an area. An example - Great Yarmouth Council and industries have been campaigning for decades for infrastructure investment. Whitehall has always shelved/postponed/denied such requests for investment status. The Norfolk Line company was established in Great Yarmouth. Their business was suffering because of infrastructure failure. They moved out to Felixstowe. This act cost several thousand jobs in Norfolk Line and associated supply industries. The Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour scheme has just recently got the go-ahead. But the single carriageway road A49 is not being upgraded to handle any extra traffic to/from that harbour when completed. So attracting back the likes of Norfolk Line will not occur until there exists a proper infrastructure. Also, as North Sea gas exploration and production is in decline - yet more job losses. And with Great Yarmouth being a designated area to handle some of the UK's immigrant problem, you can now get a feel of why those people who live in the area of Great Yarmouth feel the way they do, and that includes employed and unemployed people. Paying somebody a reasonable amount of pay is desirable. But when your UK worker is undercut by immigrants, then that does nothing but cause ill feelings.

[Haydn Chapman]

I think I can see the point you are making, and am aware that there are areas where kids leaving school don't have the opportunities available to a large number of people of similar ages living in different locations (i.e. the south). I also think that a lot of the problems arise, like you said, from lack of government investment, or commercial investment into the surrounding infrastructure and the knock-on effect job losses has on the local economy. And I can see how this can be exacerbated by an increase in migrant workers who are willing to take less pay, work longer hours and possibly in worse conditions, taking jobs away from uk citizens. But from what I have seen, in area's such as Peterborough, Lincolnshire and Dorset, there are a large number of jobs available for people leaving education at 16 if they really want to take them, although I appreciate that these aren't in the same boat as Greater Yarmouth and their local economies are a lot more stable. I just think that a lot of the ill feelings towards immigrants can be put partly down to lack of information and ignorance on the subject. While i'm not saying i'm an expert and am probably just as ignorant as many others in many respects, putting the blame on immigrants and making cases against them being here and the problems they bring to the UK isn't solving anything. I think a lot of what is shown on the media relating to this issue is centred around the negatives of immigration (much like all news, if nothing happened it can hardly be classed as news, and people can't identify with immigration adding to the economy as well as they can to immigration making people jobless), which automatically sets people up to be biased against it. I read an article on the BBC news website a week or so ago about raising the age students can leave compulsory education to 18 (supposedly to do diplomas or A Levels), which would hopefully increase the level of education in 16-18 year olds. While this is potentially a good idea, the more educated people get the more likely they are to demand higher paying jobs etc... so where would the gap of people becoming cleaners etc... be filled from? I have no idea what can be done towards the problem, maybe the government needs to put more money into run down areas as opposed to building multi million pound complexes to hold immigrants etc... and spending billions on the new NHS Connecting for Health system, I couldn't say, but something does need doing. I just think the perception most people have of immigrants is

[martin_hughes]

Watch him change his tune as the General Election looms large, realises he has misjudged public opinion and the other political parties start pressuring for the Government's official line.

[73Zeppelin]

K. wrote:

I guess there is a positive impact for them, or they would not be there in the first place.

Certainly, that's usually why immigrants emigrate!

K. wrote:

- Nice mantra. How many companies fire people even if they win a lot of money? Some companies use immigrants to lower wages, reduce jobs for locals - benefits rise go to shareholders, who are more likely a foreign hedge fund than indigenous workers. Consequence: the company and shareholders are richer, immigrants are less poor, and indigenous workers are f***ed.

But it's true - when companies do well, employees profit as do shareholders. Profitable companies pay higher wages which increases social welfare (not government welfare). The rest of your post regarding shareholder benefits has more to do with CEO compensation, which is another issue entirely. It depends on how the management is compensated: packages, performance related, options, etc... Personally I favour goal achievement and performance related incentives with penalties for under-performance and weak to negative share growth. Companies in countries with minimum wage standards can rarely exploit immigrants, unless all companies pay minimum wage which never happens given free market competition. Assuming we are operating within the law (illegal immigration is another issue entirely), immigrants are free to choose the job (and hence the wage) at which they work. You may argue that they will take jobs at lower pay than the indigenous population, but in countries with minimum wage laws, that is rarely an issue, since the labour market allows workers a choice with the minimum choice being minimum wage.

---

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

[martin_hughes]

Member 2593477 wrote:

However, I think the major problem is the native UK population who have become accustomed to certain privileges and now deem a large majority of the jobs taken by immigrants (not trying to stereotype them, but vegetable picking up north, cleaners, factory workers etc...), which are generally less skilled jobs, are below them.

There was a program on the BBC a couple of weeks ago following the fortunes of some Polish immigrants. One point sticks in my mind: the presenter was talking to some English youths outside of the Job Centre where a number of them had just been to sign on, and asked them why they didn't go and pick vegetables for £7 an hour - they all said they'd rather sign on instead, and I can understand why. £7 an hour is above minimum wage so they would have lost a number of benefits including the right to council housing, but in this day an age in Britain I'd say £7 an hour is a poverty wage with no prospects of home ownership or a decent future. For the Poles, however, who were sending the majority of the money back home this low wage in Britain translated into a high wage back home, affording the extended family a much better life style.

[KaRl]

73Zeppelin wrote:

when companies do well, employees profit as do shareholders.

In a perfect World. In the real life, companies favor more and more the shareholders over the working force. Look at how workers are considered now: as a financial load. Also, the pressure of shareholders grew, IMO mostly because of the role of mutual funds which want the greater dividend, not to see the company prosper.

73Zeppelin wrote:

Profitable companies pay higher wages

IMO, no, higher wages are paid when there is a competition to get the best human resources. Nowadays, even if workers unite they can hardly 'force' their company to take into account their request because they are immediately put in competition with people that will accept worse conditions.

73Zeppelin wrote:

higher wages which increases social welfare

I disagree, higher wages increase individual welfare, not social welfare.

73Zeppelin wrote:

Companies in countries with minimum wage standards can rarely exploit immigrants

I don't say these companies exploit immigrants, but that they use immigrants to force local people to accept the same minimal standards.

73Zeppelin wrote:

since the labour market allows workers a choice with the minimum choice being minimum wage

Immigrants, by accepting the minimum break this competition and modify the market at the disadvantage of local people.

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Fold with us! ¤ flickr