Immigrants

[Abro100]

Say if a person moves here at the age of 45 works for 10 years and gets a citizenship, do they get a State Pension when they retire?

[Mumsafan]

I wouldn't think so, no. There are new rules brought in recently that means a lot of nationals won't even get it. You probably won't for a start.

[Abro100]

Yeah i skimmed over that like breifly i think its crap

[warrenpeace]

Say if a person moves here at the age of 45 works for 10 years and gets a citizenship, do they get a State Pension when they retire?

Depends on NI contributions whether you get a full pension or not so I don't think someone who started contributing at 45 would get a full pension at 65.

[Howard_lfc]

The bells of doom are beginning to toll.........

If you think this country is in a state now - just you wait 20 years.....

[Rowan]

Read up on your city regions. Immigration is a good thing after all the population is shrinking and we need polish dentists to help us hit our level 2 PSA targets.

[Tom]

Depends entirely on NI contributions. Nothing to do with how long you've worked or were you come from.

Because we've got a falling birthrate, emmigration and an aging workforce we need these people to keep the economy running.

As many people leave the uk every year as enter it. Something the Right-wingers consistantly fail to mention.

[Snigger]

It's a double edged sword, as Europe breaks down it's borders we are seeing a large influx of Eastern Europeans entering the country. On one hand this is great for the economy - take the Poles for example, they are well educated, hard working and well trained and they will do a better job in less time and for less money than your average British labourer - this means the work shy, tea breaking British labourer has to up his game and deliver a better service for a better price or get squeezed out of the market - this is good for rip off Britain - the down side of course is these guys are taking our jobs and livelyhoods.

The real downside will be when they give countries like Bulgaria and Romania EU status - the EU governments will have to put stong limitations on population movement from these countries to avoid being innundated by uneducated, unskilled, unemployable people who as a resulted will bring crime, begging and corruption with them - not all obviously but it is an issue that needs addressing. On the plus side they have some stunning women.

[Abro100]

The immigrants arnt just labour though, i was speaking to a mate who is a Architect and he said in his office there is a pole doing the same job as him for 200 less a week, which is great for the Business but what about the person who has trained for years to be one and is struggling for work. Fair enough if they are willing to work for that but its taking the piss out of the Pole and the job position. The money will just make the boss richer.

[Red_hot]

Do you have a problem with immigrants Abs?

[Abro100]

No only ones who come here and dont do nothin, claim benefits etc...........
Just i have been having Social Science in Uni and it got me thining (for once!).

[Neil Young]

So what's your problem? In your last post you said you were worried about the immigrants who don't work (as though there are millions of them), in the previous post you were bothered about immigrants who are willing to work too hard for less money thereby undermining the workers already here.

Are you sure you're not just anti-immigrant?

[Abro100]

No just like discussing things from diffrent points of view. That was the argument given to me the other day about the immigrants who work for less, so i gave them that one. In the class i am in i am not arsed about anything really, too laid back, just likemaking people think by taking a diffrent side, even though i dont have to agree with it.
A shit stirer so to speak.

[Reece]

In very simplistic terms, I all for immigrants, as longs as they contribute something to the economy/society and don't just come here to sponge/get involved in illegal activities.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think that is a reasonable POV. And I can't be arsed to get into a big debate about it either so please don't bother starting...

[Abro100]

go on.............. :)

[Neil Young]

No just like discussing things from diffrent points of view. That was the argument given to me the other day about the immigrants who work for less, so i gave them that one. In the class i am in i am not arsed about anything really, too laid back, just likemaking people think by taking a diffrent side, even though i dont have to agree with it.
A shit stirer so to speak.

OK, fair enough, I'll remember to take what you say with a large helping of salt in future mate. ;) :handshake:

[Abro100]

:D Ill make a code by saying 'I think' when i mean something. I usually do.

[Rich]

The word immigrant has been twisted by the some sections of media to become almost a dirty word, and is cleverly used in arguments against the European Union and countries wanting to join the European Union.

In the real world, immigrants have always fulfilled an important role in the society and economy of a developed country - either by helping to fill a skilled job need (such as teaching or the health service - removing any political skewering of how and why foreign staff are employed, at times over 'local' skilled people) or fulfilling a unskilled job need (extreme example being those poor cockle pickers on Morecombe Bay.)

There has always existed a demand for unskilled jobs, and people looking for work in poorer countries often fill this void - if they didn't what would happen?

Ideally, one of the benefits of the EU is that there are no geographic barriers to somebody wanting to work within it's borders - it's just more unfortunate that the British as a race are poor at learning a second/third/fourth language.

I see no difference between a layabout born and raised in Britain, to a person looking to move to Britain to sponge off the state - there has to be education and controls in place to ensure that unemployment is at a minimum and there is a lower burden on the welfare state.

[Red_Polo]

In very simplistic terms, I all for immigrants, as longs as they contribute something to the economy/society and don't just come here to sponge/get involved in illegal activities.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think that is a reasonable POV. And I can't be arsed to get into a big debate about it either so please don't bother starting...

That's fair enough, it's a practicality every country has to take into consideration, we'd fall apart if we didn't consider that at all. Of course we should also be taking in a fair share of the world's refugees.

[Reece]

Yeah but it's currently not a fair share is it?

[Tom]

I'd say 90% of liverpudlians are probably the decendents of immigrants - being a port city and all. Not to mention the slave trade.

[Abro100]

I see no difference between a layabout born and raised in Britain, to a person looking to move to Britain to sponge off the state - there has to be education and controls in place to ensure that unemployment is at a minimum and there is a lower burden on the welfare state.One was born here, one come here to do so, there is no diffrence once they are here but the fact that they have been allowed in to do so is one.

[Red_Polo]

I wrote this when pissed off a while ago but decided not to post it. If I'm writing a really long post I tend to do it in Word so I can browse at the same time without having a zillion tabs open. I had to laugh at how pissed off I must've been when I found it timesaved by MSWord today :D

The West has flouted international agreements on asylum for decades. No matter who is in power the same trend is followed, our immigration and asylum policies are made to be increasingly restrictive. We have for decades made every effort to ensure the socio-economic burden of refugees (many of which are/were generated to no small extent by our own sheer selfishness) lies in the hands of poor developing countries without the capacity to deal with them.

For those we do take in, we provide less and less whilst denying them the right to work, then when they beg for money the right wing fascist ***** moan they are all con artists and came here to sponge off our wealth.

A tiny fraction of the world's refugees are/were given asylum here, the 5th biggest economy in the world, and yet there are racist ***** moaning about it left right and centre. Fucking sick of it. God forbid something should happen to drive these racist ***** out of our country, like say everyone else in the country turning on them and hounding the ***** out. I'd love to see them reduced to grovelling for somewhere to take them in, then left wondering why they are not even allowed to earn their own money in their new country. Fucking scum. Then watch their jaws drop as they have done to them exactly what we do to many people each year, send them back to the very country they fled because they were endangered there.

But people won't change their minds will they, because the Daily Mail will keep printing exceptional stories of bogus or dangerous asylum seekers to play on people's inherent fear of anything different, in effect making everyone think that's what they're all like.

It might be nothing more than an idealistic dream to drop all borders, and we do have to look after our national interests ahead of the world's to some extent, but there is some balance to be had. As a country that has generated so many refugees abroad in the past, as one of the world's richest countries, we should be prepared to do our bit at the very least. And not only that, but do it without moaning like we're the ones who're having a hard time.

[Reece]

One thing Mr Polo, I'm not a racist. :handshake:

[Red_Polo]

Yeah but it's currently not a fair share is it?

True, we take in far less than we ought to and give them far less rights than we ought to. So says the UNHCR, not that the Daily Mail notice.

[Red_Polo]

One thing Mr Polo, I'm not a racist. :handshake:

Woah woah woah never pointed that at you bud

Like I said that was written one angry day, was not at anyone specific, just me sounding off :handshake:

[Reece]

Woah woah woah never pointed that at you bud

Like I said that was written one angry day, was not at anyone specific, just me sounding off :handshake:

I know mate :handshake:

It just seems on here like if anyone has a slightly anti immigrant view, or has a differing view for example with that veil situation, then it is because they are racist/ignorant etc.

[Red_Polo]

I know mate :handshake:

It just seems on here like if anyone has a slightly anti immigrant view, or has a differing view for example with that veil situation, then it is because they are racist/ignorant etc.

Yeah I know what you mean, sometimes when people get really involved with a particular argument they start to see it as black and white, descends into mud slinging etc, does nobody any good. Which is why I never posted that thing when I wrote it - it was just vitriol more than anything :D

[Reece]

Yeah I know what you mean, sometimes when people get really involved with a particular argument they start to see it as black and white, descends into mud slinging etc, does nobody any good. Which is why I never posted that thing when I wrote it - it was just vitriol more than anything :D

It is also why I never bother getting to involved with these discussions, because I don't want people to take my opinions the wrong way.

[Neil Young]

I wrote this when pissed off a while ago but decided not to post it. If I'm writing a really long post I tend to do it in Word so I can browse at the same time without having a zillion tabs open. I had to laugh at how pissed off I must've been when I found it timesaved by MSWord today :D

The West has flouted international agreements on asylum for decades. No matter who is in power the same trend is followed, our immigration and asylum policies are made to be increasingly restrictive. We have for decades made every effort to ensure the socio-economic burden of refugees (many of which are/were generated to no small extent by our own sheer selfishness) lies in the hands of poor developing countries without the capacity to deal with them.

For those we do take in, we provide less and less whilst denying them the right to work, then when they beg for money the right wing fascist ***** moan they are all con artists and came here to sponge off our wealth.

A tiny fraction of the world's refugees are/were given asylum here, the 5th biggest economy in the world, and yet there are racist ***** moaning about it left right and centre. Fucking sick of it. God forbid something should happen to drive these racist ***** out of our country, like say everyone else in the country turning on them and hounding the ***** out. I'd love to see them reduced to grovelling for somewhere to take them in, then left wondering why they are not even allowed to earn their own money in their new country. Fucking scum. Then watch their jaws drop as they have done to them exactly what we do to many people each year, send them back to the very country they fled because they were endangered there.

But people won't change their minds will they, because the Daily Mail will keep printing exceptional stories of bogus or dangerous asylum seekers to play on people's inherent fear of anything different, in effect making everyone think that's what they're all like.

It might be nothing more than an idealistic dream to drop all borders, and we do have to look after our national interests ahead of the world's to some extent, but there is some balance to be had. As a country that has generated so many refugees abroad in the past, as one of the world's richest countries, we should be prepared to do our bit at the very least. And not only that, but do it without moaning like we're the ones who're having a hard time.

Good post mate and needed to be said.

:handshake:

[Tom]

Seconded. Well-in mate.

[Red_Polo]

It is also why I never bother getting to involved with these discussions, because I don't want people to take my opinions the wrong way.

Feel free to say whatever mate, we can all be reasonable I'm sure. I mean, I completely disagree with Fredo all the time but there's no beef there :D

[Red_Polo]

Seconded. Well-in mate.

Thanks folks although I'm sure you'll agree it's hardly the kind of stuff that changes anyone's mind :D

[Abro100]

Wouldnt that post be aimed at Asylum seekrs in particular though?

[zimbo]

I know mate :handshake:

It just seems on here like if anyone has a slightly anti immigrant view, or has a differing view for example with that veil situation, then it is because they are racist/ignorant etc.


But to be fair, some of the posts on that thread wouldn't have been out of place on a BNP forum.
Coupled with the teeth-grindingly hilarious 'comedy' racism that the TPC thread ended up in, which quite frankly was fucking disgraceful, I'd say that this site is in danger of going down a road that I for one will certainly not be following.

[Red_Polo]

Wouldnt that post be aimed at Asylum seekrs in particular though?

Yeah definitely mate, although the lines are blurred because it illegal immigrants are often refugees. Nowadays any time voluntary migrants are discussed, illegal immigrants are talked about which inevitably leads to discussing asylum/involuntary migrants.

Going off topic a bit but Immigrant Song by Led Zep is great! :rock: :D

[Mattshark]

I wrote this when pissed off a while ago but decided not to post it. If I'm writing a really long post I tend to do it in Word so I can browse at the same time without having a zillion tabs open. I had to laugh at how pissed off I must've been when I found it timesaved by MSWord today :D

The West has flouted international agreements on asylum for decades. No matter who is in power the same trend is followed, our immigration and asylum policies are made to be increasingly restrictive. We have for decades made every effort to ensure the socio-economic burden of refugees (many of which are/were generated to no small extent by our own sheer selfishness) lies in the hands of poor developing countries without the capacity to deal with them.

For those we do take in, we provide less and less whilst denying them the right to work, then when they beg for money the right wing fascist ***** moan they are all con artists and came here to sponge off our wealth.

A tiny fraction of the world's refugees are/were given asylum here, the 5th biggest economy in the world, and yet there are racist ***** moaning about it left right and centre. Fucking sick of it. God forbid something should happen to drive these racist ***** out of our country, like say everyone else in the country turning on them and hounding the ***** out. I'd love to see them reduced to grovelling for somewhere to take them in, then left wondering why they are not even allowed to earn their own money in their new country. Fucking scum. Then watch their jaws drop as they have done to them exactly what we do to many people each year, send them back to the very country they fled because they were endangered there.

But people won't change their minds will they, because the Daily Mail will keep printing exceptional stories of bogus or dangerous asylum seekers to play on people's inherent fear of anything different, in effect making everyone think that's what they're all like.

It might be nothing more than an idealistic dream to drop all borders, and we do have to look after our national interests ahead of the world's to some extent, but there is some balance to be had. As a country that has generated so many refugees abroad in the past, as one of the world's richest countries, we should be prepared to do our bit at the very least. And not only that, but do it without moaning like we're the ones who're having a hard time.
:handshake: good post.

[Abro100]

Yeah i did a bit like, i was more on about Illegal ones, i was tryna link it in to a Pnesions argument aswell. Never heard the song.

[Snigger]

Bottom line - We are nearly all immigrants if we trace our bloodline back far enough - Saxons, Vikings, French, Roman - granted this is usually due to invasion in the dim and distant past and the lines get somewhat blurred over time but even the Royal Family are German.

For me there is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and their requests for entry into any country should be treated differently.
Whilst many asylum seekers are genuine there are just as many who aren't and the key is to working out which is which and that is not easy, you also have to have a quota, the economy can not sustain an open door policy so there have to be guidelines, for example France is twice the size of the UK with the same size population I have no idea how the quota's stack up but it stands to reason that there is more space in France, however the economy there is up the preverbial so that and many other things have to be taken into account. Immigrants on the other hand should have to add something - The UK has a much weaker policy on immigration than the points systems in countries like the US and Australia who review which sectors they need strengthening before admition is reviewed and granted - obviously they don't have to take a no borders EU directive into the equation either. So my answer is I'm glad I'm not the poor sod who has to make policy on this shit.

[Red_Polo]

Yeah i did a bit like, i was more on about Illegal ones, i was tryna link it in to a Pnesions argument aswell. Never heard the song.

Great song mate you should have a listen :rock:

Although you're more into Kanye etc than rock aren't you?

Anyway, yeah illegal immigrants. There are bound to be shit loads of them when we deny so many refugees their supposedly UN protected rights at point of entry. (Most of them are prevented from ever trying to come here or to other Western countries, in some cases by keeping them in IDP camps in their own countries where they can be housed in cheap tents, in some cases even where militants can come to rape and pillage them.)

If you make it near impossible for people to get in legally, they're going to try to get in illegally, leading to massive problems with human trafficking. Then when they get here, they have to go underground.

This reminds me of a pretty good Stephen Frears film, 'Dirty Pretty Things' starring Audrey Tautou from The Da Vinci Code and Amelie, and Chiwetel Ejiofor (sp) from Children of Men, Serenity. Definitely worth a watch if anyone hasn't seen it.

I don't really know enough about the pension thing to say for sure but my understanding is that people only receive it so much as their NI contributions allow it.

[Red_Polo]

So my answer is I'm glad I'm not the poor sod who has to make policy on this shit.

Can't disagree with that :handshake:

[Snigger]

Great song mate you should have a listen :rock:

Although you're more into Kanye etc than rock aren't you?

Anyway, yeah illegal immigrants. There are bound to be shit loads of them when we deny so many refugees their supposedly UN protected rights at point of entry. (Most of them are prevented from ever trying to come here or to other Western countries, in some cases by keeping them in IDP camps in their own countries where they can be housed in cheap tents, in some cases even where militants can come to rape and pillage them.)

If you make it near impossible for people to get in legally, they're going to try to get in illegally, leading to massive problems with human trafficking. Then when they get here, they have to go underground.

This reminds me of a pretty good Stephen Frears film, 'Dirty Pretty Things' starring Audrey Tautou from The Da Vinci Code and Amelie, and Chiwetel Ejiofor (sp) from Children of Men, Serenity. Definitely worth a watch if anyone hasn't seen it.

I don't really know enough about the pension thing to say for sure but my understanding is that people only receive it so much as their NI contributions allow it.

Re the illegal immigrants thing - what's your answer - we can't just take in the population of whole countries just because a despot has taken over there - equally we can't just invade to overthrow (although no one has told the US that), it's just not possible. The British Empire has a lot to answer to over the years and US has taken on that mantle now but we're not wholly responsible for the fuck ups that have gone on since independance of old colonies. On the other side of the coin, it's always Britain that is targetted by illegal immigrants because they know we are a soft touch - there are plenty of other countries they could target but don't becasue they want to cherry pick - it's not all one way traffic (excuse the pun)

[Red_Polo]

Re the illegal immigrants thing - what's your answer - we can't just take in the population of whole countries just because a despot has taken over there - equally we can't just invade to overthrow (although no one has told the US that), it's just not possible. The British Empire has a lot to answer to over the years and US has taken on that mantle now but we're not wholly responsible for the fuck ups that have gone on since independance of old colonies. On the other side of the coin, it's always Britain that is targetted by illegal immigrants because they know we are a soft touch - there are plenty of other countries they could target but don't becasue they want to cherry pick - it's not all one way traffic (excuse the pun)

I don't think any policy change in our country will do much good in the grand scheme of things. We need to take an active role in changing the 'international refugee regime'. The regime has seen a shift in emphasis from protecting refugees (ie finding them permanent residence in a new country where they have the same rights as all citizens) to containing them, in other words keeping them in temporary accomodation within the region in which they were generated, and making life harder and harder for refugees that we do allow to settle in the hope that they will leave (around 3000 applicants denied housing or benefits before their application is even rejected, based on the way they made their application rather than the strength of their case). This is why the number of asylum applications to Western European countries including ourselves has dropped dramatically. Whilst it makes the figures look nicer, all it does is disguise the scale of the mismanagement and place even more of the burden on developing countries.

There needs to be a serious overhaul of the way we deal with asylum applications, as things stand people can apply within the country then just disappear. Applications take so long to process that it makes it impossible to find them. It's not surprising they decide to disappear given that we reject 88% of asylum applications. Around 12,000 rejected applications are found to be genuine every year. Interestingly, the percentage of rejected applications found to be genuine on appeal varies greatly according to the refugee's place of origin, around 40% for Somalia, whereas the average is about 20%. That tells it's own story in the quality of decision making going on.

I don't think people see us as a soft touch when it comes to granting refugee status, because we aren't. A number of developing countries perform better than us - Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan host far more refugees than us. As a proportion of population, so do Bosnia, Liberia and Macedonia. Bringing GDP per capita into the equation, we are still outperformed by developing countries like Tanzania, Congo, and Pakistan.

The reason we get such a high number of applications is that people think we are more likely to be able to afford them the appropriate protection and rights, and because our colonial past means there are already ties for people to latch onto, whilst language may prove less of a problem than elsewhere. Although we're not a soft touch in that respect, we are a soft touch in terms of allowing people to slip through the net. As you say, we can't be expected to take in everyone that wants to come here. But we definitely don't need tougher restrictions or criteria, we need better management, and co-operation with other states.

All in all we need to lead the way to a more structured, practical and enforceable international refugee regime which re-engages the UNHCR. The population of the host country and their GDP per capita should be taken into consideration. That is probably the most important thing, we need everyone to be on equal footing and prepared to work within a clear, UN-led system for resettlement. We should change our own policy to afford those granted/awaiting refugee status the same rights as everyone else. We should also recognise that globalisation has clouded the distinction between economic migrant and refugee - we need to take each application on it's merits rather than judge by country of origin etc. Solutions may be costly, but ultimately taking in refugees can be made to work for us, especially given our declining birth rate and ageing population.