Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"ethnics". this is 2010 brought to you by the daily express.
"The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people."
Smart man that Noam Chomsky fella.
more people to pay for all the pensions and elderly care we'll need to fork out for by then
we need immigration
It's very unpleasant to refer to immigration as an excusively threatening and dangerous phenomena, but it's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that it is in itself some sort of fix to the UK's problems.
All I can see is a suggestion that it's a potential fix towards one problem - the shrinking number of workers and the rising number of pensioners.
(I don’t think that rubbernecking is the right term – isn’t that when people look at traffic accidents on their way past?)
But I’m one of those people that think that if you’re an advocate of free trade, the free movement of money and resources and an adherent of the idea of the ‘invisible hand of the market,’ then I don’t really think that you can stand in the way of the free movement of labour – in fact, it could be argued that without it, the whole idea of laissez-faire government is destined to fail due to it being a crucial part of the philosophy.
It's not really about population figures. The incoming rise in old people is the result of a population bubble and a subsequent declining birthrate. Immigants tend to be people who work, not pensioners. We just need to improve the balance between workers:pensioners, despite the headline grabbing power population numbers aren't all that important.
But of course you know all this.
and society will have collapsed. But who cares, we'll be dead by then!
^ Have I got the right wing way of thinking down yet?
what is the life expectancy of a UK immigrant? I wouldn't imagine that they see the same boost that UK nationals do, because immigrants usually come in at the lower end of the socioeconomic status scale, and are notorious for making poorer use of the available health services than the general population (not that this gets reported very often).
I think the line of reasoning you're taking here underlines the issue that the ageing population is the problem rather than immigration. I don't know what the solution is to that. Probably, unfortunately, fundamental changes in healthcare funding. But it also shows that what's needed is to harness the young workforce that we get in through immigration.
The latter are prepared to live in virtual slums for a couple of years in exchange for a much better life back home thanks to the value of their wages. That allows British employers to pay them wages that aren't ever going to be living wages to Britons. Obviously that's fine (well, it's not fine but you know what I mean) if your economy is providing jobs for Britons too but clearly it's falling down a bit now. I think there's a tendency to confuse the two and for resentment at economic migrants to spill over at people who come here to enrich society generally and work hard to do so.
except those that gain asylum, surely?
I mean to draw a distinction between, say, someone who moves their family to the UK to live indefinitely and work, go to school, etc. And 15 Polish guys living in a house meant for 8 working picking fruit for a season.
Certain amount of hyperbole but the truth is that sort of thing happens, or rather happened.
beyond feeling it's bad that they don't really even get a wage a British person SHOULD for doing the same work. I'm just pointing out it hasn't helped the image of immigrants, and that's partly because there are a lot of working class people out there who don't have jobs precisely because of this and other little loopholes.
E.g. there's one about providing accommodation meaning you can take that out of the wage you're paying. If the accommodation you're providing isn't really a cost to you in the first place this allows you to pay sub-minimum wage legally. Again, we're talking about jobs that local people who'd have no need of accommodation would do so they lose out.
These are issues that Government would have to address, but the blame really lies in our society's lack of overall fairness, the means we encourage everyone to expect the best, regardless of their income so we want everything too cheaply. There needs to be a levelling of wages somewhat to make sure of less disparity between the richest and the poorest so the lowest paid jobs pay more. Don't you agree, comrade?
economic migrants and immigrants was important or not, I think we'd need to know about the numbers involved, and the scale on which such migration does occur. My assumption (which is just that and open to challenge) was that the majority of people incoming to the country were here seeking better economic conditions?
And then (I don't know if this is what you might actually be saying) you could argue that the economic migrants are the best of all: providing uber-cheap short-term labour, doing those jobs that no-one else wants to do, and not adding to the ranks of our elderly.
Reading on line, however, I see a lot people who (rightly or wrongly) feel anger at that sort of migrant worker. When the economy's booming no one cares but now people do. I think the public perception is one of seeing immigrants as simply taking jobs and reducing what should be there for Britons, which is clearly bollocks, but I think it's fuelled by perceptions of that sort of worker, which is a shame.
loopholes like the ones you describe are a massive problem. Or, well, they could potentially be; we don't know the extent to which they exist I suppose. But also that the perception of them is a big part of the issue: the challenge in terms of getting them accepted is reassuring and redefining how people understand them as fitting into our economy.
Basically all the hotel staff were immigrant workers, and this is a small community in North Yorkshire. I mentioned to friends from round there that I was surprised the maids and staff weren't local kids and was told it was the accommodation thing that meant it was cheaper to get immigrant workers in.
"Oooooh, I'm not sure about all this immigration" spiel at the weekend.
The central complaint seemed to be that "they" were "comin' over here" ("here" in this case being Lincolnshire) and working for less, so local folk couldn't afford to work in the jobs (jobs in this case being mainly agricultural/food picking & packing work). I pointed out that one of the root (pun unintended) causes of this was the desire for cheaper and cheaper food, coupled with the willingness of gangmasters to flout minimum wage laws to satisfy that demand. Essentially that the supposedly mercenary economic migrants are just normal folk willing trying to earn a wage. If we tightened up on enforcement of the minimum wage, then the 'loophole' would be tightened and cheap Polish veg pickers wouldn't be such an employable prospect for local businesses. 'Problem' solved.
They agreed, but...
Having had that line of complaint quashed, they moved away from that, saying that they reckon that immigrants are a massive drain on resources like the NHS. I contested that this was a real issue, in the grand scheme of things, but what proposals did they have? The quickfire answer was essentially a survival-of-the-fittest affair where we should just have insurance and pay for the NHS services we use. Oh oh. That sent me over the edge and I went into a lengthy rant about how the US insurance-led healthcare system they were bumming is a fuck-up in terms of value for money, compared to the UK. And in any case they've just completely contradicted themselves, cos if you're truly espousing a survival-of-the-fittest setup, then you'll be kicking a minimum wage into touch, and the influx of Polish agricultural workers (unstoppable under EU law) is the very essence of that thinking. They agreed, but...
Having had that line of complaint quashed, they moved away from that, saying that they reckon that the real problem is not actually workers doing what's best for their families, it's "the ones that just scrounge benefits". I said that in the absence of any of them actually knowing facts and figures for this that the reality is a far smaller problem than they are making out, that there are plenty of 'native' folk who are massively on the take, and that a tightening up on benefit fraud across the board would put paid to that for the most part.
And in any case, I said, any bile over the financial malaise we're currently in (not that any of the assembled bodies really were - we're all doing kinda OK and relatively comfortable) is best directed at the banking system and the parasites withing it. And if they're unhappy with EU freedom of movement laws, then they should lobby their MP. Basically, all this resentment is more deservedly directed towards folk 'above' them than 'below' them.
By this time they'd lost the will to argue the issue, we all got back to our BBQ burgers, and I had sealed my rep as a cliched Wolfie Smith-a-like.
if the age ratio evens out it wouldnt be a problem
you insensitive so and so.
the browns are the hardest working people in this country, 100 years from now we will be a muslim state
because even Daily Express readers can smell this much shite from one article
"Amid the mounting concern about immigration, the Royal Society yesterday launched a major study into the effects of rising global population."
"ONE in five of Britain’s population will be from an ethnic minority by the middle of the century, an explosive report forecasts today."
What the fuck have explosives got to do with population trends?
Fun fact: I was sat next to Ms Dynamite in a shoe shop the other month.
"Die Hard: With a vengeance" – Bruce Willis and that black fella.
“Harold and Kumar get the Muchies” – Harold and Kumar.
“E.T: the extra terrestrial” – Elliot and Yoda.
Though I heard from reliable sources that Bruce Willis is racist, so maybe not that one.
Rush Hour...another perfect example