Every Post on this subject eventually gets shut down ....

[Thumper]

I don't think he did. I can only assume the answer must be one of the countries listed here:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...-many-nationalities-where-are-nhs-staff-from/

You're right; I saw some statistics about low work rate among Muslims but that was from Saisonator. I suspect they have the same opinion, but I could be wrong.

 

[Saisonator]

But the argument you sought to make in your earlier post was not how many [unspecified country] migrants were working in the UK but how many were a burden on the NHS, DSS etc.

Statistics around employment (which presumably equates to taxes paid) and NHS usage by nationality would presumably allow one to draw some conclusions on that. That would cover the 'burden' from a usage perspective. The net burden/benefit would need to factor in how much the NHS relies on non-UK NHS staff to treat UK nationals. Frankly, I'm not going to do that as I can't in all consciousness agree with any argument that we should deny basic healthcare to an individual purely based on ethnicity. I don't think people choose to use the NHS - you tend to use it as a matter of necessity!

So onto the DSS point. The data you need to look for is benefit claimants by nationality and compare that to the working population. Fortunately that data has been collected by the ONS and reviewed by the Guardian (which I'll discount as a valid source as I would any journalistic source). However, the Guardian made a claim about the propensity to claim benefits which has been tested by Fullfact, who should be independent and therefore credible.

The link to the report is below but their conclusion is as follows:

"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.

However these figures carry a warning from the DWP that estimates of foreign-born working age benefit claimants are limited in that they only present nationality as it was when those people registered for their NI number, not necessarily as it is at the moment.

So while the evidence supports the claim, we shouldn't necessarily take the evidence as a precise reflection of foreign benefit claimants in the UK."​

https://fullfact.org/immigration/are-migrants-less-likely-uk-nationals-claim-benefits/

I don't put all foreign nationals into one pot, if you were to put Polish and Somalis in one pot, due to the good work ethic, smaller families cultural compatibility of the Polish, you may well end up with a cost neural outcome for society.
But that does not give the full picture.
I am not for mass deportations, I would just like to look at various communities and make a decision as to whether they are a cost benefit or cost negative to this country.
Then tailor future immigration according to this data.

 

[Thumper]

I know the majority are not like this

That's the key point. You can't claim that Muslim immigrants are bad for this country because they do all this horrible stuff, and in the next breath admit most of them don't do the horrible stuff. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Saisonator]

That's the key point. You can't claim that Muslim immigrants are bad for this country because they do all this horrible stuff, and in the next breath admit most of them don't do the horrible stuff. You're contradicting yourself.

See my post above yours.

 

[Dutto]

I only partly agree....if you import lots of people from a country they tend to stay in their own group,continue with their ethics,culture,morals etc. They do not turn into Cockneys, geordies; Taff's or Scots. ...or any other UK tribe...I get the feeling that some communities very much dislike the British way of life...and yes it does go both ways...there is often very little effort to integrate...all things I find hard to understand when the UK is such a desirable destination.

Why shouldn't someone wish to keep much of the culture that they grew up with and feel comfortable pursuing?

In Spain you see signs for English Bitter, Guinness, Fish and Chips etc (and my favourite "English Breakfasts Sold Here") so you don't have to go far to find Brits who refuse to integrate into the local way of life: even when they are just on holiday.

When I first went to work in Iran in 1977 my family was housed in an area where almost 100% of the inhabitants were British, American, Canadian or other Europeans. I find it amusing that over 40 years later I am still in touch with just two families from that era. One is British who live about 20 miles up the road from me and the second is Iranian and live in Houston.

After the Iranian experience of living in what was effectively a "White Ghetto", I decided that I would try and live amongst the local people in whichever country I worked in and I had a much more rewarding life. I think it gave me a better insight into the local customs and it definitely gave me a love of spices and foreign foods.

Two memories:

1. Question in Esfahan Iran to waiter "What's in this 'Hash Soup'?" with a laugh, "Not hash I hope." "Oh no sire." said the waiter "It's just got the usual meat in it. Sheeps lungs, brains and the like." I didn't correct him on his grammar but soldiered on with the soup. Delicious, but only if you didn't know what it contained!
2. In India I got a recipe for a curry from an Indian Chef. It's for four people and starts "Take twelve bulbs of garlic ...." Again, delicious but not for the faint hearted!

We owe the immigrants to this country a lot, so let's please not forget that.

 

[Thumper]

I am speaking as someone who's ancestors developed a distinct and separate culture over 100's of years on this island, which absorbed small numbers of other Europeans at various points

:laugh:

Small numbers? The British isles were originally inhabited by the brythonic Celts. Then the Romans invaded and fundamentally changed both the culture and the gene pool. Then the Roman empire collapsed and their armies left, and the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded and did the same again all across England, leaving small pockets in Wales and Cornwall where the culture and gene pool remained unaffected by their invasion.

Then the Danes and the Norse invaded and did it again, conquering all of northern England and the Midlands, most of the East coast of Ireland and the Scottish islands. Again fundamentally changing the culture and gene pool.

And then the Normans, who were in fact Danes who had conquered the north coast of France and done precisely the same thing there, invaded and did it again.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our gene pool is about as pure as the meat in a MacDonalds burger.

And then after the first world war, when we had a shortage of Labour, we actively encouraged immigration from the commonwealth, leading to a large influx of people from the British Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, and they changed our culture yet again. So please stop with this nonsense implication that "British culture" is some sort of distinct, separate, static thing when in fact it's a dynamic mish mash of previously disparate cultures.

 

[Thumper]

See my post above yours.

It didn't answer my point at all. You are trying to treat entire ethnocultural groups as homogenous wholes that can be judged and treated as such. They aren't.

 

[Saisonator]

It didn't answer my point at all. You are trying to treat entire ethnocultural groups as homogenous wholes that can be judged and treated as such. They aren't.

For the sake of

:laugh:

Small numbers? The British isles were originally inhabited by the brythonic Celts. Then the Romans invaded and fundamentally changed both the culture and the gene pool. Then the Roman empire collapsed and their armies left, and the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded and did the same again all across England, leaving small pockets in Wales and Cornwall where the culture and gene pool remained unaffected by their invasion.

Then the Danes and the Norse invaded and did it again, conquering all of northern England and the Midlands, most of the East coast of Ireland and the Scottish islands. Again fundamentally changing the culture and gene pool.

And then the Normans, who were in fact Danes who had conquered the north coast of France and done precisely the same thing there, invaded and did it again.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our gene pool is about as pure as the meat in a MacDonalds burger.

And then after the first world war, when we had a shortage of Labour, we actively encouraged immigration from the commonwealth, leading to a large influx of people from the British Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, and they changed our culture yet again. So please stop with this nonsense implication that "British culture" is some sort of distinct, separate, static thing when in fact it's a dynamic mish mash of previously disparate cultures.

Left wing revisionist nonsense, because the left hate the idea of British people having any kind of distinct national identity.
We are made up of various Northern European peoples and due to not having any major invasions for 100's of years, homogenised into a distinct culture with it's own unique language, customs and identity.
Yes things changed mostly in major cities after the war, but there are still many millions of native British people still around.
:UKflag:

 

[jceg316]

Sorry when a different culture wants to use it's own legal system, has illiberal views on homosexuality, agrees in the death sentence for apostrophe, carries out FGM, forced marriages and general cultural separatism.
Then I don't believe that is in any beneficial to this country. I know the majority are not like this, but there is a big resurgence of fundamentalist Islam across the world, even in once modern and westernised Turkey.

I didn't realise you were so liberal. What you've mentioned here are some terrible acts that everyone can agree need to be eliminated, but don't have a great deal to do with immigration. There are also British people who are vehemently homophobic, agree with the death sentence (there was a thread on this forum recently about it) , and then you mention cultural separatism. These points are sounding awfully familiar...

FGM again has some misleading statistics. I was using my good friend Google to help back up, something I really recommend doing when making sweeping statements (this goes to everyone here btw), I noticed sentences like "The BBC was among the news outlets to report this week that 137,000 women and girls in England and Wales may be victims of the practice." That doesn't say it's happening here. It's saying there are 137,000 victims living here, meaning it could have happened in a different country and they came here. British people mutilate each other too.

What groups are you referring to which have their own legal system? One I have quite a lot of experience with is the Charedi community, they have the Beth Din which in some ways is supported by British law. Because this community is so separatist and insular it works for them and they run their life by this law system. There are conflicts with British law sometimes, but there are more and more changes every time this happens and the courts will almost always favour British law. Anyway, most Charedi's living in Britain are British, not an immigrant population.

Everything you've mentioned here is applicable to both British and foreign born people and not an excuse to close our doors to people in need. You may not like cultures which aren't your own classic British, and that's fine, you have your culture, friends, food, areas you go to express your heritage and upbringing. Being the liberal you are though, it's surprising you'd want to see many people suffer and die around the world because they are different, and no one is forcing you to be like them. It's been mentioned many times earlier in this thread that immigrants give more to society than take away.

I would like to take a side here and that a lot of lines are getting blurred. Islam is not an immigrant population, it's a religion and therefore someone can be a British Muslim, so those insinuating we "send them back to where they came from" that's probably areas like Harrow in NW London, Finsbury Park etc.

On top of this, there are different immigrant groups and not all immigrants are the same.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Hi!
So different to ex-pat Brits abroad. We are a shining example of integration into another culture.
Do we have homes in little enclaves where only Brits live?
Do we socialise only with our own kind?
Do we make little or no effort to learn the language?
If only Johnny Foreigner could be more like us!

Id love to move to the netherlands or Northern Belgium. If I did I would NOT be seeking to join a little BRIT enclave!

 

[Saisonator]

It didn't answer my point at all. You are trying to treat entire ethnocultural groups as homogenous wholes that can be judged and treated as such. They aren't.

When it comes to how good or bad an impact they have on this society then I am prepared to use a blunt tool like this.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Apparently Benjamin Disraeli (former PM in the UK) said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My favourite is the "Massive change in ..." which shows a chart that proves the point that the writer is trying to make; and the chart shows a line that goes steeply in the direction that the author wishes you to worry about.

However, if you look closely at many of these charts you will find that the author has disregarded the bulk of the information to demonstrate just how the situation has changed.

Let's assume that the GBP has fallen overnight by 5% against the Euro. Using today's Exchange Rate of £1 = €1.12 a 5% fall in the value of the GBP would mean £1 = €1.06. A six cent change on 112 cents.

On a chart that started at 0 the change on the vertical axis would be from 112 units down to 106 units; and hardly noticeable.

However, start the vertical axis at 100 and the change would look much more dramatic as it would appear to be from 12 down to 6. In other words, a 5% change is made to look like a 50% change; which is much more frightening and therefore "better" journalism.

Agreed, 100% there is a lot of this if you have a proper look at the graph yes the 5% would look like 50% to the uneducated or HB pickled brewer!

 

[Saisonator]

I didn't realise you were so liberal. What you've mentioned here are some terrible acts that everyone can agree need to be eliminated, but don't have a great deal to do with immigration. There are also British people who are vehemently homophobic, agree with the death sentence (there was a thread on this forum recently about it) , and then you mention cultural separatism. These points are sounding awfully familiar...

FGM again has some misleading statistics. I was using my good friend Google to help back up, something I really recommend doing when making sweeping statements (this goes to everyone here btw), I noticed sentences like "The BBC was among the news outlets to report this week that 137,000 women and girls in England and Wales may be victims of the practice." That doesn't say it's happening here. It's saying there are 137,000 victims living here, meaning it could have happened in a different country and they came here. British people mutilate each other too.

What groups are you referring to which have their own legal system? One I have quite a lot of experience with is the Charedi community, they have the Beth Din which in some ways is supported by British law. Because this community is so separatist and insular it works for them and they run their life by this law system. There are conflicts with British law sometimes, but there are more and more changes every time this happens and the courts will almost always favour British law. Anyway, most Charedi's living in Britain are British, not an immigrant population.

Everything you've mentioned here is applicable to both British and foreign born people and not an excuse to close our doors to people in need. You may not like cultures which aren't your own classic British, and that's fine, you have your culture, friends, food, areas you go to express your heritage and upbringing. Being the liberal you are though, it's surprising you'd want to see many people suffer and die around the world because they are different, and no one is forcing you to be like them. It's been mentioned many times earlier in this thread that immigrants give more to society than take away.

I would like to take a side here and that a lot of lines are getting blurred. Islam is not an immigrant population, it's a religion and therefore someone can be a British Muslim, so those insinuating we "send them back to where they came from" that's probably areas like Harrow in NW London, Finsbury Park etc.

On top of this, there are different immigrant groups and not all immigrants are the same.

How many Christians do you think believe in the death sentence for apostrophe? I have never heard of one.
When I have seen statistics for views on homosexuality, London comes top of the list as having negative attitudes.
FGM, I have read estimations of it being carried out in the low thousands, even if it were in the low hundreds it's pretty damning that nobody has yet been prosecuted for doing it, nobody is even checking when families take young girls out the country to have this done to them.
I like most cultures, customs etc but for a very small number of them, I would prefer them to be somewhere else.
The last line is true and some groups have a positive impact and some a negative one, taken as whole.

 

[-Bezza-]

How many Christians do you think believe in the death sentence for apostrophe?

I'm an atheist but I think some people should be put to death for bad grammar.

 

[Saisonator]

I'm an atheist but I think some people should be put to death for bad grammar.

Right that old fall back

 

[-Bezza-]

Right that old fall back

Genuinely, I have no idea what "apostrophe" is referring to here.

 

[Thumper]

Left wing revisionist nonsense, because the left hate the idea of British people having any kind of distinct national identity.

No, it's history. Well evidenced, unanimously accepted, published and academically peer-reviewed history. Your argument and philosophy are based on a fantasy.

We are made up of various Northern European peoples and due to not having any major invasions for 100's of years, homogenised into a distinct culture with it's own unique language, customs and identity.

I have never denied Britain has it's own unique culture, to do so would be ludicrous. I was brought up in it and for the most part I love it. I merely do not subscribe to the equally ludicrous fantasy that this culture has remained static and unchanged for millennia, or that white people (or "northern Europeans" as you so politely put it) were the only people who ever contributed to it.

Yes things changed mostly in major cities after the war, but there are still many millions of native British people still around.

Firstly, define "native British person". It'll be fun to see just how arbitrary that definition is.

And again, if you think British culture was static and unchanging up until the inter-war period then your rose-tinted glasses must be even more clouded than the usual variety.

 

[Thumper]

Genuinely, I have no idea what "apostrophe" is referring to here.

I suspect he means apostasy.

 

[Saisonator]

Genuinely, I have no idea what "apostrophe" is referring to here.

apostasy

 

[Linalmeemow]

apostasy

How many non Christians do?