Immigrants on Benefits Figures Published/UK Migration Watch

You're an idiot, lfn.

It almost pains me to say this........

But I agree with Ttosca.

Sorry, I'm going to have to have a quick lie down.

Sorry about that Thistledew. It's a verbal tick I picked up in the US, in the same way that some people use the word 'gay' to mean 'stupid' or 'lame'. I realise that some people find it offensive (understandably so), even though no offense is intended. I'll try not to use it again.

ttosca. You may wish to retract your use of the word 'retarded'. There are many people with learning retardation who are well able to recognise that someone can benefit the society in which they live in many more ways than working solidly and suffering no misfortune for 25 years. In my (limited) experience, people with learning difficulties tend to see all humans as being worthy of equal treatment and fail to grasp the 'importance' of distinguishing people's worth and entitlement to fairness and compassion based on arbitrary factors outside their control, such as where they were born.

Well said for the rest of it though.

longfingernails

Firstly, It has already been pointed out that immigrants need to be settled here for five years before they can claim benefits. So the immigrant who comes to England and claims benefits has most likely worked for that period of five years. This means that they've also paid in taxes and NI contributions.

Secondly, your attitude to anyone who claims JSA reveals your reactionary tendencies: you think anyone who claims JSA is a 'loser'. Well, many hard working people who have worked 9-5 for over a decade claim JSA when they find themselves out of the job, whether it's because of 'downsizing' for profit or any number of reasons. They are not 'losers' because they don't have a job.

This idea of yours that there is a big problem of immigrants coming to this country because of our generous benefits system really only exists in your fevered imagination. The vast majority of immigrants come here legally and seeking work. They also contribute hugely to the economy. They also commit benefit fraud at a lower rate than the 'natives'.

So there is no justification for slinging labels like 'immigrants leech of our benefits system'.

Immigration should be a purely economic issue. If immigrants don't benefit the British economy then we should deport them.

Furthermore, this is utterly retarded. It's exactly the sort of thing a Tory bean counter would say who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If the UK deported all the so-called 'losers' and immigrants who have even been on JSA, it would miss out on a huge amount of its talent in the form of - not just entrepreneurs - but musicians, artists, authors, play-writes, and other members of society who contribute culturally and technologically. The fact is that people from all backgrounds, talents, skills and intelligence find themselves in poverty or in need of help from time to time. This doesn't make them 'losers'. It makes them human.

ttosca

You couldn't be more spectacularly wrong.

You can spin all you like about me being "little-Englander" - but I myself am from an immigrant background, and I know first hand the difference between the sort of immigrants who contribute to society, and the sort who leech from it.

Why on earth would I oppose the proposed skilled immigration cap, if I were being xenophobic? Judging immigrants on how much they contribute minus how much they take is more objective than just about any other measure I can think of.

I think many (most) immigrants could teach native Brits a thing or two about work ethic. They haven't just got on their bike; they've gotten on their boat (metaphorically speaking); it shows great get-up-and-go and resolve. But that still isn't an excuse to allow them to leech off our benefits system, however unfortunate their circumstances. We have too many benefits scroungers of our own; we don't need any more from abroad.

Britain should welcome the world's winners with open arms. It should politely say no thanks to the world's losers.

Poe we still detain children, just in 'family centres' not detention centres. So that is alright then .

i think actually both the two major parties are in trouble on this issue. Labour annoyed many of its grass supporters as immigration grew over the last ten years...and brought in stupid ill-thought out measures as a consequence. The con-dems haven't done much about those measures (aside from getting children out of detention centres, which is a start) and will probably add more ill-thought out measures to please their grass roots. probably the economic climate will do the job for them though: in a downturn immigration decreases.

people only hire foreigners when they can't get Uk citizens right for the job. employers are xenophobes too! the paperwork for hiring out-of-EU can be a complete nightmare - employers only do this if they have to.

still, i feel it likely that whichever govt we have, it is going to feel it has to do 'something' in response to those figures.

Why don't you stick to copy/pasting articles from the Grauniad, ttosca? You seem to have a penchant for it.

Yeah, maybe I should. With people like you and 'niceguy' around, who seem to have a total disregard for facts when forming your reactionary opinions, maybe it's a better first step than actually trying to argue with you.

In the meantime, I can take some small satisfaction that many ideas I am sympathetic to are being implemented in government, albeit in a pathetically weak form. Meanwhile, you are reduced to putting your hopes and dreams behind Red Ed, a man so completely inept that he has led Labour to 5 points behind (yes, BEHIND) in the polls at a time when the government should be massively unpopular.

See, you are an idiot. Because I think the Tories are vile sociopathic scum, then I must, ipso facto, be a Labour supporter. Yet, have I ever shown support for New Labour? On another thread, just a few minutes ago, I suggested to a woman that her son shouldn't bother joining New Labour if he wants to make the UK a better place. You can check it out yourself.

Basically, you're a little-Englander, xenophobic reactionary. Immigrants are not the cause of the UKs economic problems. In fact, they are part of the solution. If you look up, you'll see that there are numerous posts explaining why this is the case.

In reality, your position on this matter isn't about saving money for the economy, since that argument fails spectacularly, it's about 'keeping out the foreigners'.

It is also peculiar how it is always the fault of those scheming immigrants for stealing 'our' jobs- and nothing at all to do with the business decisions of the British businesses who decide to hire them.

Immigrants form about 8% of our population. They contribute 10% to the GDP.

It always suprises me that people are prepared to bang on about immigrants being a drain on resources but not about large businesses who use our workforce and infrastructure to make money but do not pay tax in this country.

as already pointed out 1) it takes years to qualify for benefits, usually they'll have paid loads of tax in this country before ever claiming anything in return
2) immigrants not eligible for benefits are the poorest people in the Uk, and the lives they lead are a disgrace to the nation: how can a civilised country let people live like that?
3) people granted asylum usually pay in tax the full cost of their settlement in this country within 5 years, even with the long non-working waiting period.
4) illegal immigration is a totally different ball game, as those immigrants are very unlikely to ever claim benefits by their very nature..
5) remember the NHS skills shortage? that was filled by immigrants. I'd rather they stayed in this country. Even if they claim benefits during periods of unemployment.

how people can get angry about people who have worked in this country being able to claim benefits here, is beyond me. oh, wait...xenophobia..that would be why...

lfn - so my DH, who has lived here for 7 years, paid loads of tax from his way-higher-than-average salary and has a British wife and two British kids, is less entitled to benefits, should be become redundant, than a British teenager who has never paid tax? In that case, the age for receiving benefits for British citizens should also be raised to 25.

Why should foreign nationals be thrown out the second they lose their jobs? There aren't exactly loads of jobs out there for them to take! I should imaging most of them have contributed a fair whack in tax before claiming benefits.

What no part of the UK needs is unskilled economic migrants who become a drain on the system.

If an immigrant is not a net giver, but a net taker, then frankly, we are better off without him/her. And that has to include all costs, including the unseen cost of the additional resources needed for housing/education/infrastructure/the NHS/social services.

(yawn)

Migration is a fact of life. It's just going to happen. We might as well be positive, give people opportunities and treat them properly. Immigrants formed the backbone of our NHS and services back in the 50's and we need young healthy people with a work ethic to support our ageing population.

Good luck to them, I say.

NormanTebbit I think the whole of the UK needs more skilled economic migrants, not just Scotland.

One problem with allowing asylum seekers to work is that it gives them a potential grounds for appeal on via ridiculous ECHR judgements if it is decided that their asylum claim is not legitimate. If we left the jurisdiction of the ECHR, then I would definitely support the idea of asylum seekers being allowed to work.

Why don't you stick to copy/pasting articles from the Grauniad, ttosca? You seem to have a penchant for it.

In the meantime, I can take some small satisfaction that many ideas I am sympathetic to are being implemented in government, albeit in a pathetically weak form. Meanwhile, you are reduced to putting your hopes and dreams behind Red Ed, a man so completely inept that he has led Labour to 5 points behind (yes, BEHIND) in the polls at a time when the government should be massively unpopular.

In Scotland we need economic migrants. And it's a shame asylum seekers are not allowed to work. Many are skilled and want a job - they should be lowed to get one.

I'm fairly relaxed about it all.

You're an idiot, lfn.

Yes, work permits can be separated from settlement. The US does it successfully - it has big illegal immigration problems, but legal immigration is done pretty well there - and the rules for getting a green card are about right. I don't see any shortage of skilled immigrants wanting to work in the States.

25 years is just as arbitrary as 5 years. If necessary a taper can be put into effect after 15 years.

It isn't xenophobic to want immigrants to pay for themselves (and their families) over the long-term, and to want this pricinple enshrined into the law of the land.

Longfingernails
So you really expect hard working decent immigrants to want to come to UK if it takes them 25 years to gain settled status?

I have been in Germany / Switzerland for almost 20 years. I'd have fucked off back home if I'd been told I have to wait so long.

Great idea lfn

So if an immigrant marries and has children with a British Citizen works and pays their taxes for 10 years before they lose their job, should the British spouse and children be made to leave the uk as well? Or do the children just lose their father/mother.

Why should someone be forced out of the home and life they have made for themselves after 24 years because they lose their job before the magic 25 years, even though they may have paid more taxes than a British person claiming benefits.

Actually, I choose to believe that you are on a deliberate windup and that you don't really hold such xenophobic views about 'those shady good for nothin' furriners'. Have a

Ah, need more information on this as my Sister has been shouting about this all bloody weekend. Need some facts to back up my argument :)

Settled status should not be given readily. Immigrants should not be allowed to settle here until they have lived here for at least 25 years.

Immigration should be a purely economic issue. If immigrants don't benefit the British economy then we should deport them.

I disagree entirely with the immigration cap. We should have as many rich/highly-skilled immigrants as possible coming to this country. What we shouldn't have are immigrants who have no skills, claim benefits, and have large families in order to claim further benefits, which the rest of us then have to support.

The £26k benefit cap will help, but it is set far too high. A per household benefit cap of £10k per year would be far more sensible.

Before we get too many uninformed posts like the one from lfn let's get a few facts straight.

People who come to the UK as economic immigrants are not entitled to claim benefits until they have settled status. In most cases the person would be required to have worked in the uk for at least 5 years before they could get settled status, also known as indefinite leave to remain. People who come here as the spouse of a British Citizen or person with settled status can apply for indefinite leave to remain after they have been in the uk for two years.