To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

[jdoe8]

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

How many more refugees do we take and how can we house and take care of them?

It's a valid point. Everyone has the right to a home but we don't have enough homes for those who are already here.

It's a valid point. Everyone has the right to a home but we don't have enough homes for those who are already here

The huge net migration numbers are mainly due to EU migration...not refugees. Personally, I wish we didn't have freedom of movement...I'd rather see more refugees given asylum here than unskilled EU workers arriving here.

The huge net migration numbers are mainly due to EU migration...not refugees.

Agree.

I think it's unsustainable.
I want to see more green spaces, parks, гrecreation grounds, not just endless blocks of flats.

GardenGeek, it's not a pyramid scheme. It's about the proportions in the population as a whole. If you have more older people needing pensions than younger people to pay into them, then you have a problem. Same with NHS care.

It's a big, big issue in organising our public services, across a lot of Western countries. Yet it doesn't get anywhere near the press coverage and attention that immigration does.

The UK, by the way, is not tiny compared to many Middle Eastern countries. Qatar is tiny, and Bahrain even more so. Kuwait and the Emirates are also very small compared to the UK.
The Gulf countries have, quite rightly, been critisised for not taking more Syrian refugees but they have provided a lot of money and resources to support them in other Middle Eastern countries.
And as has been pointed out, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have taken millions. They are far, far poorer countries than the UK, austerity or not (and austerity is a Tory choice, anyway).

Everyone has the right to a home but we don't have enough homes for those who are already here

That is becauae we have chosen not to have enough homes.

It's not because we haven't the money or the space, it's because we keep electing governments that oursue policies that make the housing crisis worse.

Our responsibility as a rich country to accept refugees doesn't diminish because we can't manage our own affairs when it comes to housing.

It is a ponzi scheme, the more people, the less the apparent debt per capita, and hence our solvency seems greater = more debt to be lent.
More people dilutes the debt burden.
Ask the bankers.

(and austerity is a Tory choice, anyway)

Precisely. People go on about austerity, yet in the same breath, brag about how we don't need the EU because we are the world's fifth biggest economy. Well, which is it? Rich or poor? The truth is we have a government that currently imposes poverty on many, encourages them to blame it on even more vulnerable immigrants while the big corporations and upper classes enjoy massive tax breaks and huge bonuses. Excellent.

I want to see more green spaces, parks, гrecreation grounds, not just endless blocks of flats.

I think everybody who loves this country feels that way Chardonnay, including (perhaps especially) our new residents.

On your logic, ... you invite more immigrants.

It is a pyramid scheme.

Well, no, because:

a) lots of immigrants (as has been discussed and complained about many many times in this very thread) want to come here, work for a few years, then go back to their own countries. That kind of thing really benefits countries with an ageing population like ours. Pay into the NHS/pensions/social care/etc when you're young and healthy and don't need it so much, then leave before you do, bingo.

b) you're still looking at this in terms of raw numbers, not about proportions of the population. It's not quite the same.

You don't need to take my word for this alone. Here is the Telegraph - hardly a left-liberal socialist paper - reporting on this. Here is a Parliament paper. This is something that has been discussed and researched very extensively. But feel free to at me rather than read up on the situation, I'm sure that'll help.

We have a situation now where immigrant staff are 'servicing' immigrant patients

we have had this situation for a long time now, and those that know people who work in the NHS in such regions know this and why such bull shit of needing more people from the EU to staff the NHS is a sick concept.

Surely it is not just down to immigrants' earnings but, as others have said, any in-work benefits need to be factored in. Maybe the money spent on Child Benefit and tax credits for children (here) who have never even set foot in the UK which amounts to over £55 million a year should be rethought.

I should hope so, but am not too optimistic. When's the last time you saw a green space being established, as opposed to being built on?

Also, where would we walk the doggies, Sobachka?

Lebanon is tiny compared to the UK - about the size of Devon and Cornwall. It houses around 1.5 million refugees. We could easily take more if we wanted to.

It is true that there are nearby Middle Eastern countries that choose to take no refugees. But I don't think lowering our humanitarian standards to those of Saudi Arabia is the direction we should take.

Britain is not entirely built up, very little land is built on as this shows. I realise it's from the BBC, which an earlier poster objected to, I found other sites saying the same but less clearly.

So we have the land to build houses on. And I agree, there should be lots of parks and open spaces for people to enjoy. But while we happily use land for grouse moors and golf courses, to name but two uses, we will have a housing problem. Same for schools and hospitals.

Maybe some land reform is overdue? I voted to remain in the EU, but if huge estates owned by, for example, the new Duke of Westminster, no longer get large amounts in EU subsidy, maybe their lordships or whoever else owns massive acreages would be prepared to release them for building houses on? A possible ray of Brexit light.

But how can anyone factor in immigrants earnings when there is a massive hidden workforce here - cash in hand, ad hoc work that is not paying into the system but has access to our services and NHS?

Ultimately, a country that employs a non contributory benefit scheme and unlimited low skilled, low paid immigration will go bankrupt.

But how can anyone factor in immigrants earnings when there is a massive hidden workforce here - cash in hand, ad hoc work that is not paying into the system but has access to our services and NHS?

You think it's only immigrants working cash in hand? Large numbers of brits also work cash in hand. I think the studies have looked just at the legitimately declared earnings of immigrants because most of them do not work cash in hand.

Immigrants pay more into our economy than they take out. Doubtless there are immigrants paid cash-in-hand. There are also many non-immigrants that are paid cash-in-hand. They still contribute to our economy through spending.

it's because we keep electing governments that oursue policies that make the housing crisis worse

No, we keep electing governments of differing hues expecting them to fix the housing problem.

I don't know why none do anything to fix it. But they don't.