Should we guarantee the rights of eu citzens to remain unilaterally

[ReallyTired]

I think we should. They came here with the belief that they could live here.

I suppose the argument is that Spain and France may not show compassion to British citizens who have emigrated. Certainly Spain may well be tempted to use it as leverage to gain sovernity of Gibraltar. I think the chances of the French being vindictive is less.

If Scotland leaves the uk and joins the EU could there be an arrangement where ex pats become Scottish citizens? (Even if they are 100% English or Welsh) in the event of British citizens being sent back?

^So you now admit that EU immigrants contribute more than they take out? Thank you.6

I have done no such thing.
I have repeated what I have agreed all along (see my earlier post) that ina simple sum of :
Tax revenue paid in minus benefits taken out EU immigrants, on average are net contributors.

I have also pointed out why this is a flawed method of presenting the economic loss/benefits of EU immigrants (non EU are another story again).

And I have also pointed out that this does not mean EU immigrants on mimimum wage are contributing even on this flawed model.

Basically it is only higher earning immigrants are even an 'economic' benefit

Good point about zombies, Smallfox!

When did people stop being individuals, and become representatives of whole nations or races? This is where so-called 'facts' are very different in the various areas of the UK. If you try to reduce immigration in all areas, you may be depriving another area of the young families we need, to boost the population (and work and pay taxes to support the elderly).

Plus many of the problems that people say are caused by high levels of immigration (eg pressure on housing, jobs and NHS) are imo more likely to be caused by globalisation, tax dodgers and lack of social justice and education. We need to be angry with the wealthy classes that are creaming off the best of everything for themselves, not with people who come here for a better life (who are often the brave ones who show initiative and determination), not to mention refugees. Wouldn't you do the same?

[Sorry if these points have been made before.]

It is vitally important that when people say "its too full" or that they think that school places and NHS waiting times are being detrimentally effected by immigration, or that these people are a burden, that we present the real facts and figures.

I have also pointed out the flaws in the "study" conducted by three immigrants researchers with a clear agenda of presenting immigrants as not adding to pressure on the NHS (a posit so ludicrous it beggars belief).

As for claiming that immigrants are not adding to pressure on school places I believe you have yet to find another agenda driven phoney study to prove this further piece of misinformation.

solo

Plus many of the problems that people say are caused by high levels of immigration (eg pressure on housing, jobs and NHS) are imo more likely to be caused by globalisation, tax dodgers and lack of social justice and education

You are right They are caused by Globalisation, in which migration plays a huge role!

However I would be very interested to know why you think allowing millions of people into a country, which didnt have much housing surplus previously, and which already had a serious shortage in the most densely populated part, where building land is scarcest, and then allowing those immoigrants to settle, in the main, in the most densely populated parts, wouldnt cause a far more serious housing shortage?

Likewise an NHS which is already only just about coping and has to handle its own native ageing popualtion, wouldnt require more money, more staff, and more facilities if you suddenly 'grow' the popualtion?
In fact our shortage of midwives and the pressure on maternity services is entirely due to immigrants, as with our own low birth rate and ageing population they could be shrinking, and nurses redirected towards elder care, as well as finances.

You think Aerfen that you have pointed out that it is a flawed method, but you haven't acknowledged the fact that it isn't just tax - benefits, its tax - net fiscal spend which includes education and health etc.

However I would agree that it is flawed and would suggest that in order to assess the impact of immigration we should include both the multiplier effect of immigration and shadow pricing in order to put figures on the positive and negative externalities caused by immigration, this will allow us to come to a net present benefit/costs figure.

When we do this the net present benefit figure is going to be positive, because when you consider that EU immigrants are net fiscal contributors, that they are very unlikely to be unemployed, that they claim a proportionally smaller amount of the benefits bill than their size of the workforce would lead you to expect, that they are less likely to occupy social housing, have positive effects on local waiting times for hospital treatments, have large numbers working in jobs that create positive externalities etc.

Aerfen, our own birth rate has increased over the last ten years. Births to non UK mothers account for 25% of those in the UK.

Mainly though the issues you discuss are due to the austerity policies pursued by the Tories over the last 6 years.

Housing is to do with the fact that we have chronically under built for 30 years and the main building firms in this country act as a cartel and only release certain levels of housing on to the market at a time in order to maximise profits. 4% of the population is not responsible for the housing crisis.

I have also reported Aerfens posts. They are utterly nasty and step firmly into xenophobia and racism.

So, if we are to deport all these dreadful immigrants, how should we identify them until ukbc catches up with them? Perhaps they should all register with the police, or be confined to certain areas. I know, we could make them wear a special badge sewn onto their clothes.

Oh no, I think that's been tried before and it didn't end well.

Aerfen, what Smallfox said about housing, plus inflated prices, buy-to-lets, tory government's social cleansing policies in London, etc etc.

About the NHS: chronically underfunded, too many managers, not enough nurses, not enough disease prevention, etc (I could go on).

Globalisation has its pros and cons. Freedom of movement is a plus for lots of British people too.

The point I am making is these problems are all complex and don't have just one cause. It is important to get the right target to vent your anger at.

Why are you so angry by the way?

I too have reported Aerfens posts.
The utter hatefulness on this thread makes me both sad and angry. To think that the country I love has sunk to this.

If
"11% of all staff and 26% of doctors are non-British"

And
"the UK population was 13.1% foreign-born and 8.5% foreign citizens"

How is immigration placing a big burden on the NHS?

Remove the migrants, including and particularly, the migrant doctors and and the NHS would collapse with much bigger waiting times.

Migrant doctors that have often been trained abroad, with lost investment by their poorer countries.

Do blame the government, except that they won't accept it. It's easier to blame migrants and to continue to accept them, while letting the wider population blame migration.

smallfox
Not having read all the studies on the fiscal impact of immigrants (I douibt you have either) I cannot deny there may have been some that attempt to include health and education costs (reference?), but if so then they would have found it extremely difficult as migrants and their childrens usage of such services isnt recorded (guesswork then), and most go on to have further children shortly after arrival too, adding further to costs too.

Th Lords report specifically says:
^Immigration has important economic impacts on public services such
as education and health. The current information and data available
to assess these impacts are very limited. The launch of the Migration
Impacts Forum is a welcome development but so far it has not
produced any systematic evidence needed to assess the economic
costs and benefits of immigration for public services.^

And as Professor Rowthorn says (Lords report):
^Determining whether immigrants make a positive or negative fiscal
contribution is highly dependent on what costs and benefits are included in the calculations. Government claims that the exchequer consistently benefits from immigration rely on the children of one UK-born parent and one immigrant parent being attributed to the UK-born population a questionable approach.^

He adds, critically:

But even using the Government’s preferred method, the fiscal impact is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration.

At best the Lords report can be said to suggest that maybe immigration isnt actually economically harmful overall, its certainly not an endorsement of it, even from an economic viewpoint which is the only argument pro mass immigrationists have got, against the many certain negative effects.

Broader studies of immigration in other countries consistently suggest that it is only highly skilled immigration which is economically beneficial. This is strongly supportive of the UKIP policy of immigration being restricted on a points based system. Even then it should be capped, given that it is not only economic considerations which should determine immigration policies, the social and environmental costs are even more important, as well as , in a democratic society, the wishes of our citizens. Its actually a tiny minority who actively.

Remove the migrants, including and particularly, the migrant doctors and and the NHS would collapse with much bigger waiting times.

Of course. Has anyone suggested that immigrant doctors be sent home?
Those of us who wish to curtail immigration however do generally feeling that its a shocking state of affairs that successive governments (in cahoots with the BMA) have failed to train sufficient British doctors to meet our needs.

Dont you agree?

Migrant doctors that have often been trained abroad, with lost investment by their poorer countries.
Absolutely and anyone caring aabout the well being of people in poor coun tries should be VERY angry that wealthy countries like Britain are stealing their skilled medical personel rather than producing our own! Its truly disgraceful!

Of course the immigrant doctors and their families gain peersonally but at the price of the very poorest people in the world, in their own homelands.

Blinkered left wingers and so called 'liberals' put fingers in ears and shout lalala at this point....

Is Mumsnet Towers actually not staffed on a Sunday, or do they think views like Aerfen's needn't be zapped? The anti-migrant tone on any politics related thread has become increasingly worse over the past months, and I'm seeing little from mod side to condemn it. The longer shit like that is left to stand the more acceptable people think it is, which just fuels the hate further.

It's not just Mumsnet where this has been taking effect, but everywhere, however by not coming down like a ton of bricks on hate speech but leaving it to stand, I think they become complicit in the creation of this climate of hate and alienation.

Evening folks. Thanks for all your reports on this thread. We don't tolerate xenophobia on Mumsnet. We've banned a user from this thread and we'll be going through the thread shortly deleting any posts that we think need to go, too. Thanks again for letting us know.

MN towers have just replied-hopefully no more comments about fast breeding migrants

Yourperception My friend runs a care home 80% of her care staff are foreign.
She said it could mean the end of her business( so she will have
to go back to care work herself poor dear)

Those of us who wish to curtail immigration however do generally feeling that its a shocking state of affairs that successive governments (in cahoots with the BMA) have failed to train sufficient British doctors to meet our needs.

Maybe you should channel your anger at the government and the BMA then?!? I'm pretty sure that a low quota benefits the existing doctors (shortage = more pay)...

Snowbells I agree In addition after completing their very expensive training
they work a while and then emigrate . Thanks a bunch
Meanwhile the nurses are having to borrow to get qualified. Some of them
will have to go abroad to get more pay so they can pay off the loans.
Government not listening

The UCL and LSE studies include health and education costs the Lords study you refer to is from 2007, the two identified above are published 2015 and 2016.

The critical bit of this is that as the Lords paper was published 1 April 2008 it would have been based on the data available for the tax years running up to April 1 2007 tax year, which gives very little available data on the impact of immigration from the EU 8 countries.

The studies conducted since by a range of different institutions all confirm that EU immigrants are net contributors, even when taking into account fiscal spending on health and education etc.

On the criticism that was made on the methodology? Well the education costs being put on the British born parent are broadly offset by the fact that the Child benefit and any tax credits are counted as costs for the immigrant when they are household benefits.

Rowthorn too is a difficult one, whilst he discusses the negative impacts of immigration even he agrees that for the UCL study even with a downward revision of the figures based on methodology, EU immigrants have either paid their way or generated a surplus.

Rowthorn is interesting in in his December 2015 study "large scale immigration" because his projections are based on a continued net migration level of 225, 000, now as we know that net migration has been below this point for several years over the last decade, and that the current average is higher because of high net migration in the immediate years after EU8 accession and the slow growth of the EU economy over the last 2-3 years, it is unlikely that this large scale immigration level woud be hit consistently every year for the next 50 years which allows Rowthorn to come to his conclusions.

However, I'm not going to turn this into an academic critique.

The main point is that the most recent data and studies show that immigration, and specifically EU immigration is of net fiscal benefit to the UK.

i am pleased to see your post, HQ. I think WidowWadman's post here illustrates my thoughts.

'Not accepting hate speech is not a freedom of speech issue, it's about speaking up for people who are vilified, alienated and dehumanised.'

Well, I do hope that you felt I was doing that.

You've managed to miss the point, again, but:

Blinkered left wingers and so called 'liberals' put fingers in ears and shout lalala at this point....

Or utterly selfish right wingers are just happy to take advantage of the highest skills and ignore the lowest skills that keep the country running.
If someone is capable of working, it should be as welcome as a migrant doctor, or bus driver, or factory worker. And their families.
Why not?

You're still to show how migration is bad for the UK and that the problems in the UK are due to migration.

At least you agree that the government is highly responsible for quite a substantial part. But it's easier to say that foreigners breed like rabbits and go to steel resources.

Smallfox, a guy from Scientists for the EU, said that often people go with a strong idea or opinion they have, even when strong evidence is available to them, bcause they want to believe in it so much (he was speaking regarding EU ref and some of the beliefs that were swaying leave voters). I think that is what is happening here. You provide an array of facts, but some people won't be swayed, they're clinging to their views desperately.

I'm also reminded of the taxi driver in the Stuart Lee sketch, 'Facts?! Well, you can prove anything with facts.' It's a relief to see your posts and many others.

Yes of course they deserve to stay here. This is their home now.