British by the back door: Is immigration fuelling the Brexit debate?

[webfact]

British by the Back Door: Is Immigration Fuelling the Brexit Debate?

The biggest issue pushing the Brexit debate in the British press is fast becoming EU immigration. Who is here and how? Britain's immigration 'issues' are becoming a source of stories purporting that the UK could be better off leaving the European Union.

(SPUTNIK) A recent report described as "groundbreaking" suggests migrants living in Britain are claiming more benefits than those born in the UK. Campaign group Migration Watch, which wants tougher immigration controls in Britain, suggests that the five million migrant workers in the UK have a "weaker" economic performance than people originally born in Britain.

Migration Watch believe their research undermines previous studies which have presented findings that migrants shared similar economic outlooks to those born in the UK, purposefully contradicting claims that immigration is good for Britain's economy.

Its research found that migrants from Western Europe, India South Africa, the US, Australia, and New Zealand had high rates of employment with good wages and low numbers of people claiming benefits. Migrants from Eastern Europe also have high rates of employment but lower wages and higher rates of benefit claims than those born in the UK.

Full story: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150722/1024912588.html

-- SPUTNIK 2015-07-22

[JetsetBkk]

"Fuelling the Brexit Debate?"

Didn't even know there was a debate.

[BigBadGeordie]

Interesting to see where TVF is getting their "webfacts" from!

Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russiaon 9 December 2013.[1] Sputnik replaces the RIA Novosti news agency on an international stage (which remains active in Russia)[2] and Voice of Russia.

[NeverSure]

Why don't we just read the article instead of shooting the messenger?

Who ever said that the EU would be good for the UK economy? Who? Who believed that person?

Immigrants are collecting more money in benefits that are those born in the UK.

The article has a great point to make regardless of who wrote it, and yes there are many people who'd like to get out of the EU. The UK has lost its sovereignty to a group the people of the UK can't fire unless they just exit. In the meantime people have been waltzing over the border and damaging the UK budget severely.

Cheers.

[webfact]

Interesting to see where TVF is getting their "webfacts" from!

Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russiaon 9 December 2013.[1] Sputnik replaces the RIA Novosti news agency on an international stage (which remains active in Russia)[2] and Voice of Russia.

if you have an issue with the articles/sources we post please contact Thaivisa support and address your concern.

Thank you

/Admin

[JockPieandBeans]

The Immigration system in the UK is an utter shambles from top to bottom.

The ONS 2014 mid year population guestimate is 64.6 Million.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population

Contrast that to this 2007 report.

It is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html

Garden sheds being made into houses in London.

Rental properties being sublet to up to 5 families per house all over the UK.

Immigration will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[RuamRudy]

Migration Watch - the name says it all. But if you want more, you can check their Wikipedia entry and read such enlightening descriptions of them as:

"...a pressure group with a distinctly unpleasant agenda"

"...a lobbying and campaigning organisation that is currently engaged in a campaign entitled 'No to 70 Million'"

"A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick"

Can we next expect to see EDL or BNP bilge reported as 'news'?

[casualbiker]

Migration Watch - the name says it all. But if you want more, you can check their Wikipedia entry and read such enlightening descriptions of them as:

"...a pressure group with a distinctly unpleasant agenda"

"...a lobbying and campaigning organisation that is currently engaged in a campaign entitled 'No to 70 Million'"

"A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick"

Can we next expect to see EDL or BNP bilge reported as 'news'?

Or Green argues that "To speak out about [immigration] is not to be anti-immigrant".[72] Green has said of MigrationWatch's agenda: "It's not racism. It's realism. It's right in a democracy that the public has the facts"

Are these statements NOT correct?

[jobwolf]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

[casualbiker]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

Why would Britain "close down"?

[RuamRudy]

Migration Watch - the name says it all. But if you want more, you can check their Wikipedia entry and read such enlightening descriptions of them as:

"...a pressure group with a distinctly unpleasant agenda"

"...a lobbying and campaigning organisation that is currently engaged in a campaign entitled 'No to 70 Million'"

"A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick"

Can we next expect to see EDL or BNP bilge reported as 'news'?

Or Green argues that "To speak out about [immigration] is not to be anti-immigrant".[72] Green has said of MigrationWatch's agenda: "It's not racism. It's realism. It's right in a democracy that the public has the facts"

Are these statements NOT correct?

I am not suggesting for one minute that these issues should not be discussed and debated, but it is disingenous for Migrant Watch to be presented as being non-political and impartial - they are a right wing pressure group and should therefore be classed as biased, alongside other causes, both left and right leaning.

A poster earlier in the thread suggested that a Russian Government sponsored news agency was possibly not the most reliable source of impartial news. Clearly he was correct in making that suggestion.

[RuamRudy]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

Why would Britain "close down"?

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minumum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

[Thakkar]

The reports I'd read about six years ago showed that EU membership was a net benefit to Britain. Reports today may paint a different picture. These things fluctuate and the results depend on the particular point in time in the fluctuation cycle at which the measurements are taken.

That's why, rather than getting bogged down in these, it's important to go back to fundamentals and ask basic questions.

The EU is an integration project and one doesn't have to go too far back in history to see why it was instigated and why it is important. The free movement of people is an integral part of the project and it is more than just about economics and short term disruptions within individual countries. It's hard to say whether the project will ultimately be successful, but it's hard to deny that, for the vast majority of EU citizens, it's been reasonably successful so far. The single currency is a different story and not within the scope of my post here.

It's fair enough that a country, in this case, Britain, wants to fully control its immigration policies. But that disrupts the EU project that Britain has signed up to. The best option would be for Britain to leave the EU. Why doesn't it just do that? Because it wants to retain all the advantages of being in the EU without all of the obligations. That's what all of Britain's tap dancing has been about.

Well next year the music stops and Brits will vote to stay in or out. My guess is that they will vote to stay in. If I'm wrong and they get out, my guess is that it won't be too long before they regret it. Eastern Europe is developing at a faster pace than Western Europe and in 15-20 years, a Britain outside the EU is going to wish it had better access.

T

[stepaul]

You've hit the nail on the head RuamRudy. All the idiots that studied at the Daily Mail School of Economics have no idea how beneficial immigration is to the UK. Without said immigrants being prepared to work shitty jobs for minimum wage, to live in homes of multiple occupation and to pay into a National Insurance system that they are unlikely to benefit from, the price you pay for milk, bread, a pint or a coffee etc, etc would be subject to massive inflation. Instead of jumping on the immigration bashing band wagon, why don't you idiots educate yourselves a little? For starters, have a look at the notion of Full Employment in relation to wage inflation and the requirement of a strong economy to maintain a certain degree of unemployment within its population. Don't believe the tripe!

[JockPieandBeans]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

Why would Britain "close down"?

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minumum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

The very basic, simple answer.

The 2.5 Million that are currently unemployed.

There is a job, take it. When you no longer want to work, no more benefits.

As for the skilled workers. That is up to individual Companies to train people to make their business sustainable. It used to be called apprenticeships in the days before profit overrode everything else.

[RuamRudy]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

Why would Britain "close down"?

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minumum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

The very basic, simple answer.

The 2.5 Million that are currently unemployed.

There is a job, take it. When you no longer want to work, no more benefits.

As for the skilled workers. That is up to individual Companies to train people to make their business sustainable. It used to be called apprenticeships in the days before profit overrode everything else.

According to this, the number of UK unemployed is just over 1.8 million, but I think it is a myth to suggest that these people are all workshy. Of course you get blaggers and scroungers - they have always been there and they always will be there - but I believe that the majority of the unemployed genuinely want to work. However if you have skills, qualifications, aspirations, do you really want to spend 12 hours a day, bent over in a field picking carrots? I know that if I was to lose my job, I would need to be on my knees before I would take such a drop in standing. It isn't arrogance, it is human nature.

[JockPieandBeans]

According to this, the number of UK unemployed is just over 1.8 million, but I think it is a myth to suggest that these people are all workshy. Of course you get blaggers and scroungers - they have always been there and they always will be there - but I believe that the majority of the unemployed genuinely want to work. However if you have skills, qualifications, aspirations, do you really want to spend 12 hours a day, bent over in a field picking carrots? I know that if I was to lose my job, I would need to be on my knees before I would take such a drop in standing. It isn't arrogance, it is human nature.

RR.

I do not want to insult your intelligence. In the UK the official unemployment figure comes from the numbers currently claiming JSA. It would be beneficial for you to do a bit of research and find out who CANNOT claim JSA.

You will then see for yourself that the official unemployment figure is pie in the sky.

It is snobs that feel it is below them to do a job that is below their perceived standing. It is human nature to provide for yourself and family.You would be screaming to pick carrots 12 hours a day if there was no welfare state providing ( well over 20K ) in some instances. Of course, thanks to successive Governments, we now have a generation who think that the world owes them something.

That was the essence of my post. There are jobs available for all those that are currently unemployed. The safety net is too attractive, and in some cases better than working. This needs to change.

The welfare state was set up to assist those in short term need. Not fund lifestyles.

[RuamRudy]

According to this, the number of UK unemployed is just over 1.8 million, but I think it is a myth to suggest that these people are all workshy. Of course you get blaggers and scroungers - they have always been there and they always will be there - but I believe that the majority of the unemployed genuinely want to work. However if you have skills, qualifications, aspirations, do you really want to spend 12 hours a day, bent over in a field picking carrots? I know that if I was to lose my job, I would need to be on my knees before I would take such a drop in standing. It isn't arrogance, it is human nature.

RR.

I do not want to insult your intelligence. In the UK the official unemployment figure comes from the numbers currently claiming JSA. It would be beneficial for you to do a bit of research and find out who CANNOT claim JSA.

You will then see for yourself that the official unemployment figure is pie in the sky.

It is snobs that feel it is below them to do a job that is below their perceived standing. It is human nature to provide for yourself and family.You would be screaming to pick carrots 12 hours a day if there was no welfare state providing ( well over 20K ) in some instances. Of course, thanks to successive Governments, we now have a generation who think that the world owes them something.

That was the essence of my post. There are jobs available for all those that are currently unemployed. The safety net is too attractive, and in some cases better than working. This needs to change.

The welfare state was set up to assist those in short term need. Not fund lifestyles.

But we do have a welfare state, and many unemployed have been paying stamp for years - should they not be entitled to rely on the state to support them while they look for a job commensurate with their skills and qualifications? There are lots of issues with your suggestion that the unemployed should reach for the gutter: the location of the people versus the location of the low skilled work; the need to maintain skills and qualifications if you have any hope of returning to that sphere.

As for professional scroungers, I think they reside mainly in the heads of the Barclay brothers and Paul Dacre, when the former are not working out further tax avoidance schemes and the latter is not working out how to further denigrate the left through lies and smears.

[Baerboxer]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.

Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.

Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.

Let them join the US $.

Bye Bye.

Do you have any idea which countries contribute more into the EU than they take out? And which take out more and never give?

Probably not, based on your post.

If Britain did decide to leave the EU, which I actually believe is the wrong thing to do, watch the German people start asking for a similar referendum.

Without British and German "contributions" there is no EU.

[NeverSure]

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minimum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

[RuamRudy]

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minimum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

The thread is about immigration and, yet, somehow it has evolved to state that the British unemployed are lazy. Well, so be it - Waitrose still needs to supply the chattering classes with their lollo rosso at a subsidised price, so if the lazy British unemployed are not willing to work for a pittance, then we need more immigration. Where is the problem?

Edited July 23, 2015 by RuamRudy

[JockPieandBeans]

According to this, the number of UK unemployed is just over 1.8 million, but I think it is a myth to suggest that these people are all workshy. Of course you get blaggers and scroungers - they have always been there and they always will be there - but I believe that the majority of the unemployed genuinely want to work. However if you have skills, qualifications, aspirations, do you really want to spend 12 hours a day, bent over in a field picking carrots? I know that if I was to lose my job, I would need to be on my knees before I would take such a drop in standing. It isn't arrogance, it is human nature.

RR.

I do not want to insult your intelligence. In the UK the official unemployment figure comes from the numbers currently claiming JSA. It would be beneficial for you to do a bit of research and find out who CANNOT claim JSA.

You will then see for yourself that the official unemployment figure is pie in the sky.

It is snobs that feel it is below them to do a job that is below their perceived standing. It is human nature to provide for yourself and family.You would be screaming to pick carrots 12 hours a day if there was no welfare state providing ( well over 20K ) in some instances. Of course, thanks to successive Governments, we now have a generation who think that the world owes them something.

That was the essence of my post. There are jobs available for all those that are currently unemployed. The safety net is too attractive, and in some cases better than working. This needs to change.

The welfare state was set up to assist those in short term need. Not fund lifestyles.

But we do have a welfare state, and many unemployed have been paying stamp for years - should they not be entitled to rely on the state to support them while they look for a job commensurate with their skills and qualifications? There are lots of issues with your suggestion that the unemployed should reach for the gutter: the location of the people versus the location of the low skilled work; the need to maintain skills and qualifications if you have any hope of returning to that sphere.

As for professional scroungers, I think they reside mainly in the heads of the Barclay brothers and Paul Dacre, when the former are not working out further tax avoidance schemes and the latter is not working out how to further denigrate the left through lies and smears.

Yes we do have a welfare state. One that has been used and abused ever since I was old enough to understand what it actually was.

We also have a welfare state that will not assist myself and many others like me. Who have paid in a lot of money, but because we thought about, and made provisions for our future, will give us nothing. So, you will have to excuse me if I really do not care for people who are good at milking the system without contributing a penny.

No, and this is where it has all gone wrong. It should be there to provide a safety net until they can find other employment. Nothing whatsoever to do with finding a job commensurate with their skills and qualifications.

Working to support yourself and your family has got absolutely nothing to do with reaching for the gutter. Where does personal pride, sense of achievement and self reliance fit in with your way of thinking ?

Low skilled workers would not need to travel far low skilled jobs, every town and city requires low skilled workers, to say that argument is weak is putting it mildly.

Actually, your last paragraph answered my questions. You are part of the liberal left where everything is an entitlement.

[JockPieandBeans]

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minimum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

The thread is about immigration and, yet, somehow it has evolved to state that the British unemployed are lazy. Well, so be it - Waitrose still needs to supply the chattering classes with their lollo rosso at a subsidised price, so if the lazy British unemployed are not willing to work for a pittance, then we need more immigration. Where is the problem?

Immigration and unemployment are intertwined.

There is a vast difference between lazy and a welfare state that makes it more beneficial to sit on your @rse.

Whilst there is just 1 Brit claiming unemployment benefit, the UK does not need migrants.

When there is no one claiming unemployment, and there is jobs to be filled, then you need immigration.

Edited July 23, 2015 by JockPieandBeans

[RuamRudy]

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

The thread is about immigration and, yet, somehow it has evolved to state that the British unemployed are lazy. Well, so be it - Waitrose still needs to supply the chattering classes with their lollo rosso at a subsidised price, so if the lazy British unemployed are not willing to work for a pittance, then we need more immigration. Where is the problem?

Immigration and unemployment are intertwined.

There is a vast difference between lazy and a welfare state that makes it more beneficial to sit on your @rse.

Whilst there is just 1 Brit claiming unemployment benefit, the UK does not need migrants.

When there is no one claiming unemployment, and there is jobs to be filled, then you need immigration.

There are unemployed Thais in Bangkok - should all Brits who work here be kicked out?

[JockPieandBeans]

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

The thread is about immigration and, yet, somehow it has evolved to state that the British unemployed are lazy. Well, so be it - Waitrose still needs to supply the chattering classes with their lollo rosso at a subsidised price, so if the lazy British unemployed are not willing to work for a pittance, then we need more immigration. Where is the problem?

Immigration and unemployment are intertwined.

There is a vast difference between lazy and a welfare state that makes it more beneficial to sit on your @rse.

Whilst there is just 1 Brit claiming unemployment benefit, the UK does not need migrants.

When there is no one claiming unemployment, and there is jobs to be filled, then you need immigration.

There are unemployed Thais in Bangkok - should all Brits who work here be kicked out?

I think that you will find that there is a list of jobs that are only available to Thai's.

Having never worked in Thailand I can only assume that the Brits who work in Bangkok and elsewhere in Thailand can only do so because there are no Thai's that have the skills and qualifications that are required for the position.

How many Brits are working in Bangkok on a 300 Baht a day wage ?

As Thailand does not have a comparable welfare state with the UK, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

[sammygood]

benefits should be short term, in case you lose your job

but hey, its the same in other european countries where "aboriginals" are being bypassed by the newcommers, never having contributed one cent to the system and sucking it dry

[RuamRudy]

benefits should be short term, in case you lose your job

but hey, its the same in other european countries where "aboriginals" are being bypassed by the newcommers, never having contributed one cent to the system and sucking it dry

What depresses me about the entire issue of whether the unemployed are to be pitied or despised is that they are not the issue at all. We are fed a daily diet of headlines and reality shows depicting them as scroungers and cheats, living in luxury while they have their hands in our pockets - and that is what we are expected to think. We squabble and argue like weasels in a sack, while ignorant to the real theft, that of our democracy, our rights, our birthright.

Why are there no TV programs showing how the leaders of business and politics are manipulating the laws of the land to bolster their positions at our expense? Why do we accept a government imposing restrictions on workers' rights to withdraw their labour, when the government's very mandate for power falls short of those requirements? Why are we arguing and fighting amongst ourselves about the few baubles cast to the unemployed, when the true drain on our society has gone unchecked for generations?

We hear so much about the 1%, and how they are accumulating 90%+ of the benefits of the recovery - all the bank bailouts and stimulus injections were designed to to take your money and give it to them - but yet we still look downwards and curse at those at our heels.

You may be losing money to those below you, but you are losing much, much more to those above.

[ggold]

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minimum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

Everyone can't be in the service sector. That sector doesn't create new wealth. It passes existing wealth around. A bunch of people can't all stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all expect to get wealthy.

New wealth which can grow an economy and indeed a nation is created by manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing etc. Someone presents to the economy something that wasn't available for people the day before. There's more to go around. Without this sector there won't be anything to buy, anyway. Where would I buy a loaf of bread, some fish or meat, a new TV or a computer if people weren't providing those as new wealth every day for people to buy?

Go up above and read JockPieandBeans' post carefully.

If able people are hungry they will work. People can't just lay around and expect others to work for them. Even poor people that come to your country will find themselves or their children wanting to climb the economic ladder and then what are you going to do? Climb to a population of 300 million people just to have imported field workers?

Well?

Cheers.

The thread is about immigration and, yet, somehow it has evolved to state that the British unemployed are lazy. Well, so be it - Waitrose still needs to supply the chattering classes with their lollo rosso at a subsidised price, so if the lazy British unemployed are not willing to work for a pittance, then we need more immigration. Where is the problem?

Sorry, But the British are lazy! I watched a UKIP short on youtube about a couple of guys who were complaining about immigrant workers taking their job. They complained that immigrant workers were working longer hours. These guys thought it right that they should only work 8am to 4pm. less than 8 hours after breaks.

That is the British mentality, "why should I have to work longer hours"

Britain used to be called a nation of shop keepers. How many British Shop keepers are there now? Immigrants have come to the UK and made a better life for themselves, while the British have declined. Even in education immigrants do better.

The sun has gone down over the British Empire and the country, If it were not for the immigrants the UK would be in a worse situation than it is. Maybe even on the same level as Greece!

I really think a lot of Brits fail to recognise this fact. If all the immigrants were to leave, the UK would be in the Sh****.

The UK should follow the USA, scrap any financial assistance for food stamps. People need to learn to live within their means. If you can't afford something then learn to go without. The socialist mentality of, I pay my dues I'm entitled, or I won't work for a pittance is what has dragged the country down.

If people want something let them go out and work for it. Not expect to be handed it on a plate. Work should pay more than social security payments, regardless of the level of either. It should never be easier to stay on the dole, than work.

[i claudius]

"Fuelling the Brexit Debate?"

Didn't even know there was a debate.

Only among the guardian readers and the PC crowd,the rest of us want out

[casualbiker]

Without the Migrants Britain can close down.
Let them go and live without money from Brussels, then crying will really start.
Britain just want's the best of everything without taking on responsibility.
Let them join the US $.
Bye Bye.

Why would Britain "close down"?

The benefits of immigration for the country are huge. If we kick out immigrant, who will work in our fields in all weathers for minumum wage (or less)? With apprenticeships disappearing and an economy increasingly moving into service and finance, where will be find quality tradesmen?

The very basic, simple answer.

The 2.5 Million that are currently unemployed.

There is a job, take it. When you no longer want to work, no more benefits.

As for the skilled workers. That is up to individual Companies to train people to make their business sustainable. It used to be called apprenticeships in the days before profit overrode everything else.

According to this, the number of UK unemployed is just over 1.8 million, but I think it is a myth to suggest that these people are all workshy. Of course you get blaggers and scroungers - they have always been there and they always will be there - but I believe that the majority of the unemployed genuinely want to work. However if you have skills, qualifications, aspirations, do you really want to spend 12 hours a day, bent over in a field picking carrots? I know that if I was to lose my job, I would need to be on my knees before I would take such a drop in standing. It isn't arrogance, it is human nature.

Firstly picking carrots is a mechanised event so sure I would love to drive the tractor! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_harvester

Some in the UK are far to liberal in their thinking. The thought that people DON'T want to work but want to claim any and all possible benefits is a real one, it's even been mentioned to me that it's almost like a full time job reading and working around the rules!

I agree about IF you have the skills etc BUT honestly if you have been looking for a year or more then it's time to accept that change is necessary.