Romanians & Bulgarians to claim UK benefits from January

[DJoe]

I don't really understand why it matters where a person is from when claiming benefits.If you are in this country for an extended period of time (not a holiday) and now live here, why does an English person have more rights to benefits than a Romanian.

[garethom]

They don't. My point was that if found to be taking the piss out of the benefits system, we should be able to move them back to where they came from.

It's just not so easy to move British people onto another place

[Laszlo]

Because the country they're from generates such a tiny GDP that their education system is shite and giving them benefits would be throwing good money after bad.

[Pedro Sánchez]

I don't really understand why it matters where a person is from when claiming benefits.If you are in this country for an extended period of time (not a holiday) and now live here, why does an English person have more rights to benefits than a Romanian.

When your birth certificate is stamped by your country of origin, they have a duty to provide you with certain rights, some people feel that benefits are one of them rights and when they are denied what they feel is their fare share, they ask why is it that non-nationals may get something that them their selves cannot attain. I don't agree with that but this is the view of many brits, even ones not born here.

[m8son666]

I don't really understand why it matters where a person is from when claiming benefits.If you are in this country for an extended period of time (not a holiday) and now live here, why does an English person have more rights to benefits than a Romanian.

Say you are a member of a club where every week you pay a fiver and with that you get a free sandwich everyday, if someone who is not a member of the club turns up one day and starts getting free sandwichs without paying anything would that not annoy you? Also you are not allowed to refuse this person a sandwich because someone in another club far away says that you have to give them a sandwich.

That's how i see it although im sure someone will tell me i am wrong.

[Genevieve]

Well, I believe all taxes are theft (regardless of where that benefits receivers are from) and while I believe in a system for benefits for people who are temporarily out of work (voluntarily), I don't believe in a government monopoly on it.

But I think there's something slightly hypocritical about being all high and mighty about poor people should be treated and how many benefits they deserve without actively doing something about it yourself.

If you have your own apartment and waste your cash on drugs and luxuries, why not cut down on those expensive luxuries and take in a homeless person yourself? People always have such grand visions of how other people should spend their money and then complain when it's not spent their way. Cut out the middleman and do something about it yourself tbh.

[DiegoSapiens]

if someone who is not a member of the club turns up one day and starts getting free sandwichs without paying anything would that not annoy you?

romania don´t pay taxes? they have assumed some meassures for entering in the ue that have costed them millions of euros

[garethom]

If you have your own apartment and waste your cash on drugs and luxuries, why not cut down on those expensive luxuries and take in a homeless person yourself?

I did that before but my parents wouldn't let me keep him.

[m8son666]

if someone who is not a member of the club turns up one day and starts getting free sandwichs without paying anything would that not annoy you?

romania don´t pay taxes? they have assumed some meassures for entering in the ue that have costed them millions of euros

i don't understand what you mean?

[DiegoSapiens]

that in one way romanian and bulgarians pay taxes for everything they buy there (exept drugs obvs) nobody turns up in your club without paying. And then the uk and first european countries are making this countries take measures for avoiding "disqualified inmigration" that are costing a lot of money

[DJoe]

If they didn't receive benefits, where are they going to get their money from if they don't have work? I feel the cost to society of having people without JSA or a job is greater than the government giving out JSA.

If the immigrants aren't given housing benefits and have no job, they will be homeless.

Won't the economic benefits of having a group of people come into the country outweigh the cost of having to fund the minority of that group who need to be supported.

[m8son666]

Yes of course it is better to give benefits than to force people to be homeless or turn to crime.

Why are we letting people into our country that either have to claim benefits or live on the street though?

[garethom]

If they didn't receive benefits, where are they going to get their money from if they don't have work? I feel the cost to society of having people without JSA or a job is greater than the government giving out JSA.

If the immigrants aren't given housing benefits and have no job, they will be homeless.

Won't the economic benefits of having a group of people come into the country outweigh the cost of having to fund the minority of that group who need to be supported.

Dude, pretty much all of these issues have already been discussed in here. As the article Magma posted, yes it seems the economic benefit outweighs the negative. All we're talking about now is "would it be better if no immigrants were on benefits, i.e. the thought around whether we should accept migrants with no job prospects. They wouldn't be homeless. They'd be sent back to their country of origin.

Yes of course it is better to give benefits than to force people to be homeless or turn to crime.

Why are we letting people into our country that either have to claim benefits or live on the street though?

This is what we're talking about basically.

Comparing numbers isn't really what we're doing here. My discussion was that it would be good if the amount of migrants claiming benefits was zero. Read over the points already made by people earlier in the thread, and you'll see most of your questions are probably answered. Can't be arsed to keep typing them out over and over.

[d-T-r]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

Migrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a report says.

The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.

The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong".

The government said it was right to have strict rules in place to help protect the benefits system.

Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011, according to the report by Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini from UCL's Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.

They were also 3% less likely to live in social housing.

"These differences are partly explainable by immigrants' more favourable age-gender composition. However, even when compared to natives with the same age, gender composition, and education, recent immigrants are still 21% less likely than natives to receive benefits," the authors say.
'Highly-educated immigrants'

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality”

Report co-author Prof Christian Dustmann

Immigrants from outside the EEA contributed 2% more in taxes than they received in the same period, the report showed.

Over the same period, British people paid 11% less in tax than they received.

Despite the positive figures in the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.

The report also showed that in 2011, 32% of recent EEA immigrants and 43% of non-EEA immigrants had university degrees, compared with 21% of the British adult population.
Graph

The research used data from the British Labour Force Survey and government reports. Prof Dustmann said it had shown that "in contrast with most other European countries, the UK attracts highly-educated and skilled immigrants from within the EEA as well as from outside".

He added: "Our study also suggests that over the last decade or so, the UK has benefited fiscally from immigrants from EEA countries, who have put in considerably more in taxes and contributions than they received in benefits and transfers.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The real issue for the future is the very large numbers of low-paid immigrants from eastern Europe”

Sir Andrew Green, Migration Watch

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

Sir Andrew Green of the pressure group Migration Watch said the report had "been spun".

"We've had roughly four million immigrants under the previous government - two-thirds of those were from outside the European Union," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said the report found that, "since 1995, they have made a negative contribution overall".

He added: "So the verdict for non-EU is that the benefit to the exchequer is minimal or negative."

He accepted that "if you take the whole of the EU", the benefit was "clearly positive".

But Sir Andrew said this would be expected "because you are including German engineers, French fashion designers and - as it's the European Economic Area - even Swiss bankers [sic]".

"The real issue for the future is the very large numbers of low-paid immigrants from eastern Europe," he said.

He added: "The report looks backwards but doesn't look forwards.

"The professor's report does not take into account - no doubt for good reason - future health costs as migrants get older nor the pension bill, which is huge."
Career peak
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

It's absolutely right that we have strict rules in place to protect the integrity of the British benefits system to ensure it's not abused”

Government spokesman

Prof Dustmann told Today: "It is true that recent immigrants are younger but they are also much better educated.

"So they will take more out of the benefit system but they will also contribute more in the future because they have not yet reached their career peak and their full income potential.

"Of course, the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes."

A spokesman for the government said: "We welcome those that want to come here to contribute to the economy, but it's absolutely right that we have strict rules in place to protect the integrity of the British benefits system to ensure it's not abused."
Graph

He added that this was why the government was strengthening measures to ensure that benefits are only paid to people who are "legally allowed to live in Britain".

Meanwhile, a separate UCL study released on Tuesday warns that the government's target to cut net migration to the UK to the tens of thousands is "neither a useful tool nor a measure of policy effectiveness".

That report argues that actions to cut work-related, student and family migration have damaged the UK's reputation as a good place to work and study.

The 2011 census showed that 13% of the population of England and Wales was born outside the UK.

[Pedro Sánchez]

Saw this. Interesting read.

Going back to original discussion, if it's 6,000 immigrants claiming JSA over here, then that's 6,000 too many, and my big issue with unrestricted living rights within the EU. Whilst it could be seen as ONLY 6,000, it'd be much better if it was 0.

I'm all for immigration that benefits society, and a lot of it does through the sharing of ideas and cultures and forcing people to confront differences, but does there not need to be some stricter entry criteria? If you're going somewhere without even the prospect of employment or ability to support yourself, maybe you should reconsider. These are EU countries they're coming from, not war torn hellholes that they're escaping from, I don't think there should be any moral issue with sending them back if they don't meet the criteria.

Back to the article that Magma posted, whilst it makes good points, stats can be twisted in many ways. You could argue that 1 immigrant doing a job in this country is 1 Briton not doing that job, and a potential increase in the welfare bill. Add to the fact that immigrant labour may have reduced wages in what were already low paying sectors, and there may be negatives that can't be facted away. *shrugs*

Honestly, I'd like to means test everyone claiming JSA long term (sure I read that the vast majority of JSA claims are for 1-2 weeks), but I suspect it would be more expensive than just paying it in the first place.

It's a complex issue that isn't going to get solved any time soon because of the tugging on heartstrings, one way or another from both "sides", either the "foreign people will kill us all" brigade or the "everyone should enjoy the same benefits" gang.

Lol at the suggestion Britons might be going to Romania just to scrounge. Come on.

[garethom]

Story was posted a couple of pages back.

Edit: On that note, was reading through some of the comments. This is a pretty good one:

This report does not take into account the big picture. Mass immigration is not just measured in how much tax an immigrant pays compared to the benefits claimed. The big picture needs to account for the affect that the immigrants have on accommodation where prices are forced up due to huge demand. The cost on schools, hospitals, etc. all services that have to expand to meet the growing population.

Would be interested in seeing a report that delves deeper into some of these things (especially youth unemployment). Will be good to see some facts rather than just hear say. The accommodation part is interesting too. Not sure what it's like elsewhere, but house prices in some of the more immigrant heavy areas of Birmingham have really shot up, they're quite a way out of line with other comparable areas, which is something else locals worry about, I guess.

[magma]

Story was posted a couple of pages back.

Edit: On that note, was reading through some of the comments. This is a pretty good one:

This report does not take into account the big picture. Mass immigration is not just measured in how much tax an immigrant pays compared to the benefits claimed. The big picture needs to account for the affect that the immigrants have on accommodation where prices are forced up due to huge demand. The cost on schools, hospitals, etc. all services that have to expand to meet the growing population.

Would be interested in seeing a report that delves deeper into some of these things (especially youth unemployment). Will be good to see some facts rather than just hear say. The accommodation part is interesting too. Not sure what it's like elsewhere, but house prices in some of the more immigrant heavy areas of Birmingham have really shot up, they're quite a way out of line with other comparable areas, which is something else locals worry about, I guess.

Yeah, it would be good to see some more detailed numbers - accommodation is definitely a relevant topic. Not based on any statistics whatsoever, my natural feel is that rampant buy-to-let investing over the last 3 decades has caused far more trouble in the housing market than immigration. The problem with housing is that too many people buy houses with no intention of living in them.

*ramble alert*

Youth Unemployment is a huge issue, but are most NEETs trying and failing to get the jobs being taken up by Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants? Again, my natural feel is that most of the jobs being taken by immigrant labour are currently considered as 'beneath' natural-born Britons whether through the type of work or the pay offered.

There's a HUGE conversation to be had about a proper living wage hopefully raising the wage element of these jobs to levels acceptable to more Britons, but there's also a slightly more complex political discussion about what jobs we 'respect' as a society. It's quite striking to live in London and see how different nationalities seem to gravitate to certain industries - I can't remember the last time I saw someone with an English accent cleaning the office at work, for example. I expect you'd be pushed to find many in the meat packing plants in the East midlands too - we're happy to do call centre work, but nothing that seems 'dirty'. This is only a generation removed from the closure of the coal mines when the working classes really toiled for the best part of fuck all and were rightly respected for it.

It brings me back to wondering if part of the problem actually comes from the expectation that our generation can live as easily as our parents did - unfortunately, even taking immigration out of the equation, our parents (and their parents) bred like nymphomaniac rabbits and the amount of menial labour required to support the population necessarily increased as the population did... at the same time, we put a borderline ludicrous proportion of a generation through University, setting expectations of comfortable life-time employment starting on graduate schemes whilst the amount of actual jobs befitting University graduates remained fairly steady - effectively, we created a youth workforce that is worryingly unsuitable for the labour market it's being thrown into.

In the post-war period we brought in waves of skilled immigration in order to staff our new hospitals, but bred a generation that saw Nursing as a desirable vocation bringing the jobs and value back into the native population, in the 00s we bring in unskilled labour to prepare our vacuum packed vegetables and clean our toilets and we have no idea who's going to replace them in 15 years time apart from more immigrants. Our cities might just start falling apart if we stopped letting people come in and tidy up our mess.

[garethom]

Yeah, it would be good to see some more detailed numbers - accommodation is definitely a relevant topic. Not based on any statistics whatsoever, my natural feel is that rampant buy-to-let investing over the last 3 decades has caused far more trouble in the housing market than immigration. The problem with housing is that too many people buy houses with no intention of living in them.

Defs, I wasn't making a sweeping statement, just more something I've noticed in Birmingham.

Youth Unemployment is a huge issue, but are most NEETs trying and failing to get the jobs being taken up by Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants? Again, my natural feel is that most of the jobs being taken by immigrant labour are currently considered as 'beneath' natural-born Britons whether through the type of work or the pay offered.

Does it have to be most before we take a serious look? Not saying that's what you're suggesting, but it seems with a lot of hot topics that are discussed on here, or in most places actually, it's always an issue of "most or nothing" if you get me. I'd say if even some unskilled jobs are going to unskilled immigrants over young people for whatever reason, then it's something to look at.

Regarding your note on opinions of certain jobs, I agree, especially that young people that have grown up seeing Eastern Europeans come in and take up jobs like cleaning will see it as "below" them. Think the only way you'll get round the cyclical issue of no Britons wanting the job > ship in more immigrants is getting those jobs to offer a liveable wage, which we've been discussing. Until then, they will be below a lot of people that have grown up here.

[Pedro Sánchez]

Our cities might just start falling apart if we stopped letting people come in and tidy up our mess.

That's what the temp agencies that are outsourcing those jobs want you to believe, I know plenty of young brits that would happily clean the streets or offices over doing a scam call centre job if it pays a living wage, and as long as cheap labour is imported that discussion can never be had because them vacancies are always filled. So the myth perpetuated that jobs are beneath the younger generation of british born keeps these exploitative companies in pocket, with no action being taken.

Edit: NMW especially in London puts you in the category of 'Working Poor' to then go and physically put in 35hours plus labour picking up someone else's shit with no real reward, other than surviving to the next week, every week, is not a great option in life. Anyone should be discouraged from that regardless if they came from worse. And for anyone that argues against that has clearly never been in that situation.

[magma]

Does it have to be most before we take a serious look? Not saying that's what you're suggesting, but it seems with a lot of hot topics that are discussed on here, or in most places actually, it's always an issue of "most or nothing" if you get me. I'd say if even some unskilled jobs are going to unskilled immigrants over young people for whatever reason, then it's something to look at.

"Most" suggests a trend to me which is when you need to pay attention; there will always be some, but that's natural competition. I don't really see a problem with an immigrant being given a job over a Brit; I do see an issue with tens of thousands of immigrants performing functions that the native labour market won't take on. I think we could perhaps do with some more numbers.

Regarding your note on opinions of certain jobs, I agree, especially that young people that have grown up seeing Eastern Europeans come in and take up jobs like cleaning will see it as "below" them. Think the only way you'll get round the cyclical issue of no Britons wanting the job > ship in more immigrants is getting those jobs to offer a liveable wage, which we've been discussing. Until then, they will be below a lot of people that have grown up here.

Do you think it's just wages keeping people out of those jobs? I'm not so sure... I definitely agree with a living wage on general principle, but I'm not convinced a slightly higher wage is going to make someone with a 2:1 in Business Studies from Leeds University want to spend 40 hours a week cleaning toilets or chopping cabbage. As a generation, we simply weren't prepared for this economy... we were all told we could be marine biologists, business analysts and electronic engineers as long as we made it through University and it was simply never true.

I actually consider myself pretty lucky to have fucked up my A Levels and missed out on University, because I have no idea what I'd be doing if I'd joined the labour market 4 years later than I did. I can only imagine how jarring reality is for the thousands of people that did "better" than me, but are now in a much worse situation.