Dubstepforum.com

jaydot wrote: Why are you quoting old figures? When since then more than anything (well probably since the 50s and 60s) we've seen migration soar? And obviously you can't look into the future, but it will continue to soar). And that leaves a large majority of people homeless.

They are the most recent numbers, as you already told me that you knew how much empty stock there was you can just tell me? Or were you lying?

DJoe wrote:jaydot you still haven't really sufficiently replied to

If we don't have enough housing, jobs, schools etc. and british ppl aren't getting jobs, houses and school places because immigrants are taking them (which isn't happening to the extent you claim it does)..

..Why don't we build more houses and schools and create more jobs?
rather than implementing, what may not be racist policies, but what certainly are, nationalistic and unpleasant policies.

It seems your biggest gripe is not having access to these things, making you feel a 2nd classs citizen. rather than making another group feel like 2nd class citizens, we should build more houses etc.

Jaydot you are ignoring the fact that immmigration brings far more economical (and imo cultural) benefits to Britain than disadvantages and there are figures which back this up.


Why should a british person have more of a right to a job than a none british person, who lives in Britain legally and has a right to work? How can you claim this on any basis other than race/ethnicity?

also london centrism tends to happen when 1 in 6 people live there

I agreed that we should build more houses (and schools) but how do you create jobs when there's not the existing industries ie technological advancements making manual personnel redundant/ moving industry abroad etc. The current jobs to unemployed ratio is something ridiculous (I don't know what, but basically there's a lot more unemployed compared to actual jobs out there) How do you "create" more jobs, in a nutshell?

scspkr99 wrote:

jaydot wrote: Why are you quoting old figures? When since then more than anything (well probably since the 50s and 60s) we've seen migration soar? And obviously you can't look into the future, but it will continue to soar). And that leaves a large majority of people homeless.

They are the most recent numbers, as you already told me that you knew how much empty stock there was you can just tell me? Or were you lying?

Quote the original post I can't be bothered to read back

building houses and schools would be a short term fix but not long term. but i don't really know about creating jobs.

what about the other stuff tho?

By having people spend money and that includes immigrant money and the jobs that having immigrants employed here keeps here.

jaydot wrote: Quote the original post I can't be bothered to read back

jaydot wrote:
Have you any idea how much unoccupied housing there is?

.

Yes a lot less than you think.[/quote]

So why don't you tell me or are you lying?

scspkr99 wrote:

jaydot wrote: Quote the original post I can't be bothered to read back

jaydot wrote:
Have you any idea how much unoccupied housing there is?

.

Yes a lot less than you think.

So why don't you tell me or are you lying?[/quote]

I don't actually know, I was just making a vague surmisation. LEAVE ME ALONE

lol you made this thread what did you expect?

come on guys leave jaydot alone

DJoe wrote:building houses and schools would be a short term fix but not long term. but i don't really know about creating jobs.

what about the other stuff tho?

Your other main points one that immigration's benefits outweigh the negatives; it's been said by the left that this is true but I don't know how much. If there's a large percentage of illegal immigrants in the country and a large ammount of immigrants on benefits, both whom don't contribute to society as a whole, and then the ones who are earn minimum wage or next to minimum wage so don't offer much in terms of taxation revenue but cost the taxpayer in healthcare etc, then can it really be said that immigration is on the whole beneficial to the UK? And it might be financially but socially? When there's a clash of cultures and languages and people who are reluctant to integrate.

Your other main point was why should anyone have a right to a job etc regardless of their race? Quite simply because they're British, they were born here. And I know the far left like to admonish that as jingoistic ballsacks but it's a relevant marker imo.

DJoe wrote:lol you made this thread what did you expect?

I'm jokin'

jaydot wrote:
Your other main points one that immigration's benefits outweigh the negatives; it's been said by the left that this is true but I don't know how much. If there's a large percentage of illegal immigrants in the country and a large ammount of immigrants on benefits, both whom don't contribute to society as a whole, and then the ones who are earn minimum wage or next to minimum wage so don't offer much in terms of taxation revenue but cost the taxpayer in healthcare etc, then can it really be said that immigration is on the whole beneficial to the UK?

dfaultuzr wrote:

jaydot wrote: No one can calculate exactly how many immigrants come into the country what with illegals and then you have asylum seekers/refugees who won't contribute anything barely so I think there has to be a threshold of "compensation"

well apparently, these guys did: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_upl ... _22_13.pdf

you might not like their findings:

By assigning individuals their share of cost for each item of government expenditure and
identifying their contribution to each source of government revenues, we are able to provide
precise estimates for each year since 1995 (2001 for recent immigrants) on both the overall
expenditure on the respective immigrant populations and the revenues they have produced in
comparison to native born workers.(...)
The perhaps most important finding of our analysis is that immigrants are overall less likely than
natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and similarly likely to live in social housing as
natives in the same region. Some differences do emerge, however, between immigrants from the
European Economic Area (EEA) and those from outside Europe (non-EEA). Whereas EEA
immigrants have made an overall positive fiscal contribution to the UK, the net fiscal balance of
non-EEA immigrants is negative, as it is for natives.
Recent immigrants, i.e. those who arrived since 2000, are less likely to both receiving benefits
and living in social housing than natives. Furthermore, recent immigrants, both those from EEA
and non-EEA countries have made a positive net contribution to the UK fiscal system despite the
UK’s running a budget deficit over most of the 2000s.

jaydot wrote:
Your other main points one that immigration's benefits outweigh the negatives; it's been said by the left that this is true but I don't know how much. If there's a large percentage of illegal immigrants in the country and a large ammount of immigrants on benefits, both whom don't contribute to society as a whole, and then the ones who are earn minimum wage or next to minimum wage so don't offer much in terms of taxation revenue but cost the taxpayer in healthcare etc, then can it really be said that immigration is on the whole beneficial to the UK?

you're making the assumption that a large percentage of immigrants claim benefits. this isnt true.

from department of work and pensions:

'As of February 2011, there were 5.5m people receiving working-age benefits. Some 371,000 of those were foreign nationals when they first came to the UK, representing 6.4% of the claimants.
Almost 17% of all British nationals receive these benefits compared with almost 7% of all those classed as non-UK nationals when they first arrived in the UK.
More than half of those receiving a benefit had in fact at some point become British citizens, meaning they had the same rights as people born British.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11 ... 12431.html

there is no point in mentioning illegal immigrants because they aren't legally allowed into the country and able to work here. plus noone knows really how many are here or what they do or don't contribute.
it is also wrong to assume that the largest contriutions of immigrants is paying tax through minimum wage. they contribute through bringing and starting business, improving connectivity with the rest of the world as well as high paying jobs and so more taxes (think indian doctor stereotype etc.)

jaydot wrote: And it might be financially but socially? When there's a clash of cultures and languages and people who are reluctant to integrate.

I've never seen any of this. I grew up in Finsbury Park and there are no communities in the area which I have seen that aren't fully integrated. i was one of 3 white ppl in my primary school class so its a very ethnically mixed area. there are no clashes of culture and I have never come across someone that doesn't speak english in my area. I feel weird when Im in the countryside and everyone is white and british so the idea of culture clashes and lack of integration etc. isn't necessarily true. Although i understand there are places like bradford etc. where this is the case, i would argue that this also due to mass unemployment, poor planning and bigotry from white British locals more than a lack an ability for different cultures to mix.

jaydot wrote: Your other main point was why should anyone have a right to a job etc regardless of their race? Quite simply because they're British, they were born here. And I know the far left like to admonish that as jingoistic ballsacks but it's a relevant marker imo.

its not the far left, its not even the just the left who think this mate. people should have a right to work regardless of race because racism is illegal in this country and rightly so. Nationality is an accident of birth and so imo trivial

i dunno how someone can have such babylonian views on dsf

I dunno how someone can have the same facts shoved in his face three times and still act like they didn't exist or "don't know exactly".

Because, as with most UKIP supporters, Jaydot is unable of understanding actual structured debate over and above them vs us.

wub wrote:Because, as with most UKIP supporters, Jaydot is unable of understanding actual structured debate over and above them vs us.

stop being a condescending patroinising bitch u liberal fuck


tbh

Jurkhands wrote:

wub wrote:Because, as with most UKIP supporters, Jaydot is unable of understanding actual structured debate over and above them vs us.

stop being a condescending patroinising bitch u liberal fuck


tbh

Go fuck yourself

There's been plenty of things posted in this thread that Jay's just ignored. One of the main criticisms of UKIP in the UK is that they are a single agenda party that don't have any real solutions to some of the problems they're constantly identifying and blaming on EU membership and immigrants.

wub wrote:

Jurkhands wrote:

wub wrote:Because, as with most UKIP supporters, Jaydot is unable of understanding actual structured debate over and above them vs us.

stop being a condescending patroinising bitch u liberal fuck


tbh

Go fuck yourself

There's been plenty of things posted in this thread that Jay's just ignored. One of the main criticisms of UKIP in the UK is that they are a single agenda party that don't have any real solutions to some of the problems they're constantly identifying and blaming on EU membership and immigrants.

Sounds familiar.

Not talking about the discussion btw.