Tuesday, 15 October 2013

The costs of out of control immigration

Labour excused all immigration, any immigration, on the grounds that it added to GDP; on the face of it, this is true. If our broke nation has to borrow an extra £100bn to pay for housing and health care for sick and unproductive immigrants, the nation's GDP increases by that amount and more, as the multiplier effect kicks in. Per capita GDP in contrast falls - everyone in the nation generates less GDP as we have to bear the burden of the unproductive immigrants. And that is Labour's great con, their massive fraud; there is no direct link between per capita GDP and median earnings but the impact of the cost of living that Miliband is basing his campaign upon is Labour's own doing; we are all paying for Labour's immigrants.

The housewife paying the same at the checkout for a trolley only two-thirds as full as last year, the pensioner who doesn't dare to turn the heating on as Autumn chills cut the air, the young couple relying on hand-me-downs to clothe and shoe their kids - all are paying the cost of maintaining Labour's uncontrolled immigration. In this part of South London it's West Africans; there are an estimated 1m illegal Africans in the UK, crowding the maternity wards, filling the schools, blocking the buses with pushchairs. Elsewhere it's 600,000 inactive EU migrants, or 500,000 chronically sick and elderly Pakistani dependents. And they're the reason we're all feeling the squeeze. But don't blame the immigrants; it's not their fault but the fault of the treasonous morons who held the door open - the Labour Party.

10 comments:

JuliaM said...

Yes, Labour have acted with breathtaking cynicism and disregard for consequences that'll never affect them (in other words, 'like politicians') but why the exhortation not to 'blame the immigrants'?

Are they unaware they are in the country illegally?

Of course they are to blame!

Tom said...

Treasonous morons seems inadequate - and then they proceed to bleat and demand that they should be funded from taxation... Words are getting inadequate

Tatty said...

What the fuckitty fuck is with that "Guardian reader offer" (sidebar) ??

Pubic Hair Beader - complete with graphic illustration of beaded pubic hair - omifuckingod.

*retch*

Demetrius said...

We have a very decent and nice chap who came to work as a doctor in the NHS. His wife does not work as part of their culture. There are four children in school and his two parents and two in law parents, all pensioners. Often others of the family come to visit and have medical treatment. His practice is an off shore limited company so few of the real earnings are taxed.

Anonymous said...

And it's going to get a lot, lot worse, Raedwald. When the human tsunami(offspring of the '97-2010 intake) starts hitting the jobs market in a couple years the end of days will have surely started. Enjoy.

Steve

Anonymous said...

This whole debate is always coloured (pun not intended) by the "you can't do anything about the EU immigrants" and "the immigrants in the vast majority work"

Yet according to the DWP own report about employment rates vs country of origin, the bottom 3 in terms of work were immigrants from Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Somali no. is something like 75% not working and claiming benefits.

To have encouraged the mass importation of these people was an act of gross national vandalism, of spite and I will go to my grave fucking laothing the Labout bastards for it.

Ian Hills said...

Behind all the political excuses there is the stink of corruption.

Labour have imported cheap labour immigrants since Attlee, and the Tories too, obviously in return for bribes.

Forget all the hype about benefits - most immigrants are working, and it's working people who pay the benefit bill anyway.

Big firms have loopholes, bought from those same politicians.

Sackerson said...

Raedwald, what you say seems intuitively right but the stats say otherwise. With the odd hiccup, both GDP and GDP-per-capita increased up to the 2008 financial collapse, also the Gini index has reduced slightly since (the story seems to be that in a poorer economy there is more equality, as it was here in the 1970s). GDP has gone down because of the b----y banks, and so has fixed capital formation. Seems the financial sector is more to blame than immigration from those points of view.

Also we have to remember that our national enthusiasm for responsibility-free intercourse has led to the butchering of millions of unborn children since 1967 (latterly female-child-focused, it seems), plus declining fertility because of contraception. The foreign workers are, to some extent, filling a demographic gap created by sterile, murderous British selfishness.

Up to the GFC there is a pattern of increasing income inequality, and the higher up the scale the wider the divergence. This is to be expected becasue those who have more disposable income will invest more and so increase their income and wealth further. However, median wages in the UK have not stalled as in the USA, where middle earners' real wage rates have stood still since the 1970s. This may be because our tax and benefit system redistributes more downwards than in America.

Immigration may create additional strain in (e.g.) the education system, though many immigrants value education highly and push their children to learn and aim high. They will become our doctors and lawyers.

The real national crisis is in the drift from manufacturing to the service sector, and Sir James Goldsmith warned what would happen if GATT went through. We cannot compete in a global economy, and though there are some success stories (e.g. Land Rover here in the Midlands), watch out what happens when the Chinese have learned everything from us that they need to know.

The Asians I know dislike the weirdy-beardies as much as the rest of us. What we have in the Brit Taliban element is what we had to beat off in the 17th century, i.e. Puritans.

Wish I had time to show the graphs etc but I have a job to go to tomorrow.

Fraternally,

Sackerson

Umbongo said...

Sackerson is, IMHO, being rather obtuse here.

The point our host, I think, seeks to make is that the contribution of immigrants - as measured in GDP/capita - over the period since 1997 is, more or less, nothing and probably negative.

That the UK's aggregate GDP/capita grew over the same period is either beside the point or, more interestingly, begs the question concerning the reality of that growth.

This briefing paper from Migration Watch illustrates the cost - or rather the lack of economic benefit - of the Labour immigration policy.

Sackerson said...

Umbongo, I thought addressing the facts was acute rather than obtuse, and the right angle to take.

Low paid workers are going to be a net negative anyway, whether indigenous or imported. Question is, why couldn't we get the former working?