Unstoppable migration?

[Jimmy-J]

Pat Condells' latest video...

Europe's Last Chance

[Osem]

Italy fears “another Calais” on its border with France as desperate migrants and refugees are thwarted in their bid to cross the frontier and reach northern Europe.

Tighter border controls by the French authorities have created a bottleneck around the Italian town of Ventimiglia, just a few miles from the French border.

The Italians are trying to transfer migrants and refugees to reception centres in other parts of the country in order to prevent the development of ramshackle camps such as the notorious ‘Jungle’ in Calais and the tent village that sprung up earlier this year at Idomeni, along the border between Greece and Macedonia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ng-across-the/


Meanwhile in Calais this is happening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ver-with-tree/

We should never allow people like this into the UK.

[Osem]

Germany was warned in advance that a Syrian who blew himself up last month might carry out a "spectacular" suicide attempt if it tried to deport him, BBC Newsnight has learned.
Mohammed Daleel was due to be deported when he detonated a bomb in the Bavarian town of Ansbach on 24 July.
A 25-page psychological assessment written more than a year before mentioned his "extreme spirit".
It was sent to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.
It warned that attempts to deport Mr Daleel could result in a "spectacular" suicide attempt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37059100

Allowing so many people in so fast has created a whole lot of problems but dealing with those who aren't going to be allowed to stay is going to create a whole lot more IMHO.
I can see a lot of people opting to take extreme measures in order to either prevent the authorities from removing them or indeed punishing their hosts for deciding they didn't qualify for Merkel's generosity after all.

[Osem]

Over a third of asylum applications are made by migrants who entered the UK illegally or have overstayed their visas, new data has revealed.

Rather than applying for asylum when they first reach Britain, the figures suggest that a significant proportion of migrants are waiting until they are caught by immigration officers to make their application.

A total of 83,912 of the 231,100 main applications for asylum received in the decade between 2004 and 2014 were by migrants who were “encountered by local immigration and enforcement staff”, according to data provided by the Home Office in a written Commons reply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nd-visa-overs/

Talk about playing the system...

[heero_yuy]

It should be the rule that asylum HAS to be claimed within a reasonable period, like 7 days, of the applicant landing in our country After that no claim will be accepted and the applicant immediatly deported.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

It should be the rule that asylum HAS to be claimed within a reasonable period, like 7 days, of the applicant landing in our country After that no claim will be accepted and the applicant immediatly deported.

I think perhaps there ought to be some concessions (e.g. for the victims of people trafficking) but I'd agree the rules ought to be much tighter. Whilst we continue to effectively reward such lawbreaking, we shouldn't be surprised if people indulge in it. They may argue that they were forced to break the law to get into the UK but that argument ceases as soon as they're here and anyone who decides to carry on doing so ought to have no right to asylum at all.

90% of illegals have no reason to be here and unless they came off a ship or a plan coming from a danger zone they have no legal case whatsoever and when caught shoukd be immediately returned to their country of origin. We have a lot of people marching across weatern europe to get into the UK and in doing that they are invalidating any asylum claim. It's one more area where we have to toughen up and start being more direct in dealing with them. We should also make it clear in all the countries that are spewing people towards western europe that things have changed and you will be deported if you come here no more acceptance on flimsy evidence or sob story.

[heero_yuy]

SKY-high immigration has cost blue collar Brits nearly £450 in wages since the credit crisis – a think tank claimed today.

And it revealed that slashing the number of foreigners allowed into the UK could hand home grown workers from plumbers to welders a £150 a year pay rise.

The left leaning Resolution Foundation claimed there WAS a direct link between the startling increase in cheap eastern European labour and low pay for millions of blue collar Brits.

It revealed that the migrant population in towns such as Mansfield, Corby and Barnsley had exploded by up to 400 per cent since 2004 when Labour threw open our borders.

Resolution said British workers in “skilled trades” could see a pay rise of 0.6 per cent – around £150 a year – if net migration was cut to below 100,000.

Linky

Bliars legacy. Hitting the very class Labour are supposed to champion.

The Sun have misreported the findings of the report. Although it did say there may be a pay-rise for lower skilled workers it found that this wouldn't make a difference compared to the projected lower growth and employment prospects.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lo...ages-ckb5mjzlx

Low-paid workers will not see their wages rise even if Brexit results in falling EU migration and less competition in the job market, according to an analysis.

A study by the Resolution Foundation, a think tank, found that even if net migration were cut to the tens of thousands, wages of British workers in the most-affected sectors would rise by between 0.2 per cent and 0.6 per cent.

This small increase, the researchers said, would be dwarfed by a 2 per cent downgrade in average wage growth as a result of a shrinking economic base caused by the UK pulling…

In other words there will be an increase in pay from lack of competition from migrants workers but a bigger decrease as a result of a slowing economy.

The Sun has also overstated the report's finding of a link between migration and lower paid workers. You can read the report itself here: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/...labour-market/

While the growth in the share of migrants in the population did not affect the earnings of native workers overall, it is wrong to say they had no effect. Increased migration did drag on earnings in some sectors (by between 0.5-2.0%), but these small effects do not explain and were in fact dwarfed by the general pay squeeze experienced during the same period (4.7-9.7%). In the next few years a fall in migration will do little to ameliorate the squeeze on wages for native workers.

[Osem]

There's always going to be an argument for migration to increase GDP but its fatally flawed since we can't sustain such population growth forever any more than we can sustain burning carbon. Whist there are pros and cons to mass migration, what mustn't be overlooked is the 'cost' to our quality of life, social fabric etc. Mass migration has brought with it many costs and it certainly isn't those at the top of the pecking order who've suffered.

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that mass migration doesn't significantly affect wages in those sectors which bear the brunt of it. Since when did competition for jobs ever increase pay rates?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Sun have misreported the findings of the report. Although it did say there may be a pay-rise for lower skilled workers it found that this wouldn't make a difference compared to the projected lower growth and employment prospects.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lo...ages-ckb5mjzlx



In other words there will be an increase in pay from lack of competition from migrants workers but a bigger decrease as a result of a slowing economy.

The Sun has also overstated the report's finding of a link between migration and lower paid workers. You can read the report itself here: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/...labour-market/

Although there is an assumption that there will be a "bounce back", the fact remains the article points out there was a drop in the first place as a result of EU immigration.

It added that on average, skilled workers in low-paid jobs would have earned an extra £436 since 2009 if net migration had been zero as firms would have had to pay more to hire UK staff, Resolution added.

Originally Posted by Osem

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that mass migration doesn't significantly affect wages in those sectors which bear the brunt of it. Since when did competition for jobs ever increase pay rates?

I don't know, I haven't read the entire report. However they're saying that it does have an effect but it's dwarfed by the impact of the overall performance of the economy. Also, not the report now but my own opinion, some jobs will be facing the squeeze of competition from other countries. If the cost of labor gets too high then those jobs simply go off to Asia as it's no longer viable to produce things here. We also have a minimum wage which in theory should limit a race to the bottom.

Like I said it's just The Sun's reporting of it differs from what they actually said.

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by Osem

There's always going to be an argument for migration to increase GDP but its fatally flawed since we can't sustain such population growth forever any more than we can sustain burning carbon. Whist there are pros and cons to mass migration, what mustn't be overlooked is the 'cost' to our quality of life, social fabric etc. Mass migration has brought with it many costs and it certainly isn't those at the top of the pecking order who've suffered.

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that mass migration doesn't significantly affect wages in those sectors which bear the brunt of it. Since when did competition for jobs ever increase pay rates?

To quote spike Milligan: "Ovulation equals Population equals Pollution"

"Answer is the pill"

[nomadking]

It is basically saying this. Current level is 95, if the EU influx hadn't happened then it would've been 100. Leaving the EU won't automatically mean it will head back all the way to 100. Other factors are in play, but it might end up at 97. One of which that the presence of those already here will limit its recovery. If we stayed in, the 95 would drop FURTHER to 94, 93, ... 90. We can't undo the effect of the previous EU influx, but we can stop it increasing yet further and having a greater detrimental effect. Whichever way you look at it, they are worse off because of the EU, and would be even more worse off if we stayed.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Linky

Bliars legacy. Hitting the very class Labour are supposed to champion.

That's a joke right, he's legacy is far worse than costing people a tenner a month and since when did new labour give a toss about the working class. It's actually a bit of a non story, literally a couple quid a week worse of, big deal.