|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 20, 2023 7:12:21 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?.
This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 20, 2023 7:29:56 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?. This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised. Should we go the whole hog and withdraw all benefits from immigrants. You want to work here? Fine but you pay tax and you get nought back. It's a thought |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 20, 2023 7:32:04 GMT
This of course was the issue that propelled Diane Abbott and her fellow white hater Bernie to dizzy political heights beyond their competence. The council then in charge of what is now Tower Hamlets were labelled racist for demanding a proportion of the housing stock be reserved for offer to the sons and daughters of existing (white) tenants at the expense of non white immigrants.
They danced in the streets when the policy was overturned through their bogus cries of racism
Of course she made not the slightest whine when the largely bangla community demanded the same demand thirty years later for reasons that their culture created large families that needed housing in proximity to their parents.
It would seem sensible to cater for existing British Citizens before opening the floodgates, but too many lawyers see an easy paycheck contesting that to allow it to become reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 20, 2023 7:40:13 GMT
Hard to see how this could pass muster under the Human Rights and Equality Acts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 20, 2023 7:42:49 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?. This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised. Should we go the whole hog and withdraw all benefits from immigrants. You want to work here? Fine but you pay tax and you get nought back. It's a thought It's a system that works very well in the Middle East - there migrants go to work and support themselves, not to be supported by the State. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jun 20, 2023 7:43:19 GMT
For many a year the Tories have shown they can talk a good game, but when it comes to action they are continually woefully lacking.
We've all got used to plentiful numbers of Doctors and Dentists being made available to attend to the never ending mass of illegals coming ashore, while Brits attempt home dentistry with the aid of their shaving mirror and anything from the garage toolbox that might assist.
The native taxpayers are also left to watch their cancers progress and spread from curable to completely untreatable, so you have to suspect this is just one of a number of schemes that sound good being floated as we get nearer to a General Election, but in reality without the slightest intention of implementation.
Or could it be rushed through as a quick vote winner, in the knowledge that Labour could well intend an amnesty for illegals, so everyone will soon be made a British National anyway ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 20, 2023 8:10:05 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?. This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised. Should we go the whole hog and withdraw all benefits from immigrants. You want to work here? Fine but you pay tax and you get nought back. It's a thought The principle is good. If you want to join us, you make a 'down-payment'. In the case of somewhere like the UK, Germany or France, that down-payment should be a considerable sum. At the moment this economic price (the market value of joining) still exists but it is being collected privately (or politically) by people traffickers and politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 20, 2023 8:45:37 GMT
The principle is good. If you want to join us, you make a 'down-payment'. In the case of somewhere like the UK, Germany or France, that down-payment should be a considerable sum. At the moment this economic price (the market value of joining) still exists but it is being collected privately (or politically) by people traffickers and politicians. The 'market price of joining' doesn't of course begin the compensate the host society for the costs involved in bringing in another migrant (perhaps with existing family). Some years ago the Social Affairs Unit published a study 'Warning: Immigration can be very damaging for your Wealth'. This examined the capital cost of immigration rather the fiscal cost/benefit which economic studies of migration usually concentrate on. "When an immigrant steps off an aeroplane in London or New York, he arrives in a country whose native inhabitants have accumulated capital and wealth over generations and centuries. From the moment of arrival, he makes use of this wealth – the airports, the roads, the water supplies. Later, he requires the ‘tools of production’, housing, health services, churches, colleges and cultural institutions, etc. British and American politicians and commentators have typically addressed the income or GDP effects of immigration; and, in the case of Britain, all major political parties regard these as favourable. They fail to mention that free market economists contend that immigration has a depressing effect on native wages. The issue of the impact of immigration on existing wealth is rarely mentioned, though. The essence of this is as follows – when an immigrant worker arrives without capital and earns the same as a native worker, that means the wealth of the country is being shared among more people, and therefore wealth and capital per head are reduced. The study concluded that an individual migrant would need to arrive with £141,000 in capital to cover the cost of the infrastructure he will be making use of. A family of four would need to bring indouble that amount. Fast forward to today and all figures will need to be at least doubled again.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 20, 2023 8:48:56 GMT
Should we go the whole hog and withdraw all benefits from immigrants. You want to work here? Fine but you pay tax and you get nought back. It's a thought It's a system that works very well in the Middle East - there migrants go to work and support themselves, not to be supported by the State. That's what i was thinking of. It would allow us to fill essential jobs without further burdening much of the infrastructure. Of course we'd still need more houses/ building land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2023 8:51:06 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?. This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised. It depends who you are talking about. Immigrants who are awaiting processing do not get social housing. Asylum seekers that have been granted asylum should not be discriminated against. There is a simple answer though. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 20, 2023 8:53:41 GMT
The 'market price of joining' doesn't of course begin the compensate the host society for the costs involved in bringing in another migrant (perhaps with existing family).
Some years ago the Social Affairs Unit published a study 'Warning: Immigration can be very damaging for your Wealth'. This examined the capital cost of immigration rather the fiscal cost/benefit which economic studies of migration usually concentrate on.
"When an immigrant steps off an aeroplane in London or New York, he arrives in a country whose native inhabitants have accumulated capital and wealth over generations and centuries. From the moment of arrival, he makes use of this wealth – the airports, the roads, the water supplies. Later, he requires the ‘tools of production’, housing, health services, churches, colleges and cultural institutions, etc.
British and American politicians and commentators have typically addressed the income or GDP effects of immigration; and, in the case of Britain, all major political parties regard these as favourable. They fail to mention that free market economists contend that immigration has a depressing effect on native wages.
The issue of the impact of immigration on existing wealth is rarely mentioned, though. The essence of this is as follows – when an immigrant worker arrives without capital and earns the same as a native worker, that means the wealth of the country is being shared among more people, and therefore wealth and capital per head are reduced. [/i]"[/div]
The study concluded that an individual migrant would need to arrive with £141,000 in capital to cover the cost of the infrastructure he will be making use of. A family of four would need to bring indouble that amount.
Fast forward to today and all figures will need to be at least doubled again.
[/quote][/quote] Hi Dan can you remove my name from Oracs post please. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 20, 2023 9:01:13 GMT
I re-edited the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 20, 2023 9:02:43 GMT
There is a simple answer though. Which is ? I’m sure we’m would all love to hear what wisdom you have acquired that has evaded our politicians for a good fifty years … |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 20, 2023 9:18:06 GMT
The principle is good. If you want to join us, you make a 'down-payment'. In the case of somewhere like the UK, Germany or France, that down-payment should be a considerable sum. At the moment this economic price (the market value of joining) still exists but it is being collected privately (or politically) by people traffickers and politicians. The 'market price of joining' doesn't of course begin the compensate the host society for the costs involved in bringing in another migrant (perhaps with existing family). Some years ago the Social Affairs Unit published a study 'Warning: Immigration can be very damaging for your Wealth'. This examined the capital cost of immigration rather the fiscal cost/benefit which economic studies of migration usually concentrate on. "When an immigrant steps off an aeroplane in London or New York, he arrives in a country whose native inhabitants have accumulated capital and wealth over generations and centuries. From the moment of arrival, he makes use of this wealth – the airports, the roads, the water supplies. Later, he requires the ‘tools of production’, housing, health services, churches, colleges and cultural institutions, etc. British and American politicians and commentators have typically addressed the income or GDP effects of immigration; and, in the case of Britain, all major political parties regard these as favourable. They fail to mention that free market economists contend that immigration has a depressing effect on native wages. The issue of the impact of immigration on existing wealth is rarely mentioned, though. The essence of this is as follows – when an immigrant worker arrives without capital and earns the same as a native worker, that means the wealth of the country is being shared among more people, and therefore wealth and capital per head are reduced. The study concluded that an individual migrant would need to arrive with £141,000 in capital to cover the cost of the infrastructure he will be making use of. A family of four would need to bring indouble that amount. Fast forward to today and all figures will need to be at least doubled again.
I'm using a gross simplification to illustrate that the idea itself is not at all outlandish. We are presently overcrowded with depressed wages - in other words, all the seats in the cinema are taken and new entries are (on the whole) just an added cost to current patrons. I think your figures are about right - the market value of being a member of UK society is about 150k. This should be enough to compensate everyone - but only in a very limited economic sense. If you track the compensation required to repay someone starting off in a first world country that turns into a third world country, it's going to be the same value ..(but for each resident) . As a side note - this price should be asked for as security against visa overstaying. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 20, 2023 14:44:03 GMT
Should British Nationals be given priority over migrants for council housing?. This is not a new idea, it's been tried before, but is it time to try it again?. Personally I think its a bit late because once Labour take control next year they are never going to allow UK citizens to be prioritised. So 13 years of Tory government and still no priority for British Nationals over migrants for council housing. |
|
