The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

[dirtydog]

Let's make it even simpler... Muslims only make up circa 3% of the population (2.7% from the last census, so I'm being generous and rounding it up).

Christians, by contrast, make up around 71% of the population.

That's your argument that immigration benefits us? That although per capita they are of less benefit than natives, there are less of them so that makes it okay?

Also the figures by race are very closely correlated to those figures by religion.

Labour Market
Non-White unemployment highest

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462


Isn't this chart so PUZZLING though, when we are constantly told, over and over again, that all white British are lazy, 'refuse' to do work etc. and the immigrants are all hard working? Well this blows that MYTH out of the water doesn't it.

 

[Toryglen-boy]

when we are constantly told, over and over again, that all white British are lazy, 'refuse' to do work etc. and the immigrants are all hard working? Well this blows that MYTH out of the water doesn't it.

I hear you mate, but i dont think its that cut and dried.

Maybe because Johnny English wont get out of bed for the pittance that some others are prepared to work for? and why should he? and honest days pay and all that.

the British are not lazy

 

[SteveOBHave]

Yes, sorry I did mean "not OK". I don't think that higher demands should be made of natives than immigrants, I don't think that is fair. If you go abroad do you expect the natives of that country to adapt to you or do you seek to conform to their cultural norms?

I guess it depends on which countries and which cultural norms. Lets take Turkey for an example. Turkey is 99% Sunni Muslum and yet it is a well thought of a much visited tourist destination where we can go to beaches and wander around the cities without much fear of recrimination for what we are wearing or a requirement to head to the nearest Mosque 5 times a day. However we are asked to respect their cultural norms when we actually visit areas like Mosques and or peoples homes. The same goes for Italy when you visit Rome and the Vatican City - we wear long shorts and cover our shoulders.

If you take the deepest Middle East countries as an example then you're always going to run into some serious cultural conflicts because they haven't massively moved on in thousands of years. But you will also find that they have no tolerance of other cultures and/or belief structures and it's this that I think causes a great deal of the difficulty when shifting to the UK because it's a radically different environment. We end up with something of a culture clash however I don't believe we should be taking the stance that if they can't change then why should we?

I don't think that allowing immigrants to exercise their religious beliefs nor hold on to their cultural identity is costing me anything at all.

Given that it is now a very small world we don't need to have a massive immigrant population in order to sample a curry. It find it amusing that food is always brought up as a benefit of immigration. Art? I can't say that foreign art has enriched my life, nor that of anyone I know. Perhaps you could elaborate?

As far as food goes I've typically found that getting Chinese cuisine from proper Chinese chefs tends to taste better than getting it from M&S or Sainsburies but then that could just be me

Art is an easy one - pay a visit to the Tate Modern, or the old Tate or perhaps the Portrait galleries. Artists like Van Gogh, Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, Johannes Vermeer are all foreign and are reconised for enriching the art world no end. Now I admit that art is very much subjective and that you'd have to be interested in it to get the full advantages from it.

Worldly awareness? Again we have 24/7 news so being aware of other cultures is not a problem. Fashion? I'm not planning to adopt wearing a burkha anytime soon. We're a small planet we can get all the cultural diversity required by either turning on the TV or travelling places on holiday. We don't "need" it brought to our doorsteps and I doubt many people feel enriched by it at all.

Because the news is always 100% factual and never has any spin on it? The news doesn't supply cultural awareness at all, it supplies news that is almost exclusively relevant to you and no-one else. Where are you getting cultural awareness from the news? Don't you think that it's a little sad to get all your cultural awareness from the TV? Home and Away is hardly representitive of the average Australian culture and Flight of the Concords is definately not how the rest of New Zealand is (Nor for that matter is Lord of the Rings )

Then what is the answer? Even if no further new immigration occurred the amount of people coming in as new wives etc would still lead to massive immigration. For 25% of people born in the UK last year to have mothers who were born abroad is hardly negligible immigration only of course they aren't immigrants as they were born here.

Why do you feel immigration needs stricter controls? What are the downsides to immigration in your opinion?

The downsides to immigration in the present system is that anyone in the EU can turn up here and jump on the Benefit system. They don't have the same controls that we Antipodeans have, we can't turn up in this country and bludge like many from the EU do. This is the downside of the present system and I think there needs to be some sort of accountability for those that are choosing to settle here. If I have no job and no money then because I can't get the benefit then I can't stay here, simple as - I think the same should apply to other immigrants.

I don't recall advocating such a policy at any time?

But surely by voting the BNP in you are directly advocating that policy?

 

[SteveOBHave]

That's your argument that immigration benefits us? That although per capita they are of less benefit than natives, there are less of them so that makes it okay?

Also the figures by race are very closely correlated to those figures by religion.

Labour Market
Non-White unemployment highest

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462


Isn't this chart so PUZZLING though, when we are constantly told, over and over again, that all white British are lazy, 'refuse' to do work etc. and the immigrants are all hard working? Well this blows that MYTH out of the water doesn't it.

Dude those stats are from 2004 - it's now 5 years on.

 

[dirtydog]

Dude those stats are from 2004 - it's now 5 years on.

Why do you think things would have radically changed in that time, re those statistics?

Tell me dude!

 

[Efour]

I think its clear we need more bangladeshi women, looks liek they work till they drop !

 

[dirtydog]

I think its clear we need more bangladeshi women, looks liek they work till they drop !

 

[timmothy]

Why do you think things would have radically changed in that time, re those statistics?

Tell me dude!

dirtydog some people will never get it. They will use 2004 statistics when it suits their cause and claim that not much has changed, but as soon as they dont agree with the statistics then they feel things have changed a lot. If anything with more non-whites entering this country over the past 5 years the problem has got far worse. there is a huge problem in this country with immigration and most people agree, look at UKIP coming second only to con.

 

[Stag]

Isn't this chart so PUZZLING though, when we are constantly told, over and over again, that all white British are lazy, 'refuse' to do work etc. and the immigrants are all hard working? Well this blows that MYTH out of the water doesn't it.

So you can deduce from that on average an immigrant is more likely to be on benefits, but it certainly doesn't show a high correlation. Then there is the causation to take in to account that a lot of the immigrants will find it hard to get jobs to begin with and have to counter prejudice and lack of education.

The Pakistani women's statistic doesn't surprise me in the least due to the patriarchal model of their culture, would be interesting to see the break down of 1st generation immigrants and 2nd though to see if young Pakistani girls escape that culture.

I'd wager the 2nd generation immigrants statistics would be more in line with the mean. Though is it really that surprising that White people are more likely to be employed? We can look at it from another point of view if you break down the statistics further.

According to the 2001 census we had 50,366,497 white Britons of which 4.5% were unemployed so that makes roughly 2.3 million unemployed.
747,285 Pakistanis with about 15% unemployed making 112 thousand which means there there were over 20 times more unemployed white people than Pakistanis. So white Britons were more than 20 times draining of our social security "blanket" than Pakistanis.

You also failed to quote the entirety of the page from the nation statistics site, which go on to show a different graph with an explanation:

Economic inactivity
Working-age men and women from non-White ethnic groups were generally more likely than those from White groups to be economically inactive, that is, not available for work and/or not actively seeking work. Reasons include being a student, being disabled or looking after the family and home. Within each ethnic group, women were more likely than men to be economically inactive.

In 2004 Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest working-age economic inactivity rates in Great Britain (75 per cent and 69 per cent respectively). These rates were up to three times the rates for White British, White Irish and Black Caribbean women (between 25 per cent and 26 per cent). The majority were looking after their family or home.
Chinese men had the highest male economic inactivity rate, at 37 per cent, more than twice the rate for White British men (16 per cent). The vast majority of economically inactive Chinese men were students.

Funny that the BNP always bang on about how mothers should stay at home yet you attack the Pakistanis for doing exactly that, you hypocrite.

 

[dirtydog]

...

Excuses excuses excuses

We provide proof of the negative effects of immigration, of which there is an absolute wealth of overwhelming evidence, and you and your ilk make excuse after excuse after excuse.

Maybe you should wake up and realise you are wrong, it is a problem and it needs to be halted, and reversed.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Why do you think things would have radically changed in that time, re those statistics?

Tell me dude!

I'm sorry Dirtydog - I shan't use 'Dude' again - clearly an insulting term.

I'm not a statistician so I couldn't tell you what things have changed or why but quoting 2004 stats when there has been a major social and economic upheaval in the past 18 months is ridiculous and an ill founded point.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Excuses excuses excuses

We provide proof of the negative effects of immigration, of which there is an absolute wealth of overwhelming evidence, and you and your ilk make excuse after excuse after excuse.

Maybe you should wake up and realise you are wrong, it is a problem and it needs to be halted, and reversed.

That's not proof, it's a 5 year old statistic that bears little or no relevance to immigration today nor to employment rates today. I'm beginning to suspect that debating this point with you is going to be like trying to tell a leopard that it should have stripes. Pointless.

 

[FTM]

I assume this graph shows the employment as a percentage of their ethnic group rather than the overall population

 

[Stag]

Excuses excuses excuses

We provide proof of the negative effects of immigration, of which there is an absolute wealth of overwhelming evidence, and you and your ilk make excuse after excuse after excuse.

Maybe you should wake up and realise you are wrong, it is a problem and it needs to be halted, and reversed.

I've yet to see any, unless you are interpreting those statistics as that; but personally I don't quite see how. What other evidence do you have, if you have an "absolute wealth of overwhelming evidence"?

 

[Stag]

That's not proof, it's a 5 year old statistic that bears little or no relevance to immigration today nor to employment rates today. I'm beginning to suspect that debating this point with you is going to be like trying to tell a leopard that it should have stripes. Pointless.

To be fair those statistics are still relevant because dirtydoy is trying to use them to prove that immigrants are more likely to be lazy spongers than indigenous white Britons. It's just highlighting his prejudice, let him use them.

 

[Dolph]

Excuses excuses excuses

We provide proof of the negative effects of immigration, of which there is an absolute wealth of overwhelming evidence, and you and your ilk make excuse after excuse after excuse.

Maybe you should wake up and realise you are wrong, it is a problem and it needs to be halted, and reversed.

It's not an excuse, it's misrepresentation. Those figures are not those on benefits, they are those who are not economically active, there is a large difference between the two, and so the way you presented the figures was misleading, although I'm not saying whether it was deliberate or not (although the fact you are still arguing the point when it's raised suggests that it is).

I'm not pro-immigration, but I am anti-misleading and stupid arguments, which are what is being made at the moment.

 

[timmothy]

It's not an excuse, it's misrepresentation. Those figures are not those on benefits, they are those who are not economically active, there is a large difference between the two, and so the way you presented the figures was misleading, although I'm not saying whether it was deliberate or not (although the fact you are still arguing the point when it's raised suggests that it is).

I'm not pro-immigration, but I am anti-misleading and stupid arguments, which are what is being made at the moment.

well its pretty obvios they are on benifits, how else can you support yourself if you are economically inactive, both men and women

 

[SteveOBHave]

well its pretty obvios they are on benifits, how else can you support yourself if you are economically inactive, both men and women

Under the table work like in bars or community work or they're possibly being supported by someone that is employed.

 

[Rich_L]

You'd best tell all those couples where only one works that apparently they are unable to support themselves and should go on benefits

 

[Dolph]

Further to the above, I've found the statistics you tried to present inactivity ones as, namely benefit claimants.

http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/britains_migrants.pdf&a=skip

Commissioned in 2007 for Dispatches on Channel 4.

Table 5.9 contains the unemployment claim rates (highest is 5%, somalians, bangladeshis etc, the lowest is poles and the USA, rounds down to zero.)

Table 5.10 contains income support claim rates, Those born in the UK come in at 15th on 4% of the population, there are a significant number of immigrants on both sides of the population. (For the avoidance of doubt, the report uses a definition of immigrant that involves people not born here, not based on race or skin colour for people who were born in the UK).

Table 5.11 Shows a similar picture for disability claims, with UK born sitting at 19th in the table.

Table 5.12 is child benefit, which is available to all and shows nothing really of interest.

Table 5.13 shows proportions living in social housing, again, UK born sit in the middle of the table (15th), with plenty of immigrants on either side.

There is some work done on ethnic group rather than country of birth around section 6, but it's more focused on education and employment than benefit claims.

Now, I'll just quote from the conclusion.

it is clear that on most criteria, most immigrant groups do better in
economic terms than the UK-born population. Overall, when we take into account the
relative size of the groups studied in this report, it would seem that the average immigrant has better economic characteristics than the average UK-born person.

Emphasis as per the report.

The study does also acknowledge

There are some immigrant communities who rank consistently lower on most indicators than the UK average. In
some cases, these relatively low-ranking communities are predominantly made up of people
who have come to the UK for non-economic reasons (for example, to join family members
who are already in the UK, or to seek asylum).

The bottom line is that it's far from clear cut that immigrants are not economically useful, some of them aren't, and indeed I'm not convinced (and this study did not look at it) that many of those working and not claiming benefit reach the break-even point where their presence provides a net economic benefit, when all factors are considered. I've said before and I'll repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that I think the immigration system needs major reform, and that we should not be allowing in many of the people that we do. But let's at least do it on an honest evaluation of what's actually happening.