I was reading another article about http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/the-guardian-view-on-migration-we-need-a-stronger-state today, full of useful statistics. Ready to add my comments to the debate, I scrolled down only to find that yet again the ‘Guardian’ newspaper had only allowed 5 hours before closing the thread; the other article I was interested in commenting on –http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/corruption-individual-flourishing-david-cameron-summit – was restricted to 2 hours. Anyway, I’m getting off topic here; I should get used to having no voice, but somehow I cannot.
Regarding the migration article, I was asking myself if I was racist in feeling like we’re pretty ‘full up’ here. I’d read once that we’re all a little racist, but I don’t think that I’ve ever been racist towards anyone. In my dating days I went out with quite a few different nationalities: Jamaican; Austrian; Canadian; Iranian; Spanish; French etc. I loved learning about different cultures and mind sets. We’re told that immigrants enrich British life, which I’m sure is true if they integrate.
In terms of economics were regularly told how these different national groups bolster our economy. In the above article – stating irrefutable ONS data – it claims that migrants add £2.4 billion to our economy, over and above what is paid out in benefits. As I stated the other day, here’s the thing though, £2.4 billion would have also been added to our economy just the same if we had given priority to British people for those jobs. And within those statistics, if we’re already paying British people unemployment benefits and housing benefits, then we would also have made a massive saving in paying ‘in work’ benefits to migrants if we had been able to restrict immigration. I always say when people start to become angry about this, ‘don’t blame the immigrants; they’re not doing anything wrong; it’s progressive governments that have allowed immigration.’
You would think that common sense would prevail. It’s like living in a house with 4 bedrooms, of which 3 you give to your children. 3 other children ask if they could live with you, and you agree. You tell your children to go and find some lodgings, which you obviously have to pay for. Money is tight, but you can just about juggle things. But then another 3 children come along, so you have to cut the amount you give for lodging the others, and move the 2nd lot of children into lodgings. It’s clear that you can’t keep allowing that to happen or you’ll all become destitute.
It would be clearly madness for that householder to take in any more lodgers. If you pose this logic in conversation with those for immigration, that the British unemployed certainly have missed out in the job market due to it, you’re labelled as nationalistic and xenophobic; some even say – and I get incensed at this argument – that foreigners have taken jobs the British didn’t want, because they’re lazy and don’t like working hard, which is insulting and ridiculous.
In the U.K. we’re already told that we have to accept the austerity because ‘there’s no money left’, but there seems money enough left to welcome immigrants; so either we have money or we don’t: which one is it? The impact the cuts have had on whole communities and individuals/families has been horrific, such that many thousands have people have died. We’re now told however, that over 300,000 immigrants will arrive here each year. If we already cannot look after our own citizens, how will we afford the benefits the immigrants may require (after the discount period), the schools for their children, where are all those jobs coming from, and how can we house them either in bought or rented accommodation? Migration at the currently level is clearly not leading to the U.K. being a stronger state, not for the working class. On the contrary, like the ‘old woman who didn’t know what to do’: the shoe wasn’t big enough.