My answer to Is immigration really good for the economy of a country? Does it depend on the qualification of immigr…
Answer by Desmond Last:
A very topical question and a good one. I came up with an idea – as you all know my ideas, even though they are of benefit to mankind, are immediately rejected by Obama, Hillary Clinton and Cameron who everyday watch as my human rights are abused, and do nothing.
I wanted a Global ID card – which would also contain a Global Qualification. This would serve several purposes. First it would increase security in the World. Even though I want to start a dialogue with ISIS I do not want them killing anymore innocent civilians – neither does God. It would contain a Global Qualification in language, basic skills and health condition including an interface qualification until we produce a Global qualification for the Professions and Trades.
An exchange of cultures helps an understanding of each other. But as an Englishman, do I want to live in a Country I no longer feel comfortable in and whose Public Infrastructure is no longer able to provide the minimum ,when in taxes I payed the maximum? – No.
We have to be very careful when we discuss immigration because it has been used by many to lower wages and worker reduce emancipation and any criticism of it immediately labels you to the right of Adolph Hitler.
Let us take the EU. Somehow, and I have no idea how, the ability to work in any country of the EU has somehow got confused with free movement. Free movement is dangerous, it dilutes economic reform, it supports inefficient and corrupt economies , it easily transfers communicable disease and crime. It takes sovereignty protection away from the individual and transfers it as Power to the European Nation State.
Until I arrived back in Europe I welcomed the EU as a progressive movement for Economic reform and Social Justice. Three years later it has failed to protect my human rights and has shown that is has no answers to any of its problems or the world problems.
But immigration is not just about the EU. Structured, quantifiable and monitored immigration is a positive. I emigrated to Australia with my skills and enthusiasm. I entered Australia with 1000 dollars. Before the criminals entered my life I had two homes and a good business.
Every system has an optimum size – something that I keep hammering away at – as the likes of Obama Cameron and Merkel do not seem to understand the term.
That means x country has an Infrastructure of y and an income of z – you do not swamp the infrastructure so it costs you z+z to increase its size just to cope with migration to the detriment your own population. You also do not allow immigration to enter your country without any consideration of its cultural effect.
Let us take one example of how immigration is able to produce a negative cross-subsidy for the country taking the immigration and produce a residual positive flow to the country the immigrant comes from.
There are two types of immigrant. The one who leaves his country for the Promised Land. The other leaves looking for work- and intends to return to his own country one day.
First the transient migrant. Who is more concerned with his immediate income than his search for the Holy Grail.
A EU National enters the U.K. As soon as he or she enters the EU they are immediately a new cost to the Economy. If they entered without any checks they may have outstanding arrest warrants, they may be a drug dealer, they may be ill or they may be a potential terrorist. That is why at all entry points into the UK all incoming person from all non EU countries have their passports checked .The assumption would appear to be that EU citizens are all Saints.
As soon as they get on train or drive a car they have taken up space, are producing a negaive to the environment, will need a house/flat space, will need Goveremnt administration, may need Policeman and a Hospital. That cost goes against the tax revenue received by the U.K. An eighty year old woman born in the UK who has paid tax all her life or her husband has (who is now dead after he was mugged in the street and the ambulance which was called took too long to get to him) ,has just had her social care removed because the local council has no money. This is because magician, the UK Chancellor Osborne, has switched his deficit to the local councils. The local council are the economic front-line when it comes to immigration and housing shortage and care provision.
That same EU National now has two jobs and lives in cramped over-crowded accommodation as the UK struggles to build his home, which is removing agricultural and Green belt land.
His first job is obtained by him with the approval of his Gang Boss – part of organised crime and the Black Economy in the U.K who also bring women into the UK to work for them as prostitutes. As their is no record of any of their movements in the EU they are murdered and dumped when they are of no more use. Teresa May the UK Home Secretary, and shortly to resign for her part in my human rights abuse, is another convert to EU sainthood as ,despite a figure 2 million EU Nationals in the UK – there is no increase in crime.
His second job is bringing in illegal immigrant through Dover – despite a force of 80,000 troops in the U.K, most who spend all day marching up and down, none are used for Border Control.
He or she then sends back to his country some of his wages. The residual value of that transfer of economic value is then multiplied as an input into the new economic system. In effect the UK has subsided a competitor economy with its own income.
Additionally the EU National has little interest the UK Culture and democratic system.
More importantly he is not in his own country so his own Political and economic systems are not subject to his or her attempts to improve them.
Helen Bonham and Bill Nighy may say the EU leaving Britain would make it less imaginative do not seem to mind depriving me of the ability to sue my imagination to improve the world with my imagination and writing. What a stupid statement to make. Hollywood does not seem to have a problem by not being in the EU.
Now to the other Immigrant. He comes from India. He is a hard worker who has IT skills but until India can bring its military spending under control he cannot find work. He loves his country but he feels let down by a system which has much corruption and he feels will not change. He wants a new life. After health checks, criminal record check, qualification checks he enters the UK, and after a while starts a new business. He is a positive to the U.K. He has little intention of returning and uses his income to start a new business .
The U.K let him in, he was quantifiable. He could be costed and accounted for. You did not have to borrow £1.6 Trillion and increasing at £5200 a second to support him. He is not ,48 hours after arriving in the UK ,going to drag a person with learning difficulties in front of a bus ,after leaving his country as a convicted rapist and then cost the U.K £500,000 to imprison him for 12 years.
That is the difference. You take immigrants when they appear on your balance sheet as a credit not a debit.