Immigration – A Benefit, or not Working?

The issue of immigration just won’t go away. Prime Minister Brown has defended Labour’s open-door policy, following the recent report by the House of Lords economic affairs committee suggesting that immigrants brought no significant economic benefit to the country. Immigrants (approximately 190,000 each year) make a “huge contribution” to the economy, Brown has insisted, and for this reason, presumably, he has also refused to put a cap on the number of those entering the country to find work.

While the Labour government seems to be losing supporters every day – especially on the issue of immigration – the Prime Minister is not entirely alone. There is more to it than money, we are assured.  As is often noted, the broader picture reveals immigrants working long shifts for low wages in jobs that British citizens simply will not do – e.g., physically exhausting agricultural work or assisting in nursing homes. Another benefit is, of course, the much-touted appearance of the Polish delicatessen, Afro-Caribbean food stores, and greater range of restaurants.

As a nation we like benefits. But every plus comes with a minus. Multiculturalism has meant the dumbing down of British culture. Free education means that many leave school unable to spell or construct coherent sentences. Free healthcare has meant overworked and underpaid hospital staff (often foreign nationals), mixed-sex wards, and poor sanitary conditions leading to outbreaks of deadly viruses.

Yet, more deeply-rooted in the psyche, perhaps, Britain (like many European nations) has created a welfare system far in advance of such entrepreneurial nations as the U.S. or Hong-Kong. Benefits for the infirm and long-term unemployed, along with free healthcare, etc., are not enjoyed by the citizens of every country, perhaps especially those that are economic world leaders, and that may be part of their success.
There needs to be support for those who find themselves either seriously ill or unemployed through no fault of their own, and healthcare should be generally available, I think. However, such protections only work in countries where there is a sense of nationhood and responsibility to the nation. America, which has some benefits for the unemployed, still speaks of the “protestant work ethic”, and the optional of picking potatoes for little pay for a few months or more is generally regarded as preferable to taking government handouts (which is not to deny that the country has a problem with illegal immigration). In Britain this is increasingly not the case. The benefits culture, it would seem, is becoming hereditary.

In a report this March, National Director of Health and Work Dame, Carol Black, has disclosed that 1 out of 5 children in Britain has at least one parent who is not working but claiming benefits instead. In some cases, she states, there are families that have not worked for two or more generations.

Today there are also nearly 100,000 people claiming incapacity benefit for alcohol and drug dependency – twice that since the Labour Party came to power in 1997.   To many immigrants benefits for those who refuse to work must look incredible. Yet Britain’s benefits culture not only provides them, indirectly, with an opportunity for a higher-paying job than they might find in their home country, it also includes them in the long line of recipients. According to the Treasury migrant workers are claiming 28 million pounds (approximately 56 million U.S. dollars) every year for their children who remain in Eastern Europe.



Oval TEEN

Need I say any more?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

RE: Ovaltine

@ ovalteen
 
To be serious for one moment, your opinions and false assumptions really have been duly noted. So, the only question outstanding is, am I now forgiven?

@atheling

Atlanticist: "When I want your advice or Armor's I'll ask for it."

Your lack of originality comes as no surprise. The advice you should have followed is that of your teachers in junior school. But no doubt you're a victim of modern liberal education and they didn't worry about little things like punctuation.

Atheling: "Quit acting like some prissy schoolmarm. I have no problem understanding Atlanticist's English - why don't you criticize content instead of form?"

That's a liberal response. I do criticize content, but form also matters. Atlanticist's English is semi-literate. He harms an important cause by refusing to correct it. If he thinks his ego is more important than the cause, he confirms his unfitness to post here.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~inknox/vu2.htm

Not only a liberal response, but an adolescent liberal response. This is a site for adults, not sniggering teenagers. Get back to Myspace if that's the level you want to work at.

re:More like these

Woah, I'm just wondering which one of those beauties might have inspired Muriel Spark.

More like these...

@Atlanticist:

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~inknox/vu2.htm

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@Atlanticist911

You are weak, indeed...

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@atheling

(Ovalteen) a "prissy school marm".What,you mean something like this?
 
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/honeymead/wizardwanda.jpg
 
No,no, I STILL refuse to yield.

@Atlanticist911

Saudi Arabia belongs to Arabic civilization, so this is not my world. However Saudi Arabia is a rich country what proofs that among Muslims monarchy is better than dictatorship. Democracy is not widely practiced so we cannot draw a comparison here. However sane people (no neocons among them) realize that Arabs would sooner or later elect Islamic radicals and thus any European sacrifice to bring democracy over there is simply insane.

Monarchist

I believe 12 months spent in Saudi by your goodself would do us both the world of good.

re: Atlantic

@ Number 2 (Armor).
 
Apparently,"I am not a number".Therefore,"I will not make any deals with you.I will not be pushed,filed,stamped,indexed,briefed,debriefed....I will not resign".
 
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/bex/prisoner_1.jpg
 
 

@Atlanticist911

We are talking about coup organized by monarchists not any incidental people. Anyway I would not mind to live under military dictatorship of Pinochet or Franco. The latter restored monarchy just later Juan Carlos evinced to be a man without honor . This is why I think that a king cannot be chosen, he must elect himself.

Nit PIcking

Ovalteen:

Quit acting like some prissy schoolmarm. I have no problem understanding Atlanticist's English - why don't you criticize content instead of form?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Monarchist

Sorry,Monarchist,but that is the process by which a nation becomes a military dictatorship NOT a monarchy.

@Atlantic

Please grow up and be polite.
(Follow my example!)

@ovalteen

When I want your advice or Armor's I'll ask for it.

@Atlanticist911

Your punctuation bothers me too, Atlanticist911. Do you think Muslims are arrogant for imposing their ways on Europe? Then don't impose your ways on us: either have the courtesy to write in a way that makes it easy to read or stop posting. You should also realize that you're making yourself look semi-literate. In fact, you are semi-literate if you can't get a simple thing like that right. Your childish response to Armour is another reason you shouldn't be posting here.

@Atlanticist911

Realistically Polish monarchist need to wait for serious crisis of euro-socialism and take a full advantage of this situation. They should have their people in army to take the power in proper moment without bloodshed because this is not the point. Democratic politicians whom betrayed the country voting for the EU should be prosecuted for the act of betrayal. Bureaucratic apparatus should be quickly fired and thus eventual opposition would be lesser seeing increasing amount of liberty.

anointed one 4

Please describe the process by which a Pole could become absolute monarch.

@Atlanticist911

I support absolute monarchy, king should have absolute powers and this does not means that he should use all his theoretical competences. Monarchy could be compared with democracy by parallel with private and state owned company. Monarch must care about its country like owner about its company, this is not in their interest to ruin this business. While democratic politicians and their palls appointed to supervisory boards of state owned companies this is completely different story...

anointed one 3

I thought
you were
 
opposed to
 
absolute
 
monarchy.

@Armour

Does my punctation really bother you that much? Well,as the turks might have said outside the gates of Vienna, I'm in Cennet.Thanx for the info'.eVEr tHought iT might be as bOGuz as your innummeracy? Atlantic711,712,007 etc., what's dat allabowt? Armour,luvvie,I'll let YOU know just as much as i want U 2 know,and KNOW more.Gottit? 

You try to enforce on myself

You try to enforce on myself your democratic standards. Communists or fascists would say that I'm member of "working masses", no matter what is my opinion on this issue. Democrats have theirs "public opinion". While such word didn't exists in the times of absolute monarchies, it was not necessary. Kings had servants and everything was clear.

Bogus neutrality of the Queen

Ze Kapitein: "... the Queen publicly taking a controversial political position. For instance, were she to declare for the BNP and accuse the Labour (...) of betraying England ..."

I wish I was the Queen of England. I would tell the Guardian that immigrants can go jump in the lake.

Atlant711: "the fact remains that immigration is a political issue and tradition and protocol demand that the Queen remain 'neutral' or aloof in such matters."

More exactly, British royals are allowed to express opinions as long as it goes in the sense of what the far left media allows. That is to say: they won't be rebuffed if they say that multiculturalism is great. They will be rebuffed if they say what most British people think: that immigration from the 3rd world is a disaster.

Atlant712: " in such matters.Bottom line, it isn't going to happen."

Will you please insert a blank after each of your periods!
Didn't they teach you that at school?
Your punctuation is a disgrace to Britain.

anointed one 2

Trust me,whatever you consider yourself to be,you ARE a member of the Polish public,and you DO express an opinion.If,as you claim,"public opinion was never smart and never will be...",why should anybody listen to someone who openly admits he's an idiot?

@Atlanticist911

I have never willingly joined to public opinion, this is you who claims that I'm its member. :) Neither I do identify myself with public opinion. When people talking about views of public opinion they mean views of majority and this is purely democratic criteria. While I stated many times earlier that I'm not a democrat and don't expect from myself to stick to any democratic standards or superstitions. I always chose true over result of the voting.

@ the anointed one

@Monarchist
 
"Public opinion was never smart and never will become...".
 
As a member of the public,expressing your opinion,what does that statement say about you,or are your opinions somehow smarter than the rest of the Polish plebs? If so,perhaps you should elect yourself king and resolve your dilemma.

@onecent

Face it, the Brits are a pathetic like the rest of the EU, sliding into self-imposed dhimmitude, terrified of the everything, muzzled by the Nanny State, ready to trade free speech for pc fascism, whatever, they aren't worth much more than agreeing we have a common language. If I'm too harsh on them then prove me wrong.

Public opinion was never smart and never will become... Just answer to this simple question, whether those people should and deserve like democrats say "co-decide" about state affairs? My answer is clearly NO! Of course British royal family which got democratized and agreed to play a role of well-paid clowns in democratic circus based in Buckingham palace don't deserve to rule either.

The King is dead,long live the King

Elvis,to his everlasting credit,never expressed his political opinions in public,unlike certain other (lesser) contemporary pop icons I could mention.Could you ever imagine Elvis jetting around the US on the 'Lisa Marie' giving concerts in favour of Al Gore's 'Green issues',anti-war rallies etc.,? No,neither could I. 

Please, the British monarchy........

.....regardless of whether their opinions are permissible or not doesn't matter.  Prince Charles is a Islamic fan.  The rest of the misguided and decadent lot are frankly too dumb to have an opinion of any merit.  Silence from them is a blessing. The birdbrained monarchy in Holland is no better, they wish that Geert Wilders would be silenced.
 
We also have the British MSM whose stupid tabloids never miss a beat without some lame tearjerking Diana garbage which moves the masses to tears.  Elvis died and the vast majority of us are here long over it, hence the phrase "and Elvis has just left the building" mocks the really stupid among us.

Face it, the Brits are a pathetic like the rest of the EU,  sliding into self-imposed dhimmitude, terrified of the everything, muzzled by the Nanny State, ready to trade free speech for pc fascism, whatever, they aren't worth much more than agreeing we have a common language. If I'm too harsh on them then prove me wrong.

On the Queen and her role in contemporary Britain

Although it has been correctly observed that the Queen is prohibited from governing, disagreeing with her government or expressing political opinions, this is not the hindrance to atheling's "wishful thinking".
 
One can be certain that the Queen is both educated and opinionated on the matters in question. Moreover, she could ignore law and custom any time she chooses, and 'enter' politics with a substantial base of support, particularly among the English. However, the problem is that it is not in her nature to do so, and she will remain a hardworking and publicly silent diplomat until her passing.
 
One could speculate ad nauseum as to the aftermath of the Queen publicly taking a controversial political position. For instance, were she to declare for the BNP and accuse the Labour and to a lesser extent Conservative parties of betraying England or the constituent nations of the UK, she would unfortunately be assassinated, with parliament being conpirational or at least complicit in her murder.
 
I say this because of the recent delving into the MLK assassination in the media, which has featured more prominently this year due to Obama's candidacy and comparison's with King. His "glory days" fighting for civil rights behind him, MLK sealed his fate when he bit LBJ's hand and hit him where it hurt the most: the war and the economy. Thus, the Queen would find herself on borrowed time if she took ovalteen's advice.

@Atheling

I don't deny it,but the fact remains that immigration is a political issue and tradition and protocol demand that the Queen remain 'neutral' or aloof in such matters.Bottom line, it isn't going to happen.

@Atlanticist

I know that the Queen has no political power, however she does have power over morale - or at least the Monarchy did. Would it not "shake" the Establishment over there if she stood up and said that the British immigration problem is a REAL problem and that her people are suffering as a result of it? Of course it would!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Immigrants are coming for the lavish welfare benefits......

....that's a no brainer.  The problem is that we are entering a recession that will probably be entrenched globally with jobs drying up.  How could Brown not notice that?  He has no interest in shutting the door on mass immigration because Labour stays in power thanks to the new needy and dependent constituents. 
 
It's up to the Brits to get their heads out of the sand and get rid of Labour, but, I'm not holding my breath it will happen.  Too may of the natives live off of the dole since Labour came to power.

re: The role of The Queen in British Politics

As a constitutional monarchy,The Queen cannot make or pass legislation and must remain politically neutral.
 
Book suggestion: 'The English Constitution' by Walter Bagehot.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution
 
Enjoy !

Silence...

My guess is that the Queen's silence is because of ignorance.  People who live a sheltered existence can hardly be expected to understand what those who are less privileged endure - and I am referring to those indigenous Britons who must live with the non-assimilated immigrants in their neighborhoods. 

I'm sure her advisors paint a rosier picture than is reality for her. 

However, if I am mistaken in my guess, then she is treasonous to her own nation.  It sure would be nice to see the Royal Family go out in a blaze of glory by bucking the establishment of political correctness and standing up to the traitorous Labour Party... but that's just wishful thinking.
 
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Electing a new people

Immigrants (approximately 190,000 each year) make a “huge contribution” to the economy, Brown has insisted...

They certainly make a huge contribution to the Labour party's economy: more immigrants mean more votes for Labour and bigger profits for the rich businessmen who fund Labour. British politicians have never been honest but they were never as corrupt as they were now. And not just corrupt: traitorous to the nation and people they are supposed to serve. Meanwhile, an unelected VVIP who is supposed to serve the nation does nothing, as an interesting comment at The Telegraph pointed out:

The position of the Queen, in all this mess, is interesting. She is silent. One has to presume that she is an intelligent woman and that she has forgotten more about being a prime minister than most of her PM-servants would ever have known.

What is the Queen's position with regard to the clear attempts by this lot to dismember the nation of which she is the Head? It does seem that the only party that is shouting from the rooftops about this matter is the BNP. (I HATE THE BNP!!!!!!! There you are, can I carry on now?) Do we know what she thinks of each of the parties' "positions" on the institutional destruction of Britain?

This is the only kind of destruction which matters - rubble can be cleared up, and electricity, water, gas and phones connected - look at Germany in the late 40s for example. If the Gramscians destroy our institutions (as they wish to) then we are lost, but not otherwise. Marxism was truly, always, and in fact - and he admitted it - an anti-English creed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/02/do0201.xml