Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UKSupercell

MigrationWatchUK study: Certain Migrant groups actually detrimental

Recommended Posts

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.42
 

"Key labour market outcomes of migrants to the UK show wide variation, particularly in employment status, wages and benefit claims. In these terms migrants from some regions have particularly strong economic characteristics compared to those born in the UK while others have much weaker economic characteristics.

Assessments of the current and future impact of immigration to the UK often assume that there is no difference in the economic characteristics of migrants in the UK. The justification given for this is that overall the migrant population tends to be younger and thus more likely to be working. However, such assessments rarely take into account either the type of employment or the rewards of it.

While much debate is conducted in terms that distinguish between EU and non-EU migration, it is clear that the picture of labour market outcomes is not simple, with both groups containing a mix of countries from which migrants to the UK exhibit very different characteristics.

The group of migrants in the UK from Western Europe, India, South Africa and the ‘Anglosphere’ exhibit strong economic characteristics – they have high rates of employment at good wages and low rates of benefit claim.

Migrants from Eastern Europe also have high rates of employment but they have lower wages and higher rates of benefit claim than those born in the UK.

Migrants from Africa apart from South Africa have overall employment rates and wages on a par with the UK-born, but much higher rates of benefit claim.

Migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh have lower rates of employment combined with lower wages and higher rates of benefit claim.

Overall outcomes in comparison to the population of UK-born residents are summarised in the following table." 

 

Not surprised in the least at these findings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Migrants from Africa apart from South Africa have overall employment rates and wages on a par with the UK-born, but much higher rates of benefit claim.


Migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh have lower rates of employment combined with lower wages and higher rates of benefit claim.


Overall outcomes in comparison to the population of UK-born residents are summarised in the following table." 


 


..


 


Who knew that allowing the third world here would be bad? 


 


The eastern european low wage issue should be looked at? Are they simply choosing low wages by choice or do they lack education ect.. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Migration watch is hardly as "independent" as it would like to claim. Take very great care when reading it's "analysis".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Migrants from Africa apart from South Africa have overall employment rates and wages on a par with the UK-born, but much higher rates of benefit claim.

Migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh have lower rates of employment combined with lower wages and higher rates of benefit claim.

Overall outcomes in comparison to the population of UK-born residents are summarised in the following table." 

 

..

 

Who knew that allowing the third world here would be bad? 

 

The eastern european low wage issue should be looked at? Are they simply choosing low wages by choice or do they lack education ect.. 

 

 

Lack education I imagine. A lot of Poles work as cleaners, builders, plumbers etc, so mostly manual jobs. I'm sure Eastern Europeans do a lot of the fruit picking too. However, what I suspect is these figures which state that they actually take more out in benefits than Brits do - this is probably more recent Romanians/Bulgarians than Poles. I'm not sticking up for the Poles, I think there's far too many people coming here in general, but most Poles I've met seem to be employed or studying so I suspect it's other East Euro groups claiming benefits more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Migration watch is hardly as "independent" as it would like to claim. Take very great care when reading it's "analysis".

 

I take extra care when watching the biased travesty that is the BBC Six O'Clock News. Regarding MigrationWatch, you can claim they're "hardly independent" all you like, but I doubt these figures are made-up. Based on my own personal experiences, living near two large towns with vast numbers of Poles and Pakistanis, and spending a lot of time where I used to live in London, I would say the statistics reported are very accurate. A lot of Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (in fact many recent muslim migrants), seem to be on benefits, as unlike other groups such as our hard-working Indian friends, these muslim groups integrate far less successfully; it's not surprising seeing as English culture and conservative, tribal Islam from Kashmir are hardly comparable.

As for Indians; what the study says is damn right. They're hard-working, generally integrated and decent members of society. It seems accurate with East Euros to, largely in employment but lower wage jobs. Surprised they claim more but this is likely recent migrants from Romania/Bulgaria as most Poles I know are working/studying at Uni.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think it can be dangerous, misleading and counter productive to split people into different categories in this way - no matter what group of people you are speaking of there are good and bad - to categorise for example the Somalis means there is a danger of writing off the whole group but amongst them there must be some highly skilled intelligent workers, willing to work hard given the chance.

Perhaps we should look more closely at all these peoples and see if there are ways of fitting round pegs into round holes whereby we can get productive work out of the majority - there will always be some shirkers and would you believe it, some will be white English!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup definitely a racist group so should be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Migration watch is hardly as "independent" as it would like to claim. Take very great care when reading it's "analysis".

Now, if Migration Watch's tailor-made 'survey' had come to any other conclusion, other than the one MW required, it'd be newsworthy... :fool:

 

As it is, it's on a par with those 'surveys' done by food manufacturers that (surprise, surprise) 'prove' that drinking 500 gallons of 'X' a day really does make you live 25 seconds longer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it can be dangerous, misleading and counter productive to split people into different categories in this way - no matter what group of people you are speaking of there are good and bad - to categorise for example the Somalis means there is a danger of writing off the whole group but amongst them there must be some highly skilled intelligent workers, willing to work hard given the chance.

Perhaps we should look more closely at all these peoples and see if there are ways of fitting round pegs into round holes whereby we can get productive work out of the majority - there will always be some shirkers and would you believe it, some will be white English!

 

Over 13 years of a politically-correct, socially-hard left labour government, issue after issue regarding multiculturalism or specific immigrant communities was brushed aside and swept under the carpet. It is dangerous to be silent on the issues that affect people. Example: Rotherham. The concerns of residents were ignored for ages, all because the police thought it may be "racist" to investigate Muslims grooming English children in the area. Now that's ridiculous. There was a controversial but good programme on a while ago, with a man called Trevor Phillips. "Things we won't say about race that are true." He says exactly the above: Sweeping issues under the carpet because we're afraid of offending others just sets a dangerous precedent. 

As for Somalis, it's unlikely there will be many "highly skilled intelligent workers" within their community, considering statistics say as much as 75% of Somali women and 50% of Somali men are on benefits. Truth be told, a lot of Somalis have been asylum seekers escaping conflict, and as true to NATO law, should be seeking refuge in the first safe country. Errr, try....Kenya. That's safe enough. If not Kenya, other countries in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Africa, the Mediterranean etc. These people offer us nothing beneficial. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. How do Somalis culturally or economically enrich Britain? They simply do not in any way at all. 

Of course you are right though, there are plenty of shirkers of our own too, no doubt thanks to the welfare society created by Labour. Some of course think it's better to stay on benefits than find work because in some areas, wages have fallen so much due to mass EU migration. 

So with all the work-shy scroungers we have, importing more is another massive own goal. At least our scroungers have a cultural connection and can speak English (just about !) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 13 years of a politically-correct, socially-hard left labour government, issue after issue regarding multiculturalism or specific immigrant communities was brushed aside and swept under the carpet. It is dangerous to be silent on the issues that affect people. Example: Rotherham. The concerns of residents were ignored for ages, all because the police thought it may be "racist" to investigate Muslims grooming English children in the area. Now that's ridiculous. There was a controversial but good programme on a while ago, with a man called Trevor Phillips. "Things we won't say about race that are true." He says exactly the above: Sweeping issues under the carpet because we're afraid of offending others just sets a dangerous precedent. 

As for Somalis, it's unlikely there will be many "highly skilled intelligent workers" within their community, considering statistics say as much as 75% of Somali women and 50% of Somali men are on benefits. Truth be told, a lot of Somalis have been asylum seekers escaping conflict, and as true to NATO law, should be seeking refuge in the first safe country. Errr, try....Kenya. That's safe enough. If not Kenya, other countries in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Africa, the Mediterranean etc. These people offer us nothing beneficial. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. How do Somalis culturally or economically enrich Britain? They simply do not in any way at all. 

Of course you are right though, there are plenty of shirkers of our own too, no doubt thanks to the welfare society created by Labour. Some of course think it's better to stay on benefits than find work because in some areas, wages have fallen so much due to mass EU migration. 

So with all the work-shy scroungers we have, importing more is another massive own goal. At least our scroungers have a cultural connection and can speak English (just about !)

Although I agree with some of what you posted I must take issue with you as far as there being a lot of our own work shirkers. There are some but by stating what you have just goes to demonise everyone on benefits.

I concur with your observation as far as Somalis are concerned, although some have shown their gratitude for accepting them and paying for their education going to Syria to join IS. One young lady was one of 8 children and she lived in the East of London and had good A levels. Imagine how much we are paying to keep the remainder of the family here.

The same is true in respect of a lot of Pakistanis. I remember over 30 years ago I used to watch Bagpus on BBC TV every Sunday morning with my two oldest sons and just after it had finished there was a public information programme for people from the Indian Sub Continent in one of their languages and so obviously I could not understand the majority of what was being said, but where their was no equivalent in their language the English version was spoken and so every third or fourth sentence phrases such as "supplementary benefit" or "social security" were spoken. Even in those days those whose first language was not English were far better catered for in knowing their entitlement than those who had here all their lives and paid into the system.

I believe the system has not changed and preferential treatment is still afforded for fear of accusations of racial bias, although I am unable to prove it. It is just a gut feeling I have.

Kind Regards

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with some of what you posted I must take issue with you as far as there being a lot of our own work shirkers. There are some but by stating what you have just goes to demonise everyone on benefits.

I concur with your observation as far as Somalis are concerned, although some have shown their gratitude for accepting them and paying for their education going to Syria to join IS. One young lady was one of 8 children and she lived in the East of London and had good A levels. Imagine how much we are paying to keep the remainder of the family here.

The same is true in respect of a lot of Pakistanis. I remember over 30 years ago I used to watch Bagpus on BBC TV every Sunday morning with my two oldest sons and just after it had finished there was a public information programme for people from the Indian Sub Continent in one of their languages and so obviously I could not understand the majority of what was being said, but where their was no equivalent in their language the English version was spoken and so every third or fourth sentence phrases such as "supplementary benefit" or "social security" were spoken. Even in those days those whose first language was not English were far better catered for in knowing their entitlement than those who had here all their lives and paid into the system.

I believe the system has not changed and preferential treatment is still afforded for fear of accusations of racial bias, although I am unable to prove it. It is just a gut feeling I have.

Kind Regards

Dave

 

Thanks for your reply, Dave. If I came across as demonising those on benefits, I certainly didn't mean to, so apologies for that. I myself have been unemployed and in need of help many years ago, so had two short stints on jobseekers.

 

Thankfully I shouldn't see those days again, but there are some people in this country that seem to be a bit reluctant when it comes to work and would rather sit on the dole. I think the welfare system needs a shake-up but I'm not some radical Tory who thinks we should destroy welfare all together. 

 

Thanks for your story, an interesting perspective there. I think your gut feeling may just be right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...