1 In 12 Social Houses Occupied By Foreign Nationals

[Britney's Piers]

Sorry but I had no vote on this. I had no say. But so what. They are human beings you know like you and me.

I am not sure I buy your crime argument and yes perhaps I am sheltered from the reality to which you refer.

As for future generations they will be doing I dare say exactly what we have been doing. Earning a living, staying out of trouble, procreating, and trying to enjoy life perhaps even giving something back.

I am not against change, it sounds like you are?

50% of Muslim men are unemployed, 75% of Muslim women are unemployed. They must either be living off the state or more likely, off crime. What possible benefit is the country getting from opening its doors to these people? You can't even argue the economic case with this one.

[Self Employed Youth]

50% of Muslim men are unemployed, 75% of Muslim women are unemployed. They must either be living off the state or more likely, off crime. What possible benefit is the country getting from opening its doors to these people? You can't even argue the economic case with this one.

Perhaps we are spiritually richer. 37.5% on fridays..

[Bob Loblaw]

I do wonder if the policy of assigning social housing to immigrants is deliberate and if so to what end? Even the biggest fan of this policy would struggle to detail the benefits to England of places like Newham and Tower Hamlets. We saw recently in Tower Hamlets how the 'imported' vote can turn.

[SarahBell]

Utterly Wrong on first part!

If the immigrants were treated like ordinary british citizens and put to the back of the housing lists - maybe 1% of them would be housed in social accomodation!

The waiting list is now nearly 6 million!

The problem being those who are british generally tend to be living somewhere. So that makes them in less housing need than someone who's just pitched up in the country with their family.

[Tired of Waiting]

Ok so let's blame all the ills of our Country on the gypsies and the Jews, the long haired layabouts and students and "foreigners"?

Now that is sadly VERY naive.

No im fine with that , no problem involved with admiting that the whites have sold and ran. (...)

I never said all immigrants occupied social housing . (...)

I am glad to see so many posters genuinely trying to be balanced and sensible in a thread like this. That is why I decided to post some important numbers here. I think there is a chance for a calm discussion:

Say there are a million people travelling into central London every morning. We don't conclude that in a year London will have 365 million people, do we? Of course, not, because we all think NET, naturally. These people travel back out at the end of the day. Obviously.

Then why so many people forget to think NET when talking about immigration?

There are some 6 to 7 million foreign born people living in Britain. But there are some 5.5 to 6 million UK citizens living abroad. The NET number is probably just over 1 million. In a population of 60 million, this is not much relevant.

If you doubt these numbers please feel free to Google it.

I've used these search strings:

"uk OR British nationals OR born" " living abroad"

"foreign nationals OR born" " living in Britain"

I don't know if the UK government has official numbers for UK citizens living abroad. In a quick search I couldn't find it. If someone finds it, please do post the link here. Though the government may not even have these numbers, as they don't count people out.

But back to housing costs: The main cause of our high house prices was too much and too cheap credit boosting effective demand, and on the other side supply blocked by hysterical planning restrictions. NET migration had a very minor role in it.

By the way, we should always use NET numbers, and not forget about it when thinking about migration. A very important example in another area is its impact on the NHS. As the avergae age of immigrants is probably lower than the average age of our expats, the NET impact on the NHS is probably positive. (I guess it is Spain who should complain about it!)

And for people who also include UK born descendants of immigrants in their concerns, they should balance it out by considering the descendants of UK nationals that have emigrated in the past. NET, remember?

[Orsino]

There are some 6 to 7 million foreign born people living in Britain. But there are some 5.5 to 6 million UK citizens living abroad. The NET number is probably just over 1 million. In a population of 60 million, this is not much relevant.

The MigrationWatch article talks of 1 in 12 social houses being occupied by 'foreign nationals' not foreign born people living in Britain. The UK has an obligation to make sure British citizens (irrespective of their place of birth) have access to decent accommodation. The UK also has an obligation to provide basic services to genuine asylum seekers, including housing. It should NOT have an obligation to foreigners who want to live in the UK but can't afford to.

[Tired of Waiting]

The MigrationWatch article talks of 1 in 12 social houses being occupied by 'foreign nationals' not foreign born people living in Britain. The UK has an obligation to make sure British citizens (irrespective of their place of birth) have access to decent accommodation. The UK also has an obligation to provide basic services to genuine asylum seekers, including housing. It should NOT have an obligation to foreigners who want to live in the UK but can't afford to.

Even if they were careful about that language and distinction, and we concentrate on nationality here, who do you think would have a higher moral right for help, a foreign national who has been a legal resident here for many years, paying taxes, and loses his job temporarily? Or a UK "national" who lived abroad his whole working life, and never paid taxes in Britain?

My main point is: This is not a simple issue, and as many people get disproportionally angry about problems exaggerated by some media, this reduces the needed clarity of thought to analyse this issue properly, calmly, and see the different angles.

[Goat]

There are some 6 to 7 million foreign born people living in Britain. But there are some 5.5 to 6 million UK citizens living abroad. The NET number is probably just over 1 million. In a population of 60 million, this is not much relevant.

A fair point however it isn't the whole story.

If you look at the UK expats I think you'll find they're almost entirely either retirees who've moved abroad or highly qualified workers who've left temporarilly in search of work or who've given up on the UK entirely. Neither group is likely to be in receipt of any significant welfare support in their host country.

In contrast a large proportion of our new arrivals are either partly or wholly reliant upon the state for support.

So we still seem to be getting the raw end of the deal.

[LittlePiglet]

Is it me? Am I alone? I mean, where do our folk now live? What do they do?

I felt the same way, which is why I moved from London to a village in Surrey

(and discovered the answer to your question of where do our own folk live).

Moving out of London was without doubt the best thing I ever did. I can't

believe how stressed and unhappy I had become in London without even being

conscious of it.

Can't afford it here of course, but I'll worry about that later.

[Tired of Waiting]

A fair point however it isn't the whole story.

If you look at the UK expats I think you'll find they're almost entirely either retirees who've moved abroad or highly qualified workers who've left temporarilly in search of work or who've given up on the UK entirely. Neither group is likely to be in receipt of any significant welfare support in their host country.

In contrast a large proportion of our new arrivals are either partly or wholly reliant upon the state for support.

So we still seem to be getting the raw end of the deal.

Thanks, same to you.

The Migration Watch article says that "Foreign nationals now occupy 8.4% of the social housing stock." But as foreign nationals represent a higher share of UK residents than 8.4%, that means they use less social housing than natives.

If both groups use more welfare than other countries, then this is a welfare problem, not a migration problem.

Regarding your specific point, re. UK expats receiving welfare abroad, we don't have these numbers, but I would guess you are right, as usually migrants are more pro-active than natives, everywhere. But my question would be if UK expats use less welfare abroad than the natives residents in those countries do. We don't have these numbers either, but similarly I'd guess they would, for the same reason, pro-active migrant personality.

Edit: Sorry, I had not spotted you wrote "Neither group is likely to be in receipt of any significant welfare support in their host country." and not just housing. In this case do consider that pensioners cost much more to health systems than young people. The opposite for education services, of course. It is not simple. But every time all factors are consider, the NET result shrinks a lot, because there are costs and benefits all over the place. And the NET result is usually vastly smaller than people first think, looking at just one side of the issues.

[R K]

Thanks, same to you.

The Migration Watch article says that "Foreign nationals now occupy 8.4% of the social housing stock." But as foreign nationals represent a higher share of UK residents than 8.4%, that means they use less social housing than natives.

Here's a radical thought: Perhaps one or two of them live with their partners or children. Crazy I know.

[LJAR]

Here's a radical thought: Perhaps one or two of them live with their partners or children. Crazy I know.

but so does everyone else - what ToW's stat implies is that foreign nationals live in larger household units.

The problem here is immigration to welfare.

If people come here to jobs, then there is no problem as they are paying their own way. The problem arises when they want to take out of the system without first putting in.

In some respects I think we should simply tell people (foreign or British) they are not entitled to any form of welfare unless they have paid taxes for a few years - at least people wouldn't come out of school and go straight onto benefits.

[TeddyBear]

What's with the ignorant idea that every non white foreign person commuting into London is an asylum seeker.?

A large, large portion have been invited here. The NHS for instance gave countless visas to clinical staff from countries like the Philipines, saying they couldn't get the staff - and they couldn't because the pay is not enough for people used to living to an English standard. That XFactor girl Gamu's mother is an example of this. Why they couldn't get the higher grade staff and brought in so many foreign doctors, I'm not quite sure to be honest.

Another large portion of these people are people over here on scam student visas that allow part-time work. They do part-time work and often then other cash in hand work on the side.

Then you have the illegal immigrants who work long hours, often on false national insurance numbers in London's kitchens/hotels etc.. they pay tax, often at the emergency rate.

Asylum seekers are a tiny proportion and, as far as I know, are not allowed to work before their cases are heard. If they are given leave to remain, they are no longer asylum seekers, they are new British citizens.

I have said this before, I see this massive import of cheap labour (of all colours, white Eastern Europe very much included here) just like the pyramid scheme of house prices. It allows short term for greater profits in private businesses, for lower costs in the NHS, meanwhile though our benefit system is creaking under the fact that these low paid people (not the illegal ones) are getting LHA, tax credits etc..and of course they are mostly here so that their children will have a better life and thus the next generation will not fulfil the low paid, grunt labour their parents did.

No politician could face the difficult job of making sure that the indigenous unemployed took up the available jobs before immigration was allowed and now we are going to be left with nasty racial tension - something that always happens in economic downturns.

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

The problem here is immigration to welfare.

If people come here to jobs, then there is no problem as they are paying their own way. The problem arises when they want to take out of the system without first putting in.

In some respects I think we should simply tell people (foreign or British) they are not entitled to any form of welfare unless they have paid taxes for a few years - at least people wouldn't come out of school and go straight onto benefits.

+ 1

[red11]

Utterly Wrong on first part!

If the immigrants were treated like ordinary british citizens and put to the back of the housing lists - maybe 1% of them would be housed in social accomodation!

The waiting list is now nearly 6 million!

I personally know quite a few immigrants, and thanks to the UK's very generous and helpful benefit system that are all doing quite well, despite never working a single day in the UK.

Any other country would think that it's a disgrace that foreigners are given more rights than the locals, but here in the UK we are conditioned to believe that it's normal.