Channel tunnel problems! caused by the illegal migrants.

But, and you choose to ignore this on purpose one might say, unemployment did come down, didn't it? And the UK economy did grow, didn't it?

 

The figures aren't really useful anyway, as they represent both EU and non EU migration, but the fact is, despite doom-thinkers like you, that migration is not taking away jobs.

If a country has 2 people and 1 is unemployed, the unemployment rate is 50%. If 1 migrant comes over and gets a job, the unemployment rate falls to 33%.

My point being, unemployment may fall with immigration, but that doesn't mean it is falling amongst the indigenous population.

If a country has 2 people and 1 is unemployed, the unemployment rate is 50%. If 1 migrant comes over and gets a job, the unemployment rate falls to 33%.

 

My point being, unemployment may fall with immigration, but that doesn't mean it is falling amongst the indigenous population.

What a terrible grasp of maths you have.

If the working population is 1 million and you add 100,000 to it, the unemployment rate should increase by 10%, instead it is dropping.

But, and you choose to ignore this on purpose one might say, unemployment did come down, didn't it? And the UK economy did grow, didn't it?

 

The figures aren't really useful anyway, as they represent both EU and non EU migration, but the fact is, despite doom-thinkers like you, that migration is not taking away jobs.

Wouldn't unemployment have reduced further if more of the available jobs had gone to British people instead of migrants?

We have millions with unemployed or under employed who can do the unskilled work of the type undertaken by migrants. We don't need migrants coming to add to pressures on housing, welfare, NHS, social services etc.

Not only will they cost us money but social problems too. Let's not forget the sort of places they come from and the cultural beliefs and scarring that will come with them... way too much baggage. People have had enough of this type of immigration and it is a sell not even the Labour Party try to make anymore.

If a country has 2 people and 1 is unemployed, the unemployment rate is 50%. If 1 migrant comes over and gets a job, the unemployment rate falls to 33%.

 

My point being, unemployment may fall with immigration, but that doesn't mean it is falling amongst the indigenous population.

likwise if there was no immigrant then the job would have gone to the unemployed person and would be 0% unemployment

Wouldn't unemployment have reduced further if more of the available jobs had gone to British people instead of migrants?

 

We have millions with unemployed or under employed who can do the unskilled work of the type undertaken by migrants. We don't need migrants coming to add to pressures on housing, welfare, NHS, social services etc.

 

Not only will they cost us money but social problems too. Let's not forget the sort of places they come from and the cultural beliefs and scarring that will come with them... way too much baggage. People have had enough of this type of immigration and it is a sell not even the Labour Party try to make anymore.

I can't quite recall how often we talk about frictional unemployment on here, or at least how often I have to explain it to you and MrSmithy. But I suggest you read up on it.

likwise if there was no immigrant then the job would have gone to the unemployed person and would be 0% unemployment

Utter rhubarb.

Have you considered joining IS? They think stoning is good too.

'They'? You can't tar a whole group of people with the same brush. The vast majority may be decent individuals. I suggest you keep your bigoted views to yourself.

'They'? You can't tar a whole group of people with the same brush. The vast majority may be decent individuals. I suggest you keep your bigoted views to yourself.

You think the vast majority of IS are decent individuals?

Presumably all the enslaving, raping, stoning, pushing gays off tower blocks, cutting heads off is just decent people letting off a bit of steam?

You couldn't make it up.

The French don't want them to stay and we don't want them to come over.

Some are genuine refugee's from war-torn middle east, some are just economic migrants who need to go home.

 

Need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

and some were terrorists before they got this far some have become terrorists while looking for a way to cross to Britain.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/immigrants-have-attacked-stabbed-british-5908519

Adapted from Huff Post:

So here are some facts that you might find useful next time you're thinking about that "swarm" (David Cameron's word, not mine) of migrants crossing the Mediterranean from north Africa.

Q.1: Why do they all want to come to the UK?

A: They don't. Far more migrants head for Germany and Sweden, which dealt with nearly half of all asylum applications into the EU last year. The ones at Calais are a tiny fraction of the overall number, probably no more than 3,000 out of a total of well over 175,000 who have entered the EU so far this year.

Q.2: So why are the numbers higher than ever?

A: They're not - according to the EU's own figures, there were 672,000 EU asylum applications in 1992 (when there were only 15 members of the EU), compared to 626,000 last year (when the EU had grown to 28 members with a total population of 500 million). It is true, however, that numbers had dropped substantially in the interim. (Click here for the detailed figures.)

Q.3: How many actually apply for asylum in the UK?

A: According to the latest government statistics: "There were 25,020 asylum applications in the year ending March 2015, an increase of 5% compared with the previous year (23,803). The number of applications remains low relative to the peak number of applications in 2002 (84,132)."

Q.4: Why aren't the migrants just sent back to where they came from if they're not genuine asylum-seekers?

A: Because often we have no way of telling where they came from. Many have no documents, either because they have destroyed them, or because they have been handed over to traffickers who have disappeared.

Q.5: But they can't all be from Syria, can they?

A: No, but about a fifth of the total are. The other main known countries of origin are Afghanistan, Kosovo and Eritrea. The biggest increase in asylum applications last year was from Ukrainians.

Q.6: Why don't Syria's neighbours look after Syrian refugees?

A: They do. According to the UN, there are more than two million registered refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, and another 1.7million in Turkey.

Q.7: If some of the migrants who enter the EU are genuine refugees, why don't they apply for asylum in the first country they get to?

A: Huge numbers do exactly that: the number of applications more than doubled last year in both Italy (the main entry point for migrants who have made it across the Mediterranean) and Hungary (entry point for mainly Asian migrants who originally entered the EU from Turkey).

Q.8: So who are the ones in Calais?

A: A huge mix of nationalities, most of whom have a particular reason for wanting to get to the UK: they may have relatives or friends who are already here, they may be English-speakers who believe they're more likely to find work here, or they may have heard that there's already a substantial number of others from their home country who have already settled here.

Q.9: Isn' t the real reason that they know they'll get benefits as soon as they make it across the Channel?

A: No. According to the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact, most citizens of non-EU countries who come to live in the UK have no recourse to public funds in the initial years after they arrive, nor are asylum-seekers eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending.

Q.10: So why are the media making such a huge fuss about the migrants in Calais?

A: Good question. Partly because they're easy to find and easy to get to - and those long lines of stranded lorries make great TV pictures. So do the desperate images of desperate people risking their lives as they try to leap onto trucks or trains as they head for the Channel Tunnel. And also, of course, because the story feeds into the current debate about the UK's membership of the EU and overall immigration policy.

Wouldn't unemployment have reduced further if more of the available jobs had gone to British people instead of migrants?

 

We have millions with unemployed or under employed who can do the unskilled work of the type undertaken by migrants. We don't need migrants coming to add to pressures on housing, welfare, NHS, social services etc.

 

Not only will they cost us money but social problems too. Let's not forget the sort of places they come from and the cultural beliefs and scarring that will come with them... way too much baggage. People have had enough of this type of immigration and it is a sell not even the Labour Party try to make anymore.

Let the unemployed leave home and live 12 to a room while working for peanuts in chicken factories in deepest Lincolnshire.........instead of refusing to do those type of jobs and standing back to let immigrants do them,or nobody would do them,employers need workers to do these jobs,the UK unemployed is responsible for many immigrants and the reason why business employs immigrants over UK unemployed,who are content to pick up their benefits because working doesn't pay.........especially when it means leaving home to find a job.........like immigrant s are willing to do.

Wouldn't unemployment have reduced further if more of the available jobs had gone to British people instead of migrants?

Areas where the migrants are getting jobs (mainly London & the South East) are usually nowhere near the areas of high unemployment.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2347292/Job-hotspots-UK-Number-vacancies-increase-year.html