Its as if Delwboy never left.

When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.

I have been watching this debate for a while and I agree with elements of both sides of the arguement but there are some myths that seem to get repeated time and time again and one of them is that everyone who comes here gets everything free. That just isn't true.

The truth is that migrants who come here put more in and take less out than the locals. They tend to work rather than claim benefits, so huge cost to the taxpayer I think not.

Historically the taxman has made more from immigration than is paid out in benefits for those that come and just claim. Having said that, why should anyone be allowed to claim anything, when they have not paid in or contributed in some way the the betterment of our nation.

If that is allowed to happen then those that work hard and contribute just feel the system is unfair and who can argue with that. So there needs to be effective control over who comes here and I believe that is the sovereign right of our country and should not be left for the EU to dictate.

Most EU member states would, I believe, have no problem in letting Migrants pass through their country to come here because they don't want them in their countries even more than us.

We have, I believe, always been a more tolerant country than say, Spain, Italy, France or Germany. When it comes to helping those from other countries, the British people have always been right up there, in the giving of charity to foreign causes but on a government level, we don't take as many, as Germany for instance, who take 6 times as many and France who take twice as many as us.

Another thought is that even if migrants do contribute to the country and it's economy, there are other factors that need to be considered, such as social impact and the fact that large numbers of the population just don't want foreigners here and that view is important because it's just how some people feel and right or wrong, that isn't going to change with what's going on now.

Reading through these threads, it seems to me that there are many threads stating the problems without really offering any practical solutions to those perceived problems. They aren't going to stop wanting to come, while their own countries are in turmoil, that's a reality that we have to accept.

We are going to have to invest more in the stability of those countries where the migrants come from and I believe that we can do that in a way that benefits our country. If we don't the tide will increase and spending money on fences will not stop them.

If I was them, I would want to come here, we are a lot safer and you can make a fair living most of the time.

When some of them can't even live, let alone earn, what do they have to lose by coming here?

That's what needs to change before people stop wanting to come and it is becoming more apparent that we cannot cope with those migrants who have the determination to come to Europe/Britain for a better life.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

And Labour are criticising Cameron for his use of the word "Swarm". Shows how detached they are from the general public and what little "Opposition" they offer.

Burnham has gone about "Dog whistling" and the "Bullingdon Club" - dear oh dear.

Edited by Willo (31 Jul 2015 11.17am)

Primarily, yes, but its also our problem to an extent if they're breaking out of the camp and trying to get to the UK. We shouldn't just be sending them back to the French camp if we intercept them.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I thought the 'myth' was that they were entitled to anything at all. Which is it?

We can all appreciate that previous waves of migration (I refuse to identify specific groups so as to avoid debate on their individual merits or lack of) has been positive the country, but times have changed and now we're universally known as a nation of handouts we're not going to get the same calibre of migrants.

Assuming a finite amount of work, an additional person with a job is going to equate to someone on the dole so it's not necessarily the newcomer claiming benefits. Again 'taking our jobs' and 'paying people to do nothing' are separate debates, I'm just pointing out the more basic economics people may be overlooking.

1 person on 20k odd will roughly pay for 1 person on the lowest benefits. On the basis of 50% of migrants working and paying tax you're talking a net gain of fcuk all. But you've got to consider that 99% will be coming over without a job and that those who've already secured one will likely have been put in touch with someone for cash in hand work.

Of course there are high earners from abroad but let's agree that none of those in Calais are going to be doctors and that letting them in is going to be of zero benefit to us. Even if they all worked they still may or may not claim benefits or pay tax. We don't even know how many there are. I don't really know how we've leapfrogged the discussion of the potential drain suddenly suggesting they'd offer a boost to the economy.

I reluctantly refer to the 'left' again, but they really do need to decide whether we should accommodate migrants because:

a) We can/ should
b) They will benefit the country.

..without alternating between the two when the other option has been disputed.

The other irritation is that the 'left' are about as willing as your average racist to distinguish between economic migrants and asylum cases. Not that I've got answers on how chose who we want and ensure we accept only those people, but any system than the indiscriminate acceptance of previous policy.

Edited by johnfirewall (31 Jul 2015 12.55pm)

There hasn't been this level of immigration since 1066. Back then, of course, it was called an invasion.