Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html en-gb 30 Sun 20 Apr 2014 19:54:49 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html GordonBrownsux http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=97#comment33 Immigration, what a great idea furthered by our wonderful labour government. Not only has it increased the number of qualified professional and tradespeople by hundreds, it has also brought down the prices charged by these people. Now we can get a plumber to work almost immediately and pay less for the privilege! The days of over-priced tradespeople has gone and in such a short period of time. I am very enthusiastic about a couple of 'immigrant' dentists setting up in my area, not only will they do a proper job on my teeth but they do not charge as much as the 'British' dentists. Please encourage more immigration asap!! Fri 10 Oct 2008 14:32:51 GMT+1 BernardW http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=94#comment32 Peter_Sym #18 made a very valid point. Force people to work in Care Homes? If they don't want to do the job, I don't want to be on the receiving ned of their care.I have worked many shifts as an Agency Nurse in many homes...and do you know? There are many who I refused to work in again as the level of care was abyssmal. I would not want to spend the last years of my life in one of them. Even less so if the ignorant (by that I mean the uneducated, untrained) and uncaring workshy is forced to work there.Leave care work to thise who want to to it, and pay them propertionately. Mon 06 Oct 2008 08:18:32 GMT+1 davidstuarthill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=91#comment31 The problem is not the problem but the people who administer the supposed solutions. My institute tried for 3-years without success with the Home Office to get them to accept an invitation from the Vietnam Government to trial their heroin and cocaine treatment which detoxifies in a humane way in just 48 hrs. Even though David Blunkett was involved, the pleas went nowhere and the Home Office refused even to undertake a mere trial. The cost, £200,000 but where thousands of lives thereafter would have been saved and millions who live in drug addicted families, would have had a success story to tell of. In Vietnam this cure is under the control of the Government and where not just over 20,000 hard drug addicts have been cured but also many westerners who were introduced to the communist country through political connections. Some are leading lights, known well and where their daughter or son had become incurable addicts. Indeed, not a great deal is known of this herbal cure (note herbal and therefore not like methadone which is highly addictive, even more so than heroin).Yesterday I sent an email to Paul Hayes, head of NTA (National Treatment Agency), and where one of his colleagues, a Mr. Hugo Luck replied (copy sent to all readers who are interested). In essence they were not interested like the Home Office and where they would prefer to continue with what they had got – basically unacceptable failure. Indeed, this means in my common sense understanding that they are living in a parallel universe where failure equates to success. We have seen much of this in the past few weeks with the bankers but where it pervades all areas I am now convinced of Whitehall and their agencies. Indeed, to equate a 3.6% reduction whilst 96.4% are still addicts is a failure on a colossal scale and where if it were in any other area of endeavour the whole of the management board would have by now been sacked.Overall, there is a cure out there, humane, extremely low cost and totally effective. The problem is that those who are empowered to reduce the problem just do not want to know. A sad world that we live in and where I now believe that vested interests both within industry and government, who appear to be hand in glove here, are the main cause of the problem and not those who are trying desperately to get off hard drugs.In this respect NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) has a great deal to answer for also as they do nothing to change the system and only increase and perpetuate the dire problem. How, I therefore plead for the people of this dear country, do we get them to listen? For they will not !Dr David Hill (British resident)World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)Bern, Switzerlanddrhill@thewif.org.uk Fri 03 Oct 2008 14:39:09 GMT+1 scawbyman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=88#comment30 We miss the point here i think, the government pay 300/400 quid a week (taxpayers cash) for OAP's to be mistreated in 'homes' throughout the country. Many people would gladly take care of their parents in old age for a fraction of that cost, but as such an option is not open to them they have to let their loved ones sell all and move into 'care homes' (due to the lack of spare cash in most uk homes thanks to the huge tax burdens) It is no surprise that 'care homes' are springing up like weeds throughout the nation, they are a cash cow supported by our tax, let me keep a little of that tax and I'll look after my parents, provide higher standard of care and reduce the need for the exploitation of imigrant workers Thu 25 Sep 2008 05:40:33 GMT+1 Robert Bennett http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=85#comment29 When you tally what this really costs and what it does to British people and Society--- it is a cost you can never pay. Look at America, protect yourselves, this Trojan Horse will kill you. Fri 19 Sep 2008 16:06:15 GMT+1 AVERYSTUPIDQUESTION http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=82#comment28 You cannot bundle all immigrants together. They are NOT all coming to work. Also they are NOT all coming because they think the UK is a great place and they want to be British which if you look back at the European Immigration we have had during the last 200 years took place over no more than one or two generations. Face it. We are importing people who in 20 generations time will not change there ways or attitudes. They will never assimilate because ideologically we might as well come from mars as far as they are concerned. So please when you talk about immigrants.. if you mean workers then say it. On the subject of Low cost labour comes high cost family welfare. Who is paying for that?It has been said that we should restrict immigration to only educated people but surely that is immoral in its self. The countries they come from need those people desperately. The issue we have is not with people who want to work is it the ones who dont and the mass of hangers on who come with them and their motivation which is welfare. Thu 18 Sep 2008 07:11:16 GMT+1 WorldWarIV http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=79#comment27 How about this for a real revolutionary idea Mark, how about lets stop paying folks for doing nothing?If we manage to get only 20% of folks claiming all the different benefits, I am sure those jobs will get taken. Tue 16 Sep 2008 21:56:30 GMT+1 quietlaurieann http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=76#comment26 If £8.29 is what skilled workers earn-what are they paying unskilled workers?If they paid £8 an hour there would be no shortage of local help. Tue 16 Sep 2008 19:16:49 GMT+1 schilder http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=73#comment25 I am always wary of anyone that supports a particular view on any subject and I think Mark Easton is expresses his view clearly in the following piece of text:"For thousands of people who struggle to pay care costs for their elderly or disabled relatives, any increase can translate directly into less help and greater suffering."So Mark Easton my point is this if you care so much about this issue why don't you consider helping out the elderly in your spare time - if more people who cared about this subject actually offered their help - would we have such problems in finding people to look after our elderly. Furthermore, would the time spent doing this be more worthwhile than writing an article on it. After all during the process writing surely people have suffered in some way or another.Furthermore, can anyone really work out the costs/issues that will occur if we allow more immigrants into the UK. I don't think they can because how could they you ever know. You will never know if any of these immigrants will end up with serious health problems that will cost the NHS thousands and thousands of pounds. We will never know what they will do with their lives in the long term or even in the short term. So really it's almost impossible to work these things out isn't it? I'm sure any right minded person would agree. In addition, when Mark Easton talks about suffering due to the lack of immigration(as this is essentially what he is saying) this misses out on a crucial issue and that is that the article is written in a completely one sided way. In other words is it right to snatch workers from other countries to try and avoid suffering in our country. As it shows a complete lack of regard for the people that could suffer from the loss of staff from the countries we have taken them from - or do we just not care. Yes the UK is not the only country that needs people to look after their elderly Mark Easton.Where should immirgration stop. Maybe the ability to be able to buy a coffee in the morning ranks high on peoples list of priorities in life - should we import people into the country just so that desire for coffee is satisfied too - or is that not such an important issue for anyone. Because it could be couldn't it.I would also like to add that according to the press we are heading into a recession(or at least that's how it seems) why is this? I thought Gordon Brown remarked that immigration was going to be good for the economy. Seen as we have had so much recently why has it not helped the economy - or am I missing something? could Gordon Brown have got it wrong? Mon 15 Sep 2008 00:43:08 GMT+1 Geiseric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=70#comment24 Whether immigration is good or bad is not the most important point. We supposedly live in a democracy. This is supposed to be our country. Major changes should not take place without the consent of the people/electorate. Sat 13 Sep 2008 08:44:12 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=67#comment23 If the population increases, how will the UK meet the commitments it is demainding under the son of Kyoto treaty. How will it cut 20, 30, even 40 percent or more of its CO2 emissions with a growth of say 20 or 30 percent population given the current state of technology and pace of technological development? Short of a miracle breakthrough nobody anticipates, the UK will have to accept a substantially lower standard of living or miss its targets badly. Sat 13 Sep 2008 01:15:23 GMT+1 sayitproud http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=64#comment22 I agree with skilled immigrant workers to a degree; but I would argue; do we really need them? The Brits have had enough of there being more immigrants in Brtian and are migrating themselves to pastures better!, so there may be a shortage in some trades, but in my profession (nursing), there appears to be a shortage of jobs, why? Maybe less funding from government, maybe migrants have taken the jobs.It is quite difficult to get jobs nowadays, especially in the east midlands. Migrant workers work in the agricultural industry doing 12+ hr days with little or no breaks, they don't mind , they get money to send home, as us British know our rights and are clue`up on the law; we also like to get home and see our families, rather than work all day. We are entitled to this.Yes I agree that there are slobs on benefits and enjoy not working (Why not they get more money and entitlements); But immagrants get even more, government money from my taxes (and all them other people that work hard) to go out and furnish their nice council home that has been supplied! Fri 12 Sep 2008 21:28:41 GMT+1 riverside http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=61#comment21 I have no objection to people from outside the EU coming to work here short term, as long as they then depart after a set period and do not settle here and do not recieve British Citizenship and are fit and health and are not Heathcare Tourists. That doesnt seem to always happen.I know some longterm migrants, (some are non EU) who are well respected and liked and help the area by being here, however it is not always so straightforward.It would appear that nothing can be done to stop EU citizens turning up here. The recent EU expansion was sought by those countries who wanted to join the EU, I wonder why, could it be because there were advantages. There seem to be huge sums of EU money flowing into some of these countries as grant aid. In some places the infrastructure is going to be better than the one in the UK if it is not already at that point.Migrants would not come here unless they thought it had advantages to be here. Fair enough providing that gives the UK some advantages, but only if that is the case. However some vegetable grower complaining he can't get somebody to pick his fruit veg and let him make a profit is not a basis for anything. At the very least that is a short term route.How many migrants really want to integrate into the local UK community. A significant number I have met have little interest in learning English and wish to create their own minature nation in isolation, some even appear to want to import their own law and ignore UK law, according to some reports.It is an unpleasant fact that migrants include those with a criminal record. Unable to get work in their own country some come to the UK. Recently a rape occurred in the area by convicted rapist who the victims neighbour told me was found to be a known problem in his home country but whose record was unkown to the local police, and presumably his UK employer who had no way of checking.As the UK officialdom seems to be unable to deport UK court convicted foreign criminals they know they should be sending home I doubt they they are up to stopping criminals they don't know about coming here.As for the UK courts stopping the deportation of undesirables such as terrorists in case the poor things are badly treated at home. Surely if you have not behaved in the UK thats it, off you go, you have lost your right to be here.The UK is a small island, and bits drop off into the sea every year, I don't see what is left should be given away lightly. A more robust immigration policy is needed than the one seen todate and if that costs more to implement then those wishing to come here are the ones who have to foot the bill. Thu 11 Sep 2008 21:36:08 GMT+1 glosaxcelt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=58#comment20 The Welsh druid was hilarious. The Celts were immigrants to this island too. He clearly doesn`t realise how intermixed the peoples of this nation are. I`m half Celt. What should I do, send half of me abroad and keep the other half in Britain ? And which half of my body should stay here Mr. Pureblood ? Thu 11 Sep 2008 08:45:57 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=55#comment19 #18. The unskilled care worker argument does hold water, at least to some extent because it would appear that the Filipinos doing the jobs WANT to do them.I can think of nothing worse in my old age than being 'cared' for by some Chav from a sink estate who's been told to look after me or lose his benefits. The potential for abuse would be horrific. I'd rather volunteer for euthanasia than be in that situation. Thu 11 Sep 2008 08:24:23 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=52#comment18 "Hi would love to see all immigrants leaving this island we can start with English immigrantsand return this island to its rightful owners CELTS (Scots Welsh Irish) "The Scots actually came from Ireland in the 6th century and there's strong evidence they originally came from the Ukraine via Spain. You probably mean the Picts although I strongly suspect you haven't a clue what you're talking about. 10,000 years ago no-one lived here if you can find me someone who's 100% genetically Pict I'd be VERY suprised.Incidentally the term 'celt' was first used in the 18th century. The tribes in Britain when the Romans invaded refered to themselves by their tribal names - Iceni etc. They had no concept of being a common race. Thu 11 Sep 2008 08:04:52 GMT+1 jon112uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=49#comment17 I dont have a problem with workers who are genuinely needed.But the unskilled care worker argument does not hold water. Within a mile from any care home are people who are being given benefits because (they say) they can't find a job. About a million of them, plus perhaps two million who say they can't work because they are ill - but they aren't.In terms of unskilled jobs, once all of these people are working and there is still a shortage then by all means invite more people from overseas.The argument here would be that it is benefits which inflate the wage costs, not imigration controls. Thu 11 Sep 2008 07:54:22 GMT+1 rapidAnthonygee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=47#comment16 What I currently do not understand is if a capping of migrants is a bad idea as the BBC is clearly stating here, why is it that the The Migration Advisory Committee is recommending it?Is it that they do not know anything about this subject, and this committee is made up of know nothing chancers or maybe the bbc believes the whole committee is made up of right wing extremists? Or could it be possible that these are educated individuals who have put many man hours into an issue that without address could develop into a large problem in the near future. Wed 10 Sep 2008 18:49:33 GMT+1 SheffTim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=44#comment15 What you fail to mention is the fact that if the government didn`t pay the workshy benefits to sit at home and do nothing then they would HAVE to go out and earn their living, picking crops and doing other low skill jobs. #6The `remove benefits to make them work` argument is superficially attractive, but flawed. I imagine a new Tory govt could consider introducing it, but would find themselves furiously back peddling after six months, here`s a few reasons why.In order to attend interviews, to get to work both requires some money; paying it retrospectively would no longer be an option.It would essentially mean making large numbers of people homeless. Even in social housing the unemployed are expected to contribute something towards costs, they also have to pay for their own electricity, gas etc. The councils would have little option but to enforce this by eviction.I suspect that the public would not like large numbers of homeless families, young children and all, appearing, and begging, on the streets. Hostel accommodation is woefully inadequate at present; this would mean taking very large numbers of children into care. I doubt that breaking up families and adding to the taxpayers` burden by providing care places for children wouldn`t be quite what a party committed to `family values` would like to be associated with.Extremely large numbers of feeding stations would be required. The charity sector is simply not capable of keeping that many people alive. Some areas with high unemployment have little in the way of local jobs, even menial ones, which need filling. Transporting the unemployed around the country, building accommodation, providing medical care etc would be an expensive affair. It couldn`t be done overnight, as the fiasco over housing asylum seekers shows.Supervisors would presumably be recruited from the ranks of the unemployed; the potential for corruption and abuse of the system would be many.Many of the mentally ill are on benefits, not in a hospital. (Something that becomes an issue whenever a schizophrenic kills someone, but quickly dies away again.) How those are safeguarded (many are still deemed physically fit to work) is anyone`s guess.Desperate people become, well, desperate. The crime rate would soar. Many women would resort to prostitution in order to eat; again not something a party committed to `family values` would like to be associated with. Loan sharks, gang masters and associated criminals would have a field day.And work such as fruit picking is seasonal.I imagine other problems would emerge if attempts were made to implement this idea in the way it`s often expressed. Wed 10 Sep 2008 18:02:11 GMT+1 yossarianliveson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=41#comment14 Surely a massive part of most peoples outgoings is on their mortgage. House prices have partly been driven so high because of demand. I also appreciate that reckless unchecked lending, self-cert mortgages etc that the Government knew full well about also fueled prices, but I digress. The demand is due to the increasing population and the limited supply (and space!). A lower population will surely help ease demand and therefore costs. This in turn will help with inflation. I'm not an economist but seems logical to me.I love the comment by the Welsh druid wanting to drive out the Anglo Saxons. Do you also have a chip on your shoulder about the Romans? You should research about the distribution of the Celts you know so much about... Wed 10 Sep 2008 17:49:49 GMT+1 stanilic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=38#comment13 So we allow immigration into the country in order to keep wages down?If we had an expanding economy this would not be the case. However, since we now have a shrinking economy then sadly this unpleasant argument must apply.The political priority should always be to ensure full domestic employment and then look to immigration to take up the remaining slack. A well paid workforce would mean more demand in the economy and a wealthier country. Full employment has not been a priority for any government in the last thirty years. The downside of this indifference has meant that a culture of welfare dependency has been allowed to develop in certain areas. This produces its own costs to the economy.The benefit of a constant pool of unemployed is that it disciplines the workforce to accept low pay. The provision of welfare benefits that supplement poor wages also discourages the workforce from improving their lot.The problem is the lack of political imagination to break away from the idea that poor pay is necessary for service industries to survive. If we pay low wages then it just means we expect low standards.Productivity rather than poor pay will provide the solution. Wed 10 Sep 2008 15:39:05 GMT+1 WhiteEnglishProud http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=35#comment12 Did I heard someone meantion a final solution for old people?The time will come though when the pensioners out number the rest of us god forbid Wed 10 Sep 2008 15:22:37 GMT+1 peryskop http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=32#comment11 Hi would love to see all immigrants leaving this island we can start with English immigrants and return this island to its rightful owners CELTS (Scots Welsh Irish) Wed 10 Sep 2008 15:04:50 GMT+1 Dunky_R http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=29#comment10 Notions that a free market solves anything I agree is bogus. Wages won't necessarily rise as companies will want to keep overheads to a minimum. Only in certain job types where labour is not readily available do wages rise. It is called the price of rarity. The fact that many care homes are privately run, most likely small Ltd. companies, will quite possibly mean that care prices will rise. The only thing the 20 somethings and 30 somethings have to worry about is how are they going to pay for their parents in the future? As the ageing population is currently increasing (though will peak) that means eventually economies of scale should kick in and the care homes can offer more pay as they will have more paying residents and probably can lower prices. The BIGGEST question that hasn't really been addressed is the impact on the public transport network and this is possibly where immigrants are needed. With an ageing population the number of free bus passes and probably rail discount passes will increase. This means companies (and don't forget only 4 companies run our buses and pretty well our rail network) will start making a loss. I have a feeling many migrants use our buses and trains (from experience) as well as those less well off. So this means that prices will rise or services cut.Many comments here have been sweeping general statements that belong on the HYS board. What isn't always mentioned is the impact of internal migration on services. Increases and decreases of people have an impact on services, by putting strain one way and making it uneconomic the other. Really encouraging greater diversification some how and encouraging people to areas that have suffered de-population would probably ease the coming problems. Easy encouragement: The south east will be underwater with sea level rises with Scotland continuing to rise out of the sea since the last ice age :) Wed 10 Sep 2008 13:24:19 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=26#comment9 #9 the crops you're talking about include potatoes and apples. These are staple parts of peoples diet especially as the heavy rains this year have ruined much of our cereal. Potatoes CAN be picked by machine (although it is hardly the farmers job to design such a machine) but its less efficient than doing it by hand.The wages offered to pick potatoes can be above £12/hr (I know i did it as a student). Its backbreaking but hardly 'slave labour' at that price.Free market economics do not work in regards wages for unskilled labour as all employers offer the same min. therefore preventing competition. Walk round any town with bar or waitress work available and I promise you all will be offfering the same salary. Wed 10 Sep 2008 10:24:54 GMT+1 AqualungCumbria http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=23#comment8 The answer for the farmers is not to grow labour intensive crops that gives a fortnights work...They are not offering a job for any sensible amount of time,they just want slaves as and when they require.Many of the crops mentioned are hardly life threatening and could be easily replaced from the supermarket shelves.Perhaps the farmers should design and build machinery to replace the human involvement they have done so for many crops in the past .In a free market wages should rise to a level that attracts people to do the job, but ,the situation we have is with people coming in and under cutting all the time this is not allowed to happen,it would be interesting to find out just how much Tax etc the migrants actually give to the country because i would suspect as self employed workers they will actually up and off when time comes to self assess unlike their British counterpart who cant do that.It is absolutely wrong that a person can go out do 40 hours work and still has not earned enough to be outside of the benefits system. Wed 10 Sep 2008 09:53:36 GMT+1 willsmac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=20#comment7 Yes, odd is it not that caring for the elderly does not seem important to the government!Since there will be no more government money for care (because right now there really is not any more) care will need to be provided by hard-pressed citizens and from savings. Wed 10 Sep 2008 09:13:57 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=17#comment6 "Immigration is NOT the answer - it's about time we got our own workshy population back to work."Thats true for agricultural workers, but not for skilled ones. I have a Polish NHS dentist. To replace her with a Brit would take a damn site more than stopping benefits. Equally its only the competition from foreign skilled workers that are bringing the prices charged by British artisans down to a reasonable rate. The £400 call out fee being charged by plumbers a few years ago was outrageous. Wed 10 Sep 2008 09:09:37 GMT+1 Fed up with Labour http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=14#comment5 What you fail to mention is the fact that if the government didn't pay the workshy benefits to sit at home and do nothing then they would HAVE to go out and earn their living, picking crops and doing other low skill jobs.Even though I have been to University I've never been on the dole and haven't ever thought about shunning a job if it earned me money - I've worked in a supermarket as a shelf stacker, as a shop assistant on tills, as a cleaner in a factory, and making meals on wheels in a food distributor. I never saw any of these jobs as "below me" - I saw them as a means of income, and some I actually really enjoyed.I have nothing but contempt for people who don't work for no reason other than they simply can't be bothered, and the government has sat by and allowed people like this to abuse the system for far too long. Immigration is NOT the answer - it's about time we got our own workshy population back to work. Wed 10 Sep 2008 08:30:45 GMT+1 lionHeretic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=11#comment4 Of course the flip side of the care home employment issue is this. For as long as we employ foreign workers to keep wages down we Brits are less likely to do that job (no matter how rewarding it is). Care home staff often get paid minimum wage for a hard and demanding role (I know, I have done it). I feel it is only correct that they are paid properly and get the correct training. One day the system will be looking after me.The other issue that has been raised is unskilled labour, such as fruit picking. In this case I believe that able bodied people whom are unemployed should be made to do that sort of work(remove benefits). It requires a little skill and is seasonal and important. For me this is where the debate hinges. No one minds having a nice pleasant person come into the country with skills and an education as they will no doubt improve society a little. I think where I and many people draw the line the imprtation of huge amounts of cheap labout when there are plenty of people to do those jobs anyway. Wed 10 Sep 2008 08:30:28 GMT+1 illustriousFrisby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=8#comment3 Someone I saw said "if you want to keep wages down, you will need more immigrants...lots and lots of English people do not want to do care work and lots of foreigners will do it. This is the only part of restricting immigrants that worries me. Guess if someone has been earning about £5 a day somewhere in an overseas country, they are delighted with £5 an hour (or less) for care work, and we do need people for our care homes. If that sort of work is going to cost more now, what will it will be like when the people who are in their 20s now, what will it be like when THEY need care......IllustriousFrisby Wed 10 Sep 2008 08:26:18 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=5#comment2 "It may well be that we will have to re-organise society so that a smaller self-sustainable society is created rather than having positive feedback creating an unstable society that HAS to grow."And does that mean gas OAP's? I always chuckle at the comments on the BBC forums such as 'reorganise the world to make a smaller population' when the only way of doing that is a 'final solution' Wed 10 Sep 2008 08:08:35 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=2#comment1 #1 The majority of migrant workers where I live (East midlands) are agricultural workers. Until quite recently crops were rotting in the fields because no Brit was prepared to pick them. The migrant workers we get actually make the UK MORE self sufficient in food.The rest of your points are equally flawed. You presume 6 million new workers need 6 million new homes. They don't. The ones on the major farms effectively live in barracks.The 'shortage' of water in the S.E could be solved by fixing the leaks in the pipe. At present over 30% of our water supply ends up in the ground. In any case with the recent 2 summers we haven't had a water shortage! The workers will meet the 'cost' of heating their homes the same way I do. By paying their gas bill or being disconnected.Equally as they are WORKERS their taxes will cover the cost of their healthcare... unlike the many millions of Brits who receive such benefits but don't pay a penny in tax for them. With so many foreign nurses working in the NHS the shortage of midwives simply suggests we don't have enough migrants! With an ageing population and falling birthrates Britain needs someone to actually do some work otherwise we'll be a floating retirement home off the coast of Europe. Wed 10 Sep 2008 08:06:57 GMT+1 John Wood http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_immigration_tradeoff.html?page=0#comment0 It sometimes amazes me how organisations can consider the economic benefits of increasing the workforce without considering the additional costs:1) Where do these people live? Can 6,000,000 new houses be built? Or are we going to have slums/ shanty towns like in India and other overcrowded countries?2_ What do they eat? the UK is less than 50% self sufficient in food at them moment - increasing the population will increase that dependency even without considering the loss of agricultural land to building - you don't build cities in the middle of the Scottish Highlands.3) What do we do with the waste (liquid and solid)?4) What do they drink? The South-East already usually has water shortages in the summer.5) What about costs to heat homes they live in?6) How about the cost of providing education/ health - there is already a shortage of midwives for instance.It may well be that we will have to re-organise society so that a smaller self-sustainable society is created rather than having positive feedback creating an unstable society that HAS to grow.(FYI 'Postive feedback' used in an engineering sense.) Tue 09 Sep 2008 22:16:35 GMT+1