Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?

[durruti02]

double post

 

[durruti02]

1)You should bear in mind that a significant minority of staff aren't "poached", but put in the legwork (visa, work ermit, applications) themselves.

2)Oh, and codes are by their very nature voluntary. If they were mandatory they'd be called rules

1)poaching, i do not think means, that the staff do not do what you suggest .. it is that the work is made available ..

2)yes and the unions argued they SHOULD be mandatory ..

 

[nino_savatte]

You're obviously unaware that nurses here at present are being sacked, so they may decide to emigrate to find work, just like their collegues in South Africa (who are unlikely now to choose the UK with Brown's public sector squeeze). If you did try and stop them with your one man picket, I can indeed see the potential for a lynching. Dope on a rope innit.

This is a product of market policies being imposed on the NHS. Set targets, achieve benchmarks, cut staff.

 

[durruti02]

This is a product of market policies being imposed on the NHS. Set targets, achieve benchmarks, cut staff.

absoluely nino .. it is all market forces .. and we should it oppose cuts in training cuts in staff and poaching ..

 

[nino_savatte]

absoluely nino .. it is all market forces .. and we should it oppose cuts in training cuts in staff and poaching ..

I know where this is leading and you are being entirely predictable, durutti.

How about freeing public services from market forces?

 

[durruti02]

I know where this is leading and you are being entirely predictable, durutti.

How about freeing public services from market forces?

absolutely!! .. how does this contradict what else i Say??

and it is market forces that says it is cheaper to import labour trained elsewhere than in training our kids .. you must agree with that surely as a socialist???

 

[nino_savatte]

absolutely!! .. how does this contradict what else i Say??

and it is market forces that says it is cheaper to import labour trained elsewhere than in training our kids .. you must agree with that surely as a socialist???

You keep suggesting that immigrants are taking NHS jobs. I think you used Filipinos as an example...did you not? You are also reluctant to acknowledge the fact that many of our trained nurses leave this country to earn money elsewhere. So who fills those vacancies? Or do we leave ourselves short of nurses?

 

[tbaldwin]

You keep suggesting that immigrants are taking NHS jobs. I think you used Filipinos as an example...did you not? You are also reluctant to acknowledge the fact that many of our trained nurses leave this country to earn money elsewhere. So who fills those vacancies? Or do we leave ourselves short of nurses?

How about Socialists opposing the way poorer countries lose medical staff to richer ones,nino?

Filipino nurses ive talked too....(And before you ask its loads) are often working in the UK but hoping to go to the US as they will get better pay there.
Its fair enough....They are doing what they see as best for them and their families....But its at the very essence of capitalism...
People are given choices that have a negative impact on others.

There are as VP and others pointed out a lack of medical facilities in poorer countries....Any Internationalist worth the salt would be against that....And any Internationalist should also oppose poorer countries losing vitally needed medical staff.
Its fairly common sense to say they need both the equipment and the people.

 

[nino_savatte]

How about Socialists opposing the way poorer countries lose medical staff to richer ones,nino?

Filipino nurses ive talked too....(And before you ask its loads) are often working in the UK but hoping to go to the US as they will get better pay there.
Its fair enough....They are doing what they see as best for them and their families....But its at the very essence of capitalism...
People are given choices that have a negative impact on others.

There are as VP and others pointed out a lack of medical facilities in poorer countries....Any Internationalist worth the salt would be against that....And any Internationalist should also oppose poorer countries losing vitally needed medical staff.
Its fairly common sense to say they need both the equipment and the people.

So what are you driving at, balders? You continue to blame the symptoms and refuse to acknowledge the underlying causes.

 

[durruti02]

You keep suggesting that immigrants are taking NHS jobs. I think you used Filipinos as an example...did you not? You are also reluctant to acknowledge the fact that many of our trained nurses leave this country to earn money elsewhere. So who fills those vacancies? Or do we leave ourselves short of nurses?

no nino .. immigrants are not ' taking' , not 'stealing' .. they are being recruited / pulled / poached against the wishes of both unions and health care workers in both the west and the donor countries ..

yes i am absolutely against the NHS and private firms importing skilled third world workers .. why do you not believe we should train our own???

and of course i am against that our nurses leave too ... what capitalist lunacy is this insane roundabout .. and yes i am against this emigation for the very same reasons that i am against nurses being pulled here ..

.. the pull factor should be stopped .. as the RCN and Unions argue there should be NO poaching ..

did you read those links i put up???

edited purely for abysmal typing and spelling!

 

[nino_savatte]

no nino .. immigrnats are not ' taking' , not 'stealing' .. they are being recruited / pulled poached against the wishes of both unions and health care workers in both the west and teh donor countries ..

yes i am absolutely against the NHS and private firms importing skilled third world workers .. why do you not belive that we should train our own???

and of course i am against that our nurses leave too what capitalist lunacy this is this roundabout .. fand i am against for the very same reasons that i am against nurses being pulled here

.. the pull factor should be stopped .. as the RCN and UNions argue there should be NO poaching ..

did you read those links i put up???

You want to have it both ways, durutti. The trouble with you is that you don't pay attention or refuse to listen. Either way, your constant insinuations that immigrants are being given housing and benefits over others smacks of the usual suspicion and mistrust that has been around for decades and, rather than listen to the facts, you have made up, in your own mind, that immigrants are "poaching jobs". You couch all of this in quasi-socialistic language and then try to con us into thinking that you really doing this out of some sort of socialist commitment.

"Poached", "stealing", it all adds up to the same narrative imo.

 

[treelover]

From the Times online, we are seeing a lot of this: contrasting the 'hard working' migrant with the feckless indigenous benefit scroungers, imo, it will ultimately lead, (as it it with the WRA) to the dismantling of the welfare state, why pay benefits when you can import labour at will. Name me one country Nino that has an economy based on migrant labour that has a comprehensive Welfare State? US, Saudi, Oz, nah, there isn't one.

'

Maybe instead of blaming immigrants all the time, there should be a change in the policies of the welfare state, so that it encourages those who are able to work to do so.

I personally experienced a totally ridiculous situation; as I missed the residency deadline (three years) by 2 months, I was ineligible for a student loan (to pay for studies that improved mine and the country's economic prospects, and a loan that would be paid back over time). However, after living in the UK for 6 months I was eligible for claiming benefits, though I never did and hopefully, thanks to my self-funded degree, never will.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...cle1942934.ece?openComment=true#comments-form

Lisa, London,

 

[treelover]

This one is nice as well, do you agree with him,Nino?

Respondents were “very sensitive about freeloading by other groups”.... Such as the poorly educated feckless scroungers of the UK who could have taken any of the 600,000 jobs that immigrants have moved here to do? I'd rather have a immigrants keen to work and get on in life than chavs who think the state owes them a living.

It always amazes me that people who claim to support an open market economy with free movement of goods and capital come over all communist when people start freely moving around to improve their lives. If they want to live somewhere where free movement of people is restricted they should try North Korea.

 

[nino_savatte]

That's a red herring. What are you saying? That because there are migrant workers doing the jobs that most British people refuse to do, will somehow lead to a dismantling of the welfare state?

I've thought I'd heard everything but that is really quite far-fetched. It's desperate. That isn't policy, treelover, that's comment, or opinion, as it is also known.

I've had a look at some of her other articles and they leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth. She wrote a piece demanding that we abandon the green belt and build on it.

This is interesting
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2003/10/id_cards_article_by_minette_ma.html

 

[nino_savatte]

You lot are so desperate to prove that immigrants take priority in social housing and benefits, that you'll post up any article without checking the source.

 

[treelover]

Again, Nino, nName me one country Nino that has an economy based on migrant labour that has a comprehensive Welfare State? US, Saudi, Oz, nah, there isn't one.

 

[nino_savatte]

Again, Nino, nName me one country Nino that has an economy based on migrant labour that has a comprehensive Welfare State? US, Saudi, Oz, nah, there isn't one.

Name me one country that doesn't make use of migrant labour.

You are trying to claim, are you not, that the welfare state will be scrapped if we continue to use migrant labour to do the jobs that most Brits refuse to do.

Not only are you engaging in scaremongering, you have taken an opinion piece from a right wing journo from a right wing, Murdoch owned paper and have conscripted it to fight on your behalf as a strawman.

On the back of this, I expect you to claim that immigrants (including so-called asylum seekers) are taking our benefits and putting a strain on the system.

 

[treelover]

don't be disegenuous, i am talking about on a massive scale, i really do think within 10 years, the UK, OZ and Ireland will resemble the US with its minimal welfare system, etc.,

 

[nino_savatte]

don't be disegenuous, i am talking about on a massive scale, i really do think within 10 years, the UK, OZ and Ireland will resemble the US with its minimal welfare system, etc.,

Au contraire, it is you who is being disingenuous.

You continue to labour under the illusion that this country is being, to put it into tabloid terms, "swamped". Ergo, in order to 'advance' your anti-immigration argument, you have used this to claim that the welfare state is going to be scrapped....because of immigrants. If that isn't a classic example of scapegoating, I don't know what is.

 

[tbaldwin]

That's a red herring. What are you saying? That because there are migrant workers doing the jobs that most British people refuse to do,

Refuse to do?

You really are falling into a bit of a trap again.

Its untrue that people refuse to do those jobs. They just dont want to do that type of work for those sort of wages.
But plenty of people want to do jobs that some migrants get as well.

The thing is that you look how many preety blonde young South Africans,Australians and eastern Europeans work in pubs and restaurants in London.
Are you seriously suggesting Black and Asian people are not being overlooked for those jobs by employers?

 

[ViolentPanda]

cheers VP

1) if pnp is not for debate then what is it for??? i have never thought it was about getting info 'out' .. but for debate amongst activists ..

I'm not saying it isn't for debate, I'm saying it's not a good format for starting a far-reaching debate, because in the end Urban's P & P is a forum of activists, and sometimes we lose sight of what the other 99.9% of the country might think.

2) i absolutely agree .. and think therefore we should dig deep into them .. not get frightenned of them and shut down debate as some have done ..

True, but the problem with that is that if you have a majority of people believing a stereotype, a myth, and a minority trying to "get the truth out", you're always going to be on the backfoot.
I don't know, why don't we have anyone trying entryism into the media, where it'd do some good?

3) yes i accept that re references ( interesting debate on the fothergill report and why it has been produced .. what is it FOR!) .. but we can at least use them as a basis for discussion .. it is better than i right you wrong etc etc etc

"Right" and "wrong" are fine by me, as long as what's being said is "I believe I'm right/you're wrong because (insert relevant data)", which is debate, rather than "(insert relevant data) means that I'm right", which is, frankly, arse.
It's a pity more people don't see and understand the distinction, because then there wouldn't be such a problem with politics being quite so doctrinaire.

4) fair play .. i accept that technically it is hard to get any 100% proof for any social phenomena .. and that proof may be weighted /twisted / lies etc etc and so technically i should not say that a ref. proves my point .. BUT!! so ok i will add 'seems to' before i use the word 'prove' again!


so anyway i have posted references and made claims .. then surely it is up to you or whoever to find differrent in those references or elsewhere ??

.. ok maybe i have said they prove what i am saying .. tbh honest all the references (from SA and the UK) have been pretty clearly against poaching .. in that context i would think i am justified in saying they prove or seem to prove what i am saying and for someone else to show differrent .. which at this moment , on poaching, i really can not see how they could do ..

What you have to bear in mind, as I said, is that in terms of actually "proving" something, most socially-derived or based facts aren't "the last word" on subjects in the same way they might be in the physical sciences, they're more of a "snapshot" of the examination of a particular set of social phenomena (and here's the important bit, IMHO) from a particular point of view[/B}. That means that you have to allow for that "bias" (whether it's deliberate or not) when using those "facts"/that data.

Also, re: poaching, the "poaching" legislation is mostly focussed on employment agencies and health authorities "trawling" other countries for new employees. It doesn't (and shouldn't, IMHO) deal with individual migration.

 

[Leeloks]

I think immigration is great if its managed properly, which it is not in this country. Its a shambles.

 

[durruti02]

You want to have it both ways, durutti. The trouble with you is that you don't pay attention or refuse to listen. Either way, your constant insinuations that immigrants are being given housing and benefits over others smacks of the usual suspicion and mistrust that has been around for decades and, rather than listen to the facts, you have made up, in your own mind, that immigrants are "poaching jobs". You couch all of this in quasi-socialistic language and then try to con us into thinking that you really doing this out of some sort of socialist commitment.

"Poached", "stealing", it all adds up to the same narrative imo.

not i but health care workers and unions .. why do you refuse to support them?

the poaching qoutes are from them NOT me .. deal with that .. forget me .. deal with the links i posted ..

like you think that migration never changes, your argument that there is no difference between the bosses poaching valuable workers form the third world and immigrants 'stealing our jobs' is superficial and/or nieve in the extreme

can you really not see the difference???

 

[durruti02]

Name me one country that doesn't make use of migrant labour.

jaysus nino .. you did not read any of the links Knotted posted up did you!!

.. the example/research was about sweden where there is comparatively very little migration as there is a stronger labour movment and a social contract .. the 'pull' we have here has been taken OUT of the equation and migration is on a level few disagree with .. and crucially the rights and conditions of migrants were far better than here ..

mate is is hard debating with you when you do not bother to read key links people post ..

 

[tbaldwin]

I think immigration is great if its managed properly, which it is not in this country. Its a shambles.

It could be Yes. But depends who it is being managed for doesnt it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It could be Yes. But depends who it is being managed for doesnt it?

It also depends who it's being managed by.

 

[tbaldwin]

It also depends who it's being managed by.

On that at least we agree.

 

[nino_savatte]

Refuse to do?

You really are falling into a bit of a trap again.

Its untrue that people refuse to do those jobs. They just dont want to do that type of work for those sort of wages.
But plenty of people want to do jobs that some migrants get as well.

The thing is that you look how many preety blonde young South Africans,Australians and eastern Europeans work in pubs and restaurants in London.
Are you seriously suggesting Black and Asian people are not being overlooked for those jobs by employers?

Aye, "refuse to do". It is true that people refuse to do those jobs and it is obvious why people refuse them: they pay terribly. The only people willingto perform this type of work are immigrants. In the country, the shortage of British-born agricultural workers is made up with migrant labour...or maybe you think the packing of produce happens magically?

 

[nino_savatte]

not i but health care workers and unions .. why do you refuse to support them?

the poaching qoutes are from them NOT me .. deal with that .. forget me .. deal with the links i posted ..

like you think that migration never changes, your argument that there is no difference between the bosses poaching valuable workers form the third world and immigrants 'stealing our jobs' is superficial and/or nieve in the extreme

can you really not see the difference???

I don't refuse to "support" anyone. Your feverish imagination is getting the better of you once again.

You keep banging on about how "migration changes" but this is another attempt to deflect attention away from the obvious: xenophobia. Everything changes in this wrold...or perhaps you think the world remains static? However, the reason why people migrate has not changed at all.

Your arguments are full of deflections, diversions and red herrings.

 

[nino_savatte]

jaysus nino .. you did not read any of the links Knotted posted up did you!!

.. the example/research was about sweden where there is comparatively very little migration as there is a stronger labour movment and a social contract .. the 'pull' we have here has been taken OUT of the equation and migration is on a level few disagree with .. and crucially the rights and conditions of migrants were far better than here ..

mate is is hard debating with you when you do not bother to read key links people post ..

So what? What's your point?