Thanks for answering. I agree. in both. I suspect Abromovitch is, because of his spending and wealth. Abu Qatada isn’t. I do also accept the point over asylum. There aren’t many people on asylum in the UK, we have to accept any genuine claimant.

However, the point is that somewhere between Qatada and Amromovitch, there is a line. Those below the line, aren’t an economic benefit and those above are.

Why should we allow people in who are below the line? If we do, other people have to subsidise them.

Now if you want someone below the line to come in, you could always act as a guarantor. You agree to make up the difference. I’ve no objection to that. I do object when you force other people to do that.

To answer 3 directly everyone knows he is not a economic benefit, however he was not brought in under the EU free movement or persons movement but claimed asylum which is a completly different area altogeather.

Ambramovitch potentially good however it is hard to know without doing a detailed breakdown of how much he spends in the Uk compared to any claims against tax on his UK investments.

Not at all.

1. I am not stating foreigners are better than brits. The article is because they allegedly pay more tax than brits so are better.

2. Note too, that no evidence is offered up for the core issues. Do migrants pay more tax than the government spends? If they don’t then they are an economic burden.

3. Note too. Its a question that even yourself aren’t answering. Abu Qatada is a migrant. Is he an economic benefit to the UK? You can also answer the flip question. Is Ambramovitch good for the UK?

4. If you don’t understand why the two questions above are important, its because migration, even from the EU is an option. The UK can choose.

So it could choose only to accept migrants that pay their way, and aren’t susidised by others. That isn’t racist, because there is nothing about race in there. I’m not claiming like the original article that foreign migrants are better than brits. I’m saying lets be selective on a non racist test, economic benefit, which economic migrants we accept.

So when it comes to migrants and benefits. If you think they are an economic benefit to the UK, then have a ban on any migrant getting any welfare. By definition if you aren’t earning and need to go on welfare, then you aren’t paying tax to cover the welfare.

Is your argument not contradictionary? You say Brit’s are bad immigrants is good and claim it is racist because overall they pay more in taxes then they take out of the system, yet you then say we should only have immigrants that contribute more then they consume in services.m That makes no sense, either you accept generally the benefits system is not as bad as is made up and accept that and push for further reforms in a practical matter then you believe should be done. Or put counter evidence to say where it is wrong.

Here’s a question.

Average government spend per person in the UK is 11,500 pounds a year. That’s 44,000 a year in salary before you break even. That’s per migrant.

Are the migrants on benefits paying that level of tax? If not they aren’t an economic benefit to the UK. They are being subsidised by other people.

We can see this in a more extreme example.

1. Is Abramovitch an economic benefit to the UK with his billions?
2. Is Abu Qatada an economic benefit to the UK?

Depending on your football preferences, 1 is going to be true. 2 however is false. He’s a massive liability running up huge costs to the expense of others.

Now the left likes to generalise in particularly racist ways. For example, if I said Polish workers were crap, only employ Brits, I’d be done in court. However, this article states the reverse. Brits bad, A8 good. Its pure racism.

What is needed is a threshold for migration. So long as you pay more tax than the government spends on you, you can stay. If you don’t you can’t come and you have to leave.

That way the UK makes the choice of which migrants to accept and which to reject. It’s a choice. Even under EU law its a choice. That law is freedom of movement of goods, services, people and capital. Now we know that law isn’t absolute. We just walk the streets of Nicosia and ask Cypriots if they can move their capital. That’s been banned and the EU has ruled it legal. In fact it was the EU that imposed it.

I did. It’s quite racist.

A8 good. Native Bad.

Did you actually even read the article?