M Courtney:

On immigration it is worth remembering that, in the short term, immigrants are definitely beneficial to the economy. They come here to work. They are young and risk-taking (emigration away from one’s support network is a risk). They are just the sort of entrepreneurial spirits that the UK needs.

And in the long-term? It has been suggested that when they retire, get old, get ill and need scare that they become a cost. That may be true but so what? That is true of people in general, not immigrants.

You are conflating what I would call 19th/20th century immigration with the current type, which is incorrect. 19th/20th century immigration was a permanent relocation - travel was difficult and expensive, you made the trip and stayed there.

Their reasons for moving were usually the result of war, ethnic cleansing, or oppression. For example, the two main waves of Italian immigration to the UK - the first in the late 19th C was caused by drought and famine, the second in the 1930s by fascism. People were fleeing for their lives, they left homes behind and brought their entire lives with them - complete with businesses, capital and useful trades. They were here for a new life.

Compare with today's more economic temporary style of immigration. Young, single people come over simply to earn more money. They have no interest in developing a life here, since they are not staying - they simply import the culture wholesale as a sort of comfort blanket, and do not integrate, buy local goods, adapt to local customs. They live frugally, and send more of their money back to their established homes and families - which they have not abandoned nor intend to - and when they get bored, they return home. They haven taken from the economy, but not really contributed - there is a net loss.

What you're trying to do is use historical information about the 19th/20th century immigrants, who came here out of neccessity, set up here permanently and brought skills and business and capital into the econonmy, invested their energy into developing a life here and eventually integrated - use this information to justifiy the pick'n'mix 'here for a buck' economic migration which open borders has gven us today.

You can't do that.

While we await some proper action it is rather pleasant to indulge is a bit of fantasy - ! wish !

here
A Bit of potted background from my friend Wiki for those who have forgotten
On 4 January 1649, the House of Commons passed an ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice, to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The House of Lords rejected it, and as it did not receive Royal Assent, Charles asked at the start of his trial on 20 January in Westminster Hall, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority", knowing that there was no legal answer under the constitutional arrangements of the time. He was convicted with fifty-nine Commissioners (judges) signing the death warrant.

Although an exact number hasn't been pinned down, it is estimated that there were about 210 members of the Rump Parliament. This was approximately a fifty-five percent decrease from the 470-member enrollment of the Long Parliament before Pride's Purge. Though nine new members were admitted to the Rump parliament, the vast majority of the Rumpers were transferred from the Long Parliament.
From Wiki
Well...there are certain parallels ...The EU has been 'tried' (in a sense) by the British People ....and we have certain folk in high places of authority who are being accursed of treason ...so you can make of it what you will. But it is a bit of wishful fantasy...isn't it?

Pcar, absolutely.

Care for the elderly is also suffering from countless new rules that don't actually serve the elderly well. A million boxes to tick and not one of them 'care for them'.