Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Halting immigration "would cost UK £18bn in five years". Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    MASSIVE detailed post - literally taken me all day to get all references sorted. I'm posting it here at TSR as many of you are pretty hot on stats and data. I could do with some fact-checking. Does anything stand out to you here? This will form the basis of an open letter and possibly media article in the next few days, so help appreciated!

    There's a new commercially backed lobby group called Migration Matters that’s been gaining traction lately, particularly in the Independent and Guardian.

    Here’s a headline from Easter weekend 2013 that particularly caught my attention.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8555344.html

    Halting immigration 'would cost UK £18bn in five years'

    The economic benefit of immigration to the UK is revealed today in a report showing that halting net migration would cost every taxpayer in the country £137,000 over their lifetime.
    Analysis of Office for Budget Responsibility figures by the Migration Matters Trust reveals that if net migration were stopped tomorrow, the UK's net public sector debt would rise from 74 per cent of GDP to 187 per cent within the next 50 years – higher than Greece's current national debt of 161 per cent.
    Within five years from now, public sector net debt would rise by £18bn, the equivalent of 5p on the basic rate of income tax, the research shows.
    Wow! That’s quite a headline figure. This is definitely a report worth reading. Where can I find it?

    Perhaps on http://www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk/ ? Nope, and absolutely no links to any of the quoted figures on that site.

    Perhaps @DPJHodges or @GavinBarwellMP from @MigMatters might know? No replies from them.

    @janemerrick23 was the one who wrote the article on the Independent. She was online, as was @ianbirrell who I originally saw the retweet from. No replies from them either.

    Perhaps they’ll reply to my email. Hope so, because I’m confused after the first sentence.
    The economic benefit of immigration to the UK is revealed today in a report showing that halting net migration...
    STOP!

    Migration and immigration are not the same thing.

    Migrant An itinerant worker who travels from one area to another in search of work.
    Immigrant A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

    Perhaps it's a bit more nuanced than that:

    http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...r-consequences

    There is no definition of ‘migrant’ or of ‘immigrant’ in law, but there is a key distinction between those who have the ‘right of abode’ in the UK (all British citizens, but including a small minority of Commonwealth citizens) and those who do not have this right.

    When counting migrants and analysing the consequences of migration, who counts as a migrant is of crucial importance. Yet there is no consensus on a single definition of a ‘migrant’. Migrants might be defined by foreign birth, by foreign citizenship, or by their movement into a new country to stay temporarily (sometimes for as little as a year) or to settle for the long-term.

    Definitions of ‘migrant’ vary among different data sources, and between datasets and law. Among other possibilities, migrants may be defined as foreign-born, foreign-nationals, or people who have moved to the UK for a year or more.
    Conflicting definitions pose challenges for policy, particularly since many ‘migrants’ are not subject to immigration control and legislation.
    Right, so either way you look at it, immigration and migration are two totally different things. It’s almost as if the very first paragraph of the article at the Independent is designed to confuse.

    Let's visit that OBR report, shall we?

    http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.inde...FSR2012WEB.pdf

    3.72 The migration scenarios illustrate that higher net migration reduces upward
    pressure on debt over our projection horizon. Inward migrants are assumed in the ONS projections to be more concentrated in working age than the population in general. So higher inward migration would tend to increase tax receipts and not add much to age-related spending pressures, even whilst allowing for an increase in GDP from extra employment. However, it should be borne in mind that when the inward migrants retire from the workforce, those that remain in the UK will push up spending more than they increase revenues, and even if they
    leave the UK most will still be entitled to UK state pension payments.
    So higher migration could be seen as delaying some of the fiscal challenges of an ageing population rather than a way of avoiding them.

    3.73 The ‘young age structure’ scenario combines a high migration assumption with lower life expectancy and higher fertility to yield a larger working-age population.
    However, the increase in the number of children adds to education costs,
    resulting in slightly higher spending up to 2040-41 and thus higher public sector net debt compared to the high migration scenario alone.
    Elsewhere in the Indie...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8555515.html

    The consequences of the latest anti-immigration mood are barely considered. There has been an 11 per cent fall in Indian investments between 2011 and 2012, according to the new, much needed Migration Matters Trust, set up by the Tory Gavin Barwell and Ex-Labour minister Barbara Roche. And then there are the “ethnic minority” constituents. Some oppose immigration but most don’t. They have traditionally voted for Labour. And then there are the “ethnic minority” constituents. Some oppose immigration but most don’t. They have traditionally voted for Labour.
    The Lib Dems, still disgracefully white, need their support to survive.
    Whooooah! Whoah whoah whoah! Did I just read that? Really? Seriously? In 2013? When did overt racism become OK again?

    Oh, wait, it’s Yasmin Alibhai Brown. Nick Griffin without the good looks.

    Remember that “some [ethnic minority constituents] oppose immigration but most don’t” line?

    Perhaps Yasmin should read http://www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk/node/1

    "a survey conducted last year by anti-extremism campaign group Hope not Hate found that 39 percent of British Asians believe all immigration to UK should be stopped - at least temporarily - compared to 34 percent of white Britons".
    So, in fact, if border control is racist, it's more likely to be Asians who are racist than whites. That should have a few heads spinning in confusion!

    Again, where can I find this report from the “much needed” Migration Matters Trust?

    In fact, who are they?

    Barbara Roche is the co-founder of Migration Matters and former Immigration and Asylum Minister under Tony Blair.

    At http://www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk/node/5 she writes:

    The case for migration is a compelling one. And it needs to be made. The OBR estimates current levels of migration boost GDP by 0.5%. Current levels of population growth are no higher then they were in the early 1900s. And only just over 1 in 10 new jobs created in the UK goes to migrants, rather than British nationals. These are the facts about immigration, and they have to be pushed vigorously and consistently.
    When she writes “current levels of population growth are no higher then they were in the early 1900s” Roche is referring to the population explosion due to the baby boom after WWII.

    http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-pop...-fastest-1950s

    THE UK population has grown at its fastest pace since the post-war baby boom in the past decade, according to the 2011 census figures out yesterday.
    The country has gained a net 4.1m people, or almost seven per cent, on the previous survey in 2001 – a rate of growth beaten only by the nine per cent population explosion after the Second World War.
    In WWI the UK lost a total of 994,138 citizens. In WWII, there were 450,900 killed, nearly 1% of the population. You can hardly compare population increase due to baby booms after long periods of war, with economic migration in peacetime.

    "only just over 1 in 10 new jobs created in the UK goes to migrants, rather than British nationals."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...d-in-2012.html

    21 Feb 2013
    According to figures released yesterday by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), almost two in three of the 584,000 jobs created over the past year went to those born here.
    The ONS said that since 1997, three in four jobs went to foreign workers, rising to more than 90pc at times.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_297429.pdf

    Labour Market Statistics, February 2013 | 20 February 2013 Page 10

    In October to December 2012, 4.31 million people in employment were born abroad, 1.67 million higher than the number of non-UK nationals in employment. Of the 589,000 rise in employment between October to December 2011 and October to December 2012, almost two thirds of this increase (380,000) was for people who were born in the UK. There was a 212,000 rise in employment for people born outside of the UK.
    Back to the article:

    “The OBR estimates current levels of migration boost GDP by 0.5%.”
    I can't find a link to that report. The only report I can find where an actual figure put on migrant contribution puts it at 0.15%, and that was during boom-time. More on that later.

    Over at The Guardian, another Migration Matters director, Atul Hatwal, is given free reign of a column.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/atul-hatwal

    Atul Hatwal is the director of the Migration Matters Trust, a cross-party group of politicians, business leaders and trade union leaders, campaigning for an evidence-based debate on migration.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ration-numbers

    The real cost of falling migration numbers
    A massive decline in people coming to the UK to study means British businesses will lose hundreds of millions a year.
    The deliberate confusion starts already: the headline refers to migrants, but the subhead refers to visitors (students). Which is it?

    The article continues:

    "In 2010, the UK Border Agency estimated that the average proportion of students in non-university institutions who subsequently overstayed their visa was 14%... On this highly conservative basis, we can adjust today's drop in international students for students who might have been bogus. Based on the UKBA figure, 86% – or 36,000 – would have been genuine".

    That's an interesting approach to arithmetic. An alternative interpretation would be that 14% of the 240,000 were bogus. That makes 33,000. So anything up to 33,000 of the 42,000 'lost' students were in fact bogus (assuming, of course, that UKBA's estimate is remotely accurate).

    It continues:

    "Half of today's fall in migration came from the plummeting numbers of international students coming to Britain to study. In the previous year there were 239,000, but in the latest figures this had fallen to 197,000: a drop of 42,000".
    Given that the article was written Thursday 28 February 2013, I'm sure Atul would be fully aware of this:

    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...ry/46-students

    "Figures released by UCAS show a 9.9 per cent increase in number of students applying to UK universities from China and a 19.3 per cent on those from India."
    Don't like Government sites? Perhaps the Guardian is more to your liking?

    Here’s an article from the 31st Jan 2013
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...n-applications

    "An increase in the number of UK (2.8%) and overseas students (EU 4.9% and non-EU 9.6%) means application rates have recovered slightly on last year".
    So, tell me about those "plummeting numbers" again? The only fall has been amongst the dodgy private colleges that have closed rather than apply for proper accreditation

    (And if I'm being pedantic, it doesn't say what "hundreds of millions" we'll lose).

    The previous Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, is as follows

    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7414/7414.pdf

    House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs.

    2.5. A significant measure of success for our policy of the last ten years comes
    from the study conducted for the Low Pay Commission in 2007 which
    was designed, amongst other things, to examine the impact of migrant workers on the British labour market. On the basis of its findings we estimate that recent immigration has raised the GDP per head of the nonmigrant population by about 0.15 per cent per annum in real terms (over the ten years to the end of 2006).
    That was in the boom years. And GDP is a weird measure to use. "Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income". You could point at China and marvel at its amazing GDP and growth rate. I’m sure if the UK were also a communist police state with an artificial exchange rate, mega-factories of 30,000 workers doing 60 hour weeks for $360 per month and virtually no human or employee rights then I’m sure we’d increase our GDP too. Would we be proud of it? I wouldn’t.

    Whether it’s 0.15% or 0.5%, the actual conclusion of a recent House of Lords study was unambiguous and very different:

    http://www.publications.parliament.u...af/82/8203.htm

    Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London. However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.
    We do not support the general claims that net immigration is indispensable to fill labour and skills shortages. Such claims are analytically weak and provide insufficient reason for promoting net immigration.
    Some questions about Migration Matters Trust ethics.

    The company details are

    MIGRATIONMATTERSCAMPAIGN
    152-160 KEMP HOUSE, EC1V 2WX
    Company No. 08355932

    It is a private, limited company. Companies House is very clear about the use of the word "Trust".

    http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/abo...gp1.shtml#appA

    Trust. To use this word in your company name the company should normally be one of the following trusts: Artistic; Educational; Charitable; Enterprise; Family; Investment; Financial; Pensions; Staff or Unit Trust. The requirements for the approval are set out below.
    Well, it could only be Enterprise or Educational.

    Educational Trust
    To use the expression ‘Educational Trust’ in your proposed name (or if the company is this type of trust but does not include 'Educational' in the name) the company should normally be limited by guarantee and include a non-profit distribution clause in the articles of association.

    The company’s objects should normally include activities such as the advancement and promotion of education, art, culture, educational or the community. The articles should also reflect the purpose of the trust.

    Enterprise Trust
    To use this expression in your proposed name (or if the company is this type of trust but does not include ' Enterprise' in the name) the company should normally be limited by guarantee and include a non-profit distribution clause in the articles of association. The articles should reflect the purpose of the trust.

    The company’s objects should normally include activities to support the community, for example, by providing advice on business start up, opportunities for training and development, or removing barriers to further education etc.

    To support your application you will need to obtain the views (letter or email) of a relevant body such as a local Chamber of Commerce, a local authority, banks or from the wider business community.

    Given that the website is www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk and it refers to itself in interviews and on the site as "The Migration Matters Trust", what are the rules on this?

    The Migration Matters “Trust” is actually a commercial enterprise, limited by guarantee, called Migration Matters Campaign.

    The rules in place are very clear on what information websites should provide.

    http://www.out-law.com/page-7594

    Companies in the UK must include certain regulatory information on their websites and in their email footers before 1st January 2007 or they will breach the Companies Act and risk a fine. Every company should list its company registration number, place of registration and registered office address on its website as a result of an update to the legislation of 1985.
    Given that they’ve got such high ranking individuals on board from PriceWaterhouseCoopers etc, you’d think they’d have known to do that. Probably an honest mistake. Like using the term “trust”.

    Who’s behind Migration Matters?

    The Migration Matter Campaign is part-funded by companies and bodies including the City Corporation, Unison, and Champollion Management Consultancy Ltd.
    http://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk...rs%20Trust.pdf

    The Migration Matters Trust (MMT) will be a cross-party political campaign that
    seeks to intervene in the media debate on immigration, to highlight its positive
    impacts. MMT will provide the evidence-based case for migration, highlighting the real benefits of legal migration in Britain. The MMT will be chaired bythe former Labour MP and Minister Barbara Roche and co-chaired by the Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Navnit Dholakia and Conservative MP Gavin Barwell MP.
    It is proposed that the City Corporation supports the Migration Matters Trust at a cost of £5,000 per year over two years (2012/13 and 2013/14).

    5. MMT will provide the evidence-based case for migration, highlighting the
    real benefits of legal migration in Britain. The objective is to move the
    debate within the media, amongst political decision-makers and help the
    public make informed choices in judging the merits of immigration policies

    More confusion...

    At http://www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk/node/2 it claims:

    The campaign brings together a cross-party group of politicians, business executives and trade union leaders who believe the time has come for an open and honest debate about the issues of migration. The Migration Matters Trust is led by a chair and two co-chairs:

    • 1. Chair: Barbara Roche - former MP for Hornsey and Wood Green.
    • 2. Co-Chair: Lord Navnit Dholakia - deputy leader of the Lib Dems in the House of Lords.
    • 3. Co-Chair: Gavin Barwell MP- elected to Parliament in 2010, representing Croydon Central, Gavin is PPS to Rt. Hon. Michael Gove. MP



    The day to day campaign is run by the Director, Atul Hatwal. Atul has twenty years' experience in managing campaigns, working across public, private and voluntary sectors.


    The campaign chairs and Director are part of an advisory board that brings together stakeholders from business groups and the unions, providing a broad-based coalition of support. Members include:


    • Greg Thomson Unison - National development manager, vulnerable and migrant workers
    • Julia Onslow-Cole - PriceWaterhouseCoopers, partner and head of global immigration
    • Tony Halmos - City of London Corporation, Director of Public Relations
    • Paul Crowe - LOC Consulting, Director



    Over at companies house, a directors report on 01/APR/2013 lists current appointments as:

    ROCHE, BARBARA MAUREEN MRS
    HATWAL, ATUL MR
    GREEN, GILLIAN VERONICA

    Does anyone know where I can get further details from?

    Summary

    Three questions in response to Migration Matters 3 “myths” busted on their site:

    _______________

    Myth 1: Migration is a net economic burden

    The government's own figures show, current levels of net migration of 250,000 per year boost annual GDP by 0.5% (source: Office for Budget Responsibility). This growth means more jobs, higher tax revenues, more funding for schools and hospitals and a lower deficit.
    Sources? Methodology?
    ________________

    Myth 2: The UK is being swamped by migrants

    Today's levels of population growth are no greater than they were from the early 1900's to 1970. Currently migrants make up just 1 in 10 of the UK population, lower than Australia, the US or Germany (source: Office for National Statistics)
    What a bizarre choice of comparisons. The most recent figures (2010) show Germany has having a migrant population of 12% compared to the UK’s 11.3%, but Germany is a vast country in the centre of Europe surrounded by 8 other countries and significantly lower population density. Oh, and Australia is an incredibly mineral rich country going through a mining boom with an unemployment rate of 5% compared to the UK’s 7.7% (figures as of March 2013) and has a population density of 8 people per square mile compared to the UK’s 673 people per square mile. So I’m not really sure what “myth 2” is even about.
    _______________

    Myth 3: Migrants are taking all the new jobs created in the UK

    The truth is that just over 1 in 10 new jobs are taken by migrants while almost 9 in 10 go to British nationals (source: Office for National Statistics).
    Again, source? Let’s remind ourselves of the 2013 figures again:

    Of the 589,000 rise in employment between October to December 2011 and October to December 2012, almost two thirds of this increase (380,000) was for people who were born in the UK. There was a 212,000 rise in employment for people born outside of the UK.

    And MM have got someone there from PWC? And they reckon 212k of 589k is 1 in 10? Wow, no wonder PWC got fined so much for UK audit failures in 2012 and is still being heavily criticised in the US for continued company audit failures. MM want to get a primary school teacher to come and help with the sums....

    Why is Migration Matters deliberately confusing migration with immigration?

    Why do they use phrases like “plummeting numbers of international students coming to Britain to study” when there has been a 3% increase?


    Anyone else think the whole thing stinks?



    Footnotes and other media links:

    Who will go head to head with the doom-mongers of MigrationWatch?
    Hugh Muir
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/fe...igration-watch

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...migration.html
    By Gavin Barwell (Migration Matters) 10:00PM GMT 19 Feb 2013
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Bloody hell, calm down!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OP for future prime minister!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Bloody hell, calm down!
    I'm not un-calm. I've just seen outrageous and fact-free quotations from this group this weekend, and I just decided to do some fact-checking for myself. I hope it's quite a rational analysis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    Tl;Dr!
    Maybe too long to read now, but if you pay tax, seek work, live in the UK and/or hear anyone else trot out the old "massive immigration brings economic benefits" line in the future, you might want to come back and refer to this post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Bloody hell, that must've taken you a while!

    I mean, we could hypothesise about where these statistics came from, or where they didn't, but the best people to ask are Migration Matters themselves.

    I'm not sure having one person from PwC means they should know everything about what information they need to provide on their website - loads of new companies, charities, trusts etc neglect to display the required information, and the PwC representative could be anyone from an accountant to an admin clerk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    Bloody hell, that must've taken you a while!
    All day.

    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    I mean, we could hypothesise about where these statistics came from, or where they didn't, but the best people to ask are Migration Matters themselves.
    I did. No response. The plan is now to make a modified version of this post into an open letter to Migration Matters sometime this week, publish it and send them a copy, and see if that'll get any figures from them.

    I'm also writing to the Guardian and Independent editors to find out why this lobby group gets a free run at full page articles without any fact-checking.

    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    I'm not sure having one person from PwC means they should know everything about what information they need to provide on their website - loads of new companies, charities, trusts etc neglect to display the required information, and the PwC representative could be anyone from an accountant to an admin clerk.
    Julia Onslow-Cole - PriceWaterhouseCoopers, partner and head of global immigration. Definitely not an admin clerk!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well done great research.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Maybe too long to read now, but if you pay tax, seek work, live in the UK and/or hear anyone else trot out the old "massive immigration brings economic benefits" line in the future, you might want to come back and refer to this post.
    Edited my post, it wasn't nice considering the effort you put into this.

    So basically, halting immigration would have economic benefits? I haven't time to read this right now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    All day.

    I did. No response. The plan is now to make a modified version of this post into an open letter to Migration Matters sometime this week, publish it and send them a copy, and see if that'll get any figures from them.

    I'm also writing to the Guardian and Independent editors to find out why this lobby group gets a free run at full page articles without any fact-checking.
    All sounds good!

    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Julia Onslow-Cole - PriceWaterhouseCoopers, partner and head of global immigration. Definitely not an admin clerk!
    Then they're even less likely to be involved in creating the website! I'm a Director/Trustee of 3 organisations and never has anyone from Companies House or the Charities Commission communicated to me that there's certain information we need to make available on our websites. It is all there mind
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think anyone negging your first post its a case of truth hurts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would be nice if the country could actually sustain itself without mass immigration (note, I did not say, completely abolish), which I think is the concern. The quote would cost UK £18bn in five years' really proves my point, can the UK, not sustain itself without committing to 'saturated levels of immigration'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Migration Matters Campaign Ltd are slowly being forced to comply with the law.

    Companies House Compliance and Enforcement Department action means they now partly comply with the law as far as declaring their commercial interest goes.

    Since this morning, http://www.migrationmatterstrust.co.uk/node/2 now says:

    "The Migration Matters Trust is a company limited by guarantee: Migrationmatterscampaign ltd; company number 8355932; registered in England & Wales".

    However, that's just the start of it - there is an ongoing case regarding the use of the word "Trust" when no such authorisation for use of that word has been given.

    Just shows you how dodgy the whole setup is. From the made up stats, the lies, to the non-existent "studies", everything about Migration Matters smacks of deception, and I can't believe the BBC, Independent and Guardian didn't do their homework on this lobby group.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Perpetual settlement by an excess of 200,000 people every year adds the population of Birmingham every 10 years directly plus another Birmingham as children. Is the long term solution to the country's problems to fill it up with people? If you are in favour of mass immigration you are in favour of overpopulation - at present the UK has about 600 people per square mile, less than 1 acre each including mountains, lakes and motorways. Where do we stop? Half an acre each? What happens if food gets scarce or serious climate change occurs, how do we feed 70 or 80 million people?

    Immigration is not the only way to get benefits from foreign labour, enforcing a work permit system would be more beneficial, the workers go home at the end of their employment. Unlike work permits, permanent immigration produces permanent residents with children and families. In the long run the children of immigrants are members of the population and can contribute the same as anyone else so immigration is not permanently beneficial. Any other view is likely to be racist.

    The correct level of immigration is about 300,000 or less immigrants a year (at present it is over 500,000), this will balance emigration and avoid overpopulation. It also results in 60% of the gain to the economy through immigration proposed in the article referenced above. Even if we accept the figures bandied about above the loss of £1 billion a year to avert massive overpopulation seems a small price to pay in a £1.5 trillion economy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Maybe too long to read now, but if you pay tax, seek work, live in the UK and/or hear anyone else trot out the old "massive immigration brings economic benefits" line in the future, you might want to come back and refer to this post.
    Well done.

    I'll rep you when i can!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good post! I don't think most people can actually get their head around the fact that we have a government, education system and mass media that deliberately spews mistruths spun as intelligent analysis.

    There are some people who are able to instantly see through this BS that the state presents us. Call it guy feeling or call it the ability to process lots of information intuitively. But often people who are capable of seeing the big picture are thought of as lacking by people who can only perceive minutiae.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Care to condense it into a smaller post so lazy people like me can read it?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Perpetual settlement by an excess of 200,000 people every year adds the population of Birmingham every 10 years directly plus another Birmingham as children. Is the long term solution to the country's problems to fill it up with people? If you are in favour of mass immigration you are in favour of overpopulation - at present the UK has about 600 people per square mile, less than 1 acre each including mountains, lakes and motorways. Where do we stop? Half an acre each? What happens if food gets scarce or serious climate change occurs, how do we feed 70 or 80 million people?

    Immigration is not the only way to get benefits from foreign labour, enforcing a work permit system would be more beneficial, the workers go home at the end of their employment. Unlike work permits, permanent immigration produces permanent residents with children and families. In the long run the children of immigrants are members of the population and can contribute the same as anyone else so immigration is not permanently beneficial. Any other view is likely to be racist.

    The correct level of immigration is about 300,000 or less immigrants a year (at present it is over 500,000), this will balance emigration and avoid overpopulation. It also results in 60% of the gain to the economy through immigration proposed in the article referenced above. Even if we accept the figures bandied about above the loss of £1 billion a year to avert massive overpopulation seems a small price to pay in a £1.5 trillion economy.
    Talking about the population density in terms of acres is just like talking about the EU money in terms of days, it's a sensationalist scare tactic. Yes the UK is one of the most densely populated in the world but we are nowhere close to running out of room.

    Alternatively you could take the view that immigration has some positive economic effects, especially in the long term. Read a wealth report explaining why London will remain the richest city in the world and it can be summed up as 'immigration and business friendly'.

    The UK is not overpopulated, we can produce more food if we really need to, we have abundant water (British droughts are a result of Victorian infrastructure being maintained rather than replaced) and we also have vast shale gas reserves for energy should we be in any serious danger. There is plenty of room in Yorkshire if the immigrants want to come here.

    I'm not sure whether your trying to make a positive or point in your second paragraph (or maybe i'm not used to reading balanced posts) but that's one of the long term benefits and the reason i support it, if we can get social policy right then we can not only attract the right kind of immigrants but have them produce children increasing the birth rate, labour force and potential economic output.

    I'm not concerned with overpopulation in the UK (i am to a degree elsewhere) and so i'm all for more immigration provided the people work (restrictions to benefits are a good policy), mainly i would just like a government that thinks ahead and produces excess capacity and scraps "ghettos" so that we don't have people whinging that we don't have room.

    The failure is not immigration, it is social policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Before Blair got to office in 1997, there were roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people settling in the UK every year. When he got into office, this exploded to around 500,000 extra people settling in Britain every year.

    Take Canada. A country with half the UK population, yet geographically, it's land-mass is much much larger than ours. They allow 250,000 people every year to settle. Now that country wants to increase that to 400,000 a year (which, if you notice, is still much smaller than our 500,000 despite our smaller land-mass), but, it won't do that until it assured that migrants are not undercutting the wages of Canadians.

    The issue really in Britain in uncontrolled unskilled immigration. The large swathes of immigration we've seen from Eastern Europe is not because people want to come here and scrounge; they don't. They want to come here to better their lives and because they are economic migrants: here, seeking work. The problem with that is is that if you have a large oversupply of unskilled labour, and that's predominantly what we've had over the course of the last 10 years, then Brits who fail to secure jobs will stay on Job Seekers' Allowance, Housing Benefit and all the rest of it, and actually that's a cost to the taxpayer. So it's nothing against immigration, but it does present pressures when large numbers come here. Indeed, the former chief constable of Cambridge said the county of Cambridgeshire is experiencing an "intolerable strain" due to the large influx in migrants. And if we see with jobs: 8 jobs in Costa, 1,700 applicants: 22 jobs in DFS, 2,500 people applied. People do want to work, but are facing not only reduced jobs but greater competition when they shouldn't be.

    The fact is we manage numbers coming from Asia and Africa, yet according to the ignorant, it's extremist to propose such a thing for Europe. Canada do not have open doors, Australia do not have open doors, indeed, America do not have open doors; yet the UK can't, because it's "racist".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    Before Blair got to office in 1997, there were roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people settling in the UK every year. When he got into office, this exploded to around 500,000 extra people settling in Britain every year.

    Take Canada. A country with half the UK population, yet geographically, it's land-mass is much much larger than ours. They allow 250,000 people every year to settle. Now that country wants to increase that to 400,000 a year (which, if you notice, is still much smaller than our 500,000 despite our smaller land-mass), but, it won't do that until it assured that migrants are not undercutting the wages of Canadians.

    The issue really in Britain in uncontrolled unskilled immigration. The large swathes of immigration we've seen from Eastern Europe is not because people want to come here and scrounge; they don't. They want to come here to better their lives and because they are economic migrants: here, seeking work. The problem with that is is that if you have a large oversupply of unskilled labour, and that's predominantly what we've had over the course of the last 10 years, then Brits who fail to secure jobs will stay on Job Seekers' Allowance, Housing Benefit and all the rest of it, and actually that's a cost to the taxpayer. So it's nothing against immigration, but it does present pressures when large numbers come here. Indeed, the former chief constable of Cambridge said the county of Cambridgeshire is experiencing an "intolerable strain" due to the large influx in migrants. And if we see with jobs: 8 jobs in Costa, 1,700 applicants: 22 jobs in DFS, 2,500 people applied. People do want to work, but are facing not only reduced jobs but greater competition when they shouldn't be.

    The fact is we manage numbers coming from Asia and Africa, yet according to the ignorant, it's extremist to propose such a thing for Europe. Canada do not have open doors, Australia do not have open doors, indeed, America do not have open doors; yet the UK can't, because it's "racist".
    Hear, hear! I could not agree more.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 29, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.