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

Immigrants and the benefits problem Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I really am interested in becoming informed on this issue, and I was wondering, when people give 'unworking immigrants' as a reason to reduce immigration, are they citing verified statistics?
    And how many jobless non-job seeking non-immigrants are there?

    Which is the bigger problem? Benefit scroungers from abroad or at home, because to me, there don't seem to be many of either...

    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by locomotive99)
    I really am interested in becoming informed on this issue, and I was wondering, when people give 'unworking immigrants' as a reason to reduce immigration, are they citing verified statistics?
    And how many jobless non-job seeking non-immigrants are there?

    Which is the bigger problem? Benefit scroungers from abroad or at home, because to me, there don't seem to be many of either...

    Thanks
    I think you're missing the debate point. The debate point is not the immigrants claiming benefits but more the immigrants taking jobs away from Britons, so the Britons end up on benefits. Training should be invested in to ensure British people are capable of doing a skilled job instead of relying on a skilled immigrant. In Australia skills in shortage are identified, immigrants are issued work permits to do the job temporarily whilst training for Australians is increased to ensure an Australian can do the job in the future.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I think you're missing the debate point. The debate point is not the immigrants claiming benefits but more the immigrants taking jobs away from Britons, so the Britons end up on benefits. Training should be invested in to ensure British people are capable of doing a skilled job instead of relying on a skilled immigrant. In Australia skills in shortage are identified, immigrants are issued work permits to do the job temporarily whilst training for Australians is increased to ensure an Australian can do the job in the future.

    Not really, surely competition for jobs is beneficial? Reduces costs = greater profits = greater tax revenue?

    I may sound naive, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't competition encourage growth?


    But no, that is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to argue that many people argue that lots of immigrants scrounge on benefits, in addition to 'stealing' jobs from natives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by locomotive99)
    Not really, surely competition for jobs is beneficial? Reduces costs = greater profits = greater tax revenue?

    I may sound naive, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't competition encourage growth?
    The jobs would still exist and pay the same wage. As it stand money is funnelled out of the country by immigrants holding the jobs and increased amounts is spent of benefits for out of work Britons. If immigrants weren't competing for the jobs, there would still be competition. There may even be less wage compression so wages increase = higher real wages = more to spend = businesses benefit for demand etc.. This debate goes nowhere as no one actually knows as there has been no in depth study done into the full effects of immigration.

    But no, that is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to argue that many people argue that lots of immigrants scrounge on benefits, in addition to 'stealing' jobs from natives.
    And the point I was trying to make is few people us such an argument but are instead misunderstood. However the UK social protection budget is £250bn. Even if the small 5-15% estimate of that is spent on immigrants, as a figure it's still a large amount of money.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think "This Is Matt" is confusing the issue slightly by discussing two (linked) issues.

    Whether immigrants take jobs from British nationals is a separate issue to that of 'benefit tourism'. These two issues can also be further separated by looking at the effects of EU migrants and the effects of non EU migrants.

    In so far as jobs go - there is some evidence to suggest that non EU migration can have a negative effect on the labour market. As to the effects of EU migration - there are lots of different reports saying slightly different things, but the general consensus seems to be that its effects are limited or non-existent.

    As for benefits - the benefit tourism thing is a bit of a myth. While some groups of migrants take more out of the system then they put in (mainly those outside of the European Economic Area) overall, they do pay in more than they take - so we benefit from them being here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)

    In so far as jobs go - there is some evidence to suggest that non EU migration can have a negative effect on the labour market. As to the effects of EU migration - there are lots of different reports saying slightly different things, but the general consensus seems to be that its effects are limited or non-existent.

    As for benefits - the benefit tourism thing is a bit of a myth. While some groups of migrants take more out of the system then they put in (mainly those outside of the European Economic Area) overall, they do pay in more than they take - so we benefit from them being here.
    Except both points of yours are unsubstantiated. Looking at the first one, there has been no reports into the effects of immigration. Some reports slam immigration as costing up to £7bn and some claim immigration generates an equal amount. It's currently impossible to make a reliable claim about the 'general consensus'.

    For your second point, the UK government says immigrants claiming benefits costs Britain money. The EU Commission report says the opposite. You seem to have taken the side of the EU Commission. Obviously, it's impossible to say for sure until an independent report from a body with no vested interests is published. It's impossible to know if we benefit from benefit tourists being here (by the way, the EU C report only looked at job seekers allowance and child benefits. It completely missed out housing benefit, in work tax credits and all other benefits available). Immediately it's obvious both sides of the argument are intangible positions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by locomotive99)
    Not really, surely competition for jobs is beneficial? Reduces costs = greater profits = greater tax revenue?

    I may sound naive, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't competition encourage growth?


    But no, that is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to argue that many people argue that lots of immigrants scrounge on benefits, in addition to 'stealing' jobs from natives.
    Not really. Competition allows multinationals and other businesses to offer lower wages or even exploit workers as has happened.

    Competition may equate to greater economic growth but that doesn't mean more revenue and more taxation. More profits doesn't mean more tax either because tax avoidance etc.

    The problem is you need to balance that vs the drain on money allocated in the budget. Competition is great but too much just plays into the hands of the elite.

    Its no shock the inequality gap across Europe is getting larger. The rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Except both points of yours are unsubstantiated. Looking at the first one, there has been no reports into the effects of immigration. Some reports slam immigration as costing up to £7bn and some claim immigration generates an equal amount. It's currently impossible to make a reliable claim about the 'general consensus'.
    There have been many reports.

    The report by the Migration Advisory Committee sums up my first point - it found an adverse effect with non EU migration and explained that EU migration: “did not have a statistically significant association with native employment.”

    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    For your second point, the UK government says immigrants claiming benefits costs Britain money. The EU Commission report says the opposite. You seem to have taken the side of the EU Commission. Obviously, it's impossible to say for sure until an independent report from a body with no vested interests is published.
    Again, there have been reports in addition to the Commission's report.

    The OBR said that: “most recent evidence for the UK is supportive of the view that net inward migration has had a positive fiscal impact”

    The Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that: "Whereas EEA immigrants have made an overall positive fiscal contribution to the UK, the net fiscal balance of non-EEA immigrants is negative" It is worth pointing out that they also found native brits were also a drain...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    There have been many reports.

    The report by the Migration Advisory Committee sums up my first point - it found an adverse effect with non EU migration and explained that EU migration: “did not have a statistically significant association with native employment.”

    The OBR said that: “most recent evidence for the UK is supportive of the view that net inward migration has had a positive fiscal impact”

    The Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that: "Whereas EEA immigrants have made an overall positive fiscal contribution to the UK, the net fiscal balance of non-EEA immigrants is negative" It is worth pointing out that they also found native brits were also a drain...
    However, a report by Migration Watch countered all of that with the following conclusion:

    1. "On Dustmann and Frattini’s and the OBR's own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year."
    2. "Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either."
    3. "The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed migrants contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK."
    4. "Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people. Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population, and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes."
    5. "In fact, on less unreasonable assumptions, there was no positive fiscal impact at all from the recent EEA migrant group singled out by Dustmann and Frattini for their very positive contribution."
    6. "Migration to the UK continues to have a significant fiscal cost, and recent migrants in fact made no difference to the upward trend, costing the UK £70b annually."

    Despite the arguments we could have over methodology and reliability of each report, isn't the biggest issue the need for a stricter immigration policy to cut out any immigrants who will have a negative impact on the UK economy, and, assuming immigration has a positive impact, maximise such impact?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    However, a report by Migration Watch countered all of that with the following conclusion:
    No it didn't.

    It attempted to counter the CReAM report. CReAM has published a response which clarifies some points and correcting some of the statements in Migration Watch's report. CReAM ultimately concludes that the MW report: "...is based on a substantial amount of guesswork, does not provide clear indication of how their figures are computed, and is at times sloppy or simply wrong."

    Also - you said impartial... Migration Watch is not impartial!

    Also - the OBR report stands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    No it didn't.

    It attempted to counter the CReAM report. CReAM has published a response which clarifies some points and correcting some of the statements in Migration Watch's report. CReAM ultimately concludes that the MW report: "...is based on a substantial amount of guesswork, does not provide clear indication of how their figures are computed, and is at times sloppy or simply wrong."

    Also - you said impartial... Migration Watch is not impartial!

    Also - the OBR report stands.
    You've picked up on my point. All of these reports have been written by people with vested interests. The head of CReAM is an immigrant. Migration Watch makes clear its attitude before any report. OBR report is different as it was focussing upon the young immigrant workers. It did admit the same effect could be seen by long-stay, temporary workers instead of permanent immigrants.

    The CReAM report in particular is a bit like holding a Royal Commission review led by Nigel Farage. We can't trust any of the reports.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by locomotive99)
    I really am interested in becoming informed on this issue, and I was wondering, when people give 'unworking immigrants' as a reason to reduce immigration, are they citing verified statistics?
    And how many jobless non-job seeking non-immigrants are there?

    Which is the bigger problem? Benefit scroungers from abroad or at home, because to me, there don't seem to be many of either...

    Thanks
    Immigrants are less likely to take benefits than locals. Benefit fraud at .7% for all people on benefits. We get back more money underpaying those on benefits then they take in fraud.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I think you're missing the debate point. The debate point is not the immigrants claiming benefits but more the immigrants taking jobs away from Britons, so the Britons end up on benefits. Training should be invested in to ensure British people are capable of doing a skilled job instead of relying on a skilled immigrant. In Australia skills in shortage are identified, immigrants are issued work permits to do the job temporarily whilst training for Australians is increased to ensure an Australian can do the job in the future.
    It's almost as if you're saying the Australian government is aware that it's first responsibility is to it's own people first, and everyone else second.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    'Benefit tourism' is not built on any verified statistics no, neither is the assertion that migrants cause unemployment for British born workers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    It's almost as if you're saying the Australian government is aware that it's first responsibility is to it's own people first, and everyone else second.
    I know right! Crazy Australians. Don't they know anything? The government's first priority should be to ignore all opinion polls about big issues and do what it wants.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    'Benefit tourism' is not built on any verified statistics no, neither is the assertion that migrants cause unemployment for British born workers.
    It's simple math. If a migrant comes in and the pool of jobs remain the same, then there is more competition for the same amount of jobs. granted being low skilled means that many of these jobs are menial and such but when you need to keep a roof over your head and some food in your belly you tend to take what you can get.

    Can't comment on 'benefit tourism' because I think the scale of the 'benefit scrounger crisis' is a bit overblown and more a means for the Tories to attack the vulnerable and take heat off of themselves than anything, but if people were abusing British welfare and they're not British that is in my mind a bit rude.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    It's simple math. If a migrant comes in and the pool of jobs remain the same, then there is more competition for the same amount of jobs. granted being low skilled means that many of these jobs are menial and such but when you need to keep a roof over your head and some food in your belly you tend to take what you can get.

    Can't comment on 'benefit tourism' because I think the scale of the 'benefit scrounger crisis' is a bit overblown and more a means for the Tories to attack the vulnerable and take heat off of themselves than anything, but if people were abusing British welfare and they're not British that is in my mind a bit rude.

    Surely it isn't the Tories attacking them. I thought they were pro-immigration?

    But the question is, is benefit-scrounging actually a valid argument? I was of the opinion that the proportion of benefit cheats is extremely low compared to actual job-seekers...

    But what would you say about immigrants taking jobs away from others? You reckon immigration for low-skilled workers should be limited?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by locomotive99)
    I really am interested in becoming informed on this issue, and I was wondering, when people give 'unworking immigrants' as a reason to reduce immigration, are they citing verified statistics?
    And how many jobless non-job seeking non-immigrants are there?

    Which is the bigger problem? Benefit scroungers from abroad or at home, because to me, there don't seem to be many of either...

    Thanks
    https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...rterly-release
    http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk...immigration-uk (the foremost academic authority on migration)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...in-facts-myths (this is a good non-academic introduction to social policy and organisations where you will be able to do more extensive research)

    Make the decisions for yourselves, armchair analysts are only ever detrimental because we're all just prothletising. Do some reading and make up your own mind on the basis of the facts as you see them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh http://inactualfact.org.uk/facts/ this is a good myth busting site for anyone interested. Based in Bristol, everything on this site is verified and verifiable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    You've picked up on my point. All of these reports have been written by people with vested interests. The head of CReAM is an immigrant.
    What rediculous retort.

    And I don't think the above does represent your point. You point first of all was that there were no reports...
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

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