Philip Johnston and Robert Winnett, London Telegraph, March 29, 2008
Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced virtually no economic benefits for the country, a parliamentary inquiry has found.
A House of Lords committee, which is due to report next Tuesday, will call into question Government claims that foreign workers add £6 billion each year to the wealth of the nation.
It is expected to say this must be balanced against the increase in population and their use of local services such as health and education, resulting in little benefit per head of the population.
“Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run,” the report will say.
The findings of the Lords economics committee threaten to demolish the key argument made by ministers to justify the highest levels of immigration in the country’s history.
The inquiry by the committee, which includes two former chancellors and several former Cabinet ministers, is the first to try to balance the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration.
The population is increasing by more than 190,000 every year, largely as a result of immigration.
Foreign workers now make up 12.5 per cent of the labour force, compared with 7.4 per cent a decade ago. Critics say Labour lost control of the borders, issued too many work permits and should not have opened up the labour market to eastern Europe.
However, ministers say that without large-scale immigration there would have been slower economic growth.
A Whitehall paper produced for the committee said average output growth over the past five years was 2.7 per cent a year and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this. The Government said this indicated a contribution of £6 billion—or £700,000 a day- from foreign workers.
However, the committee’s final report is expected to say the Government should have focused on the impact of immigration on GDP per head, not the economy as a whole.
David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University, said in his evidence to the committee that the Government had excluded costs from crime, security, the race relations process, health “tourism” and imported ailments such as TB.
Richard Pearson, a visiting professor at the University of Sussex’s Centre for Migration Research, said: “While migrants have clearly helped alleviate often long-standing skill shortages, they have also filled many low-skilled jobs, often at very low wages.
“These migrants are likely to be displacing, and reducing the incentive on employers to recruit and train low-skilled, indigenous workers.”
Original article
(Posted on March 31, 2008)
Comments
(i)David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University, said in his evidence to the committee that the Government had excluded costs from crime, security, the race relations process, health “tourism” and imported ailments such as TB.(i)
What a crock, they spend 6million and don’t include major areas of expense above. Probably it would be even more shocking than the result they’ve already produced - “zero economic benefit”.
And besides, I could care less about the economics, my family was never rich, but we lived in a homogenous country where you recognised your neighbour and the local shopkeeper as having a share in and an interest in the culture of England and of Europeans generally. The traitors have destroyed the culture and traditions of my birth country, I’ll never forgive them.
Arc.
Posted by Arcadian at 6:22 PM on March 31
Hummmm how long did it take the poor brits to figure it out??? It is taking washington decades to learn much of anything too….but the people know….too bad those in charge will never get it????
Posted by lydia at 6:53 PM on March 31
No; migration has brought negative economic benefit.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 7:29 PM on March 31
There’s a lot more to life than the economy. More to the measure of respect due a human life than as a footnote to GDP. Arguing the pros and cons, the economic benefit of endless immigration, is not an argument worthy of consideration. Irrelevant.
“Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run,” the report will say.
How about the value of all those things that don’t carry a price tag? If those aspects of life that are most deserving of preservation, most treasured by the people of Britain, were to be given equal consideration along with the economy, then ‘zero benefit’ would not even come close to expressing the true negative consequences of immigration. All western nations would do well to close their doors to any further immigration from the third world. Now.
Posted by Edward at 8:11 PM on March 31
Can countries now be bought? Suppose pakistan offered to give every white in the UK one million dollars if they agreed to have no further children and to hand the country over to pakistanis once they died of old age? Would this be seen as a fair trade? And yet this is exactly what is being traded—except like all Faustian deals, the Devil doesn’t even do his part of the bargain.
Posted by Diamed at 8:27 PM on March 31
Importing third world crime and poverty to this country has cost far more than the financial infusion they contribute.
The present policy, however, will not only continue, but I look for it to accelerate.
A madness is in play right now, and it always precedes the coming to an end of a nation or an empire.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
Posted by Robert Kelly at 9:47 PM on March 31
It’s just like buying a car or a house on time. Most people are shocked when the bill is due, or they don’t read the fine print and OMG the adjustable rate keeps going up and they can’t pay for it. We are awash in idiocy… why do we let these people vote?
Posted by Vijay Prozak at 9:48 PM on March 31
“However, ministers say that without large-scale immigration there would have been slower economic growth.”
What an absurd statement. If your population is not growing your economy does not need to be growing.
And there are things far more important than this “economic growth” mantra always trotted out to justify the ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide of every last European ethnic group.
SCREW “economic growth”.
Posted by at 10:44 PM on March 31
It is useless to appeal to logic when addressing immigration issues with our elites, regardless of political affiliation. However it is the left that has elevated immigration and race issues to the level of a religion. Logical agruments are not effective because these people, our “elites”, do not live in reality. They live in a mythical construct of their own creation. When reality intrudes it is dismissed as “nativist”, “racist”. (insert any PC pejoritive here). Their aversion to reality is so strong that they will watch the destruction of their own nations with indifference if not an insane glee. I am reffering to those who do not activly work against their nation and people with malicious intent, but practice a form of what Orewll termed “doublethink”- the ability to self-decieve to an almost hypnotic extent.
Posted by White Canadian at 10:52 PM on March 31
The most important thing by far is the RACE of the immigrant(s). If they’re White, they’re MUCH more likely to assimilate and become successful than if they come from a Third World country. It is their race that made their country of origin so backward to begin with. Rocket science!
The US was much stronger and more patriotic when (prior to the liberal Teddy Kennedy-backed Immigration Act of 1965) the country was approximately 90% White. We had the same culture, heroes and enemies. Now look at us. We’re on the verge of electing a Black communist with strong terrorist ties and a Muslim background. Heaven help us if he gets in there. We only thought the Black race riots of the 60’s were bad. An Obama presidency will make the Newark riots look like a Sunday School picnic.
Letting non-Whites in was the death knell and we’ve been on a downhill spiral ever since.
Posted by D. Andrews at 12:30 AM on April 1
The British political fools who allowed unrestricted immigration from non-EU countries are the ones to blame for there were many who objected including a legal political party called the British National Party which is gathering more members every day, even though the other parties always refer to it as a racist party and several major news papers only print bad news about them.
But the other parties forget the sales techniques advice I used to give when I was training managers and staff. Never knock the opposition for people do not like it, and they then will look at it more closely to see if your criticisms are true. If they are not…… It is OK to point out differences in a direct comparison, but do not criticise them only. So many are now looking at the BNP web-site at www.BNP.org.uk
Well, the failing Brit. Labour (Democrats) Govt. is now having to admit they were wrong and that any immigrants should only have been and still be admitted with a points sytem to fill jobs that needed filling as they do in Australia (and the USA?)
Immigrants from the EU cannot be stopped as long as the fulfil specific obligations like being self-supporting and have health insurance. Citizens from all EU countries can by law move freely between all countries. Those are the rules but many foreigners from outside of the EU have come and are helping to cripple the free National Health (NHS) and the benefits systems, as well as causing house prices to rocket where they club together and buy one house as a group. Free? Nothing is free and the NHS, etc. has been built up over 60 years with the British taxpayer’s money, and now we have had for many years, health tourists coming from places like Africa with HIV/AIDS and cancer expecting free health care.
But we have recently had Polish people coming and I have a soft spot for them as they fought alongside our troops in WW2 only to return home to a communist Govt. They come to Britain and do the jobs that the youngsters refuse to do as some of the British young, those who are fit only for labouring work, prefer getting govt. benefit cash handouts each month (Are we Brits crazy? You bet.. The Poles work at these tasks such as picking fruit and vegetables or cleaning offices and hospitals, etc. Some British families have two or more generations who have never worked and paid taxes, just lived on Govt. handouts. Bad leadership in the past.
We all have our problems but these human rights laws. Aaagh!
Posted by Brian Deller at 7:22 AM on April 1
Happily, the immigrationist policies of Tony Blair have back-fired on the Labour Party.
Labour is set to lose big-time in May’s local elections, and in London the BNP may very well pick up seats.
It also very likely that Labour will lose the next General Election in 2010 - solely due to Blair’s ‘open door’ immigration policy.
The irony is that from being quiescent in 1997 the BNP has had the biggest renaissance in years and for the first time in its history looks set to actually achieve a modicum of real power.
- How must this anger the New Labourites!
If you are a Londoner reading this, be sure to vote as follows in the May 1st Mayoral Election:
Richard BARNBROOk (BNP) - 1st Preference.
Boris JOHNSON (Conservative) - 2nd Preference.
I cannot stress the importance of this particular election enough - it is a climactic, watershed moment in which the BNP have the first real chance in their history to hold power and build a power-base.In this sense it is far more important than any General Election in post-war British history.
I implore you vote as I have recommeded above on May 1st.If not your grandchildren will curse you - and deservedly so.
Posted by Kenelm Digby at 7:33 AM on April 1
Liberals care less about facts than they do about their absurd politically-driven social theories and the sanctity of their beliefs.
Despite the evidence of the real world, a liberal will believe his own theory over the observable facts before their eyes which is why I maintain that liberalism is a kind of mental illness characterized by an inability to see and accept reality.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 8:41 AM on April 1
Immigration hasn’t helped the economy? Depends on how you look at it. It has helped to keep the upper and lower classes further separated from each other.
Posted by at 9:02 AM on April 1
Labour have deliberatly imported not just migrants - but voters.
Diane Abbott MP on the BBC TV programme ‘This Week’ let it slip when cooing up to American civil rights leader the Rev Jesse Jackson (he was visiting the set during the last US presidential election) that: ‘4 in 5 immigrants go on to vote Labour’ that figure hit me like a ton of bricks - I had allways assumed that probably more voted for Labour than the Conservatives but to see her sitting there saying this made me physically sick. Stop this madness now - vote BNP
Posted by John, Somewhere in Staffordshire at 5:35 PM on April 1
Someone should send a copy of this report to McCain and make sure he understands that, if anything, it’s FAR worse in the US.
Never mind. I’ll do it.
Posted by at 10:02 PM on April 1
Every time someone brings up “economic growth” in this context in the media, imagine a slaveholder or slave-trader in the American South in the 18th century saying much the same thing (because they did).
Every time someone brings up “economic growth” in this context in person, tell them much the same. Tell them they’d probably look good wielding a whip, from the back of a horse.
Posted by Svigor at 12:33 AM on April 2
