‘Economic Benefits of Mass Immigration Are Close to Zero’, Lords Told
| More news stories on Britain |
|---|
Daily Mail (London), November 14, 2008
The economic benefits from record levels of immigration to Britain are ‘small and close to zero’, the Lords was told today.
A report by a committee of peers, including two former Chancellors and several former Cabinet ministers, called on ministers to set an ‘explicit target range’ for immigration and make rules to keep within that limit.
Tory former Cabinet Minister Lord Wakeham said the report by the Economic Affairs Committee, which he chaired, rejected the Government’s claim that immigration is needed to prevent labour shortages as ‘fundamentally flawed’.
He told peers the Government had said immigrants brought large economic benefits to the UK in boosting economic growth, filling job vacancies that Britons could not or would not do and paying more tax than British-born workers.
But there was no evidence of such benefits, which had been ‘wildly overstated’ by ministers.
In a debate on the report, Lord Wakeham said: ‘The committee found no evidence of these large economic benefits.
‘What we did find was serious flaws in the Government’s arguments and we concluded that on average the economic benefits of immigration were small and close to zero.’
The report found certain groups in Britain—the low-paid, some ethnic minorities and some young people looking for a foot on the job ladder—may have suffered because of competition from immigrants.
It said ministers should set an ‘explicit target range’ for immigration and set the rules to keep within that limit.
And it raised the prospect of cutting the number of partners and other family members allowed to settle in Britain because a relative is already here.
Peers also warned that the much-trumpeted new points-based immigration system carried a ‘clear danger of inconsistencies and overlap’.
The Government’s decision to use GDP as the main measure of immigration’s economic contribution was ‘irrelevant and misleading’, added the report. Instead, the yardstick should be income per head of population or GDP per capita.
The Tories last month said the Government’s immigration policy was in ‘chaos’ after new Immigration Minister Phil Woolas suggested there could be a population cap of 70 million, before appearing to row back.
Last week a Commons cross-party group on Balanced Migration said immigration rules should be further tightened during the economic downturn.
Lord Wakeham stressed that Britain ‘as a whole’ had not lost out from immigration and neither had particular groups lost out significantly. The committee also recognised the very ‘valuable contribution’ made by immigrants, he added.
He said the Government had rejected the committee’s report—suggesting it contained ‘combined conclusions that were overspun with analysis’.
‘Thoughts of pots and kettles immediately came to mind. The minister’s words accurately describe the Government’s position—not our report,’ Lord Wakeham added.
Liberal Democrat Lord Vallance of Tummel, former BT chairman, said that when large numbers of immigrants arrived in a limited number of locations, the ‘shoe will begin to pinch’.
Councils, particularly in the popular parts of London and the south east, complained they had not had the right resources to deal with this.
The report recommended that the Government should have an explicit and reasoned indicative target range for net immigration.
‘There is no excuse for confusing our recommendation with a call for a cap on gross immigration—a different kettle of fish altogether and one which is neither necessary or desirable.’
The Government’s response seemed to have confused net with gross and a reasoned target range with an arbitrary cap, he said.
Lord Dholakia, former Liberal Democrat president, said there were potentially huge economic benefits from attracting the best talent to the UK.
Migration had already brought substantial benefits to the country and may become even more important at a time when the population was ageing.
Crossbencher Baroness Valentine, chief executive of the London First business organisation, said the report asked the right questions and she agreed with some of its conclusions.
‘We must have better and more meaningful data if we are to fully understand the implications—both positive and negative—that immigration has for our country.
‘Our challenge is to ensure that the best talent is found in, and keeps coming to, the UK.
‘Allowing British businesses to recruit globally does not open the doors to an unstoppable influx of immigrants if education and training systems equip British workers to compete.
‘I’d like UK workers to win on merit not because we have changed the rules to prevent the best competing at all.’
Labour’s Lord Paul, a committee member, said the reliance on the measurement of GDP per capita was ‘fundamentally flawed’ because it could not take into account the long-term benefits offered by migrants’ families.
Indian-born Lord Paul, who described himself as ‘proud to be an immigrant’, said the UK’s wealth and status owed a lot to its history of welcoming migrants.
He said: ‘In my view the status Britain has enjoyed through history, compared to its size and population, is largely due to the fact that we welcome immigrants from all over the world and have recognised their value and contribution.’
Crossbencher Lord Moser criticised the narrow focus of the committee’s inquiry.
‘To try to isolate the economic aspect, however dictated by the terms of reference of the committee, is bound to be unsatisfactory both for public consumption and for policy making.’
Labour’s Lord Peston was even more strident in his attack on the committee’s report.
He said: ‘I dislike this report intensely. Indeed, I regard this report as the worst report produced in this House in my 21-and-a-half years here.
‘I’d like to make sure that’s on the record.’
Lord Peston added: ‘The committee, if it really believed this subject was a top priority, would have proceeded with the utmost caution.
‘What we have is something quite different, there is no historical perspective at all, the emphasis is entirely on the period of power of the present Government.
‘In addition we have, to my amazement, a report in which the opinions of a xenophobic front group such as Migration Watch is given the same weight as the Institute of Public Policy Research, an outstanding research body.
‘Again the lack of judgment on the part of the committee I find amazing.’
Crossbencher Lord Best, president of the Local Government Association and former chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, said immigrant labour made a ‘substantial’ contribution to construction and social care.
‘I have been hugely impressed by the energy, cheerfulness, honesty and reliability of the new migrants and of course by their willingness to work at wage levels that are unattractive to the established population, which keeps down the costs of providing services, not least charges in care homes.’
Tory Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, a committee member and former director at the Bank of England, revealed that Lord Peston had been his first teacher of economics.
He told him: ‘I don’t think I have ever had such a withering attack on any essay I would ever have written as you have given us.’
Lord Griffiths stressed the committee had made every attempt to not be party-political. He added: ‘There is no way in my judgment that it advances a racist or xenophobic agenda.
‘Having said that I have one regret and that is I accept that in some paragraphs we should have been more explicit and fulsome in our praise of the contribution of immigrants to the UK economy.’
Labour’s Lord Dubs, a former minister, said he was disappointed by the report and its tone.
‘Whatever the intentions of its authors, the anti-immigration lobby had a field day when it was published.
‘It maybe that it was misunderstood. But the fact is that they drew some comfort from the conclusions of the report.’
Lord Dubs said he had long believed that immigration had been of benefit to Britain and found it difficult to relate the report’s conclusions to practical experience.
‘If every immigrant left Britain tomorrow this House could not function on Monday because so many of the staff who support the Palace of Westminster are immigrants,’ he added.
(Posted on November 14, 2008)
Comments
They don’t CARE if immigration is a benefit to Britain. It’s a benefit to Labour, and that’s all that matters.
Posted by Dave at 7:22 PM on November 14
If massive immigration of Third World peoples was of any economic benefit, then California (the state with the highest foreign immigration) would not be having a $15-Trillion deficit at this very moment. Anyone with 2 neurons knows that importing millions of uneducated, techno-ignorant, non-English-speaking diseased foreigners with no skills other than baby-making would result in economic disaster. And this is exactly what has happened.
Notice how our governments always try to sell immigration in terms of “economy,” meanwhile ignoring the 100’s of other reasons why it is insane to import millions of people into the USA (environment, cultural incompatibility, crime, urban stress, foreign diseases, job competition, etc.).
Any way you cut it (economic, environmental, education, quality of life, taxes, crime, hospital closing, social cohesion, etc.), massive immigration is a bad idea. Worst of all, you and I will be paying for these visions of multicultural paradise through increased taxes for the rest of our lives and our children’s lives. You will be forced to give far, far less to your children, because our government will need to transfer your earnings to the children of Mexicans, Haitians, Nigerians, Somalians, Iraqis, Kurds, Samoans, Guatemalans, Pakistanis, etc, etc.
Don’t believe me? Check your 401Ks
Posted by at 7:30 PM on November 14
They try to tell us that Third World immigrants will improve the economy. Yea, right! What do you think will happen when 50 million Mexican immigrants get old and apply for Social Security and Medicare? Remember, many of these immigrants worked for slave wages and had large families — they never saved a dime. How will our nation support them?
Our nation will support them by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits for everyone, and by taking money away from those who have saved money (i.e., you) and giving it to them. I think that Obama calls it “Spreading the Wealth Around.” Lenin phrased it: “Each according to their need.”
Posted by at 7:37 PM on November 14
It’s banks, developers, speculators, social service providers and other elites who make money off immigration.
Government, and an informed populace, are supposed to keep them in check and safeguard the country’s wealth. When Enoch Powell tried to do just that, he was falsely accused of ‘racism’.
Posted by at 8:02 PM on November 14
“The economic benefits from record levels of immigration to Britain are ‘small and close to zero’, the Lords was told today.”
I don’t believe that for one minute. Because of all the social payments, the court costs and incarceration costs, to say nothing of the extra costs for providing special services in the schools bringing in these third world hordes is costing them dearly.
What was the cost for the bus bombings economically as well as to the morale of the white public in general? How about the cost of the numerous riots, and didn’t they have hundreds of car arsons at the same time as France?
Zero benefit, my foot. They’re a bunch of left wing liars.
Imigration of third world blaks and other criminals will continue until the country suffers from a war.
Their economy is no better than the US’s and they’re predicting massive job losses too.
There’s only two things that will influence a leftist moron’s thinking. One is an economic collapse so severe it causes him/her to lose their money, and the second one is massive violence that has the potential to threaten them personally.
Posted by mitch at 10:15 PM on November 14
What, the British government is lying to its own people?! How can this be?
Slow down, Soprano Fan. This is, the same British government that lied to its people about the “Lusitania” not carrying munitions (the ship WAS carrying munitions, which made it a ship of war), and about its great “victory” at Narvik, Norway during World War II.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 10:47 PM on November 14
Even if illegal immigrants did improve the economy(and they don’t), that still does not make it morally right to force them on your neighbors and our society. Slavery, illegal drugs, prostitution and child labor all would improve the economy, so, should we allow those also?
Posted by at 11:30 PM on November 14
There is no economic justification for the race-replacement of Europeans,Euro-Americans and Euro-Canadians. Non-Whites are putting forth an an economic justification for OUR replacement. Do not debate the economics of benefits of immigration . If you do, you will end up given legitimacy to the possibility of there being an economic argument for OUR complete racial dispossession.
Posted by Jupiter at 11:26 AM on November 15
i>”Lord Dubs said he had long believed that immigration had been of benefit to Britain and found it difficult to relate the report’s conclusions to practical experience.
If every immigrant left Britain tomorrow this House could not function on Monday because so many of the staff who support the Palace of Westminster are immigrants,” he added.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Dubs
The link reveals all one needs to know about this Dubs character.
If every non-white immigrant left Britain tomorrow, it would greatly improve the quality of life for indigenous Britons in the employment and housing sectors, not to mention an enormous reduction in the crime rate and cost to the indigenous white taxpayer in the form of public services and welfare provisions for the throngs of non-white aliens continuously swamping our ancestral homeland.
The suggestion by Dubs that the House could not function on Monday, etc, is one of the most pathetic excuses in support of mass Third World immigration, I’ve personally ever heard. It’s such an utterly pathetic excuse, I had to restrain myself from entering into a fit of uncontrolled laughter.
May I further suggest that anything that would prevent the Marxist Liberal House of Treason from functioning in any shape form at all, would be a highly desirous state of affairs and thus, to the contrary, ought to be vigourously encouraged?
Posted by at 11:41 AM on November 15
I’m glad somebody finally pointed out that there is no evidence that mass immigration benefits anybody except the elites, and that there’s evidence it hurts the rest of us.
Did you know there are ignorant whites out there who really believe that if the corporate farmers of America were forced to pay their workers fair wages, that we’d have to pay $10 for an apple? Ridiculous. The food industry is one of the strongest industries in America, and these corporations would have us believe they’d go out of business if they paid their workers $7 an hour?
Posted by Mike at 1:33 PM on November 15
If immigrants went home, it is true that an apple would cost a few cents more, and a restaurant meal a Dollar more. However, in return, your taxes would decrease by a thousand Dollars, crime would decrease, housing costs would decrease, education levels would rise, you would be able to get treated at an emergency room, traffic would clear up, and traffic accidents would decrease. Local economies would improve as workers spent money here, instead of sending it to Mexico. As low-skilled work became more and more “available,” the youth and the formerly “unemployed” would have more opportunities to enter the workforce at higher salaries. Welfare rolls would drop. Instead of our nation’s youth watching TV all day, they would gain valuable work experience and learn responsibility and the value of a Dollar, as our Nation pressed them into after school and summer jobs. Most important is that there might still be space, clean water, and clean air for your children, in this country, 50 years from now, because of the lowered population.
Posted by at 9:05 PM on November 15
Britain survived just fine for thousands of years without the flood of non-Whites that have invaded her soil in the past sixty years because of the treasonous Labour party.
Posted by at 12:47 AM on November 16
Local economies would improve as workers spent money here, instead of sending it to Mexico
This is likely very true. Of the many Phiippine workers I am acquainted with here in Kuwait, an example of their pay would be thus: Pay=200kd per month (1kd Kuwait Dinar=$3.72 U.S. and 1 kd=180 Philippine pesos) accomodations=40-90kd a month in an apartment usually shared with as many as 4 others (each paying the same amount) food=20kd a month everything they have left goes home to the Phiippines. Most American companies here are required to deposit X amount of Kd in the Expat’s Kuwaiti Bank acct and the Kd cannot be exchanged for U.S. unless we have orders showing we are leaving Kuwait. The Kuwaitis also charge a large fee for transfers out of the country.
Posted by Skip at 11:25 AM on November 16
Posted by at 7:37 PM on November 14:
“What do you think will happen when 50 million Mexican immigrants get old and apply for Social Security and Medicare? Remember, many of these immigrants worked for slave wages and had large families — they never saved a dime. How will our nation support them?”
Government benefits are based on a pyramid scheme. It’s in the process of being exposed.
You know, as a White man with no children and no stake in U.S. equities, the entire U.S. financial crisis is somewhat amusing to me. The U.S. government will ultimately amass hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt and pass it on to a nation comprised mostly of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims. That was actually a clever maneuver from the elite Whites at the top.
Of course, the USA’s average White citizen is toast, a la Whites in South Africa and Portugal when their countries were forever ruined with the end of apartheid and the unnatural progression of rampant miscegenation.
I think I am starting to see the bigger picture now. The most capable and intelligent Whites must leave the USA and regroup father north. Those who are left behind will either be assimilated by what is coming or murdered… just like in South Africa.
I predict we will ultimately see a mass exodus of Whites to northern Europe, Canada, and Australia as the USA overflows with undesirables. The Whites with the greatest means, intelligence, and wherewithal will leave. Of course, many Leftist Whites still will not “get it” (e.g., understand) until a gang of Black thugs clubs their families to death at the supermarket for “being White”.
JR
Posted by at 1:41 PM on November 16
First, I’d like to thank my white brothers and sisters for their intelligent comments. (What is race but extended family?)
Second, the Lords need to do their ancestral duties and deport all the Third World invaders.
——————
SIGNATURE:
The white patriot’s Coat of Arms: gens alba conservanda est (the white race must be saved)
——
T.S. Eliot: “White Trash” is a white person who fornicates with a non-white.
——
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST EUROPEAN AMERICANS.
Obama has supported:
(A) Reparations. Redistributing money from European Americans (Whites) to blacks, mestizos, and Asians.
(B) Criminalizing white parents who refuse to let their children practice miscegenation.
(C) Using “hate crime” laws to silence any criticism from European Americans.
(D) Using Third World immigration to overwhelm European American majorities.
(E) Maintaining anti-white affirmative action programs
(F) Creating a mandatory “America Serves” community-service program to indoctrinate and deracinate young European Americans
——
From evolutionary philosophy email list: “Children of mixed, white-black, marriages identify 99% of the time as black and detest European Americans (whites). Why? They almost always look black (eye color, hair texture, nose shape, skin color, etc.). Obama wrote: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.””
Posted by Nigel at 1:44 PM on November 16
About the ONLY people reaping benefits from immigration would be the “fences” who buy the loot stolen by immigrants from the the White citizens. White citizens’ “benefits” being the incessant crime, social problems immigrants bring with them. Nor can we forget the reality the majority of immigrants will become life-long welfare parasites, breeding more generations of welfare parasites.
Posted by Fed Up at 5:06 PM on November 16
“Tory former Cabinet Minister Lord Wakeham said the report by the Economic Affairs Committee, which he chaired, rejected the Government’s claim that immigration is needed to prevent labour shortages as ‘fundamentally flawed’.”
The Governments claim? Just who exactly in the “Government” decided to claim these great benefits? It is obvious that our respective governments in the Western World have been literally hijacked over time by among other things global corporate democracy advocates. Those who are dedicated unto death to promoting globalism and multiculturalism. It’s their quasi religion. Whenever nationalists make any headway politically the media comes out against us and like with the British National Party, the “government” can just change the rules and ban certain individuals from certain types of employment. Freedom of speech, HA. No such thing as that for Europeans in the new marxist global democratic era. Everyones behind it: our military leaders, politicians, corporate heads, and hollywood celebrities. That george clooney is one classy guy.
Posted by ChiefofClanFearghus at 5:23 PM on November 16
“If every immigrant left Britain tomorrow this House could not function on Monday because so many of the staff who support the Palace of Westminster are immigrants,” he added.”
Well genius, who supported the Palace of Westminster say 60 years ago? Yep, you guessed it, the natives. If every immigrant left Britain, then the Palace of Westminster would hire British staff to support it, just like 60 years ago. One big DUH!!!!!!
Posted by at 2:25 AM on November 17
“Government benefits are based on a pyramid scheme. It’s in the process of being exposed….the entire U.S. financial crisis is somewhat amusing to me. The U.S. government will ultimately amass hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt and pass it on to a nation comprised mostly of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims. That was actually a clever maneuver from the elite Whites at the top. Of course, the USA’s average White citizen is toast… I think I am starting to see the bigger picture now. “
posted by UF
……………………………
That was an excellent post from JR (as always). Thank you. Yes, JR, the “bigger picture” still awaits us, and many are not going to like it. When those added millions of Mexicans start collecting from the system (instead of putting into it), things are going to get interesting indeed. ¡Muy interesante!
Posted by ghw at 4:48 AM on November 17
I predict we will ultimately see a mass exodus of Whites to northern Europe, Canada, and Australia as the USA overflows with undesirables. The Whites with the greatest means, intelligence, and wherewithal will leave. Of course, many Leftist Whites still will not “get it” (e.g., understand) until a gang of Black thugs clubs their families to death at the supermarket for “being White”.
Judging from the many articles about the rampant PCness of Canada, I don’t consider Canada a good choice.
Posted by Bill Black at 3:59 PM on November 17
To JR at 1:41 pm
You bring up some good points but you are off in one key area.
You expect whites to make a mass exodus to Canada, Australia and Northern Europe. The problem is the throngs of immigrants will follow us there. It is dalaying action at best.
Posted by Dennis at 5:15 PM on November 17
Actually the economic benefits of immigration are less than zero. These immigrants benefit only the elites who hire them for slave wages but it’s the public who has to pick up the tab for social welfare costs because most of these immigrants don’t make enough to survive on their own. Also, even if hypothetically they were an economic benefit which they’re not, the other costs-overcrowding, racial tensions, crime, loss of social and cultural cohesion, strain on the environment- would not make mass immigration worth it.
Posted by at 9:24 PM on November 17
Britain would be a thousand times better off if every single non-White who arrived there since 1948 was sent back to their country of origin.
Posted by at 7:02 PM on November 18