Posted on May 4, 2011

Immigration of Little Benefit to the Economy, Report Concludes

Victoria Ward, Telegraph (London), May 2, 2011

The British economy has failed to benefit from the influx of eastern European migrants, according to a think-tank report.

It also concluded that the immigrants were here to stay, despite restrictions being lifted in Germany.

The findings were described as “the final nail in the coffin” for Labour’s immigration policy and proof that the previous government was wrong not to impose controls following the expansion of the European Union in 2004.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said migrant workers had boosted output by just 0.38 per cent in the years to 2009 and had an “insignificant” impact on growth.

About 700,000 migrants moved to Britain from the eight Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 and the two that joined in 2007, the report said. During the same period, Britain’s GDP grew by £98 billion, or 7.7 per cent, for which migrants were responsible for a 5 per cent share.

But although the barriers were lifted yesterday in Germany and Austria, the only two countries in Europe to have maintained restrictions on the free movement of workers from these states, experts predicted that those settled in Britain were unlikely to move.

Dawn Holland, one of the report’s authors, said: “Lifting barriers in Germany may divert some Polish and other workers away from the UK, especially given the relative strength of the German economy.

“But as the existence of support networks for new migrants is one of the most important factors, much of the shift in migrants since 2004 is likely to prove permanent.”

She said the impact of migration from countries such as Poland, Romania and Lithuania on UK national output was “insignificant to a large extent”.

Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said the report provided “clear evidence” that the contribution of migrants was trivial. “This is an astonishing conclusion which blows out of the water many of the arguments made for years by the immigration lobby,” he said

“The 700,000 East Europeans who have arrived since 2004 have added 1 per cent to our population but only about one third of 1 per cent to production.

“Some employers have benefited from cheap, hard-working labour but the gain to our economy as a whole has been insignificant. This is the final nail in the coffin of Labour’s immigration policy.”

Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, said recently that any state joining the EU would face the most “stringent controls” on access to the labour market, which would mean a bar on working in Britain for seven years.

15 responses to “Immigration of Little Benefit to the Economy, Report Concludes”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Actually assuming none of those 700,000 were the Gypsy Roma, but were REAL Europeans, I would argue that they and their descendents are an investment in the future of the white community in Britain. 100 years from now they will be indistinguishable from the white British people. The REAL PROBLEM is non-European, non-white immigration, particularly from the Islamic world.

  2. Anonymous says:

    This just goes to show that the good of the British economy was never Labour’s goal.

    So what was?

    The immigrants bought diapers, gasoline, insurance, household appliances, tires, furniture, legal services, tools, cell phones, transportation, food, shelter and clothing. Consumption was and is the primary goal of contemporary mass immigration.

    In spite of being identified as rabid leftist ideologues, Labour was pleasing corporate Britain and its shareholders.

  3. alex says:

    “The British economy has failed to benefit from the influx of eastern European migrants, according to a think-tank report”

    Yes, but the blacks and Muslims are supporting the country all on their own…from the jails and prisons.

    That’s why the UK never included them in their announcement regarding finances and immigration.

  4. John Bell in England says:

    “final nail in the coffin of Labour’s immigration policy” If only! Just today (Weds) it has been reported that the Labour leader, one Milliband (the son of a pre-war “Polish” communist immigrant) said that the Labour opposition does not intend, or even aspire, to reduce immigration. And still the brain-dead go on voting for them.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Interesting how this “report” just mentions Eastern European immigrants. What about all the flotsam and jetsam from the Middle East and Africa?

  6. Anonymous says:

    And the only reasons that this ‘admission’ is being released at all are:

    1. Negative Politics.

    Allows you to slam the other guy for past failures without intending to do a thing about the present day ones. Politics exploits existing attitudes, it doesn’t try to improve or change them.

    2. Incentives Are Still In Place.

    I doubt if EE (white) immigrants provide half the problem of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern ones but even if they do, the simple fact is that until you sour the milk, EVERYONE will suckle at Britain’s welfare teat and until you turn off the horde-influx no amount of rebalancing will ever redistribute the load to other (previously), saner, states.

    3. Too Little Too Late.

    Unless you actively displace _naturalized or second generation born_ citizens back to their countries of origin (i.e. What Hitler tried to do by planning to use Jews as slave labor in the East), the demographic skews on birth rates will replace whites anyway, just with what’s in the country already.

    4. Nobody Brown Is Mentioned Directly.

    Oh, I’m sure that there are plenty of Roma and the like from Rumania but nobody has the GUTS to say: “We don’t want to procreate with people we consider to be ugly and incompatible with our culture’. And thus nobody in the establishment feels the need to explain how cutting the economic pie finer and finer is a ‘good thing’ when the most basic form of class-as-marriage remergence of those economic fractions is NEVER going to happen without literal forced coercion.

    And who knows, maybe that’s next.

  7. sbuffalonative says:

    When immigration advocates crunch the numbers, there is always said to be a positive effect on the overall economy although the alleged positive is always small.

    With the modern welfare state, I don’t believe there’s any positive effect from immigration, legal or illegal. It’s just transferring costs from private businesses (who pay lower wages) to social welfare programs (pain by middle class taxpayers).

  8. John Engelman says:

    “Some employers have benefited from cheap, hard-working labour but the gain to our economy as a whole has been insignificant.”

    – Victoria Ward, Telegraph (London), May 2, 2011

  9. Valkyrie says:

    Yes, as the first poster said. This whole thing is a red herring. Immigration from some of the best eastern Europe has to offer is a good thing in the long run. I myself have worked with Poles, may of them highly intelligent, educated and motivated. The REAL problem is non-European immigration… this is the killer for our society.

  10. Kenelm Digby says:

    So, basically the Labour Party unleashed the biggest immigration wave since the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the 500s AD, caused huge dislocation, upset and trauma amongst native Britons and incidentally cost the Labour Party the last election and an uncertain future, all for absolutely no avail whatsoever!

    Why do people still insist that the political class is ‘intelligent’?

  11. Anonymous says:

    I agree with #1. As a Norwegian I have been quite delighted by the great influx of Easter Europeans lately. Last year fully 2/3 of our new immigrants were of European stock, mostly Northern Europeans. I am especially pleased with those who bring or get kids here. As long as the birthrate among ethnic Norwegians is below replacement rate, I think Polish an and Lithuanian babies are the best substitute we can get for Norwegian kids. And it is a great counterbalance to the Muslim and other non-Western immigration.

    Even if the Eastern Europeans will keep part of their original identity and traditions, I think that is a kind of soft diversity that one may actually appreciate, or at least not be terribly bothered by. After all it will be nicer to have some of our Lutheran churches turned into Catholic ones, than to have them turned into mosques.

  12. Bill Corr says:

    The word ïmmigrant” is used too loosely here; the term “temporary sojourner” is far more appropriate for Poles and Lithuanians.

    Third Worlders and asylum seekers aspire to be permanent immigrants, while most [legal] Poles and [illegal] Chinese and Vietnamese intend to make a certain sum of money before returning home.

    All major British political parties, and most of the Mainstream Media, are insane and downright traitorous on the issue of Third World immigration into Britain and Ireland.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Poster #11 from Norway: Don’t believe the “below replacement rate” birthrate line. Populations always rebound.

    I would rather a Norway filled with Norwegians, a Denmark filled with Danes, and an Ireland filled with Irish.

    Poles, Hungarians, and Ukrainians may be fine individuals, but they aren’t Scandinavians.

  14. Bill Corr says:

    This is from IRISH TIMES columnist Kevin Myers

    … and I suggest you all check out his columns from time to time

  15. Diversity = Adversity says:

    While I do love living in Louisiana, I think that American Whites should displace 3rd world immigrants in Europe. Would not “multiculturalism” allow for Americas expatriots to keep our culture, same as middle easterners are permitted?

    I wonder what sort of comparisons will be made of statistics regarding White American immigrants and African or middle eastern immigrants.

    Save Europe!