Immigrants Cost Britain £3,000 a Year Each, Says Report

David Barrett, Telegraph (London), March 12, 2014

Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion, according to a new report.

MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns against mass immigration, added that in 2011 the costs were equivalent to £3,000 for each of the eight million foreign-born people living in Britain.

It compiled the figures in response to a study published by University College London (UCL) last year which claimed immigrants made a “substantial” contribution to public finances.

The pressure group’s new report said UCL’s conclusions–which were given prominent coverage by the BBC–were “simply wrong”.

In fact, immigration between 1995 and 2011 cost the taxpayer more than £140 billion, or £22 million a day, after balancing what immigrants pay in tax with what they take out of Britain’s coffers by claiming benefits and tax credits, it said.

In 2011 alone the cost was £23 billion, or £3,000 each for the eight million foreign-born population, the group concluded. The sum was equal to the amount spent by the NHS on GPs and dentists in a year.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “Our report finally disposes of the immigration lobby’s oft repeated claims that immigration reduces our tax burden.

“The total cost is high and increased dramatically between 1995 and 2011, providing no compensation for the overcrowding of this island which we are experiencing, largely as a result of immigration.”

MigrationWatch accused the authors of the UCL report, Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, of burying a crucial figure in an annexe of their original report, published in November.

It was claimed the UCL study found the overall impact of immigration had been £95 billion but this “was not even mentioned in the text of the report”, said MigrationWatch.

It added that the omission was “truly astonishing”.

A separate figure by UCL on the cost of immigration since the year 2000 was also wildly inaccurate, MigrationWatch claimed.

While UCL said immigrants made a fiscal contribution of £25 billion since the turn of the century they have, in fact, cost the taxpayer £27 billion, it said.

The new study used the same methodology as the UCL study but adopted what MigrationWatch claimed are more realistic assumptions about immigrants’ earnings and investments.

It also pointed out: “Similarly the claim that recent European Economic Area migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading.

“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.”

The new report added: “The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34 per cent more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong.”

Immigration to Britain continued to have a “significant fiscal cost”, it concluded.

Prof Dustmann rebutted MigrationWatch’s criticisms of the original report.

“The report is written in a derogatory language seemingly attempting to undermine our reputation with suggestions that we do not adequately describe our methodology or comment on all our results. We are in fact very open about our methodology–which has been acknowledged even by earlier critics of our work,” he said.

“Their strongly worded criticism is all the more surprising as the MigrationWatch 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.”

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    The U.K.’s dictator is the same as our dictator.

    No sane person there, here – or ANYWHERE, wants ANY of these people.

    Yet – they keep on coming, thanks to the personal invites of our dictators.

    • IstvanIN

      There own people don’t want those people.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        Third world immigrants are losers. They couldn’t make it their own countries, so they come to ours and make our lives a living hell, without contributing anything valuable in return.

        • JohnEngelman

          As individuals they could not make it in their own countries. Collectively they cannot create viable economies in their own countries.

          • Triarius

            Exactly. Ask a liberal how the bottom ring of society in a third world country is going to not only maintain, but improve a first world country?

            Watch the smoke come out of their ears and laugh.

  • Extropico

    Whether it actually is a deficit of 140 billion, the finances of unwanted mass migration are a deuteropathy to the primary vexation of the eradication of the democratic majority’s claim to sovereignty.

  • Psychic costs are probably greater than money costs. Psychic costs (fear, loss of social ties, etc) can’t be measured, but are often more significant than money costs.

  • David Ashton

    This website is very useful, a model of accurate and relevant research, but underfunded compared to its opponents.

    • JohnEngelman

      There should not be any taboos and sanctions against telling the truth. Unfortunately there frequently are.

  • borogirl54

    the UK has become a welfare state where receipients make more money off the dole than they do working. From the documentaries I watched recently, it seems to me that nearly all the people there get some form of housing assistance to help pay the rent. The UK has implemented a bedroom tax that penalizes people who have extra bedrooms. There have been people who have been growing pot in their extra bedrooms to be able to pay the tax.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    All mass 3rd world immigration has done for the great western “democracies” is increase the amount of poverty, wealth inequality, overcrowding, congestion, unemployment, crime and environmental pollution. The tangible benefits of mass 3rd world immigration are negligible, but the negative economic, social and psychological costs are legion. They aren’t here to pay your pensions, folks. This is genocide and it will only get worse, unless whites open their eyes and realize that they’re being culturally, economically and even physically displaced in their own countries.

  • r j p

    Just £3,000 a year? Absolute bull.
    Families are living for free in houses that cost £2,000-£3,000 per month and on the “dole”.

    • Ron Cheaters

      Just imagine how lucritive it is to bring the whole fam-damly over to basque in the prosperity of the white mans world..
      On the white mans back.

  • Ella

    This is one large corporate welfare scheme to displace Illegal immigration costs onto the tax payer. For the US, “The cost of harbouring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year” and costs each US citizen household $1,117 according to FAIR. Can I just pay higher prices to save our country?

  • JohnEngelman

    Countries should restrict immigration to people who have jobs waiting for them. I see little reason to allow the immigration of Negroes and Muslims.

  • gemjunior

    Bull-oney, it’s way more than 3,000 pounds spent on each immigrant. That’s a pretty conservative estimate.

  • The tennis match of figures continue. One side bats the ball over the net to push immigration, the other side bats it back to restrict it. Upon reciept, the other side will bat another report out. On and on it goes.

    Given the House of Lords report a few years ago that found zero benefit from immigration, or ‘the value of a mars bar’ per person, I am more likely to believe MigrationWatch’s figures than the UCL figures.

    Migrationwatch are put under great scrutiny and are treated like leppers, so they tend to be meticulous with their workings out, if only to robustly prove a case.

    There was a good article in The Spectator, criticising UKIPs endless bleating about Eastern European immigrants when the figures show that, out of all who come to Britain, they are at least slightly contributing – especially in comparison who third world immigrants who were a net drain on the country upteen times in magnitude.

    I don’t know how the pro-immigration side work their figures. I wonder if they include things such as courtroom trials collapsing due to poor translation, higher costs of TB, AIDS, Serious Organised Crime squads dedicated to foriegn gangs, and so on.

    Jonathan Portes, Phillipe Legraine, Vince Cable, the BBC and so on never talk in these ways. It is assumed that they are all doctors, nurses, business starters, builders, plumbers, fruit pickers without which “our nation would collapse”.

    We all know it is bullshine. The problem is that the game of tennis continues on whilst we lose our country. By concentrating on “contributions” and “fiscal gains” or “net losses” this fundamental point is discarded as something that does not, or should not matter.

    Unfortunately we tend to be trapped (and Migrationwatch certainly are, willfully) in using these periphery issues as a mask for the fundamental issues. This puts us on the back foot and endlessly debating the fluff and circumstance rather than standing up for ourselves.

    Until the wider British people have the understanding and stomach to talk in more determined tones instead of “jobs” “strain on the system” etc, I see these bat and ball games continuing.