Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying their taxes

[mattmurdock]

Immigrants making the government money according to a new report.

[mattmurdock]

sidicks said:

But that is only half the story - you also need to deduct the cost of services consumed and the impact on infrastructure etc too!

This is already net of government services consumed, including a share of fixed costs the government would have to pay whether they were here or not. The authors did acknowledge that immigrants may cause local pressure and drive down wages, but that this was a minor economic impact compared to the economic benefit.

I think the point is supposed to be that the concept of immigrants costing money in benefits/services is not supported by the data. There may be very good social reasons to restrict immigration, but according to this report there are no real economic reasons to do so.

[mattmurdock]

powerstroke said:

PRTVR said:

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

This .

I guess you missed the bit where this report was already held back by the government for being too 'pro-european' and was re-written a few times.

Try challenging the data rather than perpetuating lazy thinking.

[mattmurdock]

sidicks said:

Particularly when they also claim that non-EU immigration, where we actually do have a say in who we let in, is a net cost.

Where do they say that? According to the report, all of the immigration categories they looked at (new EU in last 10 years, existing EU and non-EU) were a net benefit rather than cost.

[mattmurdock]

PorkInsider said:

Are you sure?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...

OK, fair enough, I was looking at Preston's blog in which he states all of the categories produced net benefit, but (as with all these things) based on the selection of dates the figures can tell a number of different stories. The Telegraph is going with the Andrew Green approach of looking at the older immigrants and declaring a net cost, whereas the BBC is looking at figures since 2001 and declaring a net benefit in all categories.

Thus it ever was. I stand by the point that recent immigration is not a net cost, but concede that of the immigrants stay until they die the costs will increase.

It just shows that nothing in life is simple.

[mattmurdock]

Elroy Blue said:

I've just watched the chap who produced the report on TV. He said that it's not only EU migrants, but non-EU migrants that give a net benefit. That's his credibility down the swanny straight away. Anybody that deals with 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like I do, mainly from former Eastern block countries that have arrived in the last few years, know that they are putting an immense strain on all our public services.

I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.

So your anecdotes trump his research? Given this chap had previous research that showed immigration was reducing wages and job opportunities for the native population, it can hardly be said that he is looking to promote immigration wholeheartedly. He appears to have set out to check if the concern about migrants 'paying their fair share' is based on data, and found that since 2001 they are actually a net benefit overall regardless of where they came from.

Now that doesn't mean they are blameless in social problems, language ghettos, increased criminality or any of the other measures that could be used to determine if 'unchecked' immigration is a good thing. It just means, based on the methodology that was used, that recent migrants are providing an economic benefit to the country.

If you have an issue with the methodology then raise it. I sympathize with the concern on criminal behaviour of low-skilled migrants, but you have to acknowledge that your personal experience is going to be skewed towards the negative, simply because the law abiding migrants will not be interacting with you.

[mattmurdock]

Elroy Blue said:

Ah yes, 'research'. I'm sure if UKIP did some 'research', they're findings would be entirely different. I'll prefer the accuracy of what I see every day, because that's not 'research', it's plain old fact.

Yes it is fact that the immigrants you see every day are low skilled law-breakers, because that is exactly what your job is (dealing with law-breakers). Surely you are not so dense as to see that dramatically skews your viewpoint, if you are assuming that all migrants are the same as the ones you predominantly deal with?

Whereas the 'research' as you put it is based on ONS data, the UK Labor Force Survey and a number of documented conceptual assumptions and methodologies, and it shows that overall the recent migrants are putting in more fiscal benefit than they are taking out of the country. Even the head of 'Migrant Watch' (who clearly has an agenda against immigration) does not question their methodology, and accepts that recent migrants are benefiting the economy. He just focuses on the area of the report I would expect UKIP to focus on, which is that long-term non-EEA migrants tend to be a net cost (similar to how the local population is a net cost, hence us running a deficit).

However, the report makes it clear that, due to concerns they had about lack of supporting data and not wanting to compromise their methodology, they have assigned costs to the long-term migrants without assigning any benefit for the taxes their children may be paying (effectively they have considered their children to be native and given their tax take to the native side of the equation rather than the migrant side), so it is likely their figures are actually an underestimate.

[mattmurdock]

brenflys777 said:

Assumptions abound in the reports estimates.

Just as an example the report states that public services costs increase at the average rate for UK. One of the assumptions is that services like waste MIGHT increase so can't be considered. Put the authors in a locked room with one toilet and see if they can see the actual relationship between more people and more waste...

Are you actually bothering to read the report, or just wading in with your blinkers on.

They explicitly divide public services into 'pure' (defense, government) costs which change very little dependent on population, and 'congestible' (waste, water supply, fire services) costs which increase as population increases. They then produce two figures, one where ALL the costs are applied per capita to immigrant and native alike (which effectively means the immigrants are lowering the per capita cost of the 'pure' services for the natives) and another where the 'pure' costs are only assigned to natives and the 'congestible' costs are spread amongst both groups.

So, the report is clear that they are considering waste costs - not sure how you could have possibly read it any other way?

[mattmurdock]

Elroy Blue said:

You obtain a National Insurance number (along with the other 20 people in your work gang.) Your gangmaster them crams you all into two rooms of a house. 'You' (the gangmaster) each claim housing benefit for 'a' house. The gangmaster gets 20 x housing benefit, while renting one ramshackle property (and charging each individual in the work gang for living there). As the UK is obliged to pay child benefit to European immigrants, you also claim for the 15 (non-existent) children that live in Romania, backed up with false documentation.

THAT is the reality of immigration today. Not the few well educated, economically viable people you suggest are the majority. To paraphrase an old saying 'there are non so blind as those that do not want to see'

I note you are studiously avoiding my previous replies - as you seem to think your personal experience is indicative of the entire immigration spectrum.

[mattmurdock]

sjn2004 said:

Basically left wing biased report picked up by Guardian and i.
Have they costed in the resultant unemployed British adult who would have had a job if not for an EU migrant? Does it include the loss of income for British workers in wage suppression? Thought not.

They produced a previous report in 2011 showing that there was a cost, both in increased benefit cost and in lowered wage, to natives due to immigration (in fact there have been a number of papers around this). One of the authors of both reports concluded that this cost is outweighed by the positive net fiscal contribution of immigrants as shown in this latest paper.

[mattmurdock]

sidicks said:

How predictable, being against uncontrolled immigration is classed as racist..


But, to be clear, you understand that the report is suggesting that the average immigrant family earns more than £35-38k....

And you think that sounds sensible?.

You keep banging on about this 'average' immigrant family, when it is clear you have neither read the report, or have any real understanding of what the numbers mean. To be clear, they are not saying that the 'average' immigrant family earns more than £35-38k, and you repeatedly saying that they do will not make that point clear.

[mattmurdock]

don4l said:

If we look at the first listed grant we find that:-
"The programme is funded by the 15 NORFACE partners and the European commission."

I'm sure that you will agree that this creates a conflict of interest.

So all studies funded by taxpayer money that reference whether government policies are good or bad automatically create a conflict of interest?

[mattmurdock]

JagLover said:

What part is incorrect?

The part where Germany has less favourable demographics than Britain-they do
The fact that Germany may be attracting better quality of immigrants?-unlike us they have a contributory based welfare system
The poor employment statistics of many communities here?
Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin and of working age, less than half will have a job (partly due to far lower employment ratios among married women)
Somali Employment rates were 40.1 percent for men and 9.6 percent for women.

In your attempt to defend mass migration at any costs you ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Really?

You are aware I am sure that Somalis make up around 0.2% of the population, and that the majority of working age Pakistani or Bangladeshi people in the UK are British Citizens. Or are you saying we should never have let them in in the first place?

This is the problem with the blanket statements you are making - they are all tinged by an underlying view that people who were not born here are somehow inferior to people who were, and are purely here to sponge off our amazing welfare state and rob stuff.

Pretty much everyone in this country is somehow descended from immigrants (just like the US, or the majority of first world countries). Perhaps we should all go home? Perhaps we should all stop sponging off the state?

[mattmurdock]

JagLover said:

You like a strawman don't you.

I am arguing for sensible immigration controls and am hardly opposed to all immigration when I am married to an immigrant. Immigration controls once in place should be run for our benefit and should take into account evidence on the benefit of different skills and origin of the would be migrant.

Contrary to the claims of those who see mass migration as some sort of economic panacea many immigrant communities have rates of employment lower than that of the indigenous population, often far lower, and migration of unskilled workers is of very dubious economic value and is probably reducing per capita GDP.

Many are so keen to see a world of open borders that they will ignore any evidence of the negative consequences of mass migration.

What are sensible immigration controls? Who decides on the criteria?

Many are so keen to close our borders that they will ignore any evidence of the positive consequences of mass migration.

I must admit I am playing devil's advocate a little here - I do understand the consequence if millions of people decided to move to the UK, refuse to do any legitimate work or pay taxes and loaded up our healthcare and welfare system to breaking point.

However, that is clearly not happening in the real world.

What IS happening in the real world is a large number of UK born and bred citizens refusing to do any legitimate work or pay taxes, and they are already overloading our healthcare system and welfare system to the breaking point.

As priorities go, immigration controls for EU citizens are extremely low down my list - fixing the benefits underclass in the native population would rank much much higher. If EU citizens are coming here and taking jobs they could have done, and thereby showing them up for the workshy people they are, then bully for them.

[mattmurdock]

JagLover said:

The people via electing a party that clearly states its immigration policy in its manifesto and then follows it in office. Unconstrained by either the EU or judicial activism.

As to examples of sensible policies the Australians have a decent visa system and the coalition brought out a sensible policy on family reunification VISAs part of which was then struck down by the courts.

As for domestic Chavs I would be happy to deport them if a suitable place can be found. Until then we are stuck with them and I'm not sure how there existence is a argument in favour of uncontrolled immigration.

Seems to me that is side-stepping the points I raised. Seems that priorities are a little off when your primary criteria for choosing a political party is immigration controls rather than resolution of the welfare problem, given the scale and importance of the relative issues. Especially when you can apparently just throw your hands up and say the welfare problem is insurmountable and we are stuck with it, but the extremely minor problem of 'uncontrolled' EU immigration should be the focus.

Kind of like saying that you know the wiring is dangerous in your house and could cause a fire at any moment, but you can't be bothered to fix that. Instead all of your efforts should be focused on trying to catch the couple of mice you are sure are deliberately coming into your house to steal the crumbs on your floor.

I am not saying that this is an argument for uncontrolled immigration, just that I struggle to understand why people are so obsessed with it when there are far bigger problems, unless they have a basic unease about non-British people coming in a 'stealing their jobs and acting all foreign'.

Especially as we already have controls on immigration outside of the EU, so all the examples about Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are irrelevant (and before you counter with arguments that these are not really controls, I personally know of at least two people who have failed to get visas for their foreign-born girlfriends/spouses - which is just as anecdotal and useless a statistic as the examples I am sure you can give me of 15 illegal immigrant Somalis in a single bedroom).

[mattmurdock]

JagLover said:

It is now the most important issue for British Voters and likely to be within the top 3 concerns for the vast majority of the population. If people believe mass migration is so beneficial why are they scared to make the case for it and get a democratic mandate?.

I would be the first to support welfare reform but they are two very different issues to my mind.

We do have limited controls for immigration from outside the EU but they are far too easily bypassed at present.

Again, complete supposition without actually providing the reason why. Are you actually a politician in disguise?

It is the 'most important issue' simply due to the way it has been polled, the mass media focus and the specific areas the question is asked. In amongst my circle of friends and peers I cannot recall a single person saying it is anywhere near the 'top 3' concerns for the country.

Given the success of polling companies in general in actually judging the result/mood of the whole population, I take pretty much any 'survey' result with a large lump of salt.

[mattmurdock]

shoestring7 said:

Rant? Like I said, a refusal to face the facts is the most frustrating this about this debate. All the numbers I've used are on the House of Commons notes #SN06077 on Migration Statistics published this summer, where it clearly states that migration from Eastern Europe has been more than 2 million over the last 12 years of so. BTW that same report show 8m immigrants in total (I assume these are legals) over the same period, some 15% of the population.

SS7

SS7

Have you actually read that standard note? Because I do not think it says what you think it says. Next time you get annoyed by people refusing to face facts, you may want to check the facts you are using.

For example, in the South East, they estimate the population in 2012 to be 8.52 million, with the population of Eastern Europeans (by that I take it you mean the A8 countries) at 137,000 by nationality, or 1.6% of the total. No way near 10% or 15%. Granted, they may all have decided to live where you live.

If you look at net migration, from 2004 (the first year they could legally come) to 2012 a total of 423,000 people from the A8 immigrated to the UK, a far cry from your 2 million figure. Even if you ignore the ones that left again, the total immigration figure from the A8 countries for that period is 723,000. The only way I can make it anywhere near the 2 million figure is to look at the total EU immigration into the UK from 2000 to 2012, which totals 1.77 million. Of course, in the same period 956,000 of them left the UK, so net actual migration was 811,000. Also in the same period, non-EU net migration dwarfed that (some 2.72 million), around half of which came from the Commonwealth countries.

In terms of overall percentage, they say the South East has 11.7% of its population born abroad, made up of 4.4% from the EU (some 372,000 people from the entire EU27) and 7.3% from outside the EU (totaling 626,000 people, although that 7.3% includes people who are now UK citizens, the actual percentage of non-nationals is 3.6% or 309,000 people).

Given the ones from outside the EU would already have gone through a controlled immigration process, I'm not sure it is fair to state that the South East is being overrun by a mass influx of uncontrolled migration.

All this data really shows is the EU migration (the only truly 'uncontrolled' migration) is actually pretty small in the scheme of things.

[mattmurdock]

shoestring7 said:

Ah, so you did read it, and now you're using 3.6% instead of the number you first thought of. As I said in my post, EU immigrants are not spread evenly around, but concentrated so the impact is higher. The town I was talking of has a population of 63,000 and officially (2011 figures) there are 6,000 Poles. Recent police figures show near 20% of arrests in the area of non-UK EU citizens.

SS7

I'm worried you are having comprehension problems. The stats you linked to show A8 (i.e. Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) net migration to the whole of the UK of only 423,000 people, and as at 2012 only 1.6% of the population of the South East were born in the A8 countries, which is 137,000 people.

The 3.6% relates to migrants from OUTSIDE the EU, and represents those people who still retain their birth nationality.

Yes, of the 137,000 'Eastern European' people living in the South East, perhaps 6,000 of the Polish ones decided that the town you are talking about was the best place to live for them. And yes, perhaps this is causing an impact in this particular area. However, that has nothing to do with the claims you made about 2 million and 8 million immigrants and them being 15% of the population, which are demonstrably false statements using the document you claimed as a source.

[mattmurdock]

XJ Flyer said:

So exactly how much Australian,Canadian,or German 'immigration' makes up the figures here.

The document SS7 brought up helpfully tells us this as well.

For the period 2004 to 2012 net migration from the EU15 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Irish Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and the Old Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) was a total of 404,000.

So only 19,000 more people came from the (sic) 'run down slavic states' than came from the countries you seem to admire.

[mattmurdock]

JagLover said:

Where are you getting these numbers from?. It is over 1/2 million from Poland alone (net) as far as I am aware.

From the Commons Library Standard Note #SN06077 which SS7 referenced earlier.

That shows total net migration from the A8 of 423,000 for the period 2004 to 2012, and that only 137,000 were resident in the UK in 2012. I suspect Poland would make up a fair proportion of that number but I don't have any stats to back that up.