Immigration of no benefit to the UK

This morning, BBC news bulletins led with the findings of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, that record levels of immigration have had little or no impact on the economic well being of Britain's resident population. This comes as no surprise, given that the government's figures were based on spurious assumptions. The findings of this report were hinted at in a submission to the Committee by a number of government departments last year.   

There is some more interesting stuff in the report though.

In the short term, immigration creates winners and losers in economic terms. The biggest winners include immigrants and their employers in the UK.....

The losers are likely to include those employed in low-paid jobs and directly competing with new immigrant workers. This group includes some ethnic minorities and a significant share of immigrants already working in the UK.

Although clearly benefiting employers, immigration that is in the best interest of individual employers is not always in the best interest of the economy as a whole.

In other words, the rich benefit and the poor pick up the costs, both economic and social.

The Committee also noted that, while incomers from from the new EU countries of eastern Europe accounted for one third of migrants since 2004, before that, the majority had come from Africa and Asia.

This table shows the share of immigrants in the working age population (aged 16-64) by country of birth. 

 

These figures are a couple of years old but they show that the majority of migrants in the labour force are from countries outside the EU, with Africa and Asia being the most common areas of origin.

The report also noted:

Return migration is significant for immigrants from the EU, the Americas and Australia and New Zealand. In contrast, it is much less pronounced for immigrants from the Indian sub-continent and from Africa.

In other words, Asians and Africans stick around while most of the eastern Europeans disappear once the work is done. The desperate state of some Africans' and Asians' countries of origin and the fact that, once allowed to settle, they can claim benefits that the Poles can't, probably accounts for some of the difference in these levels of return migration.

There is already evidence that migration from eastern Europe has passed its high-water mark. As the economies of Poland and its neighbours improve relative to that of the UK, many workers from these countries are going home.  Over the next few years, migration might revert to the pre-2004 pattern, where most immigrants come from outside Europe.

In one sense, though, Polish migration has left a long-term benefit. Because the eastern Europeans are white and some of the people who resent their presence are black or brown, they have made the discussion of immigration acceptable in polite circles again. That has created the climate in which reports like that of the Committee on Economic Affairs can be commissioned and published.

Comments

[Les Bean]

The benefit isn't nil, it's strongly negative:

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/29/nimm129.xml

Our criminal government wants to elect a new people and they're well on their way to succeeding.

[MJW]

Those who have conveniently ignored the past criticism of immigration on the grounds of serious economic analysis are now saying that such analysis is now irrelevant because they pre-date the new points based system.

[Letters From A Tory]

Gordon Brown still ignored the findings and made a pathetic attempt to defend such ridiculously high levels of immigration.

[Black Sheep]

Ahh, the BBC, (read The Current Government) has finally begun to admit that all that excessive immigration is bad stuff.

Next question is, why does anyone still listen to them at all? Talk about your government organ, propaganda machine rags.

[chachi]

"...had little or no impact on the economic well being of Britain's resident population."

Guy's, learn to read properly & realise what the sentence actually means, the report is correct, but your comparing todays immigration with the immigration of the 1950's, both are totally different cases, back then britain & the west's industries were booming, immigrants were allowed in to take up all the labour jobs/menial jobs left behind by the locals who had taken up new higher paid job created by the growing economy & hence immigration allowed many locals to become better off.
Today, it's another story, the far east is rising quickly & the west is slowly sinking, with rising energy costs the future here doesn't look so bright while the east can afford to pay the higher cost as they take up all the work that leaves the west, improving they're economies, hence todays immigration is by no means to improve the lives of the locals but to keep the country running & slow the rate of decline of western economies. America accepts this, by not effectively enforcing its border with mexico, they know they need them despite all the outcry about illegal aliens by it's citizens.

This country & others were built on wealth stolen from the empire, without the empire the living standards of western nations are unsustainable & it was only a matter of time before this was realised as it now is.
Its only down hill from here now lads, the hill maybe high but it's not very steep, without mass immration it would be like free falling off the edge of a cliff.

[Dave]

You are ofcourse wrong chachi, the British empire was built from the industrial revolution which was powered by British coal.

The other reason for the wealth is because we escaped the Malthusian trap which China and India didn't until recently and Africa still hasn't.

[Steve T]

Chachi, you are totally wrong. Every colony made a loss including India. By the time of the Indian mutiny the British government was giving large hand outs to the East Indian every year just to keep it afloat. As Dave said it was the industrial revolution that paid for the empire not the other way around. The one colony that the empire made money from big time was the USA, where we keep the trade but lost the cost of running the place.

It's also interesting how people talk about attracting inward investment, isn't this what the British Empire was doing to the colonies, investing in mines, plantations, bringing jobs, law and order?

Perhaps you should compare the British in India to the Moghuls. Both foreign, but one leading to the death of an estimated 16 - 100 million deaths (estimated number of Hindus killed by the Muslims)and a stagnant civilization, the other in comparison a very peaceful take over leading to a vibrant unified country. Apart from the corrupt, failing muslim side states.

[Les Bean]

Chachi and countless other ethnics justify their criminality by telling themselves that they're only taking back what's theirs. Not happy with wrecking their own nations, they want to wreck ours too -- and will, if we let them.

[chachi]

OMG!, so britain & the rest of europe colonised & enslaved other nations so the could 'help them', by investing'coal money' into building their infrastructure so that they could eventually be forced out making a huge losses yet still be the richest most powerful nations on the planet... how amazing! i never new coal to be so precious, i mean that diamond the queen posseses was a piece of british coal handed to her majesty by superman after he'd squeezed it into a gem, it couldn't have been stolen from india where it was known as the kohinoor which was special to the sikhs, all the other gems & precious metals weren't stolen by the europeans, they just happened to dissapear while they were there, & by coincidence the british vaults just got filled with gold, the clever british, seem to be able to make everything out of coal.

What a bunch of gullible fools you are, those colonies were managed by the europeans but worked by extremely low paid natives, india wasn't a desert but a highly productive land, combined with cheap labout you'd have to be a fool to belive the 'cooked' documents you base your bullshit justifications on.

Britain, the US & most other european nations made their wealth from theft & exploitation of those they colonised, enslaving hundreds of millions of Africans & working/torturing most of them to very early deaths not to mention it's paticipation in the intenational drugs trade, that was ofcoarse before drugs reached european soils 7 became illegal, it's alright to producedrugs in the colonies & sell to other nations but we can't have 'our own people' using it now can we?

Oh yeah, i nearly forgot, COAL, GLORIOUS COAL, did make you some money, pocket change in comparison but hey wonder why you didn't enslave superman, could have built cities with diamond bricks then.
You bunch of clowns, the most important thing coal did for the west was enable you to afford the ships you built to kick start your oversea adventures, it wasn't america which was profitable, it was the african slaves that were making all the profit for your nations which used it to industrialise the homelands.

As for les bean's remark on my support for criminal activity, he's almost completely right, almost all wealth is based on past or current criminal activity, just because it wasn't considered a crime in britain to enslave or exploit other people of the world, doesn't make it alright, it's still criminal morally, hence the law has no meaning to me unless they agree with my morals. Therefore i support any community who tries to improve its position in any nation whether it be hard work or financial crime so long as they put the wealth to productive use rather than on flash cars etc, which is the only criticism i have of black criminals i.e the lack of support of each other, but then the cause has its roots in european history.

The difference between you & me is that you believe that the wests past crimes against humanity should be forgotten, it's current & ongoing crimes be & all the wealth it accumilated & still accumilating be ignored & any financial crime against the west be stopped.
Mate, the world doesn't work like that, i'm not as naive as you, nor do i have a superiority complex, i believe in karma & i believe that the west owes centuries of back taxes & exploitation..... it's only fair!
P.S i don't agree with drug dealing, profiteering from prostitution or conning working class people, but hey, some people are cunts & lifes a bitch! & shit happens, but you guys should know all about being theiving, raping, murderous cunts.

[Richard]

Chaachi,
how did the West manage all this? How come you and yours could not defeat the white man? What kind of cunt does that make you?

If your 'people' were so fucking advanced how come the British ruled India when they were only a tiny percentage of the population?

Not all wealth is based on crime or theft. People from all countries have invented things and quite rightly got rewards for it.

Karma, what the fuck is that, a fancy name for a cargo cult?

[AgainsTTheWall]

Blimey chachi lost your sense of humour there old chum! You and I both know that India can once again become the Paradise it was before the Europeans despoiled it. I have a similar sort of wish for Britain.

[Richard]

@Richard - any country can be taken advantage of when they are weak, ask yourself why britain didn't conquer the moghul empire before then, why?.. because you had no chance, but all thing come to an end. In the case of india, a largely hindu nation was being controlled by the moghuls who were muslims, hence it wasn't hard for someone to come along & disrupt things for the minority rulers especially once they had become foolish enough to allow the british to get to close to them. As soon as the citizens of india started to rebel against the british treatment the british realised that it was only a matter of time before they'd loose control & face a rebellion they could never take on & win, this goes for every european nation except for germany, a nation who almost conquered europe by military means even though it faced over 10 nations including the USSR & the almighty Great Britain, my point here is to show you how insignificant britain is in terms of military power, germany against britain one on one, britain would be taken in a couple of days. Most europeans are sly & scheming, they conquered by divide & rule, it's legacy of which you see today.

@AgainsTTheWall - Your right about India, its future looks very bright, britain on the other hand...well...keep wishing mate, it's all downhill from here for the west.

[Black Sheep]

Civilizations rise, civilizations fall. In my own lifetime I've seen entire nations disappear and new ones come into existence. I've seen the United States go from being a modest player to become the Number One Superpower. My grandparents saw the fall of the British Empire.

What world will your grandchildren see in their lifetimes? It all passes and changes over time yet we keep on fighting to keep things as they are, without success.

No one ever wins at at this. Battles are fought, misery and death are inflicted, nations are destroyed, and then the destroyers themselves are conquered or simply fall apart. No one learns from history.

It's a good thing that most of us are stupid sheep. Imagine how it would be if we all wanted to rule the world at the same time.

[chachi]

second comment up:

posted by chachi - not richard

[Steve T]

The British went to India, for example, to trade, thats how the empire made it's money. It didn't ship massive armies around the globe in small wooden boats. In military technology terms, there was very little difference between India's and Britain's at that time. The EIC was pushed into taking sides in the endemic wars that were racking India in the breakdown of the Moghuls empire. It was just more successful than the other minor players at the time. The one thing that Chachi gets right is that India could not have been held with out the consent of the majority of the people, a consent that was largely in place at least until WW1, at which stage the process for Indian unification/independence was started, albeit in fits and starts.

Britain left the Empire behind because it was a huge loss maker, it wasn't forced out of anywhere.

Chachi if you are really interested look at the British Empires balance and investment books for say 1914. what you will find is that every colony (with the possible exception of Canada) were loss markers. The main source of foreign income was the USA , which was also the main place the Empire invested it's funds. The world wars saw off those investments, the empire could no longer be afforded and was certainly not worth fighting for, really more a question of how quickly we could get out.

You may also wish to look at the amount of money the British spent on preventing anyone else from picking up the slave trade after Britain stopped it. The African nations of the day were still very happy to sell people, the British spent a huge amount of money patrolling the coasts of Africa, to prevent them from doing so.

[Les Bean]

Chachi's a perfect example of why immigration by non-whites is bad. He's in a country that gives him a far better life than he'd get back in Bangladesh and he still hates us. If a non-white group fails here, like his, it blames whites and seeks to import more of its members; if a non-white group succeeds here, it congratulates itself and seeks to import more of its members. In neither case is the group beneficial to us or to the country as a whole.