Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011
If you’ve been listening to the radio you may have heard the BBC telling us that ‘immigration’, not just EU immigration, has benefited this country as ‘immigrants’ pay more in tax than they take in benefits.
Recent immigrants to UK ‘make net contribution’
Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a “substantial” contribution to public finances, a report says.
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
The authors said rather than being a “drain”, their contribution had been “remarkably strong”.
The trouble is ‘immigration’ as a whole does not benefit us….but that fact is missing from the BBC reports.
The source for these ‘facts’ is the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, funded partly by the European Union…..and staffed by mainly immigrants:
In 2007 this is what they were telling us:
Policy formation is likely to be influenced by the subjective opinion of domestic residents. This creates a dilemma for policy: while liberal immigration policies may benefit the industrial society, these may be difficult to implement due to public antipathy.
Understanding the process of attitude formation and how it works through the media is essential to an appropriate policy response.
That good old ‘Manufacturing of Consent’.
The BBC is happy to oblige, trying to persuade us that immigration benefits us….they do that by missing out essential facts…as does the CRAM.
This is what we are told:
The net fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts therefore to a positive net contribution of about 25 billion GBP.
Unfortunately that isn’t so……hidden on page 41 we get the real figures…..
1995-2011 Non EU immigrants cost £104 billion
2001-2011 Non EU immigrants cost £87 billion
Now subtract a positive £25 billion from a cost of £87 billion and I make that a total cost of £62 billion.
Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011
And that doesn’t include all the costs of course.
Take a look at the ‘research’ for yourself.
It’s fairly opaque in style and is impossible for most people to check their sources and conclusions.
But wander through it and cherry pick things that catch your eye and some of these might be of interest and raise a few questions:
The first point is that that whacking great loss isn’t quantified in the body of the text…you have to dig for it yourself….which raises the question as to why?
Fair comparison?
A major point is that immigrants don’t have all the costs put onto them that the natives do…..things that would be paid for whether or not immigrants were here, ‘pure’ public goods, such as defence, roads, the Civil Service and Government etc, are left out….but such costs are included for the natives when comparing expenditure by government on them and taxes paid…hardly a fair comparison…..
We assign the cost of all these “pure” public goods only to natives, meaning that the expenditure column represents the cost of pure public goods that natives would have to bear in the absence of any immigrant population.
Wages
The report says by ratio immigrants are better educated than natives but….
These stark educational differences between immigrants and natives are not, however, reflected by wage differences, as we show in Table 2a: the median wages of natives and non-EEA immigrants are nearly the same, while the median wages for EEA immigrants are substantially below those of natives, by about 15% in 2011
Hang on…..immigrants apparently pay more taxes and yet they earn less than the natives?
Employment
Whilst EU immigrants are apparently slightly more likely to have a job by percentage than the natives, non-EU immigrants are far less likely:
Since the mid-2000s, employment rates have also been slightly higher for EEA immigrants than for natives, 75% versus 70% in 2011(see Table 2b). The employment rate of non-EEAs, on the other hand, is substantially lower in all years, only 62% in 2011
But all those unemployed….25% of EU and 38% of non-EU immigrants will be claiming benefits or costing us in some shape or form.
Housing
The report tells us:
‘…recent immigrants overall are over 3 percentage points less likely to live in social housing than natives
Recent non-EEA immigrants, in contrast, are 2.6 percentage points more likely than natives to live in social housing.‘
Hmmm….2/3rds of immigrants are non-EU…..so 2/3rds of immigrants are 2.6% more likely to be in social housing than natives…..
…and yet the report says that overall, immigrants are 3% less likely to be in social housing.
I don’t know about you but I find those figures, em, confusing.
And what isn’t quantified is the cost of all those immigrants filling up the housing stock
Some more doubtful figures
Between 2007 and 2011, recent EEA immigrants made a net contribution of 15.2billion GBP (expressed in 2011 equivalency) to UK public finances, which amounts to an annual average of 2,610 GBP per capita over the 5-year period. Over the same time frame, the annual net fiscal cost of UK natives amounted to about 1,900 GBP per capita and the net fiscal cost of recent non-EEA immigrants to about 332 GBP per capita.
So EU immigrants contributed £2,610 each to the economy whilst a British native cost £1,900 over and above taxes paid annually….that’s around £100 billion annually (based on a population of 60 million).
Of course they did.
The trouble is that not all the costs of immigration are taken into account….housing for a start…the massive house inflation and subsequent lack of housing, NHS, the schools costs, the roads and maintenance of those, the policing, judicial and prison systems, cost of unemployment of natives unable to get a job etc.
In 2007 they recognised such costs were relevant, not just financial but social, political and religious….
Over the years labour migration has been important for economic growth and contributed to economic prosperity in Germany and the UK. It remains a crucial issue (economically and politically) and is one whereby economies can remedy unforeseen skill gaps which may otherwise have detrimental effects on the competitiveness of industry.
However, although migration can offer benefits by leading to relief of skill shortages, it may also adversely affect labour market prospects of resident workers, put additional strain on the welfare system, lead to an increase in criminal activity, or otherwise unfavourably affect social cohesion (see Dustmann and Glitz 2005 and Dustman et al. 2005 for discussion). While the primary motivation for allowing immigration is because of temporary labour market demands, migrants and their children tend to remain in the receiving economy long after labour market conditions have changed. All this may lead to questions whether the possibly short term benefits from immigration may be outweighed by other consequences.
I don’t know about you but I find the ‘research’ from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration less than convincing on my quick overview and the BBC’s reporting highly partisan and clearly designed to emphasise apparent benefits of immigration whilst hiding the negative.
You have to believe the figures and the interpretation put on them by the researchers to believe that overall EU immigrants benefit the economy.
I don’t believe the CRAM is independent and I believe it starts off from the point of view that immigration is beneficial and has been looking for facts to prove that….its hiding of the costs of non-EU immigration might suggest that attitude on their part.
It has got to the stage when I don’t attempt to parse these so-called research papers in the way you have done. They are lying to us. They have been doing it for years, and the BBC is their willing mouthpiece. No-one should fall for these lies anymore, it is far too late for that. But even if it were true, and these immigrants, which the British people never wanted, add marginally to GDP, so what? What does a notional increase in GDP mean if you lose your country in the process?
Like you – as soon as I heard the full-blast BBC publicity start this morning for this “study” I thought “Here we go, another basket of lies and half-truths”. No need to parse it – if the BBC is pushing it, it fits their agenda.
Sir Andrew Green had a minute or two at the end of the Today programme to demolish it. That was all he needed.
You are right. It was blasted as the top article at 6am this morning on BBC news. ( Yes I’m one of those stupid div’s, like may others, who gets up at the early hours to pay my TV license and taxes to be insulted by my National TV service and successive governments’)
I also thought “here we go they’re selling immigration again”.
I wonder if the Bollinger Brainwashing Corporation would be so “loud and vocal” if the report was negative?
The trouble is, with 70% of news and current affairs coverage, the BBC have got it in the bag and nobody has the will to stop them. The only hope is for sites like this (and some newspapers which are finally waking up, thank God) to keep chipping away at public ‘trust’ of this arrogant, lying, undemocratic, overpaid, privileged bastion of leftist anti-British propaganda.
http://www.trendingcentral.com/bbc-left-wing-bias-reports-guardian-poll/
You are absolutely right. Well said.
P Green didn’t laugh and shout Boll–ks, but not far off
😀 … 2hrs 33.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b03g9l7x/
The whole amalgamation of ‘immigrants’ into one coherent whole is in itself a corruption. Putting a Somali Al-Shabab veteran into one single dataset along with an Indian neurosurgeon and Canadian waitress is, of course, utter bollocks and prevents any meaningful conclusion being drawn.
So two left wing academics ,employed by the country’s premiere ‘visa factory’ ( tommaso frattini has subsequently moved to the university of Milan) One Italian one German ,both of whom previously sucked at the EU teat
(look on the web its all there) pen a report for the employer that maintains the fiction that immigration has financially benefited the UK (in some vague way)
Yep I’m convinced
Luckily most aren’t fooled, look at the comments beneath the BBC article and you have to go a loooong way down the highest rated to get any fool believing their shite…unless of course you look at the editors picks!
The page is already closed for comments
Most comments, if not all of them from what I read, said that they (us) as an electorate, had not been consulted about mass immigration from any of the main parties responsible. And they, the electorate, didn’t give a damn about the supposed benefits that immigration brought they felt marginalised in their own country.
I’m getting a feeling that the Beeb will stop ‘comments’ on Immigration related articles because the angry response from the public is making them look completely out of touch. People are also accusing the Beeb for selling immigration rather than reporting.
The BBC looked pretty stupid today I think. Almost desperate to sell us immigration and the viewers are noticing it. But thankfully they aren’t buying it.
There’s real anger from the public too. Its about time. I’d enjoy the BBC’s embarrassment in another context unfortunately this matter is far too important for this country to find any amusement.
‘the angry response from the public is making them look completely out of touch.’
The last time they were ‘in touch’ probably involved a camper van in the carpark. Moving on, Tone-styly…
‘People are also accusing the Beeb for selling immigration rather than reporting.’
The previous comment refers also to a previous time, when there may have been a slim chance of some reporting at the BBC. Though not of carpark activities, obviously.
‘The BBC looked pretty stupid today’
It’s a 24/7, 365/365 operation. I mean it’s on air, but all school holidays of course there’s barely anyone above ‘Bend over’ paygrade twiddling knobs or reading out teleprompters.
Seems to be a classic 9 to 5 BBC job.
Yet still garnered 1822 before they panicked at the thought of what a working population getting home may start to contribute.
I would have been 1823!
It was longer than 9-5…I was up at 6:15…bam, there it was…when I was driving home from work…bam….there it was, top story still….when I got out of the car 40 miles later…bam…still there.
Well allan, you wont have many hours to wait for the nightshift at albeeba to begin and Dez to rise from his pit.
Having thrown a tantrum at pounce already, I’m sure he’ll be right along to attempt to rubbish what you say.
I suspect he won’t be able to, but he will still be very self satisfied. Why? Well, the objective of albeeba has been achieved. The mass of reality tv watching people in the country have already swallowed all that bullshit that appears in their top-of-the news bulletins.
It has been said that albeeba employs over 140 PR people, I wonder how many of them get forced to prove their worth lurking around in here.
i s d e z a t r o l l o h y e s i a m s u r e
Is this what the BBC means when they say that immigration is benefiting the UK?
Taxpayers foot £10,000 bill for failed asylum seeker’s flying lessons
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10426604/Taxpayers-foot-10000-bill-for-failed-asylum-seekers-flying-lessons.html
How long before he comes flying through a skyscraper?
Eastern Europeans do the jobs that Labour voters and turd-world immigrants simply aren’t intelligent enough to do. Such as cleaning toilets and wiping old people’s arses.
Had this study come to any other conclusion this story would have barely received any attention by the BBC. It may have been given a brief airing but there would have been a trio of lefties on hand to discredit it. The findings would be deemed “controversial” and we would be told the research group were right wing. Absolutely anything to do with immigration is filtered through a politically correct prism before it’s allowed anywhere near Joe Public.
I mean, we wouldn’t want the proles thinking for themselves would we?
So in 2007, the CRAM said ‘However, although migration can offer benefits by leading to relief of skill shortages, it may also adversely affect labour market prospects of resident workers, put additional strain on the welfare system, lead to an increase in criminal activity, or otherwise unfavourably affect social cohesion.’
Fuck me, with foresight like that they can do my Lotto numbers any time.
Excellent research by Alan, doing the job the BBC should be doing.
Doug Carswell does a good demolition here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100244371/why-the-experts-are-wrong-about-immigration/
Aparently the study incorrectly credits immigrants with payment of corporation taxes mostly paid by large companies. It also fails to correctly account for the working tax credits paid to low-wage immigrants.
So basically, as with any report by pro-immigration groups, the devil is in the detail and you have to keep your eye on the pea under the thimble at all times.
Needless to the BBC showed agin their complete pro-immigration bias by trumpeting this report as their headline news item without any attempt at fact checking. And of course, a similar report which reached the opposite conclusion wouldn’t be reported atall.
75% of mass immigration since 1997 when new labour open the floodgates was from south east asia and africa and just to add this was mainly third world muslim immigrants from these countrys,25 % was from e.u countrys and just to add mainly immigrants from the christian faith,now this is where ukip are getting it wrong,they ignore the base mass immigration from third world countrys but bang on about all the time about e.u immigration which on the whole i have no problem with,the question that has never been asked by the bbc and radio 5 live is this.since 1997 what type of immigration has brought misery and upset to this country in terms of terrorism,crime,murder,paedophile rings etc..e.u immigration or third world immigration,we all know the answer to that on street level in the citys and towns up and down this country that have been turned into hellholes of terrorism,mosques of hate and paedophilia.murder etc.
The BBC just don’t give up, do they? I was listening to the radio this morning when I heard that piece start: I turned off.
Nobody who isn’t a complete fool or just wilfully ignorant can seriously believe that further immigration into this massively over-crowded archipelago at a time of mass-unemployment and when fossil fuels are getting increasingly hard to find is a good thing.
Besides, land is wealth. We forget that because we are blinded by the trinkets of industrial society. But it is an immutable and eternal fact and land is something we don’t have much of. Whenever an immigrant comes in he or she changes the population density – the ratio between land and people – incrementally for the worse and the country gets poorer. It won’t show up in the figures, though.
I can’t possibly comment on this report until I read what the “studiously impartial” Mark Easton has to say on the subject.
It is time to refuse to debate this matter of immigration in financial cost/benefit terms.
Pointless. It plays into the liberal’s hands.
The debate is simple. Why were we, the indigenous people of England never consulted?
We built and fought for this land generation upon generation. And we have made our mark upon the world.
Why have the numbers involved been unprecedented in our long history. ?
Why does the liberal lie when he says we are a nation created by immigrants over the last 1000 years?
Why is our capital city being deserted by the English?
Why is that city increasingly regarded as not part of England by many shire people?
Why do the liberals hate the ethnic English so much?
What happens in twenty years time particularly in the cities when the English have gone and the people have changed. ?
Change the people change the nation.
Or parts of it and thereby is the problem.
But liberals never think further than immediate gratification of their desires. In every way you can think of.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2487433/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-When-did-poppy-burka.html
Technically as we were never given the choice on the unfettered mass immigration without proper checks, could someone who was a victim of one of these immigrant crimes (grooming/terrorism/etc) take legal action against the Home Secretary personally who was in office at the time the perpetrator was admitted to the UK? There would surely be grounds that the proper checks had not taken place. Perhaps someone with some legal nuance could comment?
People vote for a government based on what is in the Parties Political Manifesto. Good government couldnt run if they were bound by what is or what is not in that document. Its a statement of intent rather than a legally binding document
For example, if it did not mention anything about healthcare, and the government wanted to increase or decrease spending, and it wasnt in the manifesto,and the public didnt agree with the reasoning for the increase/decrease, the only recourse is for the electorate to vote them out at the next election
Whilst it would be better if immigration did pay its way, rather than cost us a fortune as it actually does, it still wouldn’t make up for the lack of any democratic process in the decisions that allowed it to happen.
If the BBC were the fair and impartial organisation that it is supposed to be as per its charter, long since abandoned of course, it should have been asking what democratic mandate any party had for introducing millions of aliens into our country.
In the end the lack of a democratic process on such a major decision, which will affect the country for ever, will be the cause of endless friction. I just hope that everyone remembers that the BBC lied to us for decades about the whole sorry saga and that the British public vent their anger on those who engineered this awful experiment and those who were cheer leaders for them.
I am hoping that the BBC’s lies and bias on all this will prove to be a prime reason for its downfall – most of the public are already sick of it all.
The report’s author is one Christian Dustmann. He was the economist who predicted that opening UK borders to 10 new EU countries in 2004 would increase the population by 13,000 a year.
Not that the BBC’s deputy chief diversity churnalist Danny Shaw could have told us that.
He does the graveyard slot on Today as Mark Easton doesn’t come in until 8am.
A cursory look at both the authors’ CVs shows that both are clearly involved in implementing the EU’s “Freedom of movement” ideal as they have worked in several European countries.
The BBC stands for the British Balkanisation Corporation doesn’t it?
New Labour stands for…erh… Scum. And I say that as a disgusted and ashamed ex-party member. They were the party, as we know who, gerrymandered constituencies using the time-bomb of mass immigration. Why no Panorama investigation? Well that’s bloody obvious…
By the way I wrote to my old party 6 months ago with a very polite email (seriously it WAS polite) questioning racist comments made by Diane Abbot, (anti-Jewish) Lord Ahmed and also (anti-English) Jack Straw. They promised to email me back. Of course they haven’t.
And another thing…..no one to my knowledge has had a go at the Union movement over their silence on immigration. I f the Tories had instigated such a policy, imagine the uproar and unrest they would cause, moaning about jobs being taken from the British. Instead, silence……nothing…….They along with Labour, Business and most Tories have welcomed this dreadful plague that has visited us.
Good analysis, but without even looking at a single manufactured statistic I can tell you that for every immigrant who comes to the UK and finds work, the UK taxpayer is clearly going to have to fund a British person who is now on the dole. No mention of that in their report, I bet!!
This is such a simple truth yet is always ignored; not only the job either: the unemployed Brit and the working immigrant (either with family r not) also are a cost burden on all services, things that are almost never taken into account.