It is interesting how the BBC frames the debate on immigration. The Migration Advisory Committee has released a report into the impact of new entrants to the EU in regard to immigration to the UK.
The BBC’s first thought is for the immigrants:
Low-skilled, vulnerable workers are at risk of exploitation because of lax labour checks, a report has warned.
But that is the whole point of importing this labour….it’s cheap and undercuts British workers who would expect a decent wage. But that is an argument the BBC refuses to acknowledge.
The report itself states:
Demand for migrant labour is strongly influenced by institutions and public policies not directly related to immigration. These include, for example, labour market regulation, investment in education and training, and pay levels in some publicly funded low wage jobs. The trade-offs between immigration levels and greater or lower investment in these areas is worthy of fuller discussion.
In other words immigrants get the jobs because government and employers can’t be bothered to invest in British labour.
The BBC goes on:
The MAC report found that, nationally, such migrants had “not had a major impact” on pay, jobs, crime or public services and the wider UK economy over the last 20 years.
I think you copuld dipute all those findings…..the prisons are packed with immigrants and public services are under massive pressure….as the report in fact states and even the BBC alludes to:
But it warned that – at a local level – in areas where migrants in low-skilled jobs were concentrated, authorities had been left “struggling to cope”.
But the BBC doesn’t bother to expand on that as it did with the ‘positives’. The report tells us that:
There needs to be greater recognition of, and support for, the local impact of immigration. The non-UK born population of England and Wales grew by 2.9 million between 2001 and 2011. Three quarters of this rise was in just a quarter of local authorities. Although we show that, nationally, the economic impact of immigration on GDP per head, productivity and prices is very modest, the economic and social impact on particular local authorities is much stronger. This includes pressure on education and health services and on the housing market and potential problems around cohesion, integration and wellbeing
Serious problems no?
Who benefits from immigration?
- Benefits owners of capital
- The biggest gains go to the migrants themselves.
- May complement UK-born skilled workers and some unskilled local workers, enabling them to specialise in more highly paid jobs.
- Migrants are more mobile and flexible than UK-borne. Prepared to change location, live at the workplace and do shift work. This helps grease the wheels of our flexible labour market.
The costs of immigration:
- Causes overall population to rise and the composition of many local area populations to alter rapidly. This may have implications for cohesion and wellbeing but such a possibility needs further investigation.
- Congestion –pressure on health (e.g. maternity services), education (e.g. churning during school year) and transport services.
- Impact on housing market: puts pressure on private rented market; locally problems with houses of multiple occupation; modestly reduces the probability of a native getting social housing –but the main problem here is not more migrants, rather a smaller stock of social housing.
- Small negative impact on the wages of the low paid. This raises issues around compliance and enforcement of e.g. the national minimum wage. Inspection regimes are insufficiently robust and penalties too feeble. An employer can expect a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and a prosecution once in a million years
Note the BBC uses the phrase ‘”not had a major impact” on pay’ whilst the report states that there is a negative, if small impact on wages…a subtle but important difference in emphasis and meaning……’not had a major impact on pay’ is the BBC trying to dodge the issue.
What the report doesn’t tell us is anything of all those immigrants working in the Black market under the radar for even less money but still using the services provided by the State.
Can we trust the MAC? It tells us it relied on desk based research plus some contacts with local authorities and ‘corporate partners’ whatever they are.
It also said they had advise from one Tommaso Frattini...the same Tommaso Frattini who we looked at here along with his work mate Prof Christian Dustmann who advised Labour on its immigration policy….also connected to the BBC’s Mark Easton…..can we expect Frattini to be entirely impartial when he works for the pro-immigration Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration? No.
The BBC, Still Selling Us A Lie On Immigration
Yes, just found this on the site and was thinking the same thing… No sod wants these immigrants here apart from middle-class Lefties and rich kid students and yet the BBC has the nerve to bundle out this crap? I couldn’t care, I just want immigration to stop.
Hear, hear.
Would even the following end E.U/UK political class (inc BBC-NUJ) and on-going campaign to get 80 million Muslim Turks into E.U?:-
“Islamic State: ‘After the jihad of Syria, Turkey will be the next target'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/islamic-state-after-the-jihad-of-syria-turkey-will-be-the-next-target/comment-page-1#comment-1085617
All true, plus also note how the BBC tries to claim the debate is about immigration (not ‘migration’) as though the right was opposed to the idea of scientists and doctors coming to this country. Most people out there aren’t against immigration per se, they’re against open borders. That’s the real issue.
Can you imagine if the BBC talked about drink driving the way they talk about open borders? Every time someone suggested that driving with a bottle of vodka in your blood stream wasn’t a good idea they’d put up some lobbyist to claim that cars were good for the economy overall so you were a crazy bigot if you thought the government should discriminate against guys leaning half out of their wrecked cars puking their guts out.
I disagree. Most people didnt used to be against limited selective immigration, but since in the last decade we have been flooded with foreigners, meaning the ethnic British people are now heading for minority status in our own homeland, then many of us are against all immigration, and just want an end to increasing the numbers of foreigners still further.
If this continues we will effectively lose autonomous democratic control of our homeland. The ethnic interests of foreigners are not consistent with our own.
Unless you’re advocating some kind of totalitarian state – which I’m sure you’re not – then there’s no completely effective way to stem the tide of immigration. Of course I have the distinct feeling that if we were talking about Australians or Americans clamoring at the gates then your opinion might be somewhat different. Now don’t get me wrong; that’s a natural feeling for anyone to have since there is quite a cultural divide between you and the immigrants you’re worried about. But promoting the “us versus them” mentality isn’t going to help. Even if a 500 metre wall was built round the entire island of Great Britain you’d still have an immigration problem. Perhaps its time to face up to the reality of the situation and work on mitigating the fallout instead of whinging on about the plight of “ethnic Britons”. Makes your lot sound like the weakest most pathetic race on the planet when you’re obviously not. So stop the crying and the saber-rattling and start working on a way to get these people integrated. Will some resist? Of course! But if you use that as an excuse then you don’t deserve any respect from anyone, including the immigrants.
Barry wrote:
So stop the crying and the saber-rattling and start working on a way to get these people integrated.
Hindu,Sikhs,Tamils,Poles,French,Germans,Africans have all integrated into the British way of life.
Only one branch of Immigrants haven’t, they not only want to remain separate, they play the ‘Race’ card in which to silence anybody who mentions this.
Want to guess who I am on about?
What rubbish, if the Government wanted to claose the borders they could do so in days, and would. And yes if millions of Australians and Americans were moving here I would wish to stop them too, although of course they could be integrated more easily which would go some way to mitigating the problem, so stop blathering on with your insinuations of ‘racism’, in an attempt at mud slinging.
You pro immigrationists have tried that too often and more and more of us can see through it!
Agree. I do not want any more of any sort either. We can hardly cope now. Doctors’ appointments weeks hence, overcrowded prisons, schools filled to brimming, housing (rabbit hutches by the thousand), threats of power cuts, ‘just about coping’ water supplies (the next really hot summer should be interesting), not to mention the growing social unrest as various cultures are unnaturally squeezed in together.
A national discussion on this state of affairs is long overdue without all the racist, nazi, bigot name calling.
Sigh….come on then Barry R, stop slagging us off and give us some ideas…..you can’t, can you….git.
The jihad sisters: Bubbly and exceptionally bright, these twins with 28 GCSEs were set to train as doctors. Now they’re in Syria ‘training to be killers’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2686684/The-jihad-sisters-Bubbly-exceptionally-bright-twins-28-GCSEs-set-train-doctors-Now-theyre-Syria-training-killers.html#ixzz376ZMiMvc
The girls’ devoutly Muslim Somali refugee parents and their 11 children.
Not one but 5 clues, when taken together, these people should never have been allowed anywhere near the West.
1. Devoutly
2. Muslim
3. Somali
4. Refugee
5. 11 children.
No doubt it is deemed “racist” to feel horrified at the idea of large numbers of Somali and similar immigrant families having 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more children. A demographic timebomb.
… and a huge cost for NHS, education, housing and other welfare services plus umpteen benefits – impossible to be supported by the “contribution” of the immigrant. The mainstream political parties can see the impact of all this not just at national level but also in the council areas which they have been administering. The impact on primary schools, for example. But they stood idly by, made no protests – and they still stand idly by, quite happy to shell out our money in every direction but without calling attention to the long-term economic, social and cultural implications of all this folly.
BBC-NUJ’s fundamental political bias for continuing mass immigration into U.K derives from its trade union policy on this crucial issue.
In basic terms, BBC-NUJ opposes:-
1.) any upper limit to numbers of immigrants allowed into U.K.
In fact, Beeboids, in general, don’t like to talk numbers on immigration, which they regard as wrongly discriminatory.
2.) Beeboids presume that unlimited mass immigration from Asia, Africa, etc, provides cultural positives to British indigenous people, not negatives; so British people are subject to one-way propaganda on this, presented from immigrants’ viewpoint.
3.) the economic costs of mass immigration are relegated by Beeboids; the negative impact on poorer white indigenous people, in terms of income and unemployment, is inclined to be ignored.
Some nebulous, non-existent utopian ‘diversity’ is Director HALL’s mantra, by which Britain is being rapidly colonised.
4.) none of political parties Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, have explicitly stated, in their General Election Manifestos, that they will pursue and enable irreversible, open-door mass immigration ‘policies’. Yet BBC-NUJ does not question this lack of real democracy on this vital issue.
Is it just me or does on screen and radio BBC ‘talent’ seem an immigrant free zone (excluding of course our close cousins the Southern Irish).
Surely the BBC isn’t discriminating? But can you name an East European news reader? Maybe the BBC’s tastes aren’t catholic enough?
What nonsense. The BBC is doing its utmost to showcase foreigners! Almost every ‘expert’ it interviews is a foreigner. Unfunny minority ethnic ‘comedians’ are given airtime. BBC radio drama features foreigners in it seems every other production.
As for Eastern European newsreaders it cannot be long now! I dont know why you think they ought to be ‘represented’. Surely the one requirement of a newsreader is that they read in a clear accent free voice?
Front-page, ‘Daily Express’, Wednesday-
“Migrants DO take our jobs: Britons losing out to foreign workers, says offical study.
“Britons are losing out to foreign workers with one in six low-skilled jobs now held by an immigrant.”
By Amil Dawar.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/487645/Migrants-take-British-workers-jobs-says-official-study
The BBC always covers up reports such as this or pulls out an opposing report from their army of lefty liberal sociologist researchers. They are a disgrace!
Reporter’s name a bit ironic…..or maybe not the whole world can be British now.
I am waiting for Alan Sugar’s side kicks trailled programme re immigration. Well actually I am not because I can guess their conclusions. But common sense says that 2 million people need schools, hospitals, police, roads, fire engines etc wherever they are from ( including the UK) and if they are poor then somebody else has to pay for the infrastructure. Not difficult really.
The facts are facts. I am retired and have been working part time for a big company for many years.
When I started, before Eastern European countries were admitted, I was earning £2/hour over the minimum wage. Once the East European labour was available the employer started dragging their heals about pay reviews until eventually we were on minimum wage and all perks withdrawn even down to bringing our own hot beverages to work.
The standard reply is always if you don’t like the pay or conditions there are plenty of Poles or others that are very willing to do the work you do, so you know where the door is. Right now I am £200/month poorer.
I was recommended this web site by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as
nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty.
You’re wonderful! Thanks!
Hmm it looks like your site ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say,
I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still
new to the whole thing. Do you have any tips for rookie blog
writers? I’d certainly appreciate it.
Ça va?…my first tip would be don’t comment under a comment that is also in French with accents and similar words in the name as your own: we might – just might – think you were connected…