Migrants 'bring more benefits than costs' to Britain

[JAG]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=649005



Migrants 'bring more benefits than costs' to Britain
By Ian Herbert

23 June 2005

Too many negative myths and misperceptions exist about the world's migrant population, which contributes substantially more in taxes than it receives in benefits in countries such as Britain, the 2005 World Migration Report says.

The report, produced by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), based in Geneva, says the perceptions that migrants cause job losses, lower wages and increase welfare costs are exaggerated and often wrong.

"We are living in an increasingly globalised world that can no longer depend on domestic labour markets alone," said the report's editor-in-chief, Irena Omalaniuk. "If managed properly, migration can bring more benefits than costs."

The IOM cites a British report showing that between 1999 and 2000 migrants in the UK contributed $4bn (£2.1bn) more in taxes than they received in benefits.

An increasing number of migrants are moving temporarily - rather than permanently - so there is potential for "brain circulation" or "brain gain", rather than "brain drain". Contrary to the perception that migrants take jobs from local workers, the report says that they tend to fill spaces at the poles of the labour market - working both in low-skilled, high-risk jobs and highly skilled, well-paid employment. They also make a significant contribution to the economies of their home states, the report says, with returning cash flows sometimes exceeding official development aid.

Morocco received a total of $2.87bn (£1.57bn), or 8 per cent of its gross domestic product, from money sent home by migrant workers in 2002 and remittances sent to the Philippines accounted for almost 10 per cent of its gross domestic product.

The report goes to great lengths to challenge the perception that migration is somehow "out of control". Roughly 175 million people were migrants in 2000, a figure which is now closer to 190 million. "It is not a large and dramatic growth," said Ms Omalaniuk.

Although the number of Asian migrants has increased, the continent's share of the global number of migrants has decreased from nearly 35 per cent in 1970 to 25 per cent in 2000. Instead, more and more Asians are finding job opportunities within Asia.

The report notes that the number of international migrants have decreased in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Oceania. Only North America and the former Soviet Union have seen a sharp increase in migration.

The IOM says that migrants make up less than 3 per cent of the global population and that almost half of all migrants are women. Its report lists the United States, Russia, and Germany as the top three migrant-receiving countries. The top three sending countries are China, India, and the Philippines.

Ms Omalaniuk says that, for several reasons, Africans will continue to seek to migrate to other regions. The reasons include high population growth, high incidence of HIV/Aids, deteriorating education and health systems and armed conflict.

"The African Union has placed the diaspora at the centre of its vision and strategic plan for the years 2004 to 2007," said Ms Omalaniuk. "There is a lot of importance being placed on how African emigrants in other countries can be of use for the development of their country."

Is it not time we stop the immigrant witch hunt?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it not time we stop the immigrant witch hunt?

You have one going on over there? Thank god we dont have that problem. Our problems are real.

[JAG]

Yep we have had a witch hunt for the past few years, mainly fulled by the Conservatives trying to exploit, literally, the only issue they are ahead of Labour in terms of policy on and the right wing press doing its normal pure hate for anyone different.

Our right over here for some reason or other hates the very thought of people moving here, settling and contributing to society, why still baffles me from time to time. Even though the same groups of people would be the first to declare the right of British people to settle elsewhere in the EU if they wanted... Madness.

[Duke Malcolm]

It's all in JAG's imagination. I don't see how immigrants don't cause job losses. More of them come here, taking jobs. These jobs would have otherwise gone to other people, citizens and that ilk. Immigrants may not drain money, but asylum seekers do. They have to be given somewhere to stay while their application is pondered over, they cannot work for quite some time after they are granted asylum, living solely off of benefits...

[JAG]

HA! See! This is great.

Fib #1


I don't see how immigrants don't cause job losses. More of them come here, taking jobs. These jobs would have otherwise gone to other people, citizens and that ilk.

Did you read what I posted?


An increasing number of migrants are moving temporarily - rather than permanently - so there is potential for "brain circulation" or "brain gain", rather than "brain drain". Contrary to the perception that migrants take jobs from local workers, the report says that they tend to fill spaces at the poles of the labour market - working both in low-skilled, high-risk jobs and highly skilled, well-paid employment. They also make a significant contribution to the economies of their home states, the report says, with returning cash flows sometimes exceeding official development aid.

Plus the evidence shows that the trend is, the stronger your economy = the more immigrants you attract = the faster your economy continues to grow. It is a virtuous circle, good for everyone. Having more immigrants - believe it or believe it not - CREATES MORE jobs for people brought up in the country in question not the opposite.

Report after report states this, but of course it isn't listened to.

Fib #2


Immigrants may not drain money, but asylum seekers do. They have to be given somewhere to stay while their application is pondered over, they cannot work for quite some time after they are granted asylum, living solely off of benefits...

Asylum seekers, lest we forget, are people fleeing PERSECUTION. Are we to send asylum seekers away because 'we don't want your kind here', and let them perish? Is that the kind of country / society you want? Asylum seekers do not leave their country because they want to, they do it because they have to. Unfortunately this has been totally blurred with migrants by the right wing press in this country and it leads to people like you stating what you do.

Also, I am sure this is not the reason you seemingly hate asylum seekers, but it is a popular myth that all asylum seekers are black / muslim / non white. A hell of a lot of white asylum seekers come to this country - at the moment for instance a lot of Zimbabwean white residents are coming over here. Sometimes when you mention this to some people they take a second glance on the issue. Maybe you should tell the white persecuted farmers - and black ones for that matter - to return to the arms of Mugabe?

Secondly - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CLAIM BENEFITS. Due to the crap spouted by the right wing press and the hate that has lead to by so many of its followers a Labour govt has done the shameful act of denying asylum seekers benefits until they are cast iron proved to be real asylum seekers. Then when that is proved they are then given a TINY sum smaller than the benefits for an unemployed person in this country which we all know is very low anyway. Yet the people who cause this then wonder why they turn to crime to feed their children or illegal workings...

Plus they are only not allowed to work because the govt does not allow them to work, most of them WANT to work, as well as this many of them are skilled workers who we need, doctors, nurses etc. The people who make the govt take a hardline approach yet again scream blue murder when the results they help cause are not to their liking as well! It is amazing.

Oh and all that lovely housing these asylum seekers seemingly live in, I think you should do a bit more research on where the majority of asylum seekers get put.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

it's so shocking reading an article like that from the Independent.
Almost as shocking as an article from the Daily Mail saying how terrible immigrants are for society.

[JAG]

it's so shocking reading an article like that from the Independent.
Almost as shocking as an article from the Daily Mail saying how terrible immigrants are for society.

The Independent is a centre right paper on the economy and centre left on social issues, and thus it is true they tend to be pro immigrants and many editorials have been spent trying to state the benefits of immigrants. But to dismiss the findings of a report merely because the Independent reports it is petty. Remember the Independent wins the awards for the less politically charged news section of their paper, and in keeping opinion and news distinctly different.... Unlike the Daily Mail, The Sun...

Do you deny the findings?

[ShadesWolf]

Asylum seekers, lest we forget, are people fleeing PERSECUTION

ASYLUM BY NATIONALITY (Source: Home Office)

Some 7,015 people, excluding dependants such as spouses and children, arrived in the UK claiming asylum between 1 January and the end of March 2005.

Iran - 850 asylum seekers
Iraq - 525
Somalia - 495
China - 430
DR Congo - 335

So why are we still having asylm seekers from Iran, Iraq and china.

More than £200m of taxpayers' money went on legal aid for asylum and immigration cases last year, the government says.

More British people emigrated in 2003 than at any other time since the 1979s, according to official figures. Estimates produced by the Office of National Statistics reveal some 190,000 British citizens left in 2003. Approximately 105,000 British citizens returned in the same year - a net outflow of 85,000 people

The UK has been the top destination for immigrants from the 10 new European Union member states since the trade bloc expanded last year, a report says.
Germany's DIW Institute estimates that up to 150,000 people have migrated to the older members since May 2004.

Economic research group DIW found that more than 50,000 people had made their way to the UK over the past 12 months.







at the moment for instance a lot of Zimbabwean white residents are coming over here

Are they ??? thats news to me.

You watch, what will be next, we have no food, millions die in zimbabwe and the world did nothing while Mugabe let the crops die.
But dont worry SIR BOB will come to the rescue, always to late ,and never sorting the real problem out. Lets have a concert in the park, how good my ego now feels.


Secondly - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CLAIM BENEFITS the logic is it is an attempt to reduce the bogus asylum seekers, hence they dont get any money therefore they will go somewhere else.

Blah blah blah,

I cant really be bothered with this !!!

You have you left wing idea, we should help everybody,
and I have my right wing idea, look after your own first and if we have anything left then invest in the future.

[lancelot]

Im surprised at you JAG..

All migrant workers do for this country is line the pockets of greedy fat cats... Why pay a national a decent wage and fair working conditions when you can employ a boat load of immigrants, who will work for peanuts and not complain when 'asked' to work unholy hours for no-overtime pay.

[JAG]

That is why you have the 'minimum wage' and 'anti discrimination laws' not to mention 'EU laws against working too many hours'.

...

Migrant workers might line the pockets of greedy fat cats, but any work by people in low skilled work does that, plain and simple. We are in a capitalist economy, that is the nature of it. Unless you have a problem with the system - which is perfectly fine - you cannot have a problem with just migrant workers.

Plus you forget migrant workers are working to better themselves and at the same time better the national economy, so we do all win.

[Papewaio]

From IOM:


Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US are among the few countries in the world admitting
immigrants for permanent settlement. As expected, the number of immigrants in these four
countries increased markedly during 1970-2000, rising from 15.9 million to 46.4 million. The US
registered the major increase of over 25 million migrants and a rise in its foreign-born population
from 9.7 million to 35 million.1 Canada registered a net gain of 2.6 million migrants during this
period, Australia 2.2 million and New Zealand 0.4 million. By 2000, Canada was hosting
5.8 million foreign-born residents, Australia 4.7 million and New Zealand 0.8 million.

[Albino Gorilla]

Oh god, how can you Brits complain about imigrants. Ever been to California?

[English assassin]

The economics of at least controled migration aren't open to serious debate as I understand it.

Where I do think people are perfectly entitled to feel, uneasy, is on cultural integration. Or lack thereof

My experience (and I had to do a report on barriers to refugee employment a few years ago) is that most immigrants want very much to integrate. After all, they chose to come to Britain, there must be something they like. But they fall into the hands of the race relations/equal opportunities industry, are patronised by people "celebrating their diversity" and, yes, face prejudice from others, and before you know it we are all in nice little ghettos not talking to each other.

Small case in point: a labour councillor who worked with me on the refugee thing has just been deselected by his ward after 21 years service. Most labour councillors I know are scum but this guy was first class, really hard working and an old school socialist from Glasgow to boot. His ward have instead selected a total numpty with no brain at all

The reason? The ward is now very bangladeshi, the first guyis jewish and numpty is bangladeshi. Lots of bangladeshis have mysteriously signed up to the local labour party in the last six months...

This sort of thing I think we are allowed to be annoyed at, but not the economics.

[lancelot]

Migrant workers might line the pockets of greedy fat cats, but any work by people in low skilled work does that, plain and simple. We are in a capitalist economy, that is the nature of it. Unless you have a problem with the system - which is perfectly fine - you cannot have a problem with just migrant workers.


I agree to a point. But surely in that case we dont need more exploited people here, when we have enough of our own.

I have seen workers rights go back 20 years recently due to the simple fact that if you dont accept, unpaid overtime- for example, they will employ someone else.

Yet people accept this, when 20 years ago. this is exactly the type of thing workers were trying to end...

And you cant tell me that poor/sweatshop conditions etc etc for workers are ultimately an acceptable/good thing because the workers are trying to better themselves?

[econ21]

Lancelot, I am not sure your assumption that migrants are low paid is right. I seem to recall the IPPR study referred to in JAGs first post here found that UK immigrants were net fiscal contributors partly because they earned 15% more than non-immigrants. I'm not sure if that's just because they are more likely to be of working age, or because they tend to be relatively well educated.

On the issue of cheap labour etc., you've also got to bear in mind that even if we don't allow it in the UK, we're still competing with it on the world market. Maybe for some non-traded sectors, we can pay more than the going rate. But now manufacturing is competing with China and more services are competing with India. This international competition is probably more responsible for any pressures on UK low paid workers than migrants.

[King Henry V]

Asylum seekers, lest we forget, are people fleeing PERSECUTION. Are we to send asylum seekers away because 'we don't want your kind here', and let them perish? Is that the kind of country / society you want? Asylum seekers do not leave their country because they want to, they do it because they have to. Unfortunately this has been totally blurred with migrants by the right wing press in this country and it leads to people like you stating what you do.


But why do they come to Britain when there are plces nearer to them where there is no risk of persecution. Why? Because the benefits in Britain for asylum seekers are very lucrative.

[PanzerJaeger]

Legal immigrants are great for a country - look at the USA.

Illegal immigrants should be deported.

[The Black Ship]

Legal Immigration is one reason the US economy will continue to grow during our "baby boom" era, whilst European countries will have a greater and greater difficulty meeting the expected needs of their aging populations (what a mouthful :dizzy2: ).

The debate should be on how to liberalize legal immigration to better serve Britain's economic needs. Grow or die.

Illegal immigrants should be discouraged. Afterall, it has already been shown that an illegal is willing to break the law as it suits them. Doesn't that show a predisposition? Economic asylum should be discouraged lest those truly in need be excluded.

Any Party that supports illegal immigration shows a contempt for it's legal system, whilst any Party that supports a ban on legal immigration is showing a contempt for economics.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason migrants in the U.K. have a net economic benefit is because of the minority who are in well paid jobs (poached third world doctors, international management, financiers etc.) and because a lot of people who are already really quite wealthy choose to settle in the U.K.. Most immigrants are, it would transpire, not net contributors to the economy. I wish I could find the reference but it was quite a reliable one.

Whilst some skills are definitely in demand, I wonder why natives of the U.K. are not encouraged to acquire those skills. There are several reasons for wondering this but one of my main ones was another article that I read today: apparently Birmingham has more Malawi born professional nurses than Malawi itself does. That is sick (if true). You give aid money to the African ruling classes and then steal the labour that is actually of benefit to the people rather than a benefit to the buying of a new fleet of top of the line Mercedes for the government.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

And another thing, migrants sending their wages home IS NOT of any benefit to the U.K. economy.

[JAG]

I wish I could find the reference but it was quite a reliable one.

The Daily Mail? The Sun? Telegraph? .. ~D

Anyway, no one has rebuked any of what I have stated in this thread.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

that was no rebuke. It was supported by the article that says that higher paid immigrants are more common. If the majority were all that well paid then I daresay that they'd have a much larger net contribution to the economy than they do.

You don't need to be a sarcastic turd about it.

I think the rest of my last two posts can't be rebuked either: it is disgusting that the developed world poaches so many skilled workers that are desperately needed elsewhere rather than encouraging their own people to learn those skills or attract people back into those lines of work AND migrants who send their wages home are sending money straight out of the U.K. economy.

I can be sarcy too: ooh look something in the independent that supports immigration based on old data (before the Labour party really got stuck in with encouraging mass immigration with a hugely expanded visa program and so forth).

thanks for the attitude

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

the 2001 census (which would be pretty close to the situation in 1999-2000) records 4.9 million foreign born residents in the U.K.

Their net contribution was 2.1 billion pounds in 1999-2000. Or less than 500 pounds per person in that year.
I'd love to have one of those high paying immigrant jobs in which you don't even pay 10 pound per week in taxes after you get benefits etc.

Yeah, that's a major tax contribution. Habitual smokers pay more than that in tax on their cigarettes each week.

[JAG]

the 2001 census (which would be pretty close to the situation in 1999-2000) records 4.9 million foreign born residents in the U.K.

Their net contribution was 2.1 billion pounds in 1999-2000. Or less than 500 pounds per person in that year.
I'd love to have one of those high paying immigrant jobs in which you don't even pay 10 pound per week in taxes after you get benefits etc.

Yeah, that's a major tax contribution. Habitual smokers pay more than that in tax on their cigarettes each week.

I fear you do not know the nature of net contributions.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

net contributions: what's left after they pay all their money in and get benefits out.

So again explain, how do you have such a high paying job and only end up paying less than 10 pounds a week net?

even minimum wage that's only around 5% of gross income. Even if you got all your income tax back you'd still be paying more than that in National Insurance. We know that these migrants aren't on minimum wage so I guess they wouldn't get income tax paid back directly like that. How about benefits? I thought they'd be means tested so a high paid immigrant shouldn't be getting much back, definitely not enough to repay all the income tax and NI that they are paying.

Seriously, if they were such an amazing economic boon during this period then you would expect their net tax contribution to be higher than 10 pounds a week.

[bmolsson]

Immigration is always a profit for the receiving nation. Look at US, very successful country filled of immigrants...... ~;)

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

bmolson: we are discussing a specific time period of a specific country as regards an article that was posted.

It's bloody obvious that an economy will grow with immigrants, whether everybody will be significantly better off is another matter.

[bmolsson]

bmolson: we are discussing a specific time period of a specific country as regards an article that was posted.

It's bloody obvious that an economy will grow with immigrants, whether everybody will be significantly better off is another matter.


Actually if you value the human capital in a country, your immigrants will actually add significantly to this since their new country don't have to pay for their education and upbringing.
If they send money home, it's only a reduction in their consumer spendings, since their taxes are being deducted on what they earn.
I would assume that in a country like UK, at least 40% of their actual earnings will never really benefit them, but be used for the rest of the population.

[Papewaio]

And another thing, migrants sending their wages home IS NOT of any benefit to the U.K. economy.

That is no different to having locals buy imported goods. No more BMWs, foreign music, foreign wine, food, clothes made in china, TV sets etc.

[Meneldil]

This article seems kinda biased. I mean, I'm think I'm a tolerant person and all that, but well, I'm pretty sure immigrants cost a shitload of money. And in a country where the State is always willing to help everyone (= with a heavy social system) like France, things are even worst.
Some people from Maghreb, Eastern Europe or Turkey come to France to use our free health service, to get some money, and then return to their country. Or sometimes they just stay here, and do nothing but benefit from the tax payers money and beg/steal/whatever in our cities.
How great is that ?


On the other hand, the jobs supposedly stolen by immigrants are usually hard and low-paid jobs that no native people would accept. Yet they (the immigrants) are seen as 'stealing our jobs'.
I mean, many unemployed people refuse some jobs because they are sucky/low paid jobs, and in the meanwhile they whine when immigrants get these jobs.

[cegorach]

Agreed we are stealing your jobs, using NHS with its superbugs and uneducated 'shamans' instead of proper doctors and so on and so forth ~D