Interesting article on EU Migration

[OilSheikh]

August 28, 2014
Migration Watch UK Press Comment on the August 2014 Immigration Statistics

Today’s numbers are deeply disappointing with an across the board increase in immigration, a fall in British emigration, and no increase in departures.

Net migration at this level is simply not sustainable. It will put huge further strain on our infrastructure, housing and school places. If current levels were allowed to continue, the population would increase by 12 million in 20 years. [1]

This means that the present and future governments must redouble their efforts before immigration spins entirely out of control.

The government should be commended for moving beyond rhetoric to clear targets and concrete measures. The government have done a great deal but more time is needed for their measures to take effect. It is essential that further action be taken on three fronts:

Some limits on low skilled EU migration.
Further tightening of non-EU migration, especially students of whom only about one third appear to be leaving.
A major push on removal. At present there is no effective removal of over stayers, indeed, very few are even detected as exit controls are not in place.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said: ‘Getting the numbers down is proving even more difficult than expected, but either we get immigration under control or we accept that in the next twenty years we will have to build twelve new cities the size of Birmingham. Where can they possibly be put?’


August 14, 2014
What can be done about high levels of immigration from the EU?

The latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show that over the year to June 2014 the annual increase in the number of people from Eastern European countries in employment in the UK has reached record levels, surpassing even the previous peak annual increase in the year to June 2007.

This has raised the number of Eastern Europeans with jobs in the UK to new record levels too, with the most recent increases pushing the total to over a million jobs for the first time.

So what underlines this continuing movement of workers from Eastern Europe to Britain? The principal reasons are the UK’s economic prosperity, its high average income levels, relatively low unemployment and its generous, easily accessible welfare system.

Though there has been very little quantitative research into why Europeans choose to move to the UK, many of the incentives are obvious, especially for the poorer member states of Romania, Bulgaria and the A8. The UK’s minimum wage is often several times higher than even the average wage of many of these countries. The average income in Poland, the largest source of A8 migration to the UK, is just a third of that in the UK. The income disparity between the UK and most of the other A8 countries is similar. The ability to earn far higher wages in the UK is an obvious pull factor and is an even bigger incentive for migrants from Romania and Bulgaria. In 2013, according to the World Bank, the UK’s GDP per Capita was four times higher than Romania’s and almost five times higher than Bulgaria’s. Even when the cost of living is factored in the average income in both countries is only a sixth of that in the UK. The same is true of the minimum wage which is the equivalent of just £1 an hour in both states, compared to £6.31 in the UK.

One of the other biggest draws to the UK is its relatively low rate of unemployment compared to many EU states. The results of the Labour Force Survey yesterday showed that unemployment in the UK continues to fall and has now dropped to its lowest level in over six years. Many Mediterranean countries, for example, have been particularly badly hit by the recent recession and have seen their unemployment rates skyrocket. The UK’s rate of unemployment stands at 6.4%. In Spain and Greece for example, the unemployment rate is over 25%, while in Portugal it is 17% and in Italy 13%. Immigration from all these countries to the UK has spiked upwards dramatically in the past few years. Meanwhile, Poland’s unemployment rate is over 10% and Slovakia’s is 14%,.

The other big pull is the UK’s remarkably open benefits system. Because the UK’s welfare state is not based on contributions and because it is illegal to discriminate against EU citizens, EU nationals are able to access the welfare state almost immediately. In work benefits can be obtained as soon as an EU citizen starts working. A family of four in which one adult works at half the average wage, for example, is able to almost double its take home pay through housing benefits, family benefits (child tax credits and child benefit) and in-work benefits such as the working tax credit. Only three other EU states offer more generous benefits to equivalently sized families (Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg.) While out of work benefits seem to be a much smaller incentive for EU migrants, they are also very easy to access. All that EU citizens have to do to obtain them is to prove that they are “habitually resident” to claim unemployment benefit which, while less generous than in other EU countries, comes with virtually no conditions, unlike other member states where contributions are a key determinant of access. In a similar fashion, EU citizens cannot be treated any differently to British nationals when it comes to the provision of social housing and, of course, the health service is also immediately accessible.

So, what can be done about the continuing high level of immigration from the European Union? People have been predicting for years that the longer the A8 countries were in the EU the more their economies would catch up with Western Europe and thus EU migration to the UKwould come into balance. This has simply failed to happen and has been coupled with the worsening economic situation of many southern European countries. A solution must now be found. The Government has taken some action in restricting out of work benefits in order to de-incentivise EU migration. While their actions- such as restricting out of work benefits to three, rather than six months and denying out of work benefits for the first three months of residence- are a step in the right direction, they will not be sufficient. Most EU migrants come to the UK to work, not to claim out of work benefits. There is very little evidence to suggest that such restrictions will have any impact on the numbers coming.

In work benefits are far more generous and are likely to act as a much stronger incentive but, as yet, the government has not proposed any restrictions on them. It would make much more sense to only allow EU citizens access after making a proper contribution –this, would bring our benefits system into line with those of other EU countries which are based on contributions. It is our belief that a period of five years living and working in the UK before gaining access to the welfare state would be appropriate. However, there is still no guarantee that such a restriction would bring down numbers because of the other powerful ‘pull factors’ that exist, such as the UK’s lower rates of unemployment and higher average wages.

Instead, the most effective solution would be to require skilled EU migrants to apply for Work Permits whose number would not be limited. The number of low skilled EU migrants permitted to enter the UK each year would be subject to an annual quota for a period of years until internal EU migration flows settled down. Critics of this idea will say that it is impossible because of the EU’s sacred principle of the freedom of movement. However, if the choice became one between a temporary quota for unskilled EU workers or risking the loss of a referendum on EU membership, other member states might be prepared to compromise. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated his desire for a re-negotiation of Britain’s membership with the EU and has spoken of ‘redlines’ that must not be crossed. If such a re-negotiation takes place, adjusting the freedom of movement in this way should be such a ‘redline’.

August 13, 2014
Migration Watch UK Press Comment on Romanian and Bulgarian Labour Migration

Commenting on the figures released in today’s Labour Force Survey, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said:

"A 13,000 increase in the number of Romanian and Bulgarian workers compared to the same quarter last year is significant, especially as transitional controls were still in place for the first half of the year. Once dependants are factored in it is likely that the increase in population over the whole year 2014 will be between 30,000 and 70,000 as we predicted. Our central estimate of 50,000 remains a very likely outcome."

[MrComputerSaint]

All the people I've know from abroad are hard workers. I've never met a lazy polish person, my boss is Greek and he's a hard worker.

The people I work with came to this country with little or no experience in the IT field (or at least the field they're working on now) but they take on the challenge and they do very well at building up their knowledge of that area, through their own training and provided training.

I'm sure there are some lazy people out there that want to scrounge and a 5 year restriction on gaining access to welfare might be an answer to that, but there are an awful lot of individual circumstances that might need that person to have welfare. Maybe a 5 year loan at 1% rate on what welfare the new comer gets. So yes, the person gets the option of welfare for 5 years, but after that they need to pay that back. We'd probably need very good links with the various countries to make sure people just don't head back for their home country and skip their payment.

I'm not saying give the person 5 years of welfare, say for example the person will get £1000 in the first and subsequent 4 years. So £5000 will need to be paid back. This gives the person a lot more incentive to get better job, better training.

[kalniel]

Yes, it seems to be that immigration is beneficial to our economy, and our unemployment levels are still failing, so this is probably good news.

[OilSheikh]

The article enlightens me as to why all of Europe is heading to our country.
Eastern Europe min wage - £1
UK min wage - £6.50+loads of benefits

[kalniel]

The article enlightens me as to why all of Europe is heading to our country.

?

All of Europe isn't heading to our country. Would that it did - we could do with some money from tourism.

[Top_gun]

A few months I contacted Philips about replacing a faulty electric toothbrush and was put through to a call centre in Poland. After a few calls I was talking to an English man but I genuinely thought the Poles offered a much better experience. On the next call, the Polish person confirmed this English person was actually working in a Polish call centre.

[RobbieRoy]

The problem with this immigration 'debate' is that the reality is far too complex to allow simple arguements to be effectively framed.

I feel it would be helpful to start by establishing whether current immigration is desirable, taking into account our history and also the desires of British citizens to go and live in other countries.

I'd also suggest that the assumption that any immigrant to this country only arrives to claim benefits. Would we say the same of fellow Brits moving to mainland Europe, as many have done in recent decades? Of course not, as that assumption is arrogant tosh!

[Saracen]

....

I'd also suggest that the assumption that any immigrant to this country only arrives to claim benefits. Would we say the same of fellow Brits moving to mainland Europe, as many have done in recent decades? Of course not, as that assumption is arrogant tosh!

Who is assuming that? The article quoted said exactly the opposite - that the motivations for coming here are numerous.

There's also, in large part, a distinction between a large proportion of Eastern Europeans coming here, and Brits going to mainland Europe, that being that Eastern Europeans coming here are often young, and poor. A lot of Brits going to mainland Europe are affluent, and retiring to the sun. I've been thinking about doing that myself .... though in my case, probably not to Europe.

I noticed a plea from the NFU recently to allow large-scale temporary immigration to get staff for fruit pucking, etc, because they can't get Brits to do it. I must admit, my immediate reaction was "that's because cost of living here is high and you pay peanuts". And, of course, if they can import workers at lousy rates rather than pay locals what it needs, they will. Result, loads of temporary work going to Eastern Europeans so farmers can keep costs down. And hence, not to those locals. And personally, for that, I blame supermarkets like Tesco. Farmers are caught between market power of supermarkets driving prices to suppliers down, and so many aspects of supply including (but by no means limited to) wages. Another, for many farmers, would be feed costs, and a whopper is fuel. But wages feeds in, big-time.

And the other angle, of course, is that excessive immigration is not just an issue of economic benefit versus cost, but of indirect costs and social impacts like strain on national infrastructure, like GP services, A&E, schools, roads and, oh yeah, housing, of which we have a ruddy great shortage.

Nobody with a brain thinks immigration is all bad. Or all good. Truth is, it's a balance.

What is nearly always bad, especially over a protracted period, is excessive and/or uncontrolled immigration. If nothing else, it needs time to allow infrastructure growth to happen, like building houses and ensuring adequate GP provision and school places.

And as that article points out, an excessive level of immigration implies building the equivalent of a dozen new cities the size of Birmingham. Anyone think there's ANY chance, at all, of that happening? That we could, even if we wanted to? And that doesn't just mean physicsl buildings, but all the infrastructure, from road and rail, to schools, etc. And, training all the staff.

[RobbieRoy]

I was making a wider point about the way this subject is commonly discused by soundbite politicians or many newspapers. However, couldn't agree with your post more, Saracen.

I have often found myself admiring the young immigrants I have encountered here in East Anglia or in London, speaking English as a second language, motivated and able, working hard in a, to them, foreign land. They exhibit many positive attributes that I find hard to observe in the young Britains I know.

[Saracen]

...

I have often found myself admiring the young immigrants I have encountered here in East Anglia or in London, speaking English as a second language, motivated and able, working hard in a, to them, foreign land. They exhibit many positive attributes that I find hard to observe in the young Britains I know.

And on that, I entirely agree.

Based on admittedly limited experience, there does tend to be a sense of complacent entitlement among many British (*) people. I have no problem with immigration, personally, provided it is in the best interests of the UK, which means it needs to be controlled.

In other words, :-

- controlled immigration = good
- uncontrolled immigration = potentially bad.
- excessive immigration = bad.

And "excessive" is either a volume, or at a rate, making it hard or impossible to absorb.

(*) I think this applies to Britain, but not just Britain. It applies to affluent countries with strong welfare systems and, for most, a relatively comfortable standard of living.

[Lucio]

It's telling that the scary statistics are being presented by "..an independent, voluntary, non political body which is concerned about the present scale of immigration into the UK..." It's not like they've got any ulterior motive to present things as absolutely terrible for the UK

I'm not entirely sure where they're drawing their statistics from either, according to the ONS we've seen a relatively steady birth rate of ~700,000 births a year and ~500,000 deaths a year, so excluding migration we're looking at a growth of 5m people over a 25 year period, unless they're obfuscating their statistics to include and exclude the effect of migration depending on what suits their agenda better.

It would be nice if the racist overtones of the immigration debate could also be put aside, too many times phrases like "East Europeans" crop up in a way which implies that their nationality makes them a worse person than a naturally born UK citizen.

Putting those points aside, yes, there is a need for the government to watch the overall population levels but it isn't just about watching immigration, even without any immigrants, we still see a huge number of additional people in the medium term future and there are clear signs that things aren't being planned properly already. I'd far rather see those pushing for change on the immigration front to focus their efforts on a more practical solution such as how we improve the housing market, and bring it back to affordable levels.

[Saracen]

....

It would be nice if the racist overtones of the immigration debate could also be put aside, too many times phrases like "East Europeans" crop up in a way which implies that their nationality makes them a worse person than a naturally born UK citizen.

...

That's exactly the attitude that's made it so difficult to talk sensibly about immigration - as soon as you do, someone calls you a racist.

There's a lot of mention of East Europens because, over the last few years, that's where a lot of the immigration has come from, in large part due to the idiots in the Labour government of the time failing to implement transtion controls for the last block of EU accession states. In large part, that means Poland, but by no means only Poland.

Then, of course, is the fact that most of Eastern Europe only relatively recently got out from under the yoke of the Soviet Union, and suffered economically pretty much since the end of WW2. So, they have much less industrialised economies and considerably lower standards of living. Then, when you add in MUCH lower house prices, and cost of living, any savings made over living costs in the UK go far further when you remit thise saving back to those Eastern European countries.

There's NOTHING in any of this that makes them "worse persons". It is simply cold, hard fact. If wages and living costs are different, then they're different, period. It's not racist. It's simply how the world is, and it's how it is due to that Soviet yoke.

And, of course, due to the EU, there's next to nothing we can do to control numbers, even when the government's predicted 50,000 turns out to be more like 750,000, and that sort of level of immigration, over a short period, is what puts excessive strain on infrastructure.