State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Flosshilde]

This would suggest that you are wrong. Either that or wishful thinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

Read in detail -

between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out.
This is the relevant figure, as the discussion here is about the EU.

If you want to include non-EEA immigrants,
EEA and non-EEA - considered together, take out around £14,000 more than they put in, amounting to a deficit of around £95bn for the public purse between 1995-2011.

However, that should be compared with
how much native Brits are each putting in and taking out of the public purse. On average, each native Briton took out roughly £11,000 more than they put in between 1995-2011.

And
It's worth highlighting the UCL calculations are conservative, in the sense that they are likely to allocate relatively more costs to immigrants than to natives.
"For instance, while allocating costs of education of children to immigrants, we allocate the contributions of these children when they enter the labour market to natives," Dustmann says.

So Richard isn't 'wrong', nor indulging in wishfull thinking. He could be accused of selecting his facts to suit his argument, but then so could you.

[Richard Barrett]

"Think Tank" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Rightwing campaign group more like

Clearly.

[amateur51]

Not Found

The requested URL /eur...hlet.htm was not found on this server.

Apache/2.4.9 (Unix) Server at www.harvard-digital.co.uk Port 80

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/eur...hlet.htm#front

It needs to be dealt with, but other issues are more pressing.



It's an excellent piece of work by a seriously good Think Tank

First rule of assessing think tank research is to ask "who funds you?"

And they haven't revealed the answer to this to date despite many requests.

A seriously good Think Tank that is shy of the people who fund it? I think not.

[amateur51]

Read in detail -

between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out.
This is the relevant figure, as the discussion here is about the EU.

If you want to include non-EEA immigrants,
EEA and non-EEA - considered together, take out around £14,000 more than they put in, amounting to a deficit of around £95bn for the public purse between 1995-2011.

However, that should be compared with
how much native Brits are each putting in and taking out of the public purse. On average, each native Briton took out roughly £11,000 more than they put in between 1995-2011.

And
It's worth highlighting the UCL calculations are conservative, in the sense that they are likely to allocate relatively more costs to immigrants than to natives.
"For instance, while allocating costs of education of children to immigrants, we allocate the contributions of these children when they enter the labour market to natives," Dustmann says.

So Richard isn't 'wrong', nor indulging in wishfull thinking. He could be accused of selecting his facts to suit his argument, but then so could you.

As the article says, there's no easy answer.

Which is counter to Risotto's thrust (Matron!)

[MrGongGong]

A seriously good Think Tank that is shy of the people who fund it? I think not.

Rhyming Slang ?

[Flosshilde]

A whole new meaning to Rodin's 'The thinker'

[Serial_Apologist]

Rhyming Slang ?

Pull the other one!

[Beef Oven!]

Clearly.

There's an elephant in the room, clearly.

[ahinton]

There's an elephant in the room, clearly.

Is it an immigrant? (you don't specify the location of the room). And what about that ivory, then? Tusk, tusk!

[Richard Barrett]

There's an elephant in the room, clearly.

There is certainly a lot of misleading information, and opinion masquerading as information, being pumped out by people (including those behind this think tank no doubt) with vested interests. I would like to think we'd progressed past the time of Enoch Powell's racist diatribe against Commonwealth immigration but seemingly not. The elephant in the room is not that nobody's talking about immigration in the UK, which they certainly are, but that the political class are falling over one another to say how bad it is, whereas in fact the cosmopolitan aspect of British society is and has always been one of its defining factors.

[visualnickmos]

.....in fact the cosmopolitan aspect of British society is and has always been one of its defining factors.

And long may that continue to be the case - in spite of the racist headlines that certain media publication spew forth at the 'unwashed'

[aeolium]

There is certainly a lot of misleading information, and opinion masquerading as information, being pumped out by people (including those behind this think tank no doubt) with vested interests. I would like to think we'd progressed past the time of Enoch Powell's racist diatribe against Commonwealth immigration but seemingly not. The elephant in the room is not that nobody's talking about immigration in the UK, which they certainly are, but that the political class are falling over one another to say how bad it is, whereas in fact the cosmopolitan aspect of British society is and has always been one of its defining factors.

It's not just the political class, though, is it? Why do you think that in surveys this year 75% of people in Britain thought immigration was too high and ought to be reduced, and that immigration was considered by over 40% to be the most important issue facing the country, even trumping the economy (compare this with only 4% thinking it was 20 years ago)? Is that just the gutter press and the political class providing misinformation? If anything it seems to me that the political class, like business groups such as the CBI, have been trumpeting the virtues and benefits of immigration to the economy and it is only reaction to changes in public opinion, reflected in election results, that has brought about a change in tone.

This study by the Oxford-based MigrationObservatory group - nothing to do with the campaign group MigrationWatch, but rather an institution producing evidence-based studies on the effects of migration - shows that the tendency is for immigration to have small effects on average wages, but a depressive effect on the wages of the low-paid (middle-earners and high-earners tend to benefit). This is a group that is unlikely to see any benefit from the European free movement principle - they would be unlikely to have the skills to work elsewhere in Europe - but will actually see a disbenefit in the depression of their own wages as well as greater competition for their jobs. Given the reduction in real-terms wages over the last six years it is unsurprising that these people have turned against those in the political establishment they see as responsible for it and have predominantly turned to the one party appearing to offer some protection against at least one aspect of globalisation, namely unrestricted EU immigration. There have also been studies showing at least a partial correlation between areas where there is higher than average strength of support for UKIP and areas where the incidence of deprivation is higher. And it has been a source of puzzlement to me why those on the left have championed unrestricted EU migration which seems to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, the professional and business classes (and the well-off retired who can buy properties across Europe) yet which offers nothing to the underclass, at least the underclass in Western Europe. It is no surprise that the CBI is one of the foremost supporters of EU free movement, since it provides business with a huge potential labour market, weakens the power of the unions (immigrants are less likely to be unionised) and gives business greater power over wages and employment conditions.

There is of course another group which suffers both directly and indirectly from the free movement principle: non-EU migrants and asylum seekers. Those outside Europe including members of countries which were former colonies of European countries have fewer rights to move and work in Europe than those inside. And the indirect consequence of public concern about immigration is that governments fall over themselves to hammer down on those areas of migration they can control, i.e. non-EU immigrants and asylum-seekers, resulting in misconceived policies like (in the UK) increased visa complexity and charges for international students and (in Europe) downright unpleasant policies like reductions in budgets for missions to rescue migrants from North Africa. Yet those who champion the free EU movement principle seem entirely comfortable with the way it essentially discriminates against those from outside the EU (most of whom are not white) in favour of those inside the EU (most of whom are white).

Personally I don't think free movement is a fundamental principle of the EU, or rather, one of the principles that make it a worthwhile organisation. It was certainly a founding principle, but that was in a completely different institution and a completely different Europe: an institution with a small number of Western European countries of comparable economic development and in which the Iron Curtain blocking out Eastern Europe seemed a permanent feature. What I think is valuable about the EU is that it should be an organisation promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and peaceful co-operation between its member countries for the improvement of the lives of all citizens, not just favoured groups. I think the disadvantages of free movement now outweigh the advantages and are damaging politics and society, as well as threatening the integrity of the EU.

[Beef Oven!]

It's not just the political class, though, is it? Why do you think that in surveys this year 75% of people in Britain thought immigration was too high and ought to be reduced, and that immigration was considered by over 40% to be the most important issue facing the country, even trumping the economy (compare this with only 4% thinking it was 20 years ago)? Is that just the gutter press and the political class providing misinformation? If anything it seems to me that the political class, like business groups such as the CBI, have been trumpeting the virtues and benefits of immigration to the economy and it is only reaction to changes in public opinion, reflected in election results, that has brought about a change in tone.

This study by the Oxford-based MigrationObservatory group - nothing to do with the campaign group MigrationWatch, but rather an institution producing evidence-based studies on the effects of migration - shows that the tendency is for immigration to have small effects on average wages, but a depressive effect on the wages of the low-paid (middle-earners and high-earners tend to benefit). This is a group that is unlikely to see any benefit from the European free movement principle - they would be unlikely to have the skills to work elsewhere in Europe - but will actually see a disbenefit in the depression of their own wages as well as greater competition for their jobs. Given the reduction in real-terms wages over the last six years it is unsurprising that these people have turned against those in the political establishment they see as responsible for it and have predominantly turned to the one party appearing to offer some protection against at least one aspect of globalisation, namely unrestricted EU immigration. There have also been studies showing at least a partial correlation between areas where there is higher than average strength of support for UKIP and areas where the incidence of deprivation is higher. And it has been a source of puzzlement to me why those on the left have championed unrestricted EU migration which seems to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, the professional and business classes (and the well-off retired who can buy properties across Europe) yet which offers nothing to the underclass, at least the underclass in Western Europe. It is no surprise that the CBI is one of the foremost supporters of EU free movement, since it provides business with a huge potential labour market, weakens the power of the unions (immigrants are less likely to be unionised) and gives business greater power over wages and employment conditions.

There is of course another group which suffers both directly and indirectly from the free movement principle: non-EU migrants and asylum seekers. Those outside Europe including members of countries which were former colonies of European countries have fewer rights to move and work in Europe than those inside. And the indirect consequence of public concern about immigration is that governments fall over themselves to hammer down on those areas of migration they can control, i.e. non-EU immigrants and asylum-seekers, resulting in misconceived policies like (in the UK) increased visa complexity and charges for international students and (in Europe) downright unpleasant policies like reductions in budgets for missions to rescue migrants from North Africa. Yet those who champion the free EU movement principle seem entirely comfortable with the way it essentially discriminates against those from outside the EU (most of whom are not white) in favour of those inside the EU (most of whom are white).

Personally I don't think free movement is a fundamental principle of the EU, or rather, one of the principles that make it a worthwhile organisation. It was certainly a founding principle, but that was in a completely different institution and a completely different Europe: an institution with a small number of Western European countries of comparable economic development and in which the Iron Curtain blocking out Eastern Europe seemed a permanent feature. What I think is valuable about the EU is that it should be an organisation promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and peaceful co-operation between its member countries for the improvement of the lives of all citizens, not just favoured groups. I think the disadvantages of free movement now outweigh the advantages and are damaging politics and society, as well as threatening the integrity of the EU.

Say what you like about Migration Watch UK - attack the institution and ignore their report (which I doubt you've read). The report is, using your own words, an evidence-based study.

They have taken UCL's report and challenged and then adjusted, some of the domain assumptions and demonstrated that the true cost of immigration is very different to what the UCL report concludes.

We've accepted the UCL report carte-blanche, with the BBC 'championing' its findings, so we should have no trouble in accepting Migration Watch UK's update. Except we don't like the numbers!!

[Beef Oven!]

And long may that continue to be the case - in spite of the racist headlines that certain media publication spew forth at the 'unwashed'

I too welcome the benefits of immigration, but we're not really talking about that. And I doubt that it's true to say that it is a fact that the cosmopolitan aspect British society is and always has been as one of its defining characters. But as we can see, when it comes to topics like immigration, people often become hysterical.

[aeolium]

Say what you like about Migration Watch UK - attack the institution and ignore their report (which I doubt you've read). The report is, using your own words, an evidence-based study.

Actually my concern was mainly to differentiate MigrationObservatory, which is not a campaign group but simply an organisation that produces studies on the effects of migration, from Migration Watch which is self-confessedly a campaign group, that is it has a particular view about migration. I would rather read reports by organisations that are not promoting particular views but simply studying the evidence and drawing conclusions - hence my use of the one by MigrationObservatory.