What a true assessment of the economic costs of mass immigration would include

Robert Henderson

The politically correct never cease to tell us that mass immigration is a net benefit to Britain. By this they mean that immigrants pay more in taxes than they cost in publicly funded services. To make such an assessment the following statistics would be needed:

1. The amount of income tax and National Insurance paid by immigrants.  Because of the type of work involved – seasonal, work offered by foreign gangmasters and so on –  it is reasonable to assume a  disproportionately  large proportion of those working in the black market are immigrants. There is also a practice of immigrants working and paying tax until they exceed the single person’s tax allowance in a tax year, ceasing to work in the UK for that tax year and then reclaiming all the income tax paid at the end of the tax year. That rebated tax  needs to be deducted from the tax paid figure held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

2. The costs arising  from the native population who are denied jobs which immigrants have taken. This will involve the benefits native workers have to collect because they cannot find a job, the costs of having to move to a new area to either seek work or because  the new benefits cap will not meet their rent and the costs of having to take children out of one school plus the costs of registering with a new GP because a family is forced to move .

3. The cost to the native population of a reduction in wages caused by immigrants increasing the pool of labour. This will mean  less tax paid and more in-work benefits

4. The cost of  benefits drawn by immigrants when they are not working.

5. The cost of benefits drawn by immigrants when they are working, for example, working tax credits, housing benefit.

6. The cost of NHS care given to immigrants.

7. The cost of education given to immigrants, this to include the additional costs arising from those with poor or non-existent English.

8. The cost of benefits, education and NHS care for the children of immigrants born in the UK.

9. The costs of benefits paid to immigrants to support children born abroad and living abroad.

10. The inflation of  housing costs caused by immigrants and their children born in the UK increasing the demand for housing.

11.  The costs involved in a decline in the quality of NHS care and educational standards because of the pressure placed on the NHS, schools and higher education by immigrants.  The inadequate English of many immigrants employed in the NHS in particular must reduce the efficiency of the service and increase the likelihood of error. The difficulty of teaching in schools with huge numbers of pupils lacking English as a first language speaks for itself.

12. The costs involved  in the British economy generally from a loss of efficiency through the inadequate English of immigrants and their lack of understanding of British customs. It may be cheaper for an employer to employ an immigrant in terms of wages,  but,  especially where the immigrant is dealing with the public, there must be a substantial the loss of efficiency in terms of  extra time taken to conduct conversations with customers, misunderstandings of what is wanted and an inability to explain  to customers what is on offer.

13. The loss of expertise to Britain of skilled Britons who seek work abroad because of opportunities the UK being blocked by immigrants, for example,  newly qualified British doctors and nurses have encountered difficulty in obtaining British posts despite the frequent claims of NHS staff shortages (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9272640/New-doctors-will-face-unemployment.html),  while positions at British medical schools are cut and large numbers of foreigners recruited (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407585/NHS-recruits-thousands-doctors-Third-World–limits-places-deny-British-students-chance-study-medicine.html)

14. The costs – which can be lifelong –  of the loss of work experience for Britons  unable to get work at all, whether skilled or unskilled.  This is particularly important for the young.

15. The costs in terms of wear and tear on the roads because of increased traffic arising from immigrants.

16. The cost of criminal activity amongst immigrants.

17. The cost of criminal activity amongst the descendants of immigrants.

18. The costs of guarding against Islamic terrorism.

19. The costs of the remittances made by immigrants and their descendants to their ancestral countries.

20. The costs of meeting the requirements of the “anti-racist” legislation which puts considerable burdens employers. These are  particularly severe for any employer who is funded in whole or part by the taxpayer.  Such employers have to not merely be non-discriminatory,  but they have to prove that is what they are as a result of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/pdfs/ukpga_20000034_en.pdf). The police are particularly keen to show how PC they are (http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201001EDHREDH01.pdf)

21. The cost of dealing with visa requests, asylum claims,  claims regarding family reunions  and claims based on compassionate grounds. The costs include employing civil servants to process claims to stay in the UK, the cost of staffing of immigration tribunals, the costs arising from the court time taken by the cases  which go to the courts, the  legal costs of those trying to stay in the UK (which are normally paid by the taxpayer), the cost of running immigration detention centres and the cost of removing people from the UK .

22. The ongoing cost of the descendants of immigrants – potentially through many generations – of racial and ethnic groups who continue to display high levels of unemployment, high benefit dependency,  low-skills,  poor educational attainment, low payments of tax and  abnormally high levels of criminality.

I defy anyone to find a piece of research which comes close to including all those costs or even a majority of them.

Of course the economic arguments are not  the most important thing about mass immigration which is that it changes the nature of a society because immigrants arriving in large numbers from the same country will invariably colonise parts of the country and resist assimilation.  Nonetheless, it is important to thoroughly examine the weaknesses in the economic claims made by the politically correct because it is their favoured ploy to try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

The costs fall most heavily on the poor, the rich being, as yet, largely untouched because they arrange their lives so that they do not encounter the supposed joy of diversity and have no need to seek work in a competitive situation.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Economics, Immigration and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to What a true assessment of the economic costs of mass immigration would include

  1. slimalred says:

    Well said again Robert.A very good investigative article highlighting the aspects of immigration which are kept from UK citizens.The reason that we are not allowed to know these figures is because they would expose the truth about the “benefits” of immigration.In reality there are no benefits worth talking about.The majority of immigrants do not try to integrate;they simply lead the life that they would in their own country and have an ignorance and even a dislike/hatred of our culture.I have associates who work in the HMCE and they are very aware of the fact that the majority of immigrant owned businesses and the working immigrant population pay little or no tax.The falling standards in our hospitals and schools is almost exclusively down to immigration and I have no doubt that if the crime statistics showed the actual amount of crime carried out by immigrants,then the country would be in uproar.What we need now are patriotic politicians with the bottle to speak the truth and to ignore the ways of the PC brigade.I am reminded constantly of a quotation that the first duty of a patriot is to defend his country against its government.Never was this saying more appropriate than in the present UK.

  2. efgd says:

    AS always an excellent article. However I would question one point: 2. The costs arising from the native population who are denied jobs which immigrants have taken. This will involve benefits native workers have to collect because they cannot find a job. Many employers are saying that native unemployed are not applying for the jobs in the first place. The wages are what they are for the jobs available – we have minimum wage laws in the UK. We also have social extras for those on low pay. So in theory no excuse for the natives to not apply for the available jobs. If there was no social benefit the natives would have to apply for those jobs and most would regardless of low pay because needs must. You only have to listen to some native unemployed talking to realise they are not getting out of bed for less than £300-£400 a week. Yeah right.

    Just saying.

    • The claim by employers that Britons are workshy and/or unskilled is generally a libel which employers use to excuse their own rootless capitalist mindset. Great swathes of employment are effectively removed from Britons through the use of foreign gangmasters, foreign recruitment agencies and by employers simply allowing the foreign component to become the norm , at which point it become self-sustaining as the foreign workers already employed bring in others from their own ethnicity.

  3. maverick says:

    The number of people who have lost thier lives in Ethnic attacks ,Lee Rigby ,Christina Edkins are two of the most recent.of many hundreds perhap thousands if you include terrorism,
    That is the real cost!,

  4. CanSpeccy says:

    The cost to whom? It’s not the elite who are losing their jobs to immigrants; who live on streets taken over by alien people with little if any respect for native culture; whose children are subject to PC brainwashing in state schools; who must pay exorbitant prices for ticky-tacky brick boxes the price of which has been driven sky high due to an immigration-fueled population boom.

    Mostly, the elite find mass immigration profitable, they own virtually all financial assets which have done well, in part, because mass migration has lowered workers wages and broken union wage bargaining power; they have country estates far from the madding crowd of plebs, native or immigrant; they take holidays in the Caribbean, Hawaii and other faraway places beyond the reach of the British masses; and if they think about the 99% at all it is probably to enjoy the spectacle of their degradation and destruction. Britain has been a country of two nations since the industrial revolution — two nations between who, wrote Disraeli:

    there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.

    In fact, immigration is best understood as an exterminationist policy, to replace what is seen by the elite as a low-grade native population with a more energetic immigrant work-force without tiresome ideas about the traditional rights of an English citizen.

    And it needs to be understood that, in this era of globalization, the nation states, and the rights democratic and otherwise of the citizens of the former sovereign democracies are to be swept away.

  5. OyiaBrown says:

    Very well compiled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s