The economics of immigration are unambiguous: the anti-immigration voices have lost the argument and should move on.
The economics of immigration are unambiguous: the anti-immigration voices have lost the argument and should move on
Not everything is about money and there are a number of persuasive arguments as to why people are concerned about the scale of immigration to the UK.
Social cohesion, a sense of community and fears about a weakening of British national identity shouldn’t be breezily dismissed simply as ‘xenophobia’ or racism (although that’s sometimes what they might be).
That said, those arguing against migration, especially migration from elsewhere in the European Union, tend overwhelmingly to focus on fiscal arguments – so they will say that migrants are a ‘drain on the benefits system’ or are a ‘net loss’ to the economy.
The arguments around the supposed ‘magnetic pull’ of benefits have been debunked already; and today yet another study shows that migrants have overwhelmingly paid more into the chancellor’s coffers than they have taken out.
A new report, put out by University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, finds that immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed £4.96bn more in taxes up to 2011 than they took out through the use of benefits and public services. The study factors in immigrants’ proportionate share of public service costs.
A windfall, in other words.
This compares extremely favourably with British nationals, who over the same period were a drain on the British economy to the tune of £617bn.
The net gain from immigration from the rest of the EU (excluding the 10 new countries) was £15bn – again that includes the costs associated with public service use.
Migrants from outside the EU contributed £5bn on the same basis.
Professor Christian Dustmann, co-author of the study, said: “A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems.
“Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.”
He added: “European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions.
“This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.”
One would hope that this would put an end to the baseless smearing of migrants by right-wing organisations such as Migration Watch. Don’t bet on it, though – Migration Watch are already trying to spin the figures to support their anti-immigrant narrative, despite the above-quoted words of the report’s authors.
This isn’t the first study showing that migrants benefit the British economy, either. According to another study from University College London which came out last year, migrants who have come to the UK since the year 2000 have made a ‘substantial’ contribution to public finances.
As I said at the start of this piece, I do think there are legitimate concerns about the pace of change in Britain today and how that relates to building strong and cohesive communities. However the economics of immigration are unambiguous: the anti-immigration voices have lost that argument and should move on.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
64 Responses to “The anti-immigration voices have lost the economic argument”
Sparky
James Bloodworth
———————-/
What about the figure of non-EU migrants making a negative net contribution of £117.9bn over the course of the last Labour government?
You must be aware of this figure
Why haven’t you mentioned it?
Since this question goes to the heart of your credibility and intellectual integrity, I’d like you to answer this question here.
Don’t delete this post -answer it!
Jerry H
I am encouraged by your comments on it “not being about money” because for me it really isn’t, its about the kind of society we are building for our kids which is increasingly divided. In my kids school I see a disturbing level of segregation which becomes more entrenched as kids get older. I believe integration was better when I went to school many moons ago than it is today and I fond that deeply troubling.
That said I don’t think the financial argument has been won, it really depends who you want to believe, which date ranges you choose to analyse and more. You can pretty well spin the numbers as you wish depending on your choice of parameters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html
swat
True its all evidence based data research, but as Nige says if the British people are prepared to accept a 2nd class service with run down public services because they simply can;t get the qualified staff and businesses running at half staem because the can’t get the qualified staff but only NEETS applying, then the British people are welcome to a 2nd rate Britain. Enjoy.
What is worrying though is the shambles that is going on across the Channel with Sangatte 2, and refugees and asylum seekers risking and endangering everyones lives by trying to sneak into Britain and cheat the queues of legitimate immigrant claimants , and everybody that thinks straight knows that it is wrong, particularly the charities trying to support these illegals. Its a farce and obscene, and I would like it to stop., no matter how desparate their situation.
The_Average_Joe_UK
Jim,
So you’re the fact-walla are you? Please tell me 3 things the EU gives us that we cant have outside. Come on lets see what you’ve got, or will you repeat the baseless nonsense that we get from the likes of Clegg..
Dean
It’s a shame the report only looks at benefits as a way of taking out of the economy but forgets to examine demand for the NHS, schools, and also the benefits claimed by someone else who missed out on the same job (assuming there’s more demand than jobs available). I would have thought restricting EEA immigration would only reduce the negative side of EEA immigration (those with skills can still enter to work) so the overall net benefit will be even greater.