It’s time to put integration back on the agenda

Restrictive conditions have made it harder for those legally resident to commit to British society

 

Since the introduction of the concept by then-Labour home secretary Roy Jenkins in the mid-1960s, integration has never been a priority for UK governments. The anti-racist movement and black communities have been suspicious of the term, seeing it as too close to assimilation.

Integration has had little traction on the right either, where there has been distrust for any accommodation with migrants and minorities. Labour started talking about integration under Blair, but usually as a footnote to cohesion or in relation to refugees.

The Coalition government launched an integration strategy in 2012, but it mainly argued that national government needed to leave it to local governments.

In a time when net migration remains high and has transformed the demographic profile of every region of the UK, when we see persistent gaps in health or employment outcomes for some ethnic groups, when concerns about de facto segregation continue, and when politicians talk about particular minorities ‘quietly condoning’ non-British values – is it time to put integration back on the policy agenda?

The 2015 edition of MIPEX, the Migrant Integration Policy Index, is published today. It measures policy commitment to integration in 38 developed countries.

The timing of this might help us re-frame the integration debate in the UK. The last edition of the index was published in 2010, in the final months of the Brown government, so the new edition offers a timely assessment of the changes made in the Cameron/Clegg half-decade.

The headline is that the UK has fallen from the top 10 to mid-table 15. We have dropped points in areas where we perform strongly, such as education and anti-discrimination, because of austerity-driven cuts.

While there are schools across the country being confronted for the first time with children who don’t speak English at home, the funding which supports them to do this (the EMAG grant) is no longer ring-fenced.

While the gap between mainstream and minority employment is bigger than ever, the requirements to enforce equality law are being loosened and seen as excess red tape.

We have lost points too for the indicators relating to routes to settlement and to citizenship, as restrictive conditions brought in to help meet the net migration target have made it harder for those legally resident to commit to British society.

Most dramatically, we have fallen to the very bottom of the table for family migration, meaning we are the hardest place in the developed world for separated families to reunite; we have the most restrictive definitions and stringent requirements, long delays and high costs.

Separated non-European families are now less likely to reunite in the UK than on average in Western Europe, with numbers falling by 20 per cent after the UK imposed one of the highest income requirements for family reunion in the world, one which 50 per cent of working people in the UK could not afford.

The MIPEX index does not measure integration itself. It measures how favourable a country’s policies are to the level playing field that would make integration possible.

This approach has limits, and a resetting of the integration debate would need to look at other measures too: how social integration and a shared sense of belonging can be promoted, for instance.

But the results of the new index show just how far integration has fallen down the policy agenda in the drive to reduce migration and cut costs. Can we afford to let it keep slipping?

Ben Gidley is a senior researcher at COMPAS. Follow him on Twitter

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

36 Responses to “It’s time to put integration back on the agenda”

  1. swat

    Fully agree Integration has to over ride the trend for some communities to live in silos. This is Britain, and they must adapt. This may mean them giving up some their traditional beliefs and customs and practices, but that is what adaptation is all about; what worked in their homeland will not work here. And many of their practices are feudal not welcome here.

  2. Foullaini

    So now it’s our fault? Unbelievable.

  3. damon

    ”The anti-racist movement and black communities have been suspicious of the term, seeing it as too close to assimilation.

    Integration has had little traction on the right either…”

    The way that’s written it suggests that everyone must be from one of those two axis.
    I’m from neither, even though I’m totally against any kind of racism.
    A major problem has been the politics of the black and anti racist movements imo.
    People like Lee Jasper and Operation Black Vote for example, and the Association of Black Lawyers.
    Divisive groups and individuals who have done much to foster racism I think.
    Of course integration was the way to go. Even assimilation. Because why do we want to have strong racial affiliations? Everyone is the same more or less and we all live and work side by side.
    Too many young black boys are growing up with this idea of themselves being different to the mainstream, which leads to all kinds of problems.

  4. Selohesra

    I tend to agree but have always thought freedom of speech an important right in this country so forced integration does not sound very libertarian

  5. Saleem Shady

    The facts show that blanket generalisations of ethnic minorities and integration stops us seeing the successful stories of integration. Not all minorities are the same. And we need to ask why those failing to integrate are failing to do so. And we can’t just blame ‘racism’ when so many minorities flourish and do well integrating.

  6. swat

    We have to be honest and start naming names, and forget about stigmatising certain communities, For example the Somali Community and many of the newish arrivals from N Africa have not integrated that well as well as many Pakistani and Bangladeshis from rural communities and lower socio-economic backgrounds. We also have to be honest and say that one of the common factors preventing better integration is Islam.
    So the ball is firmly back in the Muslim Community to sort themselves out. Others can’t do it for them.

  7. stevep

    Ah, the hypocrisy of it all:
    Enjoy a beautifully prepared Bangladeshi curry, Chinese chop suey, American fried chicken, Turkish kebab, Italian Expresso etc.when the mood suits, belittle and abuse their contribution to our society when it doesn`t.
    Express outrage at poor Somali or Libyan migrants seeking to escape repressive regimes, but hero worship the latest multi-millionaire Argentinian, Portuguese or Brazilian football player gracing these shores with his presence.
    Go into SunMail-induced apoplectic fits over the net cost of foreigners coming to live and work here, but wilfully ignore the amount of wealth foreign companies make here and take out of Britain.
    Claim there will be no more room in Britain if more migrants choose to settle here, whilst ignoring the sheer amount of land in the UK owned by wealthy foreigners, particularly in Scotland.
    The truth of the matter is that migrants have always come to Britain throughout history: Polish, Romans, Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, French, Spanish, American, Canadian, Estonian, Pakistani, etc. etc. and they all brought their own traditions with them and made Britain what it is today, a vibrant, multicultural society.
    Can people not see past the SunMail brainwashing and agitation of the last few years designed to divert attention away from far more important matters ( The Banks, Corporate greed, Democracy etc.) and realise that Britain is comprised of more than just White Anglo-Saxons and that these people and cultures have contributed positively to the UK more than we can possibly imagine.

  8. JoeDM

    If immigrants refuse to integrate into the normal British way of life then they should have to leave.

  9. steroflex

    Yes – up to a point I agree.
    The problem is the communities that are determined not to fit in at all because THEY KNOW BEST.
    I refer to the polygamous Muslim families whose social pattern is deliberately different from our own.
    I refer also to the African families who, also, have polygamous traditions and who provide a deep well of men who can, honestly, only be described as sperm donors. Of course this is a minority – the Archbishop of York is not included here!
    Do you personally live in a Muslim ghetto? Or in a Blacks Only area of London?
    Me, I live in an area which has become pretty well East European and I love it!

  10. steroflex

    Round here, the schools are doing a simply fantastic job. They really are. Mind you, we are completely Baltic in our immigrants and they come from similar backgrounds. Because we only have tiny input from Africa at the moment and no Muslims at all really, the ones that do slip through are treated as complete equals by the rather racist Russian and Baltic people too.

  11. damon

    Interesting points stevep. They are ones that could be the start of a really vibrant discussion, with people arguing hard back and forth. If they are your opinions, fair enough and I could respect them to a degree.
    I might also respect someone who tore into them and tried to dismantle the logic behind them.
    Personally, I’m on the fence a bit – but see your opinions as a bit to ideological for my liking really.
    First of all in a democracy, do people have the right to not want massive cultural change in their country?
    I think they do, and that’s why I don’t denigrate people as Sun and Mail reading ”morons” or whatever.
    Multicultural societies are still a work in progress and have thrown up very difficult problems and divisions. See how much resentment there is about he police within the black community for example.
    Many say it’s institutionally racist. And that most of our institutions are institutionally racist also.
    I just read this in the Guardian today. By a black American poet called Claudia Rankine.
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/29/poet-claudia-rankine-invisibility-black-women-everyday-racism-citizen
    She questions a white American man as to why he is not supporting Serena Williams at a tennis match, but cheering on a white woman from eastern Europe. See how she immediately suspected him of being racist. And was calling him out as to why he wasn’t supporting the woman from his own country.
    That kind of suspicion exists in multicultural societies. He should have told her to mind her own business.
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/29/poet-claudia-rankine-invisibility-black-women-everyday-racism-citizenpoet-claudia-rankine-invisibility-black-women-everyday-racism-citizen

    You seem to argue that it’s wrong for people of different nationalities or races and cultures to have an affinity with one another, and that what is actually better is the diversity of our most diverse boroughs.
    Like Newham or Hackney in London for example. That it would be better if Devon had a demographic profile more like them than the one that it does. Which is almost racist in a way itself.

    As for population density and the idea that we have loads of space, how much more motorway do you propose building? At this moment there is a huge traffic jam on the M25 in Surrey. I drove on that section just yesterday, and the western side is constantly getting jammed up. Do you propose we buld another orbital motorway on the outside of that one? As we’ll need it if the population keeps going up.

  12. stevep

    Britain is a multicultural society, has been for centuries. Invaders (Romans, Vikings, Celts, Saxons, Normans etc., slaves and migrants have made it that way. Fact.
    All these different cultures have integrated into various parts of Britain rather than keeping strict separate cultural identities. We all have a bit of Roman, Celt or Anglo-Saxon etc. in our genes mingling about somewhere!
    The Romans and Normans didn`t conquer Britain by keeping separate, They inter-married with local nobility, did deals with tribal factions to ensure their safety in return for a supply of food and men to be trained as soldiers etc. The assimilation was gradual and definitely not without it`s problems.
    Norman Tebbit was once asked: “how can you tell a naturalised English person”?
    His reply was: ” see who they cheer for when their former nation is playing England at cricket”.
    Illuminating, but flawed. Assimilated migrants will always have an interest in their former home country, even generations distant.
    Citizens of every country on the planet are propagandised from birth to respect Royalty or the Republic and to learn their national anthem by heart. Small wonder then that when they settle elsewhere, their natural national affiliation is still in their hearts. They (we) can`t help it, even though they may love their adopted home country.
    I didn`t call SunMail readers morons. But if anyone is subjected to constant propaganda that is so skewed and biased towards a certain ideology, they become indoctrinated into that way of thinking and lose the ability to think outside of the narrow narrative that the perpetrators want them to stay within.
    That`s why so many otherwise rational UK citizens show such indignation towards migrants — because they`re told to.
    All states use propaganda to shape their citizens and to divert their attention in a certain direction or away from it to suit the prevailing agenda.
    As for the population debate, it`s not confined to the UK. It`s a worldwide issue, the big elephant in the room that no-one can apparently see, but everyone moves adroitly around. Sensible and rational discussion is needed.
    It is indeed nice to see a proper discussion starting to take shape amongst us about an issue that has been subject to knee-jerk reactions for aeons.

  13. damon

    Hmmm, if that is your view, fair enough. I think it’s quite weak though.
    Of course Britain has been made up of people from different parts of Europe historically. And we all have roots that would show up in dna profiles etc.
    But by the turn of the twentieth century we had by and large become what it was then.
    That’s what we called British. We had obvious minorities like Jews and Irish, and then small international communities living in port cities who had ended up living there because of the sea links to the world.
    But that’s very different to the modern diversity where ethnic minorities make up majorities in some places locally. Whole boroughs even.
    Yes integration does take place, but there are also some serious drawbacks too.
    Remember, that many people call Britain a racist country, so ethnic minority immigrants are almost bound to face difficulties if that’s the case. If we’re that racist, why force immigration on a racist people?

    Btw, I find these accusations that we’re a bunch of racists a bit annoying actually, but that’s what comes with diversity.

    To say that people only know about what living with extreme diversity is like, only from what it says in the media is patronising I think. Sure, many people have never been to places that have a high BME population, but many tens of millions will have.
    People presume that UKIP voters in Essex have never been to east London in the last twenty years.

    This is just one negative aspect that immigration has brought us:

    ”At the age of 14, London should be his oyster. In reality, Reggie’s boundaries extend no further than the half-dozen or so streets around the small Tulse Hill housing estate where he lives with his mother and two younger siblings.
    To venture beyond these invisible boundaries which encompass his school, the local park and a nearby shopping centre would be to invite others to attack or rob him, purely because he had dared to stray from his home turf.
    “There are places you just don’t go,” he explains. “Not unless you know someone there really well or you’re travelling as part of a much bigger group. If you’re on your own and you’re a new face, people will rob you, take everything you have. The only way to stop it happening is not to go to those places.” ”

    http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/imprisoned-in-my-postcode-6536199.html

  14. MaryCSmith

    22222Ultra Income source by leftfootforward < Find Here

  15. stevep

    My view isn`t weak at all, it`s perfectly valid and more relevant today than ever.
    Britain is a growing country, like it or not. The gene pool of the UK of the last two millennia will change dramatically as increasing numbers of people come and go and intermingle with each other.
    One hundred or so years ago it was a major event if a man married a woman from a couple of villages away. Nowadays no-one bats an eyelid if a man from Glasgow or Exeter marries a woman who`s family came here from Antigua or Argentina.
    The world moves on, usually in the direction dictated by the wealthy and powerful. Let`s concentrate on real issues, not perceived ones.

  16. gunnerbear

    You can be a practising Muslim or a believer in a Liberal Democracy where women have rights and homosexuals can exist without being stoned. You can’t be both.

  17. gunnerbear

    Yep…..just as some on the Left would blame this on us as well….more ‘joyous exampes’ of the Blues and Reds belief in immigration… http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/587856/Fury-7-7-memorial-London-invaded-homeless-gang-use-victim-name-plaque-dinner-table

  18. gunnerbear

    Eastern Europeans aren’t in the main the sort though that are going to try and cut your head off or blow up your car or train.

  19. gunnerbear

    “Express outrage at poor Somali or Libyan migrants seeking to escape repressive regimes,” Who could have stayed in Italy, Germany, Spain or France but instead want to sponge off us. “…hero worship the latest multi-millionaire Argentinian, Portuguese or Brazilian football player gracing these shores with his presence.” Who pays stacks in taxes and generates huge amounts in their locality by their spending not to mention the huge revenue they create for their employers.

  20. damon

    Britain is a growing country as you say. Whether that’s good for the people who live here already is another thing. There’s only so much seaside and National Park that we have, and on bank holiday weekends it can feel like half the country is trying to do exactly what you are trying to do.
    The USA has been a big immigration country, with a million or two arriving there every year since WW2. It’s lead to horrible urban and suburban sprawl because of the way that capitalism works there. It can get a bit like that in England too. So a growing country is not always a good thing.
    Ask the people of Eastern and Balkan Europe whether they want to increase their populations with millions of immigrants from Africa and south and central Asia. Should they be obliged to become multicultural? Should Slovenia be obliged to create a diverse demographic like London has?
    I’m at work so in a bit of a rush, but have a look at this excellent Guardian article by Gary Younge today. After thirteen years in the USA, he’s coming back to England.
    It doesn’t sound like a great multicultural society they’ve created there. It sounds totally divided on racial lines.
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-farewell-to-america

  21. stevep

    Right wing tosh.
    Most migrants come to Britain to work and pay taxes. they are net contributors to our economy. Fact.
    Rich footballers were used as a comparison, to challenge the hypocrisy of negating some migrants and acclaiming others. Some of them may well be contributors to our economy, but I`ll bet most of them employ top accountants to offset and avoid as much tax as possible and squirrel away the rest in offshore tax havens where HMRC can`t touch it.
    As for “The huge revenue they create for their employers”, a good deal of their employers are foreign companies who own the team they are playing for. Bet they aren’t registered in the UK.

  22. gunnerbear

    Where’s your evidence for the assertion that immigrants are net contributors? You need to earn about £3k5 to be a net taxpayer in the UK – that’s right £35K and not take a penny in housing benefits, child benefits, tax credits, have children in education and so on. How many immigrants are in that position? http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances–Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

  23. stevep

    This is something I found after about 10 seconds of looking:

    UCL Home

    Prospective students

    Current students

    Staff

    skip to navigation. skip to content.

    UCL News

    UCL Home

    UCL News

    Positive economic impact of UK immigration from…

    UCL News

    UCL News home

    All news

    Student news

    Staff news

    UCL in the media

    UCL Opinion

    Services

    Services for staff

    Services for media

    Get updates from UCL News

    All channels

    Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence

    5 November 2014

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services – according to new research by the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).

    Video interview with Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini

    European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

    Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.

    These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

    Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

    Professor Christian Dustmann

    The research provides an in-depth analysis of the net fiscal contribution of UK immigrants, drawing a distinction between immigrants from the 10 Central and East European EU member states that joined since 2004 (the A10), other European Economic Area (EEA) immigrants and non-EEA immigrants. Its main findings are:

    The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

    Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.

    European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011).

    The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011. By contributing to ‘pure’ public goods (such as defence or basic research), immigrants arriving since 2000 have saved the UK taxpayer an additional £8.5bn over the same period.

    Considering all immigrants who were living in the UK over the years between 1995 and 2011, a period over which the net fiscal contribution of natives was negative (and accumulated to about £591bn), EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), while non-EEA immigrants’ contributions were almost 9% lower.

    Over the same period from 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost about £49bn if it were produced through the UK education system, and contributed about £82bn to fixed or ‘pure’ public goods.

    Professor Christian Dustmann, Director of CReAM and 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.

    “Responding to comments on our earlier report on this topic published last year, we performed extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

    “When we additionally consider that immigrants bring their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and that they contribute to financing fixed public services such as defence, these contributions are even larger.

    “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.”

    Watch a video about this research on UCLTV:

    Links

    Research paper in The Economic Journal

    Professor Christian Dustmann’s academic profile on IRIS

    UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM)

    UCL Economics

    Media contact

    Ruth Howells

    Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 3845

    Email: ruth.howells [at] ucl.ac.uk

    Share

    Disclaimer

    Freedom of Information

    Accessibility

    Privacy

    Cookies

    Contact Us

    University College London – Gower Street – London – WC1E 6BT Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 2000

    © UCL 1999–2015

    UCL Home

    Prospective students

    Current students

    Staff

    skip to navigation. skip to content.

    UCL News

    UCL Home

    UCL News

    Positive economic impact of UK immigration from…

    UCL News

    UCL News home

    All news

    Student news

    Staff news

    UCL in the media

    UCL Opinion

    Services

    Services for staff

    Services for media

    Get updates from UCL News

    All channels

    Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence

    5 November 2014

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services – according to new research by the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).

    Video interview with Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini

    European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

    Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.

    These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

    Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

    Professor Christian Dustmann

    The research provides an in-depth analysis of the net fiscal contribution of UK immigrants, drawing a distinction between immigrants from the 10 Central and East European EU member states that joined since 2004 (the A10), other European Economic Area (EEA) immigrants and non-EEA immigrants. Its main findings are:

    The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

    Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.

    European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011).

    The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011. By contributing to ‘pure’ public goods (such as defence or basic research), immigrants arriving since 2000 have saved the UK taxpayer an additional £8.5bn over the same period.

    Considering all immigrants who were living in the UK over the years between 1995 and 2011, a period over which the net fiscal contribution of natives was negative (and accumulated to about £591bn), EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), while non-EEA immigrants’ contributions were almost 9% lower.

    Over the same period from 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost about £49bn if it were produced through the UK education system, and contributed about £82bn to fixed or ‘pure’ public goods.

    Professor Christian Dustmann, Director of CReAM and 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.

    “Responding to comments on our earlier report on this topic published last year, we performed extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

    “When we additionally consider that immigrants bring their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and that they contribute to financing fixed public services such as defence, these contributions are even larger.

    “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.”

    Watch a video about this research on UCLTV:

    Links

    Research paper in The Economic Journal

    Professor Christian Dustmann’s academic profile on IRIS

    UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM)

    UCL Economics

    Media contact

    Ruth Howells

    Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 3845

    Email: ruth.howells [at] ucl.ac.uk

    Share

    Disclaimer

    Freedom of Information

    Accessibility

    Privacy

    Cookies

    Contact Us

    University College London – Gower Street – London – WC1E 6BT Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 2000

    © UCL 1999–2015

    ShareThis Copy and Paste

    – See more at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.rZxELjbN.dpuf

    – See more at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.rZxELjbN.dpuf

  24. gunnerbear

    The UCL study was funded by a huge chunk of EU cash. Pretend all you want, mass immigration has truly f**ked over those at the bottom of the pile and Labour don’t give a f**k. Or do you see businesses with access to a huge pool of cheap labour ramping up wages and only hiring Brits anytime soon.

  25. stevep

    I know there are problems, there always are where migrants enter other cultures.
    No one seems to mention the huge amount of British migrants living in Spain, France, Italy, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. who have chosen to move there for a better climate, to work, to retire or because they enjoy living in a perceived better society.

  26. stevep

    I could, if I wanted, find loads more articles by different people that say the same thing.
    but it`s a waste of my time for there is a true maxim that says: “There are none so blind than those that will not see”.
    I agree with you about cheap labour. It is not a new phenomenon.
    Most empires throughout history were and are built on either indentured or wage slavery.
    Cheap labour whether local or foreign has always been required to ensure profits for the wealthy since Capitalism became an economic and political regime. That`s why the left argue for change, for fairness, to end exploitation.
    It`s the measure of the success of the right that they have been able to brainwash so many people otherwise.
    So many people fooled.
    Maybe Labour deliberately encouraged immigration to alter the demographics of the UK and widen the gene pool.

  27. gunnerbear

    And for every article that you’re happy with, I reckon I’d easily find statistics that disprove your contentions. 🙂

  28. damon

    Actually, people do mention Brits moving abroad all the time.
    We really don’t have the equivalent of impoverished migrants moving for a far higher standard of living, and being carried somewhat by the new society.
    There was a time when there were a lot of British builders in Germany. I even went for a while myself in the 1990s.
    One point might be that these movements are somewhat reciprocal, and we went there and they came here, on an equal playing field so to speak.
    And as far as I’m aware, there hasn’t ever been the equivalent of the Brixton and Toxteth riots caused by Brits migrating. My ”community” the Irish got a bit of a reputation for likingna drink and a punch up, but were appreciated as hard working people also.
    Not always of course. But what are the hardest jobs in British policing today?
    Probably the Islamic terrorism problem followed by policing the black community.
    Just read about Operation Tridant to see how much police resources that takes up.
    And how sensitive it is. Get it wrong, or get an incident like Mark Duggan, and you’ve got murderous riots on your hands.

    I know I’m painting the bad picture here, but that’s just to counter your more rosy view.
    Mass immigration from third world countries makes really difficult problems in society.
    There are also plenty of areas where it’s a success and works well also.
    But it’s very much a mixed bag. My problem with liberals and leftists is that they always seem to deny the problems that we have.
    They even start calling Ukip ”fascists” etc.
    I just looked up the Hope not Hate website and there are about four articles about Ukip, as if they were seen as a far right party and a bunch of racists.

    That article by Gary Younge that I did a link to shows just how hard things get in a multicultural society. It seems as divided and sectarian as anything in Northern Ireland.
    With people at times hardly able to share the same park space where their children play, so bitter are the feelings about race and racism.
    So my point is, why isn’t it OK for newly democratic European countries that don’t have a history of African and Asian immigrants coming to their country to feel rather dubious about throwing open their borders in the way that western European countries did since the 1960s?
    Or that many countries are rather reluctant to take in large numbers of the present migrants coming accross from Africa and Asia?

  29. madasafish

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits,

    Is not the same as:

    Most migrants come to Britain to work and pay taxes. they are net contributors to our economy. Fact.

  30. Paul 保羅 باول Billanie

    There is also the issue of British citizens who have married outside the EU and had a family. They cannot bring their spouse with them unless the earnings are above £18600 and this goes up if there are children from outside the EEA. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/families-that-need-18600-to-spend-christmas-together-the-shameful-earnings-threshold-imposed-on-british-citizens-wanting-to-bring-their-foreign-spouses-here-9013882.html

  31. Paul 保羅 باول Billanie

    Trouble is this also puts pressure on the unemployed Brits, who BTW would be having the same effect on the economy if they had been employed as well AND at the same time lowering the unemployment figures and welfare bill. Was this considered?

  32. Paul 保羅 باول Billanie

    But then as I pointed out elsewhere before, IF those migrants hadn’t been here it would have been British workers paying those taxes instead of claiming JSA.

  33. stevep

    It`s just one article, there`s many more on the web. Look and see.

  34. stevep

    I stand by my assertion.

  35. stevep

    As someone once said: “There are three types of liars: Liars, Damned liars and Statisticians.”

Leave a Reply