Please forward this blog on to all your email contacts.
First of all it must be realised that asylum seekers are no longer asylum seekers when the leave the first safe country they arrive in.
There are two groups of migrants.
1. Those who come here with a job, accommodation and health insurance arranged before they come.
2. Those who arrive needing accommodation provided by the Council, no health insurance and no job to come to.
Brits working and living in the EU have jobs, health insurance, accommodation, do not demand benefits from the country they are working in and pay their way.
Most migrants in the UK do not have health insurance and overload many schools with children who cannot speak English and so hold back the education of native English Children. It would seem that this report excludes families of migrants, money sent abroad and children living in their home country but getting benefits.
I am as hopping mad about this as I am about the latest “report” from UCL on immigration benefitting this country. Here are the facts.
Demand for a product or service creates a job vacancy.
a/ A unemployed British resident gets the job, pays tax and gets less or nil benefit. There is no extra demand for schools or roads or hospitals etc because he is already here.
The potential immigrant gets nothing because he is not here.
The customer gets what he wants, our GDP increases (or remains the same if the job merely replaces someone who has retired etc)
b/ An immigrant gets the job, pays tax and also (in most cases) receives benefit, and creates a need for more schools, roads hospitals, interpreters etc.
c/ He sends as much of his income back home as he can afford to.
d/ We pay social security etc for his family, many of whom have never been here, again money sent abroad to the detriment of our balance of payments.
e/ The British resident who loses out on the job stays on social security and pays no tax.
AND ALL THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BENEFIT US?
The UCL analysis – promptly rubbished as “juvenile” by an Emeritus (retired) professor from the same University when first published a few months ago – makes these false assumptions:
a/ Immigrant “output” is new and additional, increasing our GDP. But basic free markets principles tell us that output is normally determined by demand, not by supply. In other words, had the immigrants not been here, that demand would still have been met, if necessary by paying higher wages to get our own people to think it worthwhile taking the job. Yes, consumers would then have to pay more for those products, but would save far more by not having to pay social security to our own people as they take those jobs or (as well) to the immingrants even when in work.
What is happening now is that taxpayers in general are subsidising (in more ways than one, including quality of schooling and congestion) cheap labour for those who have servants and employees and in many ways are paying with their jobs and future prospects. Which helps explain why so many of the elite are in favour of mass immigration, which has lttle effect on their own lives or children’s education, other than cheap labour.
The single most important point is that (apart from small numbers with special skills and their own consumption) immigrants DO NOT add to our GDP.
The next most important point is that the income tax they pay would have been paid anyway, by a British resident had he got that job. In other words, income tax paid is a product of the job itself and the salary paid, regardless of who gets the job.
So this lunatic report manages to conjure up benefit for the country by pretending that the income tax it receives is additional, which it clearly is not, and that the output is also additional, which it clearly is not.
I was pleased to see in today’s Mail that the report and claims are being comprehensively rubbished, including pointing out that the lead author was also the lead author of the analysis some years ago that only 13,000 Poles would come here, shortly before hundreds of thousands did.
Also that this relaunch of the report was engineered by the EU-loving LibDems to coincide with Norman Baker’s spiteful resignation. which appears to have back-fired.