The Benefits of Immigration to the UK Economy

This article is not about the historical benefits of immigration, it is about whether immigration is beneficial now and in the immediate future. The positive effects of immigration are discussed after a quick survey of the current position.

The graph above shows the scale of UK immigration. ONS Data. ( Immigration into the UK accounts for 30% of all EU population growth. Immigration over 250000 a year is "mass immigration". See Predicted population of Britain.)

The economic argument for immigration is that we are all richer or otherwise better off because of the economic input of the immigrant.  Can this argument be sustained?

Does further immigration into England benefit the economy?  The definitive House of Lords inquiry into the benefits of immigration concluded that ".... the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant".   Other surveys show a negative effect to immigration and the survey that shows the greatest positive effect is The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK by Dustmann and Fratini(2013) who found a small £2.5 billion per year net contribution. This small effect is not surprising because, in the longer term an immigrant becomes just another member of the economy.  Immigration just adds people to a country, it does not make each person richer.  Now that almost 20% of the population of England is either a recent immigrant or the child of a recent immigrant any new immigrants do not increase the diversity of the economy - it is already diversified in that way, new immigration just brings another person. (The OBR suggest migration may change demographics see note 3).

However, it is possible to obtain a substantial economic benefit from migration. The often quoted "pro-immigration" survey by Dustmann and Fratini (2013) noted that "if immigrants tend to return to their country of origin after reaching an individual career peak, it would bring additional relief to the UK’s fiscal system".  In other words, if Britain used the same system as most other countries in the world and issued temporary work permits it would gain a large benefit from foreign labour.

In the long run immigration is just adding people.  "Just adding people" may not seem to be a significant factor in an economy but if immigration simply increases the population of England it is a direct method of making us poorer. Unlike GDP and other crude measures of "national wealth", individual wealth in wealthy countries can be roughly measured by the amount of space occupied by a person. A rich person has a large house, large garden and big car, a poor person lives in a bedsit and has a bike. This means that increasing the population density of a country beyond a certain level makes everyone individually poorer. England, with much less than an acre of land per head of population, including mountains, lakes and motorways, is past the population density at which increases in population make us all poorer.  (England data: 1023 people per square mile, 0.63 acres per person). Epic levels of immigration such as those since 1997 are rapidly eroding everyone's real individual wealth. (If you dislike the word "epic" you are unfamiliar with the sheer scale of UK immigration - see Predicted population of Britain).  In an overpopulated country the granting of permanent residence makes everyone poorer.

Articles on immigration that imply that a foreign worker must always be an immigrant are either confused or are misleadingly declaring that working in England must always be rewarded by residence in the UK.  No Englishman would expect that 3 months contract work as a banking consultant in Zurich should be rewarded by Swiss citizenship so it is absurd to think that this should occur in England.  Temporary work permits provide the gains of immigration with few of the costs so, by routinely granting residence to foreign workers the UK is undermining all of the possible net benefits of foreign labour.   Unfortunately our membership of the EU means that there is little we can do about 40% of migration except leave the EU.

Our government could invite people to work here and remit money home then leave, or they could educate the English underclass so that it has the vigour to pick crops or the intellect to write software. In the 21st century there is no compelling economic reason for asking people from overseas to take up permanent residence on this small island when these alternatives are available. Inviting immigrants into the country is about something other than the immediate benefit of a working immigrant, it is about changing the population forever, it is not about the immigrant but the immigrant's children and their children.

So are immigrant's children and their children's children indeed always more economically effective than the English population? Obviously not. Furthermore even the idea that immigrants are a permanent benefit to the economy is a racist viewpoint, favouring foreign DNA over that of the natives. Any imagined short term benefits of immigration can be achieved using short term work permits and it is racist to maintain that immigration has a permanently beneficial economic effect due to the racial superiority of the immigrant's offspring. It is also racist to support net migration because many immigrants occupy jobs in the care, transport, cleaning and other areas that require few qualifications and the newcomers displace British workers who are from ethnic minorities who occupied these jobs when they arrived as immigrants (see Is the pro-immigration lobby racist as well as corporatist?).

It seems that even a brief consideration of immigration shows that it is illogical to use permanent immigration to cure temporary labour shortages, clear that the importation of labour is sometimes a means of covering up failures in the education and training of the British population and even the idea that immigration is a benefit to the English economy is racist because it assumes that immigrants have superior children and directly damages the life chances of ethnic minorities.

It could be argued that immigration increases the economic volume of the whole nation.  But where would you prefer to live, in a country with a large economic volume where individual people are poor or in a country where individuals are wealthier? If each individual does not benefit then why should they welcome an influx of people that makes each person in the country less prosperous? It is only the political elite who benefit from the whole country having a bigger economy because they have more important seats on the various G7, G8, G10 etc. international meetings.

In truth there are two, real world reasons for immigration into the UK, neither of which benefit the people of England but each of which benefits a governing faction. The first is to drive up house prices and the second is that immigrants do not vote for right wing, nationalist parties. House prices are driven up because England needs a new town at least the size of Birmingham every five years to house immigrants (See Immigration, house prices and boom economics). The right wing political parties like the high property values and the left wing parties like the destruction of the nationalist vote. Supporting immigration has an added benefit because although they are entirely self-interested, politicians from both the right and the left perversely portray themselves as "holy" by favouring immigration. 

House price index as multiple of median wage

The high house prices redistribute money to the rich and cannot be a 'benefit' and do not fit with left wing agendas. Certainly there will be a transient bonus as population pressure pushes up property values but this will pass and the people will then have less space and hence less real wealth, having swapped their land for a temporary increase in spending power. Only the left wing desire to recruit a tractable population can explain why immigration has been allowed to occur on the epic scale of immigration into the UK during the rule by the Labour Party. Overall there can be no doubt that the large-scale immigration into the UK over the past 15 years is social engineering by centre and left of centre parties.

So immigration into England is social engineering, but why do centre and left of centre parties wish to engineer English society so that it has large numbers of people from overseas? Apart from the fact that the newcomers do not vote "nationalist", they are also instinctively internationalist, they will favour the EU, globalization and the left of centre agenda.

Notice that without immigration Labour would be unable to get elected again.

 The destruction of the English national culture will also aid this process. The centre and left of centre elite in politics are convinced that these are "good things". This is not a "conspiracy theory", the left are quite open about their desire to "diversify the population" and the Labour ruling elite have openly confessed to this motivation (See Labour wanted mass migration). The UN is actively working towards this aim:

"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said."

The EU are changing the UK population to be pro-EU but the mass migration that this entails is causing overpopulation and is a subversive method of obtaining political change.  If the population is not in favour of a government policy it is villainy for the government to change the population. Who does the government represent in a democracy?

Teachers are training children to believe that globalisation is a positive effect and that internationalizing the UK is the true advantage of immigration, this is political indoctrination - see: Advantages of Globalization.  Indeed, if you, the reader, are irritated by this article it is very likely that your irritation is due to your desire for a "diversified population" in the sense that it is less nationalist and more international.  If you support high levels of immigration does this describe you?

There is another group that benefits from immigration.  These are the Gang Masters, who import gangs of immigrants for particular jobs, and British Universities who run their own immigration business, accepting fees in return for enhanced residence rights in the UK. ( This group of businesses would only be beneficial if immigration were beneficial - see Should universities and colleges be financed by offering residence in the UK?).

The Moral Case

Some people say that immigration is a matter of morality. Part of the alleged moral case is about asylum seekers. Proportionately very few immigrants are asylum seekers but the Machiavellian pro-immigration lobby has managed to portray the entire immigration cause as about saving the persecuted and has recruited an army of well-meaning celebrities and comedians to their cause. Of course, most immigrants are economic migrants not asylum seekers, most invited here by the British government and the asylum seekers are a separate phenomenon that requires special treatment. You would have to be some sort of comedian not to understand this.

The "moral" support for immigration also seems to be a confusion about imperialism. There is a good example of this in Immigration. Benefits for the UK. This paper fails to compare the benefits of immigration with a work permit system and fails to consider the intergenerational effects of immigration but it is most remarkable for giving a clear description of the "moral" case for immigration. It considers that the ordinary population of England, who were working down mines and in grim factories, living in 'back to back' houses, killed in their millions by disease and war and often near starving during the Imperialist Era benefited hugely from this treatment and their great great grandchildren owe a "moral obligation" to people in other countries because of the "benefit" their forebears received from British Imperialism. You and I live now, we do not pay out for the "crimes" of those who may have oppressed our great great grandparents and various people overseas. We owe nothing to the foreign descendants of any apparent victims of Imperialism because most of us are descendants of English people who were also victims. The authors of such works seem to be enjoying the idea that, as residents in a country that was once imperialist, they can align themselves with the historical, imperial, governing classes and patronise foreigners, disposing of people and populations like their imperialist forefathers.

In the 21st century immigration into the UK, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, is absurd. A reduced population of 40 million would scarcely be sustainable in the UK, let alone the 70-110 million predicted if immigration were to continue unchecked. Boom and bust cycles are dangerous. An unsustainable population boom is the most dangerous in the long term because it is eventually corrected by death. Eventually there will be a war, an economic collapse, climate change or some other event that will remove the excess population. The pro-immigration lobby has no argument in the 21st century, England is diverse, pursuing immigration now is just jeopardising our future and giving us an overcrowded present for no reason at all. If you want your children and grandchildren to have space and perhaps even to survive into the next century, you will oppose further immigration.

So what do those who have worn the pro-immigration viewpoint as a badge of holiness do now? They should oppose further immigration and wear a new badge of holiness such as supporting inclusivity and a single national culture for the myriad of alienated groups that compose modern England. Those who seek diversity should look around - Labour has succeeded and we are now very diverse - now for God's sake stop, leave some space for nature.

If you are still feeling holy about supporting immigration into the UK you might consider that even the ex Archbishop of Canterbury is opposed to this insanity, he and a group of MPs wrote:

"We are gravely concerned about the rapid increase in the population of England that is now forecast. We note that the official projections show the population of the UK will increase from 61.4 million in 2008 to exceed 70 million by 2029. Over the next 25 years the population will increase by 10 million, nearly all of the increase being in England. 70% – 7 million – will be due to immigration. We believe that immigration on such a scale will have a significant impact on our public services, our quality of life and on the nature of our society."Daily Telegraph 6/1/10

They did not mention that with a population of 70 million one of the normal climatic transients of temperature that are evident in the ice core data might cause a famine that could kill 20 million English people or more.

Incidentally, if you dismissed the reasonable concerns of the ex Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who has spent his life devoted to the needs of the poor and suffering, with the mindless incantation of "racist" you can be sure that your reason has given way to fanaticism and you might think again about whether your beliefs are truly holy...  In fact the pro-immigration lobby are the middle class equivalent of "white van man", wanting to end diversity in the world out of fear of difference.

It is only when politicians provide a regulated market that allows the continuous creation of independent new businesses and the abundance of employment that people can have freedom. Continually importing people to raise property prices and reduce wage rates is a direct attack on that freedom.

If you are anti-immigration you have a democratic tool, just never vote Labour again, Labour set up the current mass migration in 1997 - just look at the migration graphs.  It will also be necessary to withdraw from the EU to prevent mass movements to the UK of people who were taught English at school.

If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL  http://tinyurl.com/b2xsn3o ),  and tell your friends! 


POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine POLITICAL THOUGHTS!


See also:

Labour confirms that multiculturalism and mass immigration are bad

ONS: The predicted population of the UK

Migration and unemployment

Is the pro-immigration lobby racist?

Against racism

Global warming: what do we do now?

Should universities and colleges be financed by offering residence in the UK?

Immigration, house prices and boom economics

The UK Housing Crisis


Tony Blair defends open door policy on immigration.

Labour wanted mass migration

First published 01/08/2010

A 2012 update: The devastating effects of immigration on the economy and society of the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1: Resources: Water: Fresh water is now at a critically low level in the UK, especially in the South East. "Current water shortages in the south-east of the country underline the fact that the UK, with its densely-settled population, has less water for each person than Spain and Portugal." (Droughts and water shortage).
Transport: Railways are overcrowded.. British roads are the second most congested in Europe.
Housing: in excess of 150,000 new homes must be built every year to keep pace with population increase and there is no space to build them (and no water supply). house prices are being driven up by shortages.
Food and agriculture: Britain can support no more than 40 million people.
OK, we have a diverse society with resources at full stretch: why would anyone want to stash the country with more people in these circumstances? It is as if the pro-immigration lobby is deliberately trying to hurt the English and make their lives difficult.

Note 2: Something that has always puzzled me about immigration is the way that it has, until recently, been ferociously supported by the media and politicians. These people are largely private school educated members of an elite who actually dislike English people and culture. When they think of the "English" they think of the people who mocked them for being privileged "toffs" when they were children. The English are the people they fear when walking through poor parts of town. The elite imagine the "English" to be tattooed thugs who require replacement and who have a culture that is of no consequence. Even when about three quarters of the population of England, including many people whose immediate ancestors were immigrants, are against further immigration the pro-immigration lobby still characterize their opponents with the racist stereotype of tattooed thugs. The support from celebrities is to be expected - throwing anything the elite media have dressed up as 'holy' at celebrities is like throwing a bone to a dog.

Note 3: The Office for Budget Responsibility has proposed that immigration on a huge scale (about 6m - 15m extra people) over the next half century will have a demographic effect on the national debt.  However, what the OBR doesnt tell us is that the huge extra demand for pensions and welfare in the mid to late 21st century will be due to the high birth rates amongst the migrants who arrived in the past 15 years - 25% of children are children of migrants.