Over population - should births be taxed?

[Huguenot]

Incidentally on the subject of a 'flood', net UK immigration is just over 100,000 a year.

In a population of 65,000,000 this is just over 0.1% - or the equivalent of a single drop of water on a table top.

Whatever your definition of 'flood' a single drop of water on a table top wouldn't be it.

Hence there doesn't 'appear' to be a 'flood' at all.

However, if you think there's a flood it's most likely because you've got your eyes screwed shut and your fingers in your ears. There's nothing anyone can do to help you through this mania. Like small children worried about the monster in the cupboard, sometimes you need to just grow up.

[Loz]

If you want to see a flood of immigrants, try the south coast of Spain, around Alicante.

[Tarot]

And Hugenut. is always right.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Prove him wrong then tarot. Don't just sneer

[nashoi]

Several early posters pointed out that the UK's population density was not that different to many comparable countries eg Germany. This is quite true, but if you look at the figures for England, as opposed to the UK, then we are the most densely populated country in Europe, quite recently overtaking Holland.

I think making this distinction is justified, as a disproportionate amount of any future population increase is likely to occur in England, rather than the rest of the UK. It also highlights the problem of population distribution rather than over population. Internal migration as well as immigration are going to put huge pressure on the south east infrastructure in particular as well as increasing the north south divide. This process is inevitable and so the government is going to have to make some tough decisions on projects such as Heathrow's third runway and the Kent International Gateway, both bitterly opposed. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending this country isn't densely populated isn't going to help.

[Magpie]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260

Net immigration last 10 years has been between 150 - 200k - equating to c2m over the period. The UK population was 58.5m in 1998, rising to 61.5m in 2010 - so immigration has inceased the population by 3.4% in 10 years, and accounted for (on a first order basis) around 66% of population growth on a first order effect (probably would be more if we take into account births to first generation immigrants).

It might not be a flood, but it is the single largest contributor to population growth in the UK. It also drives lower wages, particularly for low-skilled jobs, and results in a loss of social cohesion and identity.

The majority of the benefits of immigration that Huguenot quotes arrive from genuine 2-way immigration - the exchange of highly skilled labour - the negatives - ie housing, wages, benefits, social cohesion all come from low skilled immigration. An intelligent immigration policy would seek to encourage the former but minimise the latter.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Or you could stop seeing them as ?others? and just crack on?.

The biggest part of the ?negatives? is the social cohesion ? but given that amounts to a bunch of natives going ?we don?t like them living round here? where does the responsibility for that lie?

And it?s not just a UK thing ? countries across the world all think they have to take the unfair share. When we all have to emigrate to China or wherever I hope they don?t get the same hump with us

[Magpie]

Well not really - social cohesion is essentially a qualitative measure, such as increased vibrance and diversity.

The quantifiable impact, is that mass un-skilled immigration leads to depressed wages, and competition for scarce resources - eg housing, hospitals, schools. The disbenefits are felt most by the already poor - working class whites, and second generation immigrants. Immigrants do not do jobs that locals won't do, they do jobs that locals would do, but at a lower wage.

[SeanMacGabhann]

i have seen a number of studies, and experience in several pockets of London, the exact opposite of that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7288430.stm

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/immigrationandrefugees/The-100aday-job-that-local.4119594.jp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/16/immigrants-ice-cream-sharks

There are many many many out there

But if the population rise was down purely to indigenous people - would that be better?

[Huguenot]

Or else they do jobs that locals won't do, even at high salaries:

"Coventry City Council complained that it was prevented from recruiting seven social workers from the US and Canada, while one south-east council wanting 11 social workers from Canada was told by the UK Border Agency that it could have five work permits, including any needed for existing overseas staff."

"The interim cap and proposed future limits on economic migration to the UK from outside of the EU are already and will continue to have an extremely damaging impact on local authorities' ability to care for and protect vulnerable children, young people and their families."

You simply can't persuade me that people were moving across from North America to be paid berries and mirrors.

The fact is that the reputation of social work in the UK has been destroyed by tabloid hysteria and mob frenzy.

Thank the heavens we have immigrants to care for us and our children, eh?

Immigration is all about balance, you can't have the good stuff without experiencing the odd not-so-good side.

In balance, intelligent well informed people recognise that the the overall result is better than a closed door policy.

[Magpie]

I should perhaps correct the last sentence of my post

Unskilled Immigrants do not do jobs that locals won't do, they do jobs that locals would do, but at a lower wage.

Immigrants often don't have families to support, have lower living costs, and are not in receipt of benefits, they hence are happier to accept lower wages than the locals. This is effectively the low income trap - why work, when you lose benefits pretty much like for like if you do work.

"In balance, intelligent well informed people recognise that the the overall result is better than a closed door policy."

However, intelligent well informed people should be realistic enough to accept that the status quo - ie the largest change in the make up of the countries population in the shortest space of time (eg what the country has experienced in the last 10 years) - is not sustainable, acceptable, nor beneficial to the majority of the indigenous population (as opposed to the upper-middle classes), and therefore sensible caps on migration are the way forward.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you read Sean's links Magpie.

The employers are quite clear that locals are turning down jobs paying ?70 to ?100 a day because they simply cannot be bothered to work. This reality is overlooked by anti-immigration campaigners because it's not convenient, it's easier to lay the blame at the feet of those with a different language or skin colour because they can't defend themselves.

We have a substantial minority of work-shy ingrates in the UK who would do better to look in the mirror to find the source of their problem.

No one would disagree that sensible migration is the end goal. The question is how we define sensible migration. Many would question why footballer immigration is uncapped, and we are prevented from employing desperately needed social workers.

Much unskilled legal migration may be those seeking asylum from torture or abuse under other regimes. We do this for many reasons - not least that it reinforces our political position on the world stage when we are negotiating trading rights or access to critical resources.

Many critics argue that the 'UK is not a charity' to which the only response is 'Of course we're not a charity, we're doing it for a self interest which is undreamt of in your philosophy.'

We also undoubtedly suffer from illegal immigration, in the same way that we suffer from burglaries or benefit fraud. Our ability to deal with this as a nation is limited by the populations willingness to be taxed to pay for increased security.

We could 'ban foreign students' but in doing so would damage an incalculable benefit in international trading relations that is reaped from greater international understanding and contact. It has about as much sense as banning Magpie from his car because of a drunk driver in Middlesbrough.

[Magpie]

You appear to deliberately mis-understand my point Huguenot - locals often cannot be "bothered" to work as wages are too low relative to benefits - this is partly as a result of immigration putting downwards pressure on wages, partly as a result of a benefits system that provides perverse incentives that fail to encourage work at low wage levels, and of course partly because the're really are some people who would never work regardless - again they are supported by a benefit system that rewards such behaviour. The government and society has a responsibility to break the cycle of dependency - mass immigration makes this more difficult.

I don't think I have ever heard the phrase "desperately needed social workers" - quite a novel idea really

[Huguenot]

If a 23 year old single lad living at home is turning down jobs at over 20 grand a year (100 quid per day) because they're better off on benefits I'd be looking to reduce benefits before I cut immigration.

Immigration would drop because available jobs were taken by locals, without resorting to border control tactics more closely ascribed to xenophobia than economic benefit.

If you don't think social workers are 'desperately' needed than either you don't know people working in the business, don't read newspapers, or don't think Victoria Climbie or Baby P needed 'desperate' help.

[Magpie]

Again you miss the point - how can someone who is unemployed afford to turn down a 20k a year job? He neatly fits into my category 3 - he either has some very very understanding parents, or is happy to sit watching Sky and getting paid by the taxpayer. Cut his benefits and send him out to work.

Are you really using the Climbe and Baby P cases as examples of the "help" that social workers provide? Not the best advertisments for the profession. Actually perhaps you're right - better to replace all indigenous social workers with some immigrants who practice common sense.

Immigration will not drop until its not possible to come to the UK for a better life (ie while any wage differential remains) thus logically we either allow unlimited immigration or we impose strict border controls, and allow immigration on a needs-only basis basis. It then becomes a question of numbers and criteria.

[Huguenot]

I think that we both agree that Climbie and Baby P both needed desperate help that they didn't receive, and so do many others.

An immigration system that is uncapped for footballers but prevents the appointment of well qualified social workers is flawed.

Immigration has never been uncapped, the low waged immigrants you describe are mostly derived from asylum seekers or illegals. The reason for both of these has little to do with immigration legislation, but to do with either international trade, social responsibility or an ineffectual security apparatus.

Options like the national ID card that may start to address the issues with illegals are fiercely opposed by the very people that complain about illegal immigrants.

[Magpie]

"Immigration has never been uncapped, the low waged immigrants you describe are mostly derived from asylum seekers or illegals. The reason for both of these has little to do with immigration legislation, but to do with either international trade, social responsibility or an ineffectual security apparatus."

Sorry thats rubbish and you know it - the majority of low wage immigration has been from Eastern Europe - the UK, along with Ireland and Sweden (I think) were the only old EU member states that did not impose caps on immigration from new member states - the result was c1m Eastern Europeans moving to the UK in a period of about 12 months.

My understanding is that an immigration cap is a policy yet to be introduced by the Coalition. Currently, there is a points based system introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government when they realised that their open doors policy on immigration had been a disaster socially, electorally, and had little long term economic benefit as any increase in economic output is offset by the increase in population.

[Loz]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding is that an immigration cap is a

> policy yet to be introduced by the Coalition.

> Currently, there is a points based system

> introduced in the dying days of the last Labour

> government when they realised that their open

> doors policy on immigration had been a disaster

> socially, electorally, and had little long term

> economic benefit as any increase in economic

> output is offset by the increase in population.

An immigration cap is pointless politics. It can only be applied to non-EU countries and all it will mostly do is block some highly skilled people who are needed in the UK.

[Huguenot]

"the majority of low wage immigration has been from Eastern Europe"

"the result was c1m Eastern Europeans moving to the UK in a period of about 12 months"

Although that I can't corroborate that assertion, since overall population changes were a fraction of that then people were flooding out too?

Can you demonstrate that UK citizens moving to Europe weren't low wage earners? Students perhaps? Pensioners? Bar workers? Nightclub hostesses? Labourers? Pregnant women getting better health treatment in France?

Perhaps it's just the perfectly reasonable free movement of labour that works both ways? Is that what you're out to stop?

Perhaps they were leaving the UK to avoid the self-destructive attitude of smug British xenophobes who will bring the country to its knees rather than welcome a 'foreigner'.

Are your definitions of immigration starting to change? Perhaps if these were 'outside' your previous definition of 'immigration', then perhaps there are millions of UK citizens moving to Europe who are outside your 'emigration' figures?

I'm disgusted by the thought that people would stop me working abroad because they can't be bothered to deal with their own prejudice against foreigners.

If you wonder why I'm so incensed by little englanders, it's because their prejudices would attempt to destroy the lives of open minded and outward bound UK citizens who wish to increase their life experiences around the world and benefit the economies of their home nation.

There's an awful lot of moving the goalposts here when certain elements discuss immigration - which only does more to make me believe that those involved in pushing through a closed door policy have hidden agendas. Perhaps the next target is the EC?

It seems, possibly incorrectly, that these people willing to distort the figures consistently in order to pursue an agenda that is essentially xenophobic, and that they don't care what they destroy on the way.

[Huguenot]

"the majority of low wage immigration has been from Eastern Europe"

"the result was c1m Eastern Europeans moving to the UK in a period of about 12 months"

Although that I can't corroborate that assertion, since overall population changes were a fraction of that then people were flooding out too?

Can you demonstrate that UK citizens moving to Europe weren't low wage earners? Students perhaps? Pensioners? Bar workers? Nightclub hostesses? Labourers? Pregnant women getting better health treatment in France?

Perhaps it's just the perfectly reasonable free movement of labour that works both ways? Is that what you're out to stop?

Perhaps they were leaving the UK to avoid the self-destructive attitude of smug British xenophobes who will bring the country to its knees rather than welcome a 'foreigner'.

Are your definitions of immigration starting to change? Perhaps if these were 'outside' your previous definition of 'immigration', then perhaps there are millions of UK citizens moving to Europe who are outside your 'emigration' figures?

I'm disgusted by the thought that people would stop me working abroad because they can't be bothered to deal with their own prejudice against foreigners.

If you wonder why I'm so incensed by little englanders, it's because their prejudices would attempt to destroy the lives of open minded and outward bound UK citizens who wish to increase their life experiences around the world and benefit the economies of their home nation.

There's an awful lot of moving the goalposts here when certain elements discuss immigration - which only does more to make me believe that those involved in pushing through a closed door policy have hidden agendas. Perhaps the next target is the EC?

It seems, possibly incorrectly, that these people willing to distort the figures consistently in order to pursue an agenda that is essentially xenophobic, and that they don't care what they destroy on the way.

[DJKillaQueen]

And we also mustn't forget that France, Germany and some other EU countries face bigger issues with migration than we do. We could be forgiven for thinking that the UK is the only country in the world that has to deal with migration. The economic solution is to regulate immigration according to workforce requirements but that's difficult to manage within the EU where a free border policy exists, and within a free market system.

More than anything, who can begrudge anyone that is prepared to move to seek a better future. We'd all do it if we could.

Underneath there is also another question. The truth is that immigrants take some jobs because some british people can't compete for them. Why is that....?

[SteveT]

Moos wrote:- If someone wants to come up with a factual and reasoned argument against immigrants, bring it on.

We have been sucking in immigrants big time for fifty or sixty years.

If we are short of manpower why haven't successive governments encouraged an increase of our own indigenous population?

Haven't we had sufficient time to increase family allowances, thus encouraging an upturn in the local population to achieve this?

[Huguenot]

I'd have thought that one was obvious - immigration is less expensive, and paying locals to have children would require an increase in taxation that no-one would agree to.

You'd only pursue that strategy if you thought this was the only issue at stake, and that 'locals' were intrinsically 'better' that 'foreigners'.

There's also short termism - the nature of our government is that we need to achieve political goals in 5 year chunks. Heavy spending on child support by a government today is going to show no impact the next time they head to the polls, except a much heavier tax burden which will get them thrown out.

Anyway this is an oversimplifcation of immigration issues. They are many and varied reasons for immigration as discussed earlier.

[SteveT]

immigration is less expensive wrote Huguenot.

Unless they are on benefits.

'locals' were intrinsically 'better' that 'foreigners' wrote Huguenot.

They would not have vastly different cultural baggage, and they would not have problems with communication in English.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you've been reading the earlier posts in this thread SteveT.

Immigrants are estimated by the Home Office to bring in 2.5 billion more in tax revenue than they attract in benefits.

Besides, you don't need to be an immigrant to claim benefits. There's plenty of white British people in South London doing that too.

Whilst there can be occasional language problems this is far outweighted by the other benefits derived.

To be honest SteveT, your argument is just another one of those poorly informed prejudices that likes to keep repeating 'immigrants, benefits, different to me'.

I'm not going to be bothered to repeat points made earlier, and because prejudice isn't based on rational or informed argument you're not going to change your mind anyway. It makes me ashamed to be British.