UK Population to grow 25%, Britain biggest country in Europe by 2050

Kohoutek

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A significant percentage of immigrants come here as young adults, meaning that our society does not have to pay for their childhood....which is one of the big reasons why immigrants as a group use far less services than native born people do, and cost the state significantly less money over the cost of a lifetime.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigrant mothers accounted for more than half of the increase in births, but the fertility rate among British-born women also rose sharply.

If immigrants have more children in general than the rest of the population, then surely any saving from not having to educate adult first generation immigrants is offset by the fact they have more offspring than non-immigrants?

Procrastinator333

So I'm just ripping off wiki, but there are links to plenty of papers if anyone really wants to pick it all apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-65

Extract below.
Economic

In a late 1980s study, economists overwhelmingly viewed immigration, including illegal immigration, as a positive for the economy.[66] According to James Smith, a senior economist at Santa Monica-based RAND Corporation and lead author of the United States National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration", immigrants contribute as much as $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year.[67] The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, caused a net loss in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for low-skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.[68] About twenty-one million immigrants, or about fifteen percent of the labor force, hold jobs in the United States; however, the number of unemployed is only seven million, meaning that immigrant workers are not taking jobs from domestic workers, but rather are doing jobs that would not have existed had the immigrant workers not been in the United States.[69] U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 indicated that the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States grew to nearly 1.6 million in 2002. Those businesses generated about $222 billion in revenue.[70] The report notes that the burden of poor immigrants is not born equally among states, and is most heavy in California.[71] Another claim supporting expanding immigration levels is that immigrants mostly do jobs Americans do not want. A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report added evidence to support this claim, when they found that increasing immigration levels have not hurt employment prospects for American workers.[72]


In 2009, a study by the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, found that legalization of low-skilled illegal resident workers in the US would result in a net increase in US GDP of $180 billion over ten years.[73] Jason Riley notes that because of progressive income taxation, in which the top 1% of earners pay 37% of federal income taxes (even though they actually pay a lower tax percentage based on their income), 60% of Americans collect more in government services than they pay in, which also reflects on immigrants.[74] In any event, the typical immigrant and his children will pay a net $80,000 more in their lifetime than they collect in government services according to the NAS.[75]


The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives.[76] Immigrants were involved in the founding of many prominent American high-tech companies, such as Google, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, and eBay.[77]




On the poor end of the spectrum, the "New Americans" report found that low-wage immigration does not, on aggregate, lower the wages of most domestic workers. The report also addresses the question of if immigration affects black Americans differently from the population in general: "While some have suspected that blacks suffer disproportionately from the inflow of low-skilled immigrants, none of the available evidence suggests that they have been particularly hard-hit on a national level. Some have lost their jobs, especially in places where immigrants are concentrated. But the majority of blacks live elsewhere, and their economic fortunes are tied to other factors."[79]


Robert Samuelson points out that poor immigrants strain public services such as local schools and health care. He points out that "from 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics."[80] According to the immigration reduction advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies, 25.8% of Mexican immigrants live in poverty, which is more than double the rate for natives in 1999.[81] In another report, The Heritage Foundation notes that from 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased by 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million.[82]


Hispanic immigrants in the United States were hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis. There was a disproportionate level of foreclosures in some immigrant neighborhoods.[83] The banking industry provided home loans to undocumented immigrants, viewing it as an untapped resource for growing their own revenue stream.[84] In October 2008, KFYI reported that according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, five million illegal immigrants held fraudulent home mortgages.[85] The story was later pulled from their website and replaced with a correction.[86] The Phoenix Business Journal cited a HUD spokesman saying that there was no basis to news reports that more than five million bad mortgages were held by illegal immigrants, and that the agency had no data showing the number of illegal immigrants holding foreclosed or bad mortgages.[87]

A._Badger

For a calm, scholarly demolition of the utter tosh McTavish has been posting, the following is highly recommended

http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/

And not a jackboot in sight, either.

Procrastinator333

A._Badger wrote: »

For a calm, scholarly demolition of the utter tosh McTavish has been posting, the following is highly recommended

http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/

And not a jackboot in sight, either.

Yes, they are going to give an objective view

"We are an independent, voluntary, non political body which is concerned about the present scale of immigration into the UK."

A._Badger

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Yes, they are going to give an objective view

"We are an independent, voluntary, non political body which is concerned about the present scale of immigration into the UK."

Are you implying the advocates of an open-door policy don't have an opinion? I do hope not.

marklv

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better a patronising t*sser than an ignorant racist.

The fact that you're so quick to come to his defence and argue much of the same case speaks volumes.....

It's funny how anyone who disagrees with the multicultural society is automatically labelled a 'racist'. I don't believe in racial superiority and am not naive enough to subscribe to any notion of Aryan racial purity or similar such nonsense. However, I don't believe that allowing mass immigration from nations culturally distant from native British heritage can be anything but harmful to us in the long term. A small number of well educated professional people is never a bad thing, but millions of people drom diverse backgrounds is a recipe for disaster.

marklv

A._Badger wrote: »

For a calm, scholarly demolition of the utter tosh McTavish has been posting, the following is highly recommended

http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/

And not a jackboot in sight, either.

Maybe that's the problem - calm and scholarly. I think we now need to be rather more forceful and aggressive, otherwise the advocates of open door immigration will be given free rein.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Maybe that's the problem - calm and scholarly. I think we now need to be rather more forceful and aggressive, otherwise the advocates of open door immigration will be given free rein.

:rotfl:

Just supports everything that has been commented about you really.

If you have that much of a problem with it, start your own party, become an MP, if the population are as behind it as you believe you will be PM in no time.

Oh wait, the BNP have already tried and just look like a bunch of muppets. Didn't quite work did it.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

:rotfl:

Just supports everything that has been commented about you really.

If you have that much of a problem with it, start your own party, become an MP, if the population are as behind it as you believe you will be PM in no time.

Oh wait, the BNP have already tried and just look like a bunch of muppets. Didn't quite work did it.

You can mock as much as you like but sooner or later most people will not put up with mass immigration any longer. The BNP is a poorly organised micro-party and it will never achieve power; its main use is to highlight these issues and bring them to the media's attention. It is the big parties that need to act, but to do this they need to eject the open-door policy types. Ultimately, most people vote on economic issues, but in politics an issue only has to reach a certain 'critical mass' before it explodes - this time is rapidly approaching in the case of immigration. Crime and immigration are the two big 'silent' ticking bombs that are ready to explode at any time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A._Badger wrote: »

http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/

And not a jackboot in sight, either.

Except from the co-founder.......:cool:

Professor Coleman is not just any lecturer. A professor of demography at the university, he is a co-founder of the controversial pressure group Migrationwatch, whose website insists migration has become "too high', with a majority now backing an annual limit on the numbers to be allowed into the UK.

He is also a life fellow of the Galton Institute (formerly the Eugenics Society, or ES) set up in memory of Francis Galton, the 19th-century scientist who wanted to ensure that "the strong and fit" have more children than the "the weak and unfit".

Eugenics...... The policy followed by Adolf Hitler in his pursuit of a White Master Race.

Why does it not surprise me that a front organisation for racists such as migrationwatch was founded by a lifetime member of the Eugenics society.