Net migration in 2010 at record high

Graham_Devon

Tissues at the ready Hamish

Annual net migration to the UK in 2010 was 252,000 - the highest calendar year figure on record, figures show.

The data from the Office for National Statistics showed immigration remained steady at 591,000 but there was a drop in the number of people leaving the UK.

Provisional data from the ONS for the 12 months to the end of March suggest net migration has since fallen slightly to 245,000.
The government has pledged to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015.

The figures show the emigration of British citizens was at its lowest since 1998 at 136,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

Highest rated comment on the article is about housing issues. A fair issue.

Prime Minister David Cameron stated "We have noted the increase. We may do something about this in 2026".

Labour Spokesperson Ed Balls stated "This just goes to show how racist the Tory party are......we have a five point plan, and the first point is to something about this in 2028".

kabayiri

Pop quiz.

What is worth less, a government pledge, or an item in their manifesto.

They do not have the tools to restrict migration into the UK, and they know it.

michaels

However expecting the coalition to have acheived a measurable impact during a 12 month period in which they were in power for only just over half and given that legislation takes time to enact and implement is also somewhat farcial.

Of course the odds are the situation will not be any different this year in which instance it will be justifiable to suggest the coalition is incompetent or impotent.

One interesting thing is that their didn'tseem to be the surge of outmigrating polish and other migrants predicted by those who said they are only here for the boom times.

chewmylegoff

kabayiri wrote: »

They do not have the tools to restrict migration into the UK, and they know it.

That's not strictly true, it's just that the only two tools they have to restrict it are seriously nuclear options (i) stop issuing visas to people from outside the EU; (ii) call a referendum on leaving the EU for the purposes of restricting immigration.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That's not strictly true, it's just that the only two tools they have to restrict it are seriously nuclear options (i) stop issuing visas to people from outside the EU; (ii) call a referendum on leaving the EU for the purposes of restricting immigration.

To get down to a target of 10s of thousands per annum, they would have to look at both non-EU and EU migration.

I don't think business will quietly go along with (i), and option (ii) is not even on the table for discussion.

Suppose the Southern half of Europe really does go into deep recession due to the turmoils and there is a mass exodus to places like UK. What realistically can the politicians do?

Heyman_2

Massage the figures?

grizzly1911

I wonder if only paying benefit at the same rate as the native country may slow down the influx and restricting medical care to the basic EU level?

Or perhaps a shift in EU subsidy from the native country to the UK.

I know both are not going to happen, just a thought.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tissues at the ready Hamish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

Surely you realise this means that the population is increasing even more.



When you also consider briths and life expectancy is also increasing, the net population figures are even higher.

Road_Hog

The trouble is, this 'net 'immigration' is a bit of a smoke screen. The immigrants arriving at the rate of 600,000 each year are generally economic migrants, working or not.

The 300,000 leaving are probably retirees, people fed up with the country, who are generally net contributors and have a reasonable net worth. So, we are losing people who contribute to our economy and gaining people who are either a burden of the welfare system or who are causing wage deflation.

So, the reality is, our immigration problem is nearer 900k pa when combined.

IveSeenTheLight

Road_Hog wrote: »

The trouble is, this 'net 'immigration' is a bit of a smoke screen. The immigrants arriving at the rate of 600,000 each year are generally economic migrants, working or not.

The 300,000 leaving are probably retirees, people fed up with the country, who are generally net contributors and have a reasonable net worth. So, we are losing people who contribute to our economy and gaining people who are either a burden of the welfare system or who are causing wage deflation.

So, the reality is, our immigration problem is nearer 900k pa when combined.

Your making quite an assumption there.

There are many instances of immigrants who are contributing to the economy.

Going4TheDream

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your making quite an assumption there.

There are many instances of immigrants who are contributing to the economy.

I appreciate that there are often special skills shortages but its quite ironic when we have 1 million youngsters unable to get jobs and around 2,5 million total unemployed, that we need to have migration in/immigration at those kind of levels at all though wouldn't you say?