Labour's U-turn on immigration.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't think that is so different to the system here for non EU immigrants who have their visa stamped "no recourse to public funds" (I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs unless your OH has an EU passport on an ancestry basis). My OH was here for almost seven years (paying tax the whole time) before she was entitled to access benefits / non emergency medical care. Somewhat ironically she worked for the NHS providing non emergency services which she herself would have no access to if she needed them.

You're right and I'd forgotten that.

Mrs Generali arrived on a 4 year ancestral visa (1 Pommie Grandmother). She got full access to the NHS though and if she'd had kids with another foreigner they would have been schooled at the taxpayers' expense.

MacMickster

BobQ wrote: »

Remind me how much net migration has fallen in the past two years as promised by Cameron as he appealed for the anti-immigrant vote?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105311/Net-migration-UK-stuck-250-000-despite-Camerons-tough-talk-slashing-numbers.html

There was an interesting debate on Newsnight a few days ago.

It seems that the official definition of immigration includes in the figures (for which Labour were pilloried) students coming to study at universities in this country.

They have now realised that as over 100,000 students arrive annually, in order to meet Call Me Dave's target to reduce net immigration to "tens of thousands" we will have to drastically reduce the number of students coming here. This has provoked howls of outrage from the universities who rely on the fees from foreign students in order to survive.

chewmylegoff

MacMickster wrote: »

There was an interesting debate on Newsnight a few days ago.

It seems that the official definition of immigration includes in the figures (for which Labour were pilloried) students coming to study at universities in this country.

They have now realised that as over 100,000 students arrive annually, in order to meet Call Me Dave's target to reduce net immigration to "tens of thousands" we will have to drastically reduce the number of students coming here. This has provoked howls of outrage from the universities who rely on the fees from foreign students in order to survive.

not really, because they are net figures. if 100,000 students come every year, and do a 3 year course, and then they all leave at the end, the net immigration each year is 0.

you don't need to stop students coming here to prevent students having an impact on the net immigration figures, you just need to make sure they leave when they have finished (not that that is a great idea as you want the best ones to stay).

nomoreboomandbust

heathcote123 wrote: »

Unusually for Milliband it was correct. Unskilled immigration actually was displacing their thick and bigoted core vote out of work. It would take a mastery of smoke and mirrors to claim otherwise.

It was good for others though. I think most of us benefited.

I am intrigued by this, please explain how most of us have benefited, I would say only a small minority have.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nomoreboomandbust wrote: »

I am intrigued by this, please explain how most of us have benefited, I would say only a small minority have.

There have been three major studies looking at the aspects of the economic and labour market impact of the migrants from the new Member States:

-One by me, with Sara Lemos at the University of Leicester, found no impacts on native unemployment, either overall, or specifically for the young or low-skilled. Nor did we find any significant impact on wages, although the data is less conclusive.

-One by researchers at UCL, which found that the new migrants made a substantial and disproportionately positive contribution to the public finances, because “they have a higher labour force participation rate, pay proportionately more in indirect taxes, and make much lower use of benefits and public services”.

-One by my colleagues at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found relatively small, but positive, macroeconomic impacts.

This chart shows the correlation between wage growth at the 10th percentile (ie very low paid workers) and the proportion of migrants from the new Member States, at local authority level.



It is clear that there isn’t one; ie wage growth for the low paid and immigrant inflows don’t appear to be related at all. Numerous other ways of looking at the data tell the same story.

In addition, of course, there have been many other studies of the impact of immigration more generally, which tells pretty much the same story.

As Jonathan Wadsworth, of Royal Holloway College and the government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee, summarises:

“It is hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages, on average.”

So; the new migrants get jobs, contribute to the economy, pay taxes, don’t use many public services, and don’t take jobs from natives.

What, exactly, is the problem?

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-ed-miliband-shouldnt-apologise-for.html

A._Badger

While for anyone who isn't overly impressed by the predictable findings of academics, the following from the House of Lords might prove edifying.

Except for Hsmish, of course - who will probably respond with a claim that their lordships were closet members of the BNP. Or former SS officers.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

.

Fella

misskool wrote: »

Well, not quite but Ed Miliband would like all companies who employ foreign workers to report if they have more than a quarter of their payroll who are not British.

How unsurprising. Nulabor have managed to find a way to turn even their hopeless handling of the immigration issue into yet another burden on businesses.


Death by a thousand cuts of endless meaningless garbage red tape is what you get if you try to run a business under morons like Miliband. He relies entirely upon the fact that it's beyond most people to join up the dots between the effect of countless endless timewasting administrative overhead like this & the lack of jobs in this country.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There have been three major studies looking at the aspects of the economic and labour market impact of the migrants from the new Member States:

-One by me, with Sara Lemos at the University of Leicester, found no impacts on native unemployment, either overall, or specifically for the young or low-skilled. Nor did we find any significant impact on wages, although the data is less conclusive.

-One by researchers at UCL, which found that the new migrants made a substantial and disproportionately positive contribution to the public finances, because “they have a higher labour force participation rate, pay proportionately more in indirect taxes, and make much lower use of benefits and public services”.

-One by my colleagues at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found relatively small, but positive, macroeconomic impacts.

This chart shows the correlation between wage growth at the 10th percentile (ie very low paid workers) and the proportion of migrants from the new Member States, at local authority level.



It is clear that there isn’t one; ie wage growth for the low paid and immigrant inflows don’t appear to be related at all. Numerous other ways of looking at the data tell the same story.

In addition, of course, there have been many other studies of the impact of immigration more generally, which tells pretty much the same story.

As Jonathan Wadsworth, of Royal Holloway College and the government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee, summarises:

“It is hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages, on average.”

So; the new migrants get jobs, contribute to the economy, pay taxes, don’t use many public services, and don’t take jobs from natives.

What, exactly, is the problem?

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-ed-miliband-shouldnt-apologise-for.html

1. some of us don't define our quality of life solely by per capita GDP

2. some of us don't want an every increasing population and value the quiet and beautiful places or indeed the beautiful towns too

3. some of us recognise that young people do indeed put a lower burden on many of our public services than older people i.e. fewer need geriatic services or suffer cancer or heart attacks or need orthopedic services.

4. However some us think that in 40 years time these now young people will be 40 older.
Unless we enter a faustian contract of a ponsi scheme for every increasing munber of immigrants the current generation will add an adddition burden on future gnerations.
So in current palance the boomer generation will benefit now with all the cheap labour but the price will be paid by later generations. (Not that I agree about the boomer generation but it's part of the boards mythology)

5. some of us recognise that we have not infact invested yet in additional houses, schools, transport and general infrastrusture to cater for the increasing population so we are developing a backlog of major costs.

6 So the current 'balance sheet' which shows some uncertainty about the current benefits of immigration doesn't include the full future long term costs or even those pressing over the next 10 years (I'm assuming that it that time scale the immigrants will start having children and want decent homes and school places).


7. Some might take the view that your quote

As Jonathan Wadsworth, of Royal Holloway College and the government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee, summarises:

“It is hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages, on average.”

is not exactly an unambigious ringing endorsement of the benefits of immigration even in the short term.

misskool

Fella wrote: »

How unsurprising. Nulabor have managed to find a way to turn even their hopeless handling of the immigration issue into yet another burden on businesses.


Death by a thousand cuts of endless meaningless garbage red tape is what you get if you try to run a business under morons like Miliband. He relies entirely upon the fact that it's beyond most people to join up the dots between the effect of countless endless timewasting administrative overhead like this & the lack of jobs in this country.

job creation by any other name?

John_Pierpoint

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There have been three major studies looking at the aspects of the economic and labour market impact of the migrants from the new Member States:

-One by me, with Sara Lemos at the University of Leicester, found no impacts on native unemployment, either overall, or specifically for the young or low-skilled. Nor did we find any significant impact on wages, although the data is less conclusive.

-One by researchers at UCL, which found that the new migrants made a substantial and disproportionately positive contribution to the public finances, because “they have a higher labour force participation rate, pay proportionately more in indirect taxes, and make much lower use of benefits and public services”.

-One by my colleagues at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found relatively small, but positive, macroeconomic impacts.

This chart shows the correlation between wage growth at the 10th percentile (ie very low paid workers) and the proportion of migrants from the new Member States, at local authority level.



It is clear that there isn’t one; ie wage growth for the low paid and immigrant inflows don’t appear to be related at all. Numerous other ways of looking at the data tell the same story.

In addition, of course, there have been many other studies of the impact of immigration more generally, which tells pretty much the same story.

As Jonathan Wadsworth, of Royal Holloway College and the government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee, summarises:

“It is hard to find evidence of much displacement of UK workers or lower wages, on average.”

So; the new migrants get jobs, contribute to the economy, pay taxes, don’t use many public services, and don’t take jobs from natives.

What, exactly, is the problem?

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-ed-miliband-shouldnt-apologise-for.html

I have a feeling that these results refer back to the boom economy of 2007 and earlier. There were "NEETs" by choice then, because their doting benefits parent [STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] would not or could not get them to face up to grafting for a living.
Now there are self evidently not enough jobs, even for the reasonably trained and willing.
However it is no longer possible for a young native couple to get municipal accommodation.
Back in the "swinging 60s" labour's young supporters could reasonably expect to get hitched and have a semi skilled job and municipal housing. When I lived on "Red" Clydeside it was reputed that a flat could be had for the price of a packet or two of cigarettes per week.

I welcome intelligent hard working immigrants, though I do wonder if we are depriving their country of origin of skills and drive that might enable it to drag itself up by its own bootstraps.
Many such migrants "go native" and within 10 years can be more British than some people born here.

What I don't want is the illiterate surplus to requirements economic migrants, complete with their large multi-generational families as a drain on the welfare system.