2011 Census - Rise in foreign-born residents

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

37% in London not uk born?!

All the sensible Brits have been selling their over priced pads for some years and moving to the Shires.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The largest immigration appears to have been to the region (London) which is the biggest net contributor to the tax pot, indeed one of very few net contributors to the tax pot. That implies that immigration could require belt loosening.

London always was a foreign country to us Northern oiks, so it's not really that much of a change

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

London always was a foreign country to us Northern oiks, so it's not really that much of a change

Yup, Londoners will except most people except Northerners.

John_Pierpoint

Generali wrote: »

The largest immigration appears to have been to the region (London) which is the biggest net contributor to the tax pot, indeed one of very few net contributors to the tax pot. That implies that immigration could require belt loosening.

Are you getting the horse and the cart the wrong way round ?

John_Pierpoint

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Are you getting the horse and the cart the wrong way round ?

What would it take to turn London in Mexico City?

Generali

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Are you getting the horse and the cart the wrong way round ?

I don't think I am. London is the richest region with the highest immigration. Perhaps the two things are connected in a positive way: skilled migrants are increasing London's output. It seems perfectly reasonable as a proposition.

Of course London's strong economy will also attract migrants, maybe it has become a virtuous circle.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

What would it take to turn London in Mexico City?

You appear to be talking to yourself old boy.

MacMickster

It would be interesting to see the media provide an analysis of the London figures with other major western cities (Berlin, Rome, Paris, Barcelona, New York etc).

This would help us to determine whether what we see is a natural effect of globalisation, or as some people claim, due to the pull of our benefits system.

vivatifosi

MacMickster wrote: »

It would be interesting to see the media provide an analysis of the London figures with other major western cities (Berlin, Rome, Paris, Barcelona, New York etc).

This would help us to determine whether what we see is a natural effect of globalisation, or as some people claim, due to the pull of our benefits system.

I don't know about the cities, but I did hear on the news yesterday that Spain and Sweden had experienced more net immigration than the UK and France less. The comment was made that the world was becoming more global and people more willing to travel for work. The comment was made by a guest newspaper reviewer, but I have as yet to find data to back it up.

Not every country does a census (eg Netherlands) and the census dates don't line up, so you won't get true comparative data anyway. The 2010 US census found that 13% of its population was foreign born, compared to 14.7% a century earlier. Quite interesting given it is known as a country of immigrants.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2012/Dec-12/198153-immigration-remains-an-essential-aspect-of-american-power.ashx#axzz2EpB6FiNp

The 2006 Aussie census shows that 24% of the population was born outside of the country, however a lot of those people are Brits or other white Europeans who emmigrated there in the second half of the last century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia

The CIA World Fact Book has net migration figures which might prove a useful comparator. Most of those places at the top of the list are small with a high incoming population such as Qatar, BVI and Turks and Caicos. Why Zimbabwe is so high I have no idea. The UK is ranked 29th, below Australia, Canada, Spain and Italy but above France and Germany. Of course this is a shorter-term measure than looking at people not born in a particular country.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html?countryName=France&countryCode=fr&regionCode=eur&rank=51#fr

kabayiri

This discussion and the ONS analysis make it sound like we manage immigration and net migration in general.

We don't. There is very little the government can do about labour movement within the EU, and it will always have to concede to business when demands for specific skills are made from other global sources. No current UK government can be seen as anti-business, not in this climate.

The population balance is changing; perhaps we should focus on how we best adapt to changing cultural values etc. On the whole, I think we do that pretty well.

John_Pierpoint

vivatifosi wrote: »

The CIA World Fact Book has net migration figures which might prove a useful comparator. Most of those places at the top of the list are small with a high incoming population such as Qatar, BVI and Turks and Caicos. Why Zimbabwe is so high I have no idea. The UK is ranked 29th, below Australia, Canada, Spain and Italy but above France and Germany. Of course this is a shorter-term measure than looking at people not born in a particular country.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html?countryName=France&countryCode=fr&regionCode=eur&rank=51#fr

Surely a net figure is completely meaningless, perhaps Pakistan had a net migration figure of zero at the time of Indian independence.
North Cyprus definitely had a negative net migration figure at the time of its creation. However there are not a lot of Greek Orthodox churches left North of the border.