Theresa May: Net effect of high immigration is close to zero

Graham_Devon

Even if we could manage all the consequences of mass immigration, Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year. Of course, immigrants fill skills shortages and it’s right that we should try to attract the best talent in the world, but not every person coming to Britain right now is a skilled electrician, engineer or doctor.

“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”

Can't say I agree with everything she says, or even the majority. But seems they are starting to get it.

cells

if it was a net zero for us, then shouldn't we be happy to let it happen on a large scale as its presumably a big net positive for the migrants?

Its like charity but without having to put your hands in your pocket

lisyloo

if it was a net zero for us, then shouldn't we be happy to let it happen on a large scale

I'd say no.
I have a feeling that a net zero, means some big positives and big negatives.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

if it was a net zero for us, then shouldn't we be happy to let it happen on a large scale as its presumably a big net positive for the migrants?

Its like charity but without having to put your hands in your pocket

The economic and fiscal effect is close to zero.

That's not ALL effects, i.e. housing, infrastructure etc, hence the very first line quoted "even if we could manage all the consequences"....

wymondham

So those people who sleep and defecate around London landmarks don't contribute to the economy... Who'd have thought it!

kabayiri

wymondham wrote: »

So those people who sleep and defecate around London landmarks don't contribute to the economy... Who'd have thought it!

Banksy would turn them into some kind of tourist attraction.

ruggedtoast

Technically the world doesn't need people at all, so saying the British Isles doesn't 'need' more people is rather moot. In my opinion.

There are people, and they need somewhere to live. This country used to have quite a laudable tradition of taking in those who were displaced, disadvantaged, or unsafe in the places fate had sent them.

I think it would be a shame of the likes of Theresa May and her gerrymandered government are allowed to erase that on a right wing tide of meanness.

lisyloo

Who has mentioned erasing asylum?

Linton

It strikes me a little odd that those who believe most in a free market dont want a free market in labour. Or perhaps not a little odd if one can gain votes by campaigning against those who are "not one of us". And how much easier to blame government failures on those nasty foreigners.

Given modern technology and economics, movement of people across the world is inevitable. Attempts to stop it will ultimately be unsuccessful and in the meantime will have consequences that I suspect many people will find unacceptable. As to consequences, here are some:

1) Are British people allowed to marry foreigners? Yes, but then they cant live in the UK? In our universities large numbers of British born students are meeting people from around the world. The results are unavoidable.

2) Technical careers, particularly in research, operate globally with people expecting to work anywhere in the world. Such experience can be seen as an important background for junior staff, aiding promotion. The UK gains greatly from this process - many of "our" Nobel prize winners were immigrants.

3) Global companies need the freedom to easily move key staff around the world. If posting to the UK is difficult or impossible, the UK will become a backwater.

4) People coming from "suspect" countries for perfectly acceptable reasons will be treated as potential criminals and subject to arduous entry requirements. That's a great way to encourage tourism. And what about the family life of those second or third generation descendants of immigrants who are not allowed to receive visits from relatives?

5) I believe for any serious war on immigration identity cards will become a necessity. Without them anyone who looks like they could be an illegal immigrant will suffer serious discrimination. Or perhaps this is seen as acceptable?

6) Other countries would be perfectly justified in retaliating.

What countries can you cite that have successfully limited immigration to relatively small numbers? North Korea perhaps.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Technically the world doesn't need people at all, so saying the British Isles doesn't 'need' more people is rather moot. In my opinion.

There are people, and they need somewhere to live. This country used to have quite a laudable tradition of taking in those who were displaced, disadvantaged, or unsafe in the places fate had sent them.

I think it would be a shame of the likes of Theresa May and her gerrymandered government are allowed to erase that on a right wing tide of meanness.

we accepted 600,000 immigrants last year and similar for the last 15 years : lets say about 9 million

what do you consider the 'right' number ?

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

Given modern technology and economics, movement of people across the world is inevitable. Attempts to stop it will ultimately be unsuccessful and in the meantime will have consequences that I suspect many people will find unacceptable.

Not sure what " modern technology and economics" have to do with people saying no. Enough is enough. Germany needs migrants because the population is aging and the fertility rate is low. Much of the rest of Europe doesn't. That's why border fences are going back up. Nationalism is on the rise.