Cross Post - "Government finally admits: Immigration IS placing huge strain on Britain” (Daily Mail)

who can be relied on to say nasty things about immigrants, on principle. For a less hysterical article on the report, try the BBC or Reuters.

For instance, they claim immigration is costing the UK £4 billion a year in 'crime'. But there does not seems to be any source for that, and it does not appear in any other article I can find. It's very likely to have been made up by someone like 'Migration Watch', the right wing anti-immigration group.

The Mail is a very unreliable paper. Nothing in it should be taken at face value - always check it with another source. Think of it as Wikipedia with a right wing agenda.

They've been dedicated to promoting HATE for immigrants (and other minorities) since at least the 1930s.

Here is a link to another article that just came out in a more reputable journal:

www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,2192777,00.html

It was posted in the UK forum today, and we were talking flippantly about how the Daily Hate (as it's sometimes called) would twist things to make it anti-immigrant. Seems we were right!

"The economic report found that migrants earned more per week than British workers on average -- 424 pounds compared to 325 pounds."

"The report highlighted problems with native British workers, saying they "sometimes proved unreliable in certain sectors," while employers praised migrants' willingness to work hard. "In recent years migrants have made a more positive contribution to the public finances than native workers; have often been highly skilled and accordingly captured higher labour market rewards," the report said. "They have very little discernible negative impact on labour market outcomes for native workers," it added."

"The second report from the government's regional co-ordination groups, said migrants were putting pressure on the housing market and driving up rent, creating increased demand on doctors and contributing to community tensions."

"Immigration Minister Liam Byrne commented: "In the long run, our country and exchequer (treasury) is better off with immigration than without it. "But alongside this there is evidence that the pace of change has been unsettling and has created challenges."

"The main opposition Conservatives are calling for immigration from outside the EU to be controlled by an annual upper limit. "You should look at the economics, at the effects on public services, on demand for housing, school places and so on... then the government should set an explicit limit every year," said immigration spokesman Damian Green."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGolByK8N99hm2TbrRSzoxixMN2Q

Once again it is the liberal party that is welcoming immigrants and touting the contributions they make to society, while the conservative party calls for limitations and controls.

cited.

Looks like the ones who benefited from immigration are the immigrants, not UK citizens.

I would assume that with no immigration there would have been "no" benefit to the native UK citizens.

Looks like the statement "small benefits" is close to speculation.

to native UK citizens. There would not have been any benefits from immigration if there was not immigration.

You are right that "small benefits" may be speculative, but if you can improve the lives of a large number of people (immigrants) and the native population pays with "small (even speculative) benefits" that seems like a pretty good bargain.

without immigration. The net result could have been "small benefits" from immigration.

Did that happen? :shrug:

My point is that with economic studies where small changes are noted it's difficult to pinpoint the cause(s) particularly when so many possible causal factors are involved.

Still, I applaud the UK for at least trying to study the issue.

I don't recall seeing anything comparable from the U.S. Department of Labor or other department.

SEE: THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION

Given the overall tone of the report which on fast reading appears to build a case for immigration, it seems like an increase in per capita GNP would be a valuable fact.

It's absence therefore is puzzling in an important report "Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department".

The report’s section on illegal migration, pg 39, is interesting for its lack of factual data on that segment of the labor force.