Immigration ‘Has Cost Britain £22m Every Day’
February saw the media, led by the BBC, reach a high water mark in publicising the myth from the Lib-Lab-Con that immigration brings a financial boost to this country. The figures they used are those produced by CReAM (Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration) and published last November by University College London (UCL) where CReAM is based. Authors of the learned paper are Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommasco Frattini, with input from Catia Batista and Janies Umlijs.
On March 12th MigrationWatch UK published an in-depth paper on its findings which demolished the UCL publication and showed that far from increasing the nation’s wealth immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million every day since the mid-1990s. It added that in 2011 alone the costs were equivalent to £3000 a day for each of the eight million foreign-born people living in Britain. In fact, immigration between 1995 and 2011 cost the taxpayer more than £140 billion after balancing what immigrants pay in tax with what they take out of Britain’s funds by claiming benefits and tax credits.
Those of you who wonder why it takes longer than ever to get an appointment to see your doctor, or even the dentist, take note that in 2011 alone the total immigration cost of £23 billion was equal to the amount spent by the NHS on GPs and dentists in a year.
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of MigrationWatch UK said: “Our report finally disposes of the immigration lobby’s oft-repeated claims that immigration reduces our tax burden…… It is providing no compensation for the overcrowding of this island.”
He added that the UCL (CReAM) conclusions were “simply wrong”.
UCL were not too happy with the MigrationWatch analysis and claimed that it was a “violent attack” upon its work. That’s a hallmark expression of liberals who cannot accept details that conflict with their own. Perhaps what upset them most was that tucked away in the lengthy UCL paper the authors had admitted that between 1995 and 2011 “there was a fiscal cost of migration of £95 billion” ! Yet this was not only omitted in the abstract of their paper given to the press but UCL came up with the conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. They declined MigrationWatch’s attempts at a discussion on this or anything else.
The MW report then goes on to discuss the claim that recent EU East European migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’, and said it is highly misleading. “Indeed it is meaningless in the context of establishing the fiscal cost since what matters is the amount people receive rather than the number of claims made – especially since different benefits pay widely different amounts to different people. Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population, and more likely to receive housing benefit. Furthermore, these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes. Typically they will be higher than the out-of-work benefits they are less likely to claim, and the native born more likely, to claim. For example in 2011, typical out-of-work benefits for a couple with two children were around £200 a week , but the same couple in low-paid work with two children could be receiving twice that much as they become entitled to working and child care components of tax credits. Job-seekers Allowance was £67.50 a week but the average housing benefit claim was between £73 and £145 per week.”
More important than the financial cost of immigration is that the indigenous British are now an ethnic minority in many towns and cities. Here in the North (recent photo) there are areas where young white children are still in a majority
Plus Points Bob Could Crow About
For a balanced warts-and-all obituary on Bob Crow the former leader of the RMT trade union, who described himself as a communist-socialist, I would recommend the Civil Liberty website. Personally I thought he was an arrogant, offensive, KGB-type who had no compunction in making people suffer – including the working class – when calling strikes at the drop of a hat to gain advantage for his union members.
That was the dislikeable side of him, a view that I imagine is shared by many viewers of this column.
Bob Crow loathed the fact that thanks to EU law the contract for Thameslink rolling stock went to Siemens of Germany rat her than Bombardier in Derby. In fact he felt that Labour had betrayed the interests of working people and not least over EU membership. According to Peter Oborne, columnist in the Daily Telegraph, he could never understand why the party had allowed the anti-EU movement to be captured by the Right (the Tory Farage’s Ukip). “This hurt him in particular because he saw the modern European Union for what it was.
He also argued that the rise of agency working and the consequent undermining of Britain’s full-time, secure employment was another consequence of Brussels legislation. He said: “It is the working class across Europe that is paying the price for monetary union through savage cuts to their jobs, their services and their standards of living. “ He felt that the working people he spoke for wanted out of the European Union, without being anti-European.
It is easy to see why the odious Ed Miliband refused to join with other Labour hacks when he strikingly refused to offer a televised tribute to Bob Crow.
Politics and Envy Between Lawrence’s Mother and Duwayne Brooks
Rather like Lazarus, poor Stephen Lawrence keeps rising from the dead. The latest resurrection of the murder case is centred on the fact that meetings back in 1993-4 between the police and the Lawrence family – and more importantly Stephen Lawrence’s friend Duwayne Brooks – were bugged. I thought that although not strictly lawful it was commonplace with the Met. Well perhaps it is if you are white.
What the media will not discuss is the allegation made that at school/college Duwayne Brooks indulged in some drug peddling among fellow pupils. This is probably what the police were looking for when they bugged interviews. The police were encouraged to do so by the fact that Duwayne Brooks was a registered drug addict and wore a tag at one period. Additionally the two whites eventually found guilty of the Lawrence murder were very much involved in drugs with their colleagues. David Norris’s father Clifford was a high profile drug dealer at the time. Obviously, the Met was trying to find if this murder was the outcome of a drugs war, which is now thought to be unlikely.
Stephen’s mum Doreen – now Lady Lawrence as a Labour peer in the House of Lords – is to be congratulated on the outcome of her campaign, which was boosted by £1.9 million from .the London Development fund. Duwayne Brooks also took to politics and is currently a Liberal Democrat councillor in Lewisham, South London. But there is no love lost between the two, which is based not on political differences but on what ever happened between Brooks and her son before he was murdered.
Brooks has ambitions to become the mayor of Lewisham, in place of the present Labour mayor. He has accused Baroness Lawrence of trying to “humiliate” him by attempting to ban him from speaking at a public ceremony to grant Lady Lawrence the freedom of the borough. He said: “The request by Doreen Lawrence was one to humiliate me in the most hurtful way possible. If she wanted to keep our disagreements away from the public she would have made the request via family friends we have in common. She blames me for the death of her son.”
3
One interesting aspect which could do with clarification is the divorce of the Lawrences. They haven’t spoken to each other without lawyers present for 6 years. Lawyers? Why on earth are they needed, except that something very important indeed might be raised between them, something that would affect them publically. After all, one doesn’t need lawyers to sit in on ordinary private conversations, even between divorced people, does one?
Could this be to do with a disagreement over the reality of the late-night events which saw the death of their son, in view of his mother ‘s ongoing campaign , which she has made a very successful career out of?
Why would 4 white youths bother to get involved with the blacks in question in the late – night encounter? Could it be something to do with an unpaid drugs bill as local rumour has it, one wonders?
Why is it that the media have not explored this possibility?
It is typical of these UCL/CReam leftie academics, all with strange, foreign names, to react to any questioning of their expensive ‘research’ by proclaiming it as ‘a violent attack on their work’. How dare they!
Under Jack Straw/LibLabCON’s new ‘Hate Laws’ (hateful laws!), if any ‘victim’ FEELS an incident is violent, then it IS VIOLENT! Watch out Sir Andrew and team! And the truth is no defense.
Professor Dustmann talking rubbish !
Immigration ‘Has Cost Britain £22 million Every Day.
The total immigration cost of £23 billion was equal to the amount spent by the NHS on GPs and dentists in a year.
Immigration between 1995 and 2011 cost the taxpayer more than £140 billion after balancing what immigrants pay in tax with what they take out of Britain’s funds by claiming benefits and tax credits.
And the British government and opposition still insist on spinning the lie that immigration is of benefit to us?
Since the restructuring of the tax and benefits system, under Labours devious Chancellor Gordon Brown, our taxes have been used to subsidise low paying employers who choose to employ immigrants because they know that they will be prepared to work for much lower incomes. Immigrants who come from poor countries where the expectations of living standards are very much lower than ours here in Britain. Eastern Europeans, and now others from Southern European countries who find themselves unemployed because of the impoverishment meted upon their countries by the Euro crisis have no choice but to take whatever they can get here. These are the people who are free to travel and work in Britain because of our membership of the European Union. They are also free to claim all the benefits that any Briton is entitled to claim by EU rules.
Added to that the masses who have been allowed to settle here from outside the EU, who come from much more impoverished nations and have very much lower expectations for their living standards than any European. The army of Britons who are unemployed and claiming all the benefits that they can will eventually find that the economy will collapse under the shear weight of the tax burden placed upon the middle income earners who are finding their standard of living being reduced virtually monthly. The money that this whole edifice is based upon is mostly borrowed, and the national debt is rising annually in spite of the austerity measures that the Tory/LibDem government have implemented. The nation is sinking dangerously fast, and unless there is a massive change very soon in the way Britain is managed we are all in for a huge financial shock in the near future.
The truth is that we cannot afford to subsidise employers by providing them with cheap labour paid for out of taxation. We cannot afford to continue losing national income from taxation to pay for mass immigration. The only beneficiaries are employers who wish to maximise their profits, but they are killing the very goose that laid the golden egg. They cannot continue indefinitely to milk the tax payer to subsidise their competitiveness Globally. The majority of the population of Britons in work are seeing their standard of living reduced continuously because of this burden. The promise of things getting better again is a false one, held out to pacify the masses into allowing this continued abuse. Just as David Cameron promised to reduce immigration but has actually increased it.
The reason that politicians from the LibLabCon and UKIP are letting this happen is because they are bought by the Global businesses that are doing this exploitation of immigrant (and British) labour. It is astounding to me that socialists have fallen for the lie that it is in some way a Utopian dream that workers of all races should stand together in one nation, shoulder to shoulder. Shoulder to shoulder being exploited by Globalists is more the real picture. The thorny question of mass immigration must be addressed not because of racism, but because of the need to ensure the standard of living that our forefathers (and foremothers) fought so hard to gain for us all.
Prior to the 1990’s we had a dwindling population with schools being closed for lack of children. At this point our housing stock would have been more than adequate for any future ‘native’ population. Now we have our green-belt being encroached upon to build massive housing estates for immigrants. The ‘costs’ of immigration cannot just be measured in economic terms which benefit only big business, while we natives see or beloved country disappear under a sea of tarmac, concrete and of course, debt.
Exactly, Roberta. The costs of mass immigration far exceed any possible economic benefit and they are massive : overcrowding, the loss of precious countryside, overloaded transport systems, and ,above all, the very character of our country changing beyond all recognition withe the consequent loss also of any real social cohesion.
(Party Member) Beware people who use the term ‘ social cohesion’. Even when they sound reasonable, as it is LibLab code for getting you to abandon your principles in the interests of peace and quiet.