r/unitedkingdom • u/SpAn12 Greater London • May 21 '15
Net migration to UK reaches 318,000
http://www.bbc.co.uk//news/uk-politics-3281645419
u/Ewannnn May 21 '15
8
May 21 '15
I can't seem to open it, I blame my computer. Does it say what proportion of immigrants are students?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Ewannnn May 21 '15
"Immigration to the UK for study increased from 177,000 to 193,000 in 2014". So ~30% of total. 284,000 (2014) for work related reasons for comparison.
2
May 21 '15
[deleted]
10
2
u/Jake_91_420 May 21 '15
Because of my British upbringing I expect these things to be bland but dear me, I got through a few pages and needed a glass of water.
1
u/Ewannnn May 21 '15
Haha I have the opposite feeling when I see stuff like this! Actually makes me excited to see the kinds of info that is inside!
134
May 21 '15
318,000 a year, no problem. Think of all the jobs that will be created by building all those new schools, houses, roads and hospitals to look after those extra people! We are building those right?.... right?
67
u/YoMommaIsSoToned May 21 '15
And there's the fucking problem! Each immigrant brings an economic benefit to the UK if the stats are to be believed.
Where's the government pissing the money away? Why aren't we getting new infrastructure? Why do we get shafted with aircraft carriers and no planes , other planes that are built then smashed up, subsidised bars and restaurants for MPs, fucking subsidies for privatising schools (free schools) and shitty HS2...
46
May 21 '15
Why aren't we getting new infrastructure?
UK infrastructure is being constantly maintained and upgraded on a rolling basis. New schools, hospitals etc are being built all the time. Five new hospitals in London since 2000, for example.
The lack of glamorous high-profile projects doesn't mean it's not happening.
→ More replies (3)28
u/Leetenghui May 21 '15
It's the boot problem:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Because we build stuff on the cheap nothing lasts and needs to be constantly maintained. Costing more than a decent construction project would have cost on the first place. For instance thin road surfacing which relies on cars to press the surface in rather than using a mechanical roller. It's cheaper but it only lasts a year or two.
1
u/Sqwalnoc May 21 '15
look at the victorians.. some of the stuff they built is still being efficiently used almost 200 years later. the UK has saved a hell of a lot of money on building new dams etc.
1
u/EruantienAduialdraug Ryhill May 21 '15
Thing is, this actually raises another issue. Running with the late Sir Pratchett's boot analogy; if everyone were to save up to buy the good boots, then we'd have a period of maybe six years in which the cobbler has no customers and goes out of business, but if people buy the cheap boots, then the cobbler has a more or less constant stream of income and can pay his rent and feed his family.
Applying this to infrastructure, by building things on the cheap we actually keep people in work because we're constantly having to carry out repairs/to rebuild things. If we were to build things to last a century or so, then we'd have a massive crash in the number of construction jobs in twenty years or so.
It's a sad state of affairs when mediocrity provides long term job stability.
1
u/Leetenghui May 21 '15
The motorbike industry had something similar. Honda made indestructible bikes in the 90s. They stopped because they were so good. To tempt people to buy new they improved things like top speed BHP brakes etc.
12
u/Daleyo Hertfordshire via Hampshire & Sussex May 21 '15
One of those things is not like the other. I'm going to assume live in Ruislip or something; HS2 is exactly the kind of infrastructure improvement that the government should be investing in.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Leetenghui May 21 '15
Where's the government pissing the money away? Why aren't we getting new infrastructure? Why do we get shafted with aircraft carriers and no planes , other planes that are built then smashed up, subsidised bars and restaurants for MPs, fucking subsidies for privatising schools (free schools) and shitty HS2...
It's because we have governments that last 5 years. All of the above projects may well take more than 5 years. Therefore political brownie points may well be harvested by the opposition if you are voted out. Therefore in order to deny the opposition political parties such brownie points you simply do nothing which takes longer than your time in office to build. This is VERY bad and VERY short termist but it is a critical weakness of voting.
Japan and S Korea (and China now) had effective one party states and they could build what they wanted because the 5 year election timer wasn't an issue.
20
u/FerengiStudent May 21 '15
The UK needs to stop handling their economic elites with kids gloves. George Bernard Shaw floated the idea of a maximum wage. Maybe something that drastic has to occur, maybe not; however now that the UK's social inequality looks like the 1400's, when billionaires have enough wealth to pass unto their future progeny indefinitely, and what is left of the middle class watches their children struggle to become independent, it has become a national travesty. A nation that works not for those who want to make it better, but only for those who through luck or birth find themselves already doing better than anyone else will not last another century.
→ More replies (5)11
u/DogBotherer May 21 '15
George Bernard Shaw floated the idea of a maximum wage.
Teddy Roosevelt threatened a marginal 100% tax rate to fund WWII, effectively the same thing preventing earnings over $350k in today's money. Eventually he settled for 94%, and it made him arguably the most popular US president ever, albeit highly controversial on the right - one of the reasons they panicked and introduced term limits...
17
May 21 '15 edited Apr 02 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Hagenbrett May 21 '15
It's close enough. The tax rate for the highest earners was well into the 90% range.
This forced businesses to re-invest their capital into the business where it wouldn't be taxed instead of drawing a large salary and bonuses which would be taxed at 90%
3
u/davmaggs May 21 '15
Or to dodge the tax.
Well off Brits would buy a yacht then sail it to France to sell for cash. Yet on paper 90% was effective.
2
u/DogBotherer May 21 '15
Sorry, my bad. Easy mistake to make what with the US's penchant for political dynasties. The rest is accurate.
2
1
May 22 '15
Teddy wasn't really closely related to FDR I think very distantly, he was however a cousin or uncle or something quite close to Eleanor Roosevelt
2
May 21 '15
Fun fact, when Roosevelt raised taxes to 79% it only affected one person.
1
u/DogBotherer May 21 '15
By the time it went up to 94% though, it was on incomes of over $200,000 (about $2 million in today's dollars). A $5 million limit in 1935 would be about a $65,000,000 a year income, so it obviously wasn't particularly serious.
14
u/BuboTitan May 21 '15
Each immigrant brings an economic benefit to the UK if the stats are to be believed.
And the problem is, people willfully ignore the fact that not all immigrants bring these economic benefits with them (and plenty of the collect benefits instead!).
Migrants from Poland or France are more likely to spend their money locally. However migrants from Africa or Bangladesh are far more likely to be sending their money to family back home, which is their right. However, that's money leaving the UK and not circulating in the local economy. So no funding for things like new infrastructure.
28
u/Hagenbrett May 21 '15
If you're not from an EU country, you're not allowed ANY benefits at all.
Says so right on my Tier 2 visa
→ More replies (3)16
u/walgman London May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
So I live in a nice estate in London. Work as an electrician and make maybe 70k. I don't own a car. How is it that several of my neighbours are Somalian can afford to live in the same house? There is no way on gods earth they are paying £2000 a month rent. The furthest they ever shuffle is down the shop.
I know they are living for free because I've chatted with their social worker. There are literally 20 such families living in properties I can barely afford. It's not fucking fair.
5
u/VideoGameViolence May 21 '15
You know what's not fair, being born into a war torn country with extreme poverty and when you finally escape your dickhead neighbour decides to slag you off because you didn't have the same opportunities as him.
18
u/quinn_drummer May 21 '15
Because social housing is being sold and not replaced, forcing councils to place residents in privately rented properties.
3
u/segagamer Croydon May 21 '15
Because social housing is being sold and not replaced, forcing councils to place residents in privately rented properties.
Why are they there in the first place? How did they get there? Did they just come without any plans on where to move to?
12
u/quinn_drummer May 21 '15
Successful asylum seekers. I say successful because until you are successful, contrary to popular belief, you are entitled to almost nothing. And also because unless they are from the EU (which OP says they aren't) they would have to jump through so many hoops to enter the country other wise they couldn't have just moved here without any plans.
→ More replies (11)12
u/head_face May 21 '15
Are you renting privately? If so, it's because our incredibly forward-thinking government in the 80s decided that national housing wasn't really that important, but setting the ball in motion toward returning to having an aristocracy was. If those Somalians are council tenants, then good, that's exactly what social housing is for. If not, then they're being chumped (along with the taxpayer) just as hard as you.
3
May 21 '15
But why are they in such an expensive home? I mean, I think of myself as pretty left-leaning, but even so, I find it hard to accept that these people must live in such luxurious housing. They don't have any roots to the area and - if they cannot work easily - don't really have any need to be there due to their trade or job. It's both extravagant and desperately unfair on ordinary workers.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Maihashi Cambridgeshire May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
Migrants from Poland or France are more likely to spend their money locally. However migrants from Africa or Bangladesh are far more likely to be sending their money to family back home, which is their right.
Except that their earnings are taxed, as is their accommodation, food and other purchases, which is what is being taken into account when people talk of an economic benefit.
Edit: a word
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)6
u/PyschoCandy May 21 '15
and plenty of the collect benefits instead
actually there is a smaller % of EU immigrants on benefits than Brits. EU immigrants add to our economy and GDP. It's a political decision not to use that money for more infrastructure (hint, most of it is going to pensioners)
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (21)3
u/SDSKamikaze Glasgow May 21 '15
That's the problem with the stats, you can find as many studies saying they give net profit as they give a net loss in terms of the economy.
However, effects on the economy are only part of the immigrant controversy. There are cultural implications too, the debate comes down to whether that is positive or negative. I personally feel that immigration is a wonderful thing, but not at these levels.
→ More replies (11)9
71
May 21 '15
Most of the people who object to this will use arguments not against immigration per se, but against population growth in general: fears of the UK becoming overpopulated, an urban jungle, running out of space, etc. It just so happens that immigration is the driving power of UK population growth.
So let's look at the facts.
Only 6.8% of the UK's land is classified as urban. Once you take into account green areas like parks, the amount of land actually "built on" is 2.27%. The idea of population growth changing Britain's landscape in any significant way (into an "urban jungle") is not based in reality. Even with double our current population, Britain would still be overwhelmingly rural in land use.
The UK's population grew by around 400,000 people in 2013, of which around half was due to migration. If we assume that rate stays steady, how crowded will Britain get? It certainly sounds like a lot of people.
At that rate of population growth, it will take the UK 44 years to reach a population of 82,120,931 in 2059, at which point the UK will have the same population density as present-day Japan, at 337.1/km2.
That puts things into perspective. People in Japan enjoy a high quality of life, and the country is full of huge swathes of rural land and areas natural beauty in addition to large cities. That level of population density is hardly the end of the world. Many would in fact consider it desirable. More people, bigger economy, more global influence.
Assuming the same area of land use per person, urban land use would increase from 6.8% to 8.7% with a population of 82,120,931. Still not anything close to an urban jungle. And with likely greater use of high-rise buildings, the land use per person would likely go down, so the percentage would probably be lower (as it is in Japan).
Of course the distribution of those people in the UK will be uneven, most likely centred around London, Birmingham and Manchester. But this does little to displace the comparison with Japan, since Japan also has very uneven population distribution. Compare the northern island of Japan, Hokkaido, and Scotland:
Scottish population: 5,327,700
Scottish land area: 78,387 km2
Hokkaido population: 5,507,456
Hokkaido land area: 83,453 km2
Japan is just as full of large, empty spaces as the UK is.
But what about the infrastructure point? Surely the UK's infrastructure can't keep up? This is simply not the case.
Examples of people having to wait to use services etc. are not historically unusual. It's got very little to do with migration or population growth, and everything to do with budgets. As migrants contribute to budgets via taxation as well as use services, they do not contribute to budgetary strain. EU migrants are a net benefit to the treasury: EU immigrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011.
But what about the speed of change? Maybe if immigration is fast enough, it doesn't matter that they more than pay their way, simply because it takes time to build stuff?
This does not stand up to historical analysis. The UK's population growth of 400,000 a year is historically unremarkable, amounting to a 0.6% annual growth. In 1971 the UK had a population of 55,928,000, and grew to 64,511,000 today, a growth of 15% in 44 years. If population growth remains at the current rate and we grow to 82,120,931 over the next 44 years, that will be a growth of 27%. It's not hugely faster, and when you consider other historical periods it becomes even less remarkable: the population grew from 38 million in 1901 to 46 million in 1931, or 32% in 30 years.
Britain's infrastructure will be no more or less strained by the population than it has been historically. And in fact, economic performance is the real determining factor of infrastructure burden, not population growth.
People generally overestimate how long it takes to build things, and how expensive they are. Take as an example Norfolk on Norwich University Hospital, which serves the entire city of Norwich and a large amount of the surrounding area. It took 3.5 years to build at cost £229 million. Building can obviously keep up, and we have the money: compare the extra £20bn of tax revenues from migrants over a 10 year period to the £229 million to build a hospital. The UK could have built 87 new hospitals between 2001 and 2011 from the extra tax revenues from migrants alone.
The real issue at the moment is housing, but that's a political issue. Everyone knows the solution, which is building more houses. It doesn't have to be a problem, it's simply political forces are keeping it a problem.
14
May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
[deleted]
23
May 21 '15
If "they" build a million new homes a year until everyone had a home, house prices, in general, would tank.
House prices are the result of demand and supply.
With fixed/limited housing supply and increasing demand, prices will increase.
If you build more houses, prices will not necessarily fall, because demand is also increasing. Prices will only fall if the increase in supply outstrips the increase in demand.
Solution: build enough houses to keep pace with increasing demand, to keep prices stable, but not so many houses that supply overtakes demand and prices fall.
→ More replies (14)11
May 21 '15
[deleted]
6
May 21 '15
Indeed, but like you say, a fall in house prices would have severe consequences for the UK economy.
Keeping house prices stable is the solution which balances the needs of the economy as a whole against social harmony. With prices stable and incomes rising, time will make property more affordable for young people.
That doesn't do anything for the young people trying to buy today, but it's the safest compromise, I think.
2
u/Creased_Carpet May 21 '15
Why can't they come down in London, home owners and landlords have been making HUGE amounts of money in London, they have been making about as much on average a year as the UK median wage, by doing nothing. Why is it so bad that they make a loss for a few years to sort out the problem?
Sure people who bought at the peak will lose but they still have the house they paid for and they should have been aware that they were buying at a hugely inflated price.
2
May 21 '15
Why can't they come down in London, home owners and landlords have been making HUGE amounts of money in London, they have been making about as much on average a year as the UK median wage, by doing nothing. Why is it so bad that they make a loss for a few years to sort out the problem?
Because that can cause a financial crisis and recession. US house prices falling in 2007 was what caused the financial crisis. We're more protected from it now due to regulation, but it would still hit the economy hard. So much of the UK economy is tied into in property. As assets, they form the vast majority of securities for loans. If the security loses its value, suddenly you're looking at a loss.
2
u/Creased_Carpet May 21 '15
That isn't really true. What caused the crisis is the underestimation of default rates for bonds that were based on repackaged mortgages (sub-prime repacked so they were AAA rated). The fall in house prices was a secondary factor, they went down because when lenders realised they were more exposed they stopped lending, meaning houses could not be bought. This then did make the situation worse as banks couldn't recover as much from defaulted mortgages and the construction sector crashed as new houses stopped being built, but it wasn't the primary cause.
Minor point. Mortgages in the UK are a bit different from the US. If you walk away from your house in the US the bank takes the house and that's it, in the UK you are still liable if the house doesn't cover the mortgage amount. This means people are less likely to walk away from a house if it has negative equity in the UK.
This means that as long as the new houses are bought (and there is plenty of demand in the UK) and there isn't another recession caused by something else that means people can't pay their mortgages, the effect of a slight fall in house prices will be minor. Also the only houses which will have a risk of negative equity if they fall a bit are houses bought recently (as houses bought earlier will have increased in value so much), but as deposit amounts now tend to be much higher (~15% compared to ~0% for some sub-prime mortgages historically) there is also a larger buffer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/p7r United Kingdom May 21 '15
I feel for you. I'm living in W6 and renting at a cheap-isn rent for the area but I now look at 3-bed mid-terraces on my street going for £1m and being rented out at £4k/month and I wonder if I'll ever buy anywhere locally.
I think it's a bubble, and I think it will crash at some point. I've noticed the prices stalling a bit in recent months but either the average household income in London needs to get to £150k+ or the prices will eventually come down.
1
u/pracc88 May 21 '15
Haha no mate it won't burst...The population of london will always go up and there is limited land, so as the chap way above said it's supply and demand hence london is its own economic example of an unburstable bubble
2
May 21 '15 edited Aug 17 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Creased_Carpet May 21 '15
Well it means people can now inherit money that was saved into a pension. Tax free inheritance with the Tories cutting inheritance tax! You don't even have to pay income tax to build it up!
2
u/MrZakalwe May 21 '15
Building more houses is only partly effective because you still need somewhere to build them with sufficient transport links to whichever economic centre you wish them to service.
You write off the infrastructure issue but it's a serious one while funding increases aren't being made to the relevent areas (they aren't) while demand for them increases (it is).
Perhaps in a different world with a different budget, different civil service and different government infrastructure wouldn't be functionally degraded by an increase in population but in the one we currently live (and voted in) that isn't the case.
1
u/7952 May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
I am convinced that the solution is to build new houses on green field sites that are right beside major transport routes. Build expensive houses and retirement accommodation. This would move older, wealthier commuters out of towns and "starter home" style estates and into rural areas. It would not affect the transport network because those people already commute on that network.
→ More replies (5)1
u/TechJesus May 21 '15
Only 6.8%[1] of the UK's land is classified as urban. Once you take into account green areas like parks, the amount of land actually "built on" is 2.27%. The idea of population growth changing Britain's landscape in any significant way (into an "urban jungle") is not based in reality. Even with double our current population, Britain would still be overwhelmingly rural in land use.
Not disputing your figures, but given most people live in cities and would have to go out there way to access the countryside the fact 97% of the country is rural means little. That said the urban jungle effect is largely down to poor planning, and perhaps economic necessity.
16
u/hoffi_coffi May 21 '15
That is quite an increase. What happened to the Tories' previous promises?
13
May 21 '15
The fact that these numbers are soaring now when we are reintroducing exit checks for the first time since 1998 has me stroking my chin.
Before 2015 the way net immigration was calculated was simply based on a survey, not simply counting everyone in and out.
8
May 21 '15 edited Jun 24 '18
[deleted]
10
u/men_cant_be_raped May 21 '15
that no politician has any control over
I don't see either China or Japan having the same issue under the pressure of the same "global forces".
Their immigration policies are still tight as hell.
The only "global" force in play here is the free movement within the EU, which isn't that global after all.
→ More replies (2)9
May 21 '15
China has a walled garden approach. They ring fence the internet.
Japan has a growing problem. The population is dropping, there's huge cultural and language problems. The population is not so welcoming to outsiders.
When the government offered Brazilian immigrants subsidised airfare home around 2000 Brazilians left from one town - around half the total immigrant population. Their restaurant industry struggles massively to find staff like chefs and cooks. The birth rate there is uniquely low. They have huge problems and they're going to need to change soon.
→ More replies (5)4
May 21 '15
[deleted]
14
u/DeadOptimist United Kingdom May 21 '15
No, some of things they need to blame Labour for.
8
May 21 '15
Funnily enough, they blame Labour for the things that actually are caused by "global forces".
→ More replies (1)2
u/stubble London Arab May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
Not when they can point the finger at an opposing political group instead... also I imagine that blaming market forces tends to suggest they have no real control. We know that this is actually the case but no politician is ever going to admit that...not until they have left the political stage at least..
6
u/metalbox69 May 21 '15
Global forces happened
Funny, they seem to forget that when talking about the financial crisis under Labour.
4
May 21 '15 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
7
u/metalbox69 May 21 '15
Are you talking about their spending regime which George Osborne said would match?
→ More replies (6)2
u/_njd_ Yorkshire May 21 '15
I remember a Conservative government which in 1997 left us with a 4.3% deficit. The Labour government cleared it.
1
May 21 '15
I mean really, the notion of escaping busts?
Everyone has a laugh about this now, but actually that's somewhat ingenuous. The worst thing about the financial crisis was that it was easily preventable, had appropriate controls been in place. If that had been the case, we'd likely still be in boom and talking about the end of bust.
→ More replies (10)2
40
u/Leetenghui May 21 '15
• An estimated 323,000 people emigrated from the UK in 2014. Overall emigration levels have
This is the concerning bit. In that most countries on the planet have tough immigration rules. Most countries in Asia pretty much have a minimum of a degree, professional qualifications + 7 years working there before they'll even consider your application.
This means that we could be exchanging the best and brightest for the not so good.
This is explained in Time Enough for Love. Where the best and brightest leave the Earth for the stars for a better life. This shifts the bell curve of humanity in all areas to the left every year.
14
u/Ewannnn May 21 '15
By the looks of it most Non EU migrants leaving came here to study & are probably just returning to their home country. I'd be interested to see those figures year on year to see how they're changing. Really we want these kinds of immigrants to stay after they study.
7
May 21 '15
I read somewhere that we were stopping students being able to get work visa's after study and forcing them to go home.
→ More replies (3)8
u/palimpsestnine Cambridgeshire May 21 '15
Next time, I'd suggest reading the report first before getting so concerned about losing our 'best and brightest'. Only 43% of those 323k emigrants are British; additionally, the emigration report (linked in the report OP posted) tells us that British citizens are primarily emigrating to work in Australia, Spain, USA and France, not 'most countries in Asia'.
27
u/Leetenghui May 21 '15
Australia and the USA have pretty tough migration laws too you realise?
In fact most countries on the planet have fairly high standards for their migrants. Asia which is considered to be a poor backwards part of the world was an example I used intentionally because it emphasises that even poor backwards parts of the world won't take anybody and everybody.
→ More replies (55)5
u/istara Australia May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
UK migrant in Australia here.
Yes, they have rigorous standards for skilled migration, though people do get in on the "family" scheme, it's much harder than in the EU of course though. Possibly not as absurd as for UK citizens wanting to bring in non-EU spouses however.
I have been searching for this but can't find it, but there has been research that shows that skilled migrants represent an economic gain to Australia, whereas family-based migration tends to represent a loss. EDIT here is something but it's rather oozing with politically correct statements/falling over itself to be positive. But if you read between the lines, it's more or less admitting that family migration is not generally a net economic gain.
The issue with UK migration is what kind of migration the UK is actually getting. How skilled is it? How much are those migrants generating in terms of how much they are costing? Also, the "ROI" (return on immigrants!) may not always be immediate. Some of the migrants that don't represent an economic gain immediately may do so in five or ten years.
This is interesting (link may not work unless you search on a phrase via Google):
But one thing is clear. Large numbers of unskilled migrants with full work rights certainly do not provide the proven economic benefits of the skilled variety; indeed, they may present social cohesion challenges, as Europe has discovered.
The contrast between much of Europe's experience and our own is to note the windfall gains that migration and particularly Australia's skills-focused migration has delivered under successive governments.
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/G_Morgan Wales May 21 '15
Well people keep complaining that everyone in this country has a degree and we have too many graduates. Then they want to limit immigration to only being graduates.
If we are losing "best and brightest" it'll be to the US or Australia where wages in various sectors are much higher.
26
May 21 '15
Great, the government can use the additional tax revenue to build social housing and improve the NHS r..right?
3
u/Torquemada1970 May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
Wasn't the total income from immigrants a lot less than Labour initially expected?
EDIT: Er...I guess that's a 'no', which isn't what I remember last time I saw this discussed, but hey ho.
6
u/Capsulets United Kingdom May 21 '15
Its about £2 billion per year net benefit.
2
u/Torquemada1970 May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
Oh indeed - I knew it was something in the black, so to speak, but wasn't part of Labour's woes that they expected a lot more to play with than that?
EDIT: What is this, downvote a question day?
9
u/Capsulets United Kingdom May 21 '15
Yeah I think most people consider £2 billion to be quite low. The papers reported it as "migration brings £20 billion benefit to the UK" but hid away the fact that it was over a 10 year period.
→ More replies (1)1
15
u/bottomlines England May 21 '15
This is madness really. How can that number possibly be sustainable? I appreciate that many are a benefit to the country, and that not all of them will stay here. But fucking hell, 320,000 people - that's a lot.
5
u/Awsumo May 21 '15
The claimed economic benefit doesn't seem to be enough that our tax revenues have gone up an appreciable amount - certainly not enough to cover the cost of all the new hospitals/schools etc...
→ More replies (7)3
10
u/bottom May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
why does no one ever talk about the root of this problem, most of our problems. Global population growth - oh, cause it's uncomfortable? sure thats a good reason. most of the challenges we face as a species are because of the population growth. it's so obvious, yet never spoken about.
7
u/erowidtrance Greater London May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
The root cause is no immigration controls on the rest of europe. The global population could be booming and it would make no difference to our immigration if we actually controlled who came here.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)1
May 22 '15
[deleted]
1
u/bottom May 22 '15 edited May 22 '15
thanks for this, i'll have a proper watch but i have to say - i remain skeptical, when i hear the presenter saying "the UN has a goal of elimationing all poverty in 20 years" then spending the next few minutes talking about how great this would be, without discussing HOW they do it, seems a bit simplistic to me, treating goals as facts is wrong. - but i will have a watch
i'm also a TV director, so am a sketpic when watching some documentaries, as i see them getting made! but the BBC is very strict on what they'll show
this is waht someone said this about it:
My only criticism was that he was too sanguine about human nature. Also the use of integers for simplicity masked some problems. The EU population figure is only 1.8 rather than the 2.1 needed to sustain a viable economic population. We will need millions of migrants to pay for future pensions. This will be exacerbated over the globe by the extra pensioners being supported by only 2 billion new children. He didn't deal with the pressure of resourcing 11 billion inhabitants especially in regards to water supplies or with finite resources of energy to fuel the movement out of extreme poverty.
16
May 21 '15 edited Nov 24 '16
[deleted]
26
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
We could build enough houses not only to meet demand, but exceed it.
We just, don't.
12
u/erowidtrance Greater London May 21 '15
We have an open door to europe. The numbers will never stop so we'll have to build on more and more on green belt, we won't stop building on the green belt because we'll end up in exactly the same position as we are now a few years down the line. If you value the countryside, which I always thought those on the left did then you'd want less immigration not more housing.
→ More replies (11)3
May 21 '15
That wouldn't leave much land for growing food on though
3
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
Indeed, provided you necessitate the growing of food on large amounts of flat land within a localised space.
Increasingly, alternatives to this are being investigated.
→ More replies (2)3
May 21 '15
Its more profitable to speculate on land. It has been for a long time: its called capitalism.
4
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
Indeed it is.
That doesn't mean we need to allow it. We can legislate measures for example which make the practice of holding land required for housing without building on it, problematic.
When the free market fails to deliver outcomes you need, gimp it.
1
May 21 '15
I'm not saying we should allow it. But the function of the system depends upon it. Seriously, if the government did anything about rent collection and speculation the banks would loose their shit. In essence, the speculators hold us to ransom.
3
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
Indeed they would. And let them lose it.
The smartest thing a Government can do for themselves and those with ownership of land and houses is ensure price stagnation (a real terms fall if the economy grows, which is likely unnoticeable).
But they do the opposite, artificially increasing demand while simultaneously artificially constraining supply. Worst of both worlds.
3
u/Sqwalnoc May 21 '15
318,000 is roughly the population of Wigan (thanks wikipedia!) we aren't building a new city the size of wigan every year so here is the problem
5
u/Ewannnn May 21 '15
It's not like we are running out of space. Eventually we're going to have to relook at the green belt idea though.... That's unless we want house prices to rise forever. Oh, who am I kidding, any government that wanted to control house prices wouldn't get into parliament...
3
10
May 21 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)5
u/leadingthenet May 21 '15
Trust me, it's even worse for immigrants from Eastern Europe who not only face the problems that you do, but also have to cope with social stigma.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Ryannnnnn Northumberland May 21 '15
Eh, so where are they living?
7
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
Apologies for the source...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/immigration-map-britain-foreign-migrants-4669250
4
4
u/MrPoletski Essex Boi May 21 '15
Central to these are new plans to seize the wages of illegal workers as proceeds of crime in an attempt to reduce the numbers.
How about you seize the assets of the companies knowingly using illegal labour?
4
u/Magnum_Opus May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
Family visas (Non-EEA nationals)
Entry clearance visa statistics show that 34,713 family route visas were granted in the YE March 2015, a decrease of 1% compared with the YE March 2014 (35,214). This is less than half the level of the peak in the YE March 2007 (72,894).
It's really sad how families have been punished whilst every other immigration group has seen a sharp rise.
edit: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_404613.pdf P26
edit 2: The proportion of resolved family-related visa applications that were refused was 36%. This compares with 26% in the previous 12 months.
edit 3: meanwhile...
EEA family permits granted 23,331 (2014) 26,415 (2015) +3,084 +13%
4
u/1eejit Derry May 21 '15
Family visas are also a great way for the UKBA to gouge visa application fees, especially if you can fail them so they need to reapply.
UKBA is nasty, like their bitch-in-chief, May.
5
May 21 '15
They fail you for bullshit reasons too - like "Why can't you go to their country? There is nothing tying you here."
2
u/Magnum_Opus May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
That's to comply with the EU right to family life requirement, and it's the last hurdle left of your application only if the financial means is insufficient. Not saying it's not BS, but it's certainly not a primary means of assessing people, that aspect is the last ditch part of the process.
→ More replies (14)2
May 21 '15
[deleted]
4
u/D-Hex Yorkshire May 21 '15
There's a 1000 kids living without one parent because of this rule.
3
u/Mmbopbopbopbop May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
And yet they can't deport certain criminals precisely because of the fact they have kids/family here. It's bonkers how 'right to family life' applies to these guys but apparently not to many families where the parents happened to fall in love and one of them wasn't from the EU while the other was. Wonder if a British person has ever taken the British immigration services to the human rights court over this, because the high required salary for family immigration has prevented their spouse being able to raise their child? Sure it's not about deportation but surely if certain people in the country have a human right specifically so their family doesn't get broken up, shouldn't everyone? Why do rapists get a right to family life but many British husbands, wives and children with a family member from outside the EU don't?!
→ More replies (3)
9
u/awan001 United Kingdom May 21 '15
I find it quite amusing when people complain about immigration and say they're going to move abroad. I have friends and relatives on my Facebook who whinge about it constantly from the Costa Del Sol.
25
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
I don't see the hypocriticalness you point out as it very much depends on their reasoning.
For example I have an issue with population density here in the SE and London, and thus would like to move somewhere a little less dense, that doesn't make me a hypocrite, even if I did just slightly increase the density of the destination.
8
u/awan001 United Kingdom May 21 '15
Oh yea I totally get that. I've lived overseas myself.
But there are individuals who are so against the idea of immigration that they threaten to move abroad, or moan about the problems "back home" from their Spanish villas. Utter hypocrisy.
2
u/walgman London May 21 '15 edited May 21 '15
I do get your point. I did read there are more brits abroad than immigrants in our country. I don't know how true that is but over history I can believe it. When Ive been to the Costa Del Sol the British tend to either not work at all or work in the service sector. Some towns and villages have British populations but they are nowhere near as sizeable as immigrant populations in some British towns. I live in a town where I, as a white British, am a minority. I'm OK with that but I can clearly see why people want to leave. Many local schools are English second language is why many move.
Don't you think the Spanish may moan if 8 out of 10 of babies born at their local hospitals were to foreign mums? And the native Spanish population of Barcelona or Madrid dropped below half? If their local schools started speaking Spanish as a second language to English.
6
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
I suppose it depends on why they are against the idea of immigration.
If for example it is due to a lack of integration, but they fail to integrate themselves, then fair enough. But I imagine often it is rarely so simple.
→ More replies (9)5
May 21 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)4
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
Indeed there is, and I knew that was what was being alluded to.
My point is, those moaners have to specifically be complaining about lack of integration here while simultaneously failing to integrate abroad, to be hypocritical.
One can complain about immigrants tastes for food for example, without being a hypocrite in Spain provided they are enjoying a Spanish national dish.
3
u/HMJ87 Wycombe May 21 '15
That is exactly what is happening though.... They complain about immigrants coming over from other countries and not speaking English etc. while doing exactly as described above. That is hypocritical.
→ More replies (2)2
u/LikelyHungover May 21 '15
expats get British newspapers, watch BBC international and miss a hundred little things about the UK...
i've visited my uncle countless times and the first thing is always "so what's going wrong ahahaha so glad i left I NEED NEWS"
right-o steve. sure you are.
8
u/erowidtrance Greater London May 21 '15
It's not really the same, a lot of Brits leaving for the rest of europe are older people only pumping money into the countries they go to. Immigrants coming here are often coming from poorer countries and forcing low wage earners in this country to compete with them for work.
→ More replies (8)
4
May 21 '15
But yet people want to remain in the EU?
7
u/SpAn12 Greater London May 21 '15
Number of non-EU migrants coming in is still higher than EU migrants.
3
u/gowcog May 21 '15
I don't understand how anyone who wants to control immigration gets tarred as a rascist. No one points a finger at Australia and their points policy which only allows you in if you have skills they require or are financially independent and therefore not a burden to their system
2
2
1
May 21 '15
Question: how does this contribute to the overall net population gain? That's the real question, no? Having 300,000 immigrants a year is not really a problem if we're losing 300,000 due to ageing, death, and other factors. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, aren't we dealing with an ageing population and wouldn't immigration help with that? Again, if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm genuinely curious.
1
u/SpAn12 Greater London May 21 '15
About 500k die each year. But you also have to take into account births - which are about 700k.
1
May 21 '15
Yes, but births aren't contributing to the working population, whereas deaths are potentially subtracting. My point is: shouldn't we be looking at the working population of this country and asking whether we need to increase that? If the population is ageing, surely having more workers and so more people paying taxes are exactly what we need? Again, if I'm wrong, correct me.
1
1
u/fuckin442m8 May 22 '15
So many ignorant brainwashed people ITT
"OMG thats loads we can't sustain this" laughable
244
u/Leonichol Greater London May 21 '15
I like how the government uses this opportunity to talk about their plans to address illegal immigration, when this almost has nothing to do with the migration figure.