Two million new homes needed in Britain to cope with the next 25 years of immigration

Which will be very difficult, expensive and disruptive given Britain's extensive legal restrictions on land-use (green belts etc.) and energetic Greenie opposition to any changes to country areas. A rather amazing example of that here

More than two million new homes will have to be built over the next 25 years to cope with immigration, official figures disclosed yesterday. They showed that room will have to be found to provide homes for 83,000 migrant families a year if the influx continues at the current rate.

More than a third of all the new houses and flats made available between now and the mid-2030s will be needed for individuals and families coming to Britain from abroad, the analysis said. At least 600,000 of these will have to be in the most overcrowded parts of the country, London and the South-East.

The demand for homes to house migrants is a key reason for the need to build, the Communities Department said. ‘Population growth is the main driver of household growth, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the increase in households between 2008 and 2033,’ said a spokesman.

Around two-thirds of population growth is directly brought about by immigration. Immigration pressure groups accused officials of trying to underplay the effect of the flow of people into the country on new housebuilding.

Development is highly unpopular among the great majority of people living in the southern half of the country, where transport, health and social services, water and power supplies are already struggling to keep up.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said that officials had failed in their analysis to mention the role of immigration in population growth and had relegated any mention of housing for migrants to technical discussions in the second half of their paper. ‘It is inexcusable for the Government to paper over the huge impact of continued massive levels of immigration on housing,’ he said. ‘The first response to the housing crisis should be to face the facts. The last government was in denial. That cannot be allowed to continue.’

Home Office ministers have capped numbers of visas for workers from outside Europe and are moving on to try to reduce the record rate at which students, many of them thought to be disguised economic migrants, are arriving in Britain.

The Office for National Statistics recorded 211,000 foreign students coming into the country last year and its latest figure for ‘net migration’ – the number of people added to the population in a year after immigration and emigration are both counted – is 215,000. According to the Communities Department, immigration amounts for 36 per cent of the demand for new homes over 25 years.

Much of the rest will be needed because of family break-ups and the ageing population. The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation have resulted in much higher numbers of single parents and separated fathers, and older people increasingly live alone. In all, 5.8million new homes will be needed by 2033, the analysis said.

SOURCE






Is Illegal Immigration Moral?

Victor Davis Hanson

We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?

Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.

Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.

So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?

Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?

Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?

Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.

But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.

First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?

Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?

Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?

And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?

Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?

The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.

SOURCE