Migration IS killing off jobs: 160,000 Britons have missed out on employment because work was taken by foreigners
Migrants have forced tens of thousands of Britons out of the workplace, a landmark report warned yesterday. An independent panel of advisers found that, between 2005 and 2010, 160,000 people had been ‘displaced’, or left jobless, by a huge influx of foreign workers.
For every four migrant workers who come to the country from outside the EU, one British job is lost, the experts said.
An increase of 100 foreign-born working-age migrants in the UK was linked to a reduction of 23 Britons in employment between 1995 and 2010, the Migration Advisory Committee said
An increase of 100 foreign-born working-age migrants in the UK was linked to a reduction of 23 Britons in employment between 1995 and 2010, the Migration Advisory Committee said
The Migration Advisory Committee also criticised the way ministers have used the potential impact on Gross Domestic Product, or GDP – the total size of the economy – to decide whether large-scale immigration was desirable.
Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the MAC, said it had led ‘inexorably’ to ‘pro-immigration’ policies because more migrants will logically expand the economy.
He called on ministers instead to consider the impact on schools, hospitals, congestion, crime rates and house prices.
Net migration figures from Mac
Referring to the current system, Professor Metcalf said: ‘The main gainer is the migrant. It’s not the British resident. The focus should be on the British resident.’
Tory ministers were last night urged to seize on the findings of the report to impose far stricter border controls. To date, the Liberal Democrats have been undermining attempts to crack down on economic migration.
But, in the first study of its kind, the MAC – set up by the last Labour government, and independent of Whitehall – said large-scale immigration was having a significant impact on the job prospects of the ‘native’ population.
The report, which follows years of controversy over whether immigration leads to fewer jobs for British workers, showed that every increase of 100 foreign-born working-age migrants in the UK was linked to a reduction of 23 Britons in employment between 1995 and 2010.
Between 2005 and 2010 alone, the number of working-age migrants in employment rose by 700,000 and displaced 160,000 British-born workers, it said.
Average wages remain the same, the MAC said, but the highest wages get higher and the lower wages get lower.
The impact and displacement of British workers also does not last for ever, the Mac report found
Asked if there would be 160,000 extra jobs for British workers if there had been no immigration, Professor Metcalf said: ‘Yes, that would be a reasonable way of putting it.’
It follows a contrasting report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which said the number of immigrants coming to the UK had little or no impact on the number of unemployed.
The MAC report found that house prices and rents are being pushed up by the number of migrants coming to the UK. It added that migrants will inevitably contribute to the demand for public services, commit crime and generate congestion in the same way any increase in the UK-born population would.
However, the report concluded that migrants from inside the EU, including Eastern Europe, have ‘little or no impact on the native employment rate’.
Professor Metcalf said: ‘It may well be that the EU migrants are disproportionately less skilled and it may be that the labour market can adjust.’
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said: ‘This is a thoroughly professional report. The committee have had the courage to say straight out that immigration can add to unemployment, especially during a recession. They are also right to draw attention to impacts that are harder to quantify such as housing and congestion."
On Monday, MigrationWatch said it would be a ‘remarkable coincidence’ if there were no link between a 600,000 rise since May 2004 in the number of eastern European migrants working in the UK and a 450,000 rise in youth unemployment in the same period.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘Controlled immigration can bring benefits to the UK, but uncontrolled immigration can put pressure on public services, on infrastructure and on community relations.
‘This report makes clear that it can also put pressure on the local labour market. We thank the MAC for its work and will now consider the report more fully as we work to regain control over our immigration system.’
SOURCE
Conservative Australian politician sorry for saying migrants don't know how to wear deodorant or line up properly
Her comments were undoubtedly too general but the big immigration issue in Australia at the moment is the "boat people" -- and most Australians would have understood that she was referring to them. And her comments would have been true of many of them
A Liberal [Party] MP who said migrants should learn how to use deodorant has been reprimanded by her party and ordered to apologise.
Opposition citizenship spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro said lessons on hygiene and common courtesy would make immigrants fit in better in Australia, the Herald Sun reported.
Acting Opposition Leader Warren Truss said Ms Gambaro had been left in no doubt she was out of line. "She obviously went too far in her comments and they're certainly out of step with modern Australian attitudes," he said.
While declining to say who doled out the discipline, Mr Truss said: "Certainly she's been made aware that the comments were inappropriate. They weren't in line with Coalition policy and she's acknowledged that."
Ms Gambaro had said new arrivals should be taught to use deodorant on public transport and not push in when queuing, as well as other lessons like the importance of immunisation. "Without trying to be offensive, we are talking about hygiene and what is an acceptable norm in this country," she said in an interview with The Australian.
The comments sparked a tirade of community anger, followed by a statement in which Ms Gambaro said the comments were "taken out of context". But she admitted they were inappropriate and did not reflect Coalition policy, and apologised for any offence caused.
Migration groups said the comments were offensive, pointing out that migrants on 457 visas were skilled professionals such as managers, engineers and accountants.
Source
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment