In 2007, Channel 4 commissioned an important report from the ippr that analysed immigrants by country of origin and whether they were net contributors to or takers from the economy; in other words, whether they increased per capita GDP or decreased it. Some were clear; immigrants from the US, Australia, NZ, France, India and suchlike were positive, immigrants from Somalia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and so on were negative. Many were neutral, such as Nigeria. It isn't a conclusive document or one upon which the UK can base immigration policy - for each immigrant must be treated as an individual - but it usefully identified all the 'heads of proof' that a coherent immigration strategy needs:-
- Is the immigrant healthy, with no pre-existing chronic medical condition?
- Is the immigrant educated and fluent in English?
- Will they obtain employment immediately in a occupational group for which there is a shortage of skilled or qualified Britons?
- Are they willing and capable of integrating into a liberal Western capitalist democracy?
- Are they capable of financially supporting all dependants, including housing, medical and educational costs?
- Do they hold fixed and immutable beliefs that are incompatible with national security?
If they pass these tests, the chances are that their presence in the UK will make us all marginally better off.
Until the left come to terms with a hard-headed, nation-first approach to immigration policy based on sound economics and free of taste discrimination they will continue to flounder.