Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Which migrants really cost the most money?

It's not a knockout blow for our Brexit campaign, but the Migration Watch figures on the cost of immigrants give us a good guide which of them we shouldn't allow in.  

Firstly, sorry but EEA immigrants are still pretty much cost neutral - Older A10 nationals contributed 89% of their cost, older EEA others contributed 109% of their cost, while the figures for the newest A10 and EEA other are 93% and 184% (yes, 184%) - showing that non-A10 EEA nationals are the best earners for the UK. Overall, the annual £1.12bn net cost of all EEA immigrants compares to the annual cost of British natives of £88bn. 

But it's the non-EEA migrants who cost the real money. They only contribute some 92% of their costs compared to UK natives - a net cost of £15.6bn. And given the breakdown of the origin of those expensive migrants from previous academic studies, I'd guess two-thirds are Muslim - £10bn a year in taxes to undermine our own nation. 

This isn't new. The first major study was the 2007 IPPR / Channel 4 study, which I have quoted virtually every year since. I wrote:
For every Pakistani sucking at the taxpayer's teats is an Indian paying those taxes. For every feckless Somali demanding housing and health care is a Chinese grafting sixty hours a week to pay for it. The left-leaning ippr carried out an important study in 2007 that identified why Labour's immigration policy had not raised per capita GDP in the UK one iota; half our immigrants are net contributors, adding to GDP and paying taxes and creating wealth, and half of them are net consumers, spending taxes and subtracting from national wealth. The key, of course, is knowing which half is which. And it's not based on skin colour.
The Speccie was more explicit in 2008:-
If the government is serious about optimising the planning of public services, it needs to disaggregate the immigrant population and find out which groups are profit centres and which are cost centres. No doubt it has been doing so quietly in the background, but it looks as if talking frankly about the results of this exercise in public would blow their political cover to smithereens. The best research so far available (prepared by the IPPR late last year for Channel 4’s Dispatches) makes for uneasy reading. Only 1 per cent of Polish immigrants claim income support, as opposed to 21 per cent of Turkish immigrants and 11 per cent of Pakistanis; only 8 per cent of Poles live in social housing, compared with 80 per cent of Somalis, and 41 per cent of Bangladeshis.
So there you have it. Exclude Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians and Turks and we'll save a fortune, have enough social housing and reduce the demands on overworked transport and public services. Keep the Chinese and the Indians, and test the Nigerians - half of whom are grafters, half of whom are spongers, according to the evidence.


Apparently said...

This has never really been about money Raedwald.

It has always been about the communities in which we live; do we want them to be familiar? Safe? Home?

And it has also been about democracy, can we get rid of the mob that is governing/regulating us at the moment?

Clearly, you left home, because it was no longer familiar, and perhaps you no longer felt safe.

And anyone that watched Martin Durkin's "Brexit, The Movie" would understand that immigration was not even mentioned, the emphasis was on getting back our own politicians, so that we can sack them... or not.

That show, gave a really good history lesson on the advantages of novelty, vs regulation....

So what we really need is the ability to manage our own social environment, almost street by street, as it used to be, with Parish councils... Probably better to have local direct democracy these days, but the intention is clear, we manage our own affairs. The church, although popular for some people is a bit last year, but we certainly don't want to replace it with last millennium Islam.

When it comes to industry, novelty always beats corporatism and its associated corporate/bureaucratic/political entrenchment (aka regulation) which inevitably retards novelty.

Which is why centralisation of political power is bad, it wants more and more hours laboured, so that it can get more and more tax pounds in, and it isn't fussy where it gets those hours... inefficient hours are just as good, because the plebs can pay for them too!

The first objective is to wrest political power back from Brussels, then localise it, by weakening the central power in Westminster... The EU has even, perhaps unwittingly given us the tools, with government for the four provinces, and mayors for the cities.

The globalists can stick to their general tariff schemes and plug away at their green agenda, but we do not need to comply at local level, we should be able to tell them that we don't want to play... Which is essentially what the Chinese and the Indians, and the Brazilians do anyway.

Rant over...



Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...


Lefties actually did that research - maybe something akin to that work can be done for the lefties themselves. I have a suspicion that the present crop will come out as resembling folk from the horn of Africa.

There must be an "ist" or an "ism" that covers this sort of judgementalism - oops...

About time one G.Broon - the inspiration for my moniker weighed into all this.

Dadad said...

If we really want local democracy, we need The Harrogate Agenda.

Apparently said...

Funnily enough, I was going to be one of the original signatories of the Harrogate Agenda, but I spent some time in hospital with my Crohn's instead and missed it...

Since then I have fallen out with North and his cronies big time, they (particularly North) think that there is only one way... "North's way", and the answer to every issue is to be rude about every other person, whichever side they speak for.

So Boris, Farage, UKIP, Vote Leave, Leave.EU, Brexit the Movie, anyone that thinks that any of the above has its merits are idiots to be belittled and if you try to point out the folly of this view... banned from any discussion on North's vehicles.

It(he) has become so nutty, that a quick look at "Flexcit, the movie", will tell you all you need to know... Three or four sad old men, talking to a room of about 50 sad old men...

But never mind they are going to succeed where the Brexiters are going to fail...

Ho ho.

Raedwald said...

Apparently - I do keep an eye on his blog posts but have never attempted to comment - it's an extension of my lifelong policy never to enter a pub or venue that has bouncers on the door. I've always found implicit bullying, threats and coercion antithetical to enjoyment.

Shame though - from his written stuff he's clearly a first class researcher and would be a significant asset in this capacity to a national organisation.

Vera said...

Apparently - your comments on Flexit movie made me laugh. I got banned from commenting on Richard North's blog because I said about his continual criticism of Nigel Farage that at least Farage had brought the EU out into the open and in front of the population whereas his elitist blog was only read by those already onside.

Anonymous said...

Re Brexit and Boris and Hitler.

Dr. North said:

"No. Mr Johnson is wholly wrong to make any such comparison. There is a very substantial difference between Member States agreeing to form a treaty organisation, to which they consider themselves bound (while reserving the right dismantle the organisation at any time), and the brutal occupation of states by a single power through conquest, enforced by a central, dictatorial regime.

That Mr Johnson is unable to see the difference and is thus misled into making this false and entirely inappropriate comparison again confirms his total unsuitability to represent the "leave" proposition. This is yet another train-wreck miss-step by the man.

Bluntly, anyone who supports this man is no credit to the cause, and has become part of the problem - which Mr Johnson most certainly is. I am appalled that the man should be so utterly devoid of any sense as to make this fatuous and ill-advised statement."

Just straight? From a Guardian reader?

Perhaps, it was ill advised by Boris to name drop 'Der Fuhrer' but read his remark in context and you will find certain people got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

A couple of things, weft in the subtext of what Boris was sewing.

Hitler, wasn't entirely alone, he was adored and followed, worshipped even, by a nation, that people can be so manipulated and to effecting extraordinary acts, all of them, malign, ill.

And Boris was on about, ie centralizing power, so concentrated does it become, that, it is wielded by only a few, is a danger to us all.

There is no other word for it, Germany 'dominates' the EU, the € has been a constant and unmitigated boon for the Germans.

Yes, the €! it is good for them but economic calamity, unconscionably bad for the Med countries, Greece for one. Of course the Germans, they know this full well, why then, do they maintain the Euro, and isn't there just a breath of Hitler about the autocratic imposition of and upkeep to, the single currency?

The veneer that Brussels imparts, that the Brussels Empire is democratic, it's not. That all 28 members have an equal say, is total rubbish. We know, we witness the negotiations between Turkey and Berlin - that if the German Chancellor wills it, it will come to pass.
Merkel shouts, Cameron rolls over and is tickled.

What is smashing European industry, particularly UK industry? The Green agenda - correct and who is the driving force behind it - that's right, the Germans and the German corporate machine. Who always cheats the rules?

The Germans.

Who runs the EU?

And if Boris, in his polemic just dropped a name in, knowing the foment, like poking a hornets nest and that it would cause in the wankerati, the UK political sphere that liberal claque of hypocritical virtue signallers, then, "Hitler" would be that name.

10/10 Boris.

Anonymous said...

Richard North may be ideologically right, be he is also a bitter obnoxious arsehole.

However, UKIP et al have fallen into the trap of criticizing immigration blindly. It was clear that criticizing brown immigration was out of bounds, so UKIP defaulted to criticizing EE migration - now they fall into this trap.

Now if you make the case that once all of Merkel's migrants have EU passports they can go on the move, you get hit with the racist hammer. More than half of thew Somali's in the UK came from Denmark after that country tightened up their welfare rules.

I admit we need limits - but I am 100 times more concerned about parasite muslims than I am about hardworking EE migrants.

James Higham said...

Yep, in a nutshell.

Anonymous said...

There is no price for the loss of a homeland. No amount large enough to compensate for the loss of place and community, like that experienced by the folk of Newham. A nation is being slowly displaced and replaced and people are arguing over how little or how much it costs. We're £1.5 trillion in debt so where is this value from decades of uncontrolled mass immigration?

Wealth is relative, identity ain't.


Budgie said...

In my view the issue of immigration is mainly about space. We are a small island with a land area about half of France's, but the same size population. We have over 8 million people here who were not born in the UK, out of a population of 64 million. These are the official figures, rounded. I don't believe them but that is another matter.

8 million extra people use space, and occupy houses, buses, trains, schools, GP surgeries, NHS hospitals, roads, etc. England in particular is over-crowded. We simply cannot keep taking in 650,000 new EU migrants every year (DWP issued 650,000 NI numbers last year) for ever, or even the next 20 years.

Personally I believe that some immigration is desirable, provided the immigrants make some effort to assimilate. But I would cap the numbers at no more than the numbers of emigrants. And if some corporatists wail about that so be it - maybe it will make them put pressure on our dire education system to improve the skills of our own young people.

CornCrake said...

Immigrants that positively contribute to both the material and cultural prosperity of the UK. Who assimilate into the communities they move into. Who respect the values and beliefs of their new adopted homeland I welcome with wide arms.

The fifth columists economic migrants, followers of the RoP, who will try to supplant our values and beliefs. The very same ones Quisling Cameroon wants to welcome here. Are not welcome in my book and should be shipped back to where they come from pretty damn quick.

@ Budgie

Your last observation is one I would support, instead of loading our own children up with debt we should be equipping them with the proper skills to survive and improve their lot in life.

Thud said...

The last para is spot on.