History Of Immigration

Question:

UK immigration at highest levels in history?

Answer:

It looks like England will be a very different place in the not-too-distant future.

I guess it's time to say, ....So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Immigration causing UK population growth to soar

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_712604.html?menu=

Mass immigration has quadrupled the rate of population growth, a report by an independent think tank claims.

The Civitas report states that immigration has added 543,000 to the population in the last three years and 1.02m to the population between 1992 and 2000.

The report says the UK is experiencing the highest levels of net immigration in its history.

It argues that the Government should implement a policy of "zero net immigration" where equal numbers of people arrive and leave the country.

Unless immigration declines, it will add more than 2 million people every 10 years, the report says.

The report, called Do We Need Mass Immigration?, claims to be the first comprehensive look at the economic, social, demographic and cultural impact of mass immigration to Britain.

It states: "Immigration at current levels is turning Britain into a country very ill at ease with itself. It imports poverty, creates parallel communities and increases social tensions, crime, and public health problems such as TB and HIV.

"Current immigration increases inequalities in the UK, because it causes a massive redistribution of wealth from those who compete with immigrants in the labour market - who tend to be poor, and suffer lower wages - to those who employ them who tend to be rich, and enjoy lower costs and bigger profits."

The report also challenges what it says are "myths" about immigration, arguing that according to government figures, Britain does not have a declining population, and the fastest-growing workforce in Europe.

It should do but it won't. why?...because to allow immigrants is to stimulate economic growth. and all govs want to be re-elected or avoid the stigma of being economic failures. + immigrants do the low paid jobs that keep the nhs, the underground etc ticking over.

bit i think the gov should allow a decrease in our population. we're too crowded for our own good.

I've got past the stage a worrying about it, because like millions of others I'm certain that it will all eventually end in tears.

The scenario will run thus.... The cement which holds this wonderfully diverse nation of ours together is based on the premises of never ending economic growth, which will eventually be found to be totally unsustainable.... this will end with the collapse of Western-style economy's .... the starving millions will then look for scapegoats and turn in on one another like mad dogs.... problem solved!

Billy posted a link to the Civitas report which includes a comment on economic growth issue.

Think-tank calls for zero net immigration http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/prcs23.php

Immigration does boost GDP, but there is no evidence that it raises the level of the one measure that matters, GDP per capita, and unskilled immigration that leads to immigrant communities with high unemployment rates and low incomes may actually lower it. Immigrants overall do pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and consume in public services, but only because immigrants from North America, Japan and the EU pay so much more than their fair share.

Immigrants from the Third World - who make up the entire net immigration to the UK - are on average less well educated, suffer higher unemployment, claim more of most forms of benefits, and make more demands on public services such as schools and hospitals, and almost certainly do not pay their way on average.

At least 50,000 English men between 20-25 have left for life in the Mediteranian to live the Rave culture.

Remind me why it's a bad thing for the Government's main aim to be stimulating economic growth? If you can do it while helping the less fortunate, you've pretty much found the perfect policy...

The cities are crowded, the countryside has miles and miles of empty space... If we stopped using it for farmland and buying it from poorer countries we'd be helping them (by buying stuff off them rather than using CAP subsidies to put them at a disadvantage in trade) and helping ourselves by freeing all that land and labour up for something so much more productive...

Because it is importing an impoverished alien underclass whose sole function is to create massive income differentials between the highest and least paid of our people and simultaneously keep house prices rising faster than either economic growth or inflation.

Where we are importing skilled labour we are invariably taking it from nations that can least afford to lose it.

Exactly what is so much more productive than producing food? (as long as its needed).I find it strange that some one would talk about the production of food in the same way as general consumer goods.

Claiming that our need for food is the saviour of the third world is an easy thing to do. However, I do wonder at the practicalities, so I have have few questions below, and with a bit more time could probably come up with lots more. They admittedly do not consider how dependent we may be on foreign suppliers anyway.

Being heavily reliant on foreign supply gives a powerfull political weapon to the sources of supply, and also to anyone able to interdict those supplies. Hence, is it a good idea to be dependent for food on areas of the world that may be politically unstable, or may become politically hostile to Britain?

With respect to the above I'll bet Al Queda would love it if most of our food arrived by boat.

How can we effectively police the standards to which the food is produced? I'm sure its possible, but how much would it cost?

There are I believe several hundred million people(?) suffering from food shortages. Should not many third world countries be growing food to feed their own populations, rather than cash crops for us?

Can they grow the sort of crops we need ? (I am lead to believe that bananas make a poor substitute for potatoes)

What is the environmental cost of transporting the food. Fossil fuel has to be burnt to move it? I image that we would be talking about the transport of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of tons of food per year!

I notice that the west buying food from the third world is often touted as its salvation. However there are far more of them than us. Would this be possible without us all ending up looking like John Prescot?

Would not providing a market for food encourage environmental destruction in other countries, to provide more farmland?

I don't know much about farming myself and I'm not saying saying that all of the above are killer issues and I'm certainly not trying to support the CAP, but I frequently see claims that our appetites are the saviour of poorer countries. I never see any analysis of the practical, political and environmental considerations.

And lastly has anyone else noticed how orrible potatoes are these days. They all seem to be tasteless water filled rubbish. Organic ones seem ok though, as were the ones I grew for meself.