Migration Watch UK: News

Huge Cost of Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Quantified

An amnesty for illegal immigrants would be bound to encourage further illegal immigration, their present number has been seriously underestimated and the lifetime cost would be in the order of £130 billion even on that low estimate of numbers, says a report out today from think-tank Migrationwatch.

The report is in reply to a paper published by the London School of Economics on 16 June in response to a request from London's Mayor. Introducing the document, Boris Johnson claimed it proved that immigrants were "far from a financial burden". He added:

    "This new Report has introduced some long overdue facts, hard evidence and academic rigour into a debate which has far too often been dominated by myth, anecdote and hearsay".

Clearly the Mayor had not read the Report which makes it clear that "It has to be emphasised that these are ball park estimates at best" (page 110) and that "many of the numbers that had been generated for this Report have required heroic assumptions" page 113).

The Mayor also claimed that:

   "So far from a financial burden, as some suggest, this new research has found an amnesty could be worth up to £3 billion a year to the country's economy."

What the Report actually says is:

"Neither the literature nor currently available UK data provides a quantitative basis from which one could at all reliably start to estimate the scale of effects on UK output which would be likely to follow from regularisation"(page 73).

The Report is, in fact, astonishingly thin on its claim of economic benefit - just two paragraphs in 125 pages. It goes on to take what is described as "an example". This gives, on the basis of four hypotheses, an expected increase in GDP of some £3 billion (page 73).

Migrationwatch have now examined this Report in detail and have found that:...

See Full Press Release

New research shows impact of immigration on social housing

Proportion of foreign born in social housing rises 50% in ten years.

New research by Migrationwatch, based on official figures, shows the pressure that uncontrolled immigration has placed – and will place – on social housing.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Housing Federation in London Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green said that in the last ten years, the number of UK born tenants in social housing in the UK has fallen by about 1.2 million while non UK-born tenants have increased by 300,000. As a result, the proportion of foreign born has increased from 7.2% to 11.1% - an increase of 54%.

Migrants who arrived here in the last five years and are not refugees are not yet eligible to apply for social housing but could become so in future years if they are granted settlement. Grants of settlement for non-EEA nationals are running at about 160,000 a year, giving a potential pool of 800,000 although, of course, by no means all will apply.

The rise in the proportion of foreign born in social housing is greater because the supply of social housing has not merely failed to meet the demand in a period of very high immigration, but the stock of social housing has actually fallen over the last ten years.

See Full Press Release

See also the PowerPoint Presentation

At last, the truth about immigration and council house queue jumping

By Sir Andrew Green 30 June, 2009

The Government's announcement yesterday that they are handing councils new powers to give local people priority on the waiting list for social housing is a clear admission that they have been misleading us over the huge impact of immigration on housing.

For years, they have been in total denial, refusing even to discuss how immigration has affected the supply of housing.

Now, at last, they have acknowledged that this is an issue which must be tackled. Supply of social housing has fallen far behind the demand for it because waiting lists have grown by over 60 per cent in just six years.

One major reason for this is the number of asylum seekers who have been granted asylum - or other forms of protection which entitle them to remain in Britain - and offered social housing…

See full newspaper article

Migrationwatch media information

Migrationwatch website has been revamped and updated. This should make it easier to find any information on immigration and asylum issues you may require. In particular, two overview papers: "What is the problem?" and "What can be done?" may prove to be useful.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants could cost taxpayers 'Up to £1m' per family

At a time when the Government debt is at record levels, new research shows that the Mayor of London’s proposals for an amnesty for illegal immigrants would cost taxpayers, on average, an extra £1 million over the lifetime of each immigrant.

The calculation, by think tank Migrationwatch has, for the first time, estimated the ‘lifetime cost’ to the taxpayer of a 25 year old illegal immigrant who marries and has two children while earning close to the minimum wage.

Such an amnesty, for potentially up to a million people, has been proposed by a number of organisations and individuals but they have failed to consider the ‘hidden costs’ which will have massive implications for the public finances, says the report.

Our calculations show the numbers are truly enormous, adding an unacceptable – and entirely unnecessary - burden to the nation’s balance sheet at a time when Boris Johnson himself is writing about “the horrific state of the nation’s finances”, ’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.

Sir Andrew said that the paper concentrated on the costs of an amnesty for illegal immigrants but the figures are equally applicable to many of those who are granted asylum in Britain. While some will have qualifications and will be able to earn considerably more than the minimum wage, for others the entitlements, and therefore the costs, will be the same adding further to the demands on the public purse. This makes the failure of the Home Office to be represented at many asylum appeals all the more reprehensible.

The Migrationwatch paper examines the ‘total lifetime’ cost of a 25 year old immigrant who works for the minimum wage, marries, has two children, does not have a pension and therefore in retirement receives Pension Credit, and lives throughout in private rented housing. The calculations in this paper take the costs from the date of marriage at aged 25 through 40 years of work to retirement at 65 years of age and then 15 years of retirement.

The major component of the costings is Housing Benefit. An immigrant couple living on the minimum wages who then retire on Pension Credit, will receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit throughout their working life and throughout their retirement. The total Housing Benefit they receive will be £291,000 plus a further £19,000 in Council Tax Benefit.

In London, where some 70% of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

'Clearly some of these immigrants will already be married, or will not marry, and some will work above the minimum wage so that their Housing Benefit will be lower,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘On the other hand some may have families of more than two children, thereby attracting more Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (which amounts to £2,925 per annum per additional child or £47,000 over the first 16 years of the child’s life). Or they may be unemployed – immigrants are, on average, more likely to be economically inactive than the population as a whole,’ he said.

For example compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively.

'It is clear that not only is rewarding illegal behaviour wrong in principle but the experience of Spain and Italy shows conclusively that it encourages even more illegal immigration in anticipation of future amnesties. This is a ridiculous proposal which is bound to increase illegal immigration rather than reduce it. It is also a shocking waste of public money at a time when we can least afford it,' said Sir Andrew.

New tax on migrants a "drop in the ocean" compared with cost of migration initiatives. For every £1 of Government spending on schemes to help migrants, new tax will raise about 7p.

Research conducted by think-tank Migrationwatch shows that the amounts raised by the “migrant tax” are paltry compared with the significant amounts spent on government programmes specifically to help migrants.

Under the Government’s new scheme, to be announced formally on 19 March, anyone from outside the EU applying for student or work visa will be required to pay a new tax of £50 into the Migration Trust Fund, which the Government claims will be used to help local communities pay for public services in areas where there are high levels of migrant workers. The Government claims that this will raise £35 million a year. However, the Government spends over £500 million a year on schemes specifically to help migrants alone – quite apart from the extra cost of migrants to the public services.

Commenting on the announcement, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch, said:

'The Government say the new tax will raise £35 million per year. This may sound impressive, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the huge sums spent each year by the Government as it tries to help society cope with the impact of immigration both nationally and at the local level. A rough estimate shows that, for every £1 the Government spends on schemes specifically to help migrants, its new tax will only raise about 7p. And that spending does not allow for the fact that one new home will have to be built every six minutes for new immigrants; nor the additional costs to the NHS and education services; nor the countless other costs to local services that large-scale immigration brings. Our population will hit 70 million in 20 years. 70 per cent of the increase will be thanks to immigration: this new tax will not begin to foot the bill that this population increase will present to British taxpayers.’

The table below lists only some of the Government spending on initiatives specifically relating to immigrants.

 

 

Name of fund/area of funding	Department	Amount	Description
ESOL	DIUS	£289m (2006/7)	Funding for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) training.
Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant	DCSF	£187.6m (2008-9)	For schools working with English as an Additional Language.
Cohesion	CLG	£50m (over three years) - £16.6m per year.	£50million over the next three years to support local areas in preventing and managing community tensions. This comprises: £34million in area based grant; £3million to support the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy to develop regional and local capacity to meet community cohesion challenges; £4.5 million to help schools and others offer positive activities for young people with a focus on community cohesion; and £7.5 million to support inter-faith work.
Connecting Communities Plus grants programme	CLG	£18m (over three years - £6m per year)	Funding for activities which encourage race equality and community cohesion.
Migration Statistics Improvement Programme	Cross-departmental	£12m	£12 million cross-government programme led by ONS and the National Statistician to improve the population and migration statistics, including those at the local level. Will deliver improved local estimates and projections by 2010, in time to calculate the next three year local government finance settlement from 2011-12.
Exceptional Circumstances Grant	DCSF	£6m (2008/9)	To support schools with a rapid growth in pupil numbers and/or increase in pupils who have English as an Additional Language.
Rough sleepers (London Boroughs)	CLG	£600,000	For central London Boroughs for their work with EEA nationals who are rough sleepers.
	Total	£517.8m	Per year

 

 

 

 

Immigration to account for a new household every 6 minutes

Government projections issued this week confirm that net immigration is now the largest single influence on household formation in England, accounting for very nearly 4 in 10 new households (39%).

The projections show that, over the 25 years from 2006 to 2031, immigration will account for an extra 99,000 households a year - or one every six minutes. This means an extra 2.5 million households by the end of the period out of a total of 6.3 million new households, or nearly 40%. These households would not be formed if immigration was in balance with emigration.

The figures also show a substantial increase of 15% in the number of households expected to be formed in England by 2031 compared to the last estimate which was made only a couple of years ago in 2006. There are large upward revisions for the North East (33%) Yorkshire and the Humber (30%), and the East Midlands (21%). The West Midlands and the East are both revised up by 16% while the South East and South West are increased by about 10%.(see the table below).

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK said, "Yet again the government have tried to bury the true picture in the middle of a 17 page statistical release but they cannot conceal the fact that immigration will have a massive impact on housing demand and therefore on our whole quality of life and our environment. It is time that the government faced up to the facts and brought immigration under control instead of seeking to camouflage the true position."

Table 8: 2006-based projections compared with revised 2004-based projections, by English region

thousands	2006-based projection	2004-based projection	Difference
	Average annual change 2006 – 2026	Average annual change 2006 – 2026
North East	9	6	2
North West	28	26	3
Yorkshire & The Humber	31	23	7
East Midlands	28	22	6
West Midlands	22	18	3
East	34	30	5
London	34	33	1
South East	40	36	4
South West	32	29	3
England	258	223	35

 

 

 

Immigration: BBC Radio 4: Beyond Westminster

Radio 4's Beyond Westminster (1100 hrs – 1130 hrs Saturday, 10 January 2009) discussed whether the record levels of immigrants are something to be celebrated or deplored and how far things will be changed by the looming recession

The BBC's Andrew Rawnsley first questioned Migrationwatch's Chairman, Sir Andrew Green, about why his organisation is alarmed at the projections for a British population of 70 million by 2031. He then spoke to Tim Finch of the left-of centre think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research about IPPR's views on the Government's immigration policy. Finally, he talked to Simon Darby, Deputy Leader of the British National Party who explained why the BNP wants immigration stopped.

Mr Rawnsley then explored the arguments with three politicians: Phil Woolas, (Lab) Immigration Minister, Damien Green (Cons) Shadow Minister for Immigration and Chris Huhne, LibDem's chief spokesman on Home Affairs.

It is possible to Listen Again to the programme.

Public gives thumbs down to amnesty for illegal immigrants. New study shows amnesty would cost up to £4 billion a year.

Seven out of ten adults disagree that there should be an amnesty for illegal immigrants, a new YouGov poll has found. The research, commissioned by Migrationwatch UK,found that only one in ten people agree with the idea. In London, the poll found that 64 per cent opposed an amnesty.Just one in six Londoners supported the idea of an amnesty, which was recently proposed by Mayor Boris Johnson; only one in twenty strongly agreed.

The poll was published along with new research, which shows that an amnesty for illegal immigrants, or “undocumented workers” would cost £2 billion in its first full year of operation. As those concerned married and had families, the costs could rise to £4 billion a year.

Those granted an amnesty would be immediately entitled to apply for social housing, adding at least half a million to the waiting list (which is already over 1.5 million for England alone). They would also be entitled to bring over their families, thus moving up the queue which is largely based on “need”. Meanwhile they would be entitled to Housing Benefit which is included in this calculation.

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said:

Clearly the British public can see that to reward people with a meal ticket for life for breaking our laws is an absurd proposition. It will only encourage others to come and take their place in the hope of a further amnesty. That is exactly what has happened in Italy which has granted five amnesties in the past twenty years and Spain which has granted six.

Claims of “a huge increase in tax revenues” are ludicrous when benefit payments are taken into account. So proponents of an amnesty are left only with their claim to be advancing the cause of social justice. However, the real victims are British workers whose wages are held down or perhaps their job opportunities taken by people who came or remained here illegally of their own volition.

"As we enter a recession, competition for work by illegal immigrants should be reduced, not encouraged. The government and Opposition are absolutely right to oppose this ill-considered scheme. The only amnesty worth considering is an amnesty on departure – allowing people already here illegally to leave within a defined window without fear of arrest for immigration offences.”/P>

See Notes to Editors

Migrationwatch invited to put forward policy suggestions

Following the evidence which we gave to the Economic Committee of the House of Lords, Migrationwatch were invited by a Cross Party Group of Parliamentarians to put forward suggestions as to how immigration issues should be tackled in a way that took account and also tackles the need to preserve the competitiveness of the economy but also tackled the numbers.

In response, they prepared a policy document which, for the first time brings together in one place the case against the very large scale immigration which has been allowed to develop. The Cross Party Group, which was announced today, accepted the broad lines of the document and will pursue its recommendations.