Migration Watch UK: News

Immigration 'No Answer' to Pension Time Bomb

The ‘myth’ that continued mass immigration is the answer to Britain’s pensions time bomb has been described as ‘totally dishonest’ by a new report out today.

The report from think tank Migrationwatch, finds that the present ratio of workers to pensioners could only be sustained by immigration at a level that would bring the population of the UK to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century -obviously absurd propositions.

'The pensions myth is just one in a long series of excuses that are trotted out in support of justifying the highest levels of immigration in our history, and each time they are examined in detail they fall apart as this study demonstrates,’ said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green.

>The report reviews the prospects for this ratio - known as the Potential Support Ratio (PSR)in the light of the most recent population projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It finds that, with no migration at all the ratio would fall from today’s level of 4.15 to 1.9 in 2051. If net migration continues at 180,000 a year, as the ONS predicts, the PSR would drop to 2.4 in that year. However, this improvement in the support ratio would require a continuing conveyor belt of new immigrants resulting in an extra 13.6 million people with all that that implies in what is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe.

The report quotes four major studies which have dismissed this approach. Most recently, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs concluded that "arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse the "pensions time bomb" do not stand up to scrutiny…"

'The Government have been running this dishonest argument for years. They have recently shaded it to talk about "helping" with the pensions problem but the reality is that any significant impact requires a huge and continuing increase in our population. They know it is no answer to the pensions problem and it is time they levelled with the British public and dropped this absurd argument,’said Sir Andrew.

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

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 Migrationwatch comment on GLA report on illegal immigration issued on 16 June, 2009.

'These are very expensive proposals which would only make a bad situation worse. On the report’s own figures they would cost £300m in bureaucracy and £3m a week in benefits (our figure is £10m a week. See also Briefing Paper 11.11 - The True Cost of an Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants). It would also cost £6bn to provide the extra social housing needed.

Worse still, it would encourage still further illegal immigration as other countries have found. Italy has granted five amnesties in the last twenty years and Spain six; on virtually every occasion there were more applications each time. The report has no answer to this. it just remarks that it would only happen if border controls were ineffective.

But that is exactly the position we still face. We issue two million visas a year and there will be no full checks on departure until 2014, obviously, those granted an amnesty would be replaced at the drop of a hat.

The public have the common sense to see this. Our opinion poll showed seventy per cent opposed to an amnesty.

The recent European elections must surely be a lesson to the political class that they can no longer ride roughshod over public opinion with absurd, expensive and self-defeating proposals such as these. It seems that Boris Johnson is trying to buy the immigrant vote with taxpayer's money. They will know how to respond to this.'

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.

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.

UK benefits system linked to immigrant workers says report

Evidence that the system of social security benefits is one factor in attracting large numbers of foreign workers to the UK has come from a new study out today.

An in depth analysis of the operation of the current benefit system, by think tank Migrationwatch, has shown that the effect of benefit levels combined with means testing of benefits for those who are working means that there is little financial incentive for people with families living on benefits to find employment. This may partly explain why, despite there being 3.5 million people on Jobseekers Allowance or Incapacity Benefit, some 1.3 million immigrants have come to work in the UK in the past ten years.

There would be considerable benefits in getting our own population into work rather than encouraging immigration says the report. These include:

      - huge savings on the social security budget

      - an increase in GDP per head (i.e. higher production without higher population)

      - less pressure on our infrastructure

      - less downward pressure on low wages

      - a reduction in the non working underclass

Said Sir Andrew Green, Chairman Migrationwatch: ‘We keep hearing that we need immigrants to do the jobs that the British won't do.

‘It has been suspected for some time that benefit levels are a real disincentive to take work that is on offer and our research spells out why this may be so,’ he said.

Sir Andrew said that there were a number of other factors. For example, British workers who have accommodation and, perhaps, children at school, cannot be as mobile in search of work as immigrants.

'However, an important factor is that wages are now so close to benefits that there is very little financial incentive for unskilled British workers to find a job. By contrast, Poles have very strong financial motivation. On the minimum wage in Britain they are earning 4-5 times what they would earn at home and, by living in multi-occupancy, they can afford to send considerable sums of money back to their families - according to the National Bank of Poland, Polish migrants in the UK are sending home about £9 million a day,’ said Sir Andrew.

The paper gives a number of examples:

A family with two children is just £30 a week better off working on the minimum wage than not working. If they are in rented accommodation and receiving housing benefit the worker keeps only between 4p and 10p in the pound of extra wages above the minimum wage until his gross pay reaches £507 a week.

A single person under 25 has more incentive to work but, on the minimum wage of £193 per week, is still only £50 a week or £10 a day better off than a non working person. If he is over 25 the difference is only £43 per week.

A family with two children and one working member receives £79.50 of Working Tax Credit, intended to cushion the impact of means testing of benefits and be an incentive to work. However Working Tax Credit itself is means tested and is also treated as income for means testing Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Overall this worker keeps only £6.77 of the £79.50.

All working families with children and one working member on the minimum wage are slightly worse off (by £14 -£24) than the same family receiving the maximum Incapacity Benefit. They remain worse off until the worker in the family earns £430 a week or £12.25 an hour. A single person on the minimum wage would be £3 a week better off than a single person on the highest level of Incapacity Benefit.

Said Sir Andrew: ‘The maximum level of Incapacity Benefit has effectively been brought very close to the minimum wage. There are good reasons of social equity for this but it does mean that there is very little financial incentive for such persons to return to paid employment, especially as they are allowed some earnings. This means it is particularly important to ensure that claimants are genuine cases’.

'This problem of incentives is a perverse effect of attempts to lift families out of poverty. It is not the result of immigration but it is made more difficult by large scale immigration which, according to the Bank of England, tends to hold down the wages of the lower paid. The risk is that we will develop an underclass of discouraged British workers’, he added.

Examination by the House of Lords of the economic impact of immigration on the UK

Draft minutes of oral evidence given by Professor Robert Rowthorn, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge and Professor Stephen Nickell, Nuffield College Oxford, of the economic impact of immigration on the UK, to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs on 9 October, 2007 are available for viewing on the Parliamentary web site.

Immigration is placing a great strain on the UK

The Government's new Migration Impacts Forum confirms that mass immigration is placing a huge strain on housing, health, education and policing in virtually all regions of the UK.

It claims that immigrants contribute £6 billion a year to the economy; but fails to mention any costs to the British taxpayer. David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, quoted in the Daily Mail puts the annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8 billion.

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch was interviewed about the Forum's conclusions on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning.