What a true assessment of the economic costs of mass immigration would include

Robert Henderson

The politically correct never cease to tell us that mass immigration is a net benefit to Britain. By this they mean that immigrants pay more in taxes than they cost in publicly funded services. To make such an assessment the following statistics would be needed:

1. The amount of income tax and National Insurance paid by immigrants.  Because of the type of work involved – seasonal, work offered by foreign gangmasters and so on –  it is reasonable to assume a  disproportionately  large proportion of those working in the black market are immigrants. There is also a practice of immigrants working and paying tax until they exceed the single person’s tax allowance in a tax year, ceasing to work in the UK for that tax year and then reclaiming all the income tax paid at the end of the tax year. That rebated tax  needs to be deducted from the tax paid figure held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

2. The costs arising  from the native population who are denied jobs which immigrants have taken. This will involve the benefits native workers have to collect because they cannot find a job, the costs of having to move to a new area to either seek work or because  the new benefits cap will not meet their rent and the costs of having to take children out of one school plus the costs of registering with a new GP because a family is forced to move .

3. The cost to the native population of a reduction in wages caused by immigrants increasing the pool of labour. This will mean  less tax paid and more in-work benefits

4. The cost of  benefits drawn by immigrants when they are not working.

5. The cost of benefits drawn by immigrants when they are working, for example, working tax credits, housing benefit.

6. The cost of NHS care given to immigrants.

7. The cost of education given to immigrants, this to include the additional costs arising from those with poor or non-existent English.

8. The cost of benefits, education and NHS care for the children of immigrants born in the UK.

9. The costs of benefits paid to immigrants to support children born abroad and living abroad.

10. The inflation of  housing costs caused by immigrants and their children born in the UK increasing the demand for housing.

11.  The costs involved in a decline in the quality of NHS care and educational standards because of the pressure placed on the NHS, schools and higher education by immigrants.  The inadequate English of many immigrants employed in the NHS in particular must reduce the efficiency of the service and increase the likelihood of error. The difficulty of teaching in schools with huge numbers of pupils lacking English as a first language speaks for itself.

12. The costs involved  in the British economy generally from a loss of efficiency through the inadequate English of immigrants and their lack of understanding of British customs. It may be cheaper for an employer to employ an immigrant in terms of wages,  but,  especially where the immigrant is dealing with the public, there must be a substantial the loss of efficiency in terms of  extra time taken to conduct conversations with customers, misunderstandings of what is wanted and an inability to explain  to customers what is on offer.

13. The loss of expertise to Britain of skilled Britons who seek work abroad because of opportunities the UK being blocked by immigrants, for example,  newly qualified British doctors and nurses have encountered difficulty in obtaining British posts despite the frequent claims of NHS staff shortages (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9272640/New-doctors-will-face-unemployment.html),  while positions at British medical schools are cut and large numbers of foreigners recruited (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407585/NHS-recruits-thousands-doctors-Third-World–limits-places-deny-British-students-chance-study-medicine.html)

14. The costs – which can be lifelong –  of the loss of work experience for Britons  unable to get work at all, whether skilled or unskilled.  This is particularly important for the young.

15. The costs in terms of wear and tear on the roads because of increased traffic arising from immigrants.

16. The cost of criminal activity amongst immigrants.

17. The cost of criminal activity amongst the descendants of immigrants.

18. The costs of guarding against Islamic terrorism.

19. The costs of the remittances made by immigrants and their descendants to their ancestral countries.

20. The costs of meeting the requirements of the “anti-racist” legislation which puts considerable burdens employers. These are  particularly severe for any employer who is funded in whole or part by the taxpayer.  Such employers have to not merely be non-discriminatory,  but they have to prove that is what they are as a result of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/pdfs/ukpga_20000034_en.pdf). The police are particularly keen to show how PC they are (http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201001EDHREDH01.pdf)

21. The cost of dealing with visa requests, asylum claims,  claims regarding family reunions  and claims based on compassionate grounds. The costs include employing civil servants to process claims to stay in the UK, the cost of staffing of immigration tribunals, the costs arising from the court time taken by the cases  which go to the courts, the  legal costs of those trying to stay in the UK (which are normally paid by the taxpayer), the cost of running immigration detention centres and the cost of removing people from the UK .

22. The ongoing cost of the descendants of immigrants – potentially through many generations – of racial and ethnic groups who continue to display high levels of unemployment, high benefit dependency,  low-skills,  poor educational attainment, low payments of tax and  abnormally high levels of criminality.

I defy anyone to find a piece of research which comes close to including all those costs or even a majority of them.

Of course the economic arguments are not  the most important thing about mass immigration which is that it changes the nature of a society because immigrants arriving in large numbers from the same country will invariably colonise parts of the country and resist assimilation.  Nonetheless, it is important to thoroughly examine the weaknesses in the economic claims made by the politically correct because it is their favoured ploy to try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

The costs fall most heavily on the poor, the rich being, as yet, largely untouched because they arrange their lives so that they do not encounter the supposed joy of diversity and have no need to seek work in a competitive situation.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Tony Rice  On December 27, 2013 at 12:46 am

    The fact immigrants choose this country above all other European ones because of the welfare benefits available here are the highest clearly shows why they choose the UK. So they come primarily for what they can get not what they can give, they turn around President Kennedy’s famous words at his inauguration. That there are hundreds of thousands here who are not yet approved as citizens of this country but who can sue the British Government and get the taxpayer to fund their series of appeals through the Courts is another absurd cost to the public purse. And the amount of pounds sterling sent out of the country in the form of UK welfare benefits to support wives and children back in the country of origin of the breadwinner who has managed to make his way to Britain is considerable. The Commission for Racial Equality as it then was campaigned that employers in the Uk take on a certain number of ethnic persons, and which was enforced. However, with mass immigration it cannot be said the reverse has been applied. One does not see many indigenous Brits working for ethnic employers.

  • Reduce Immigration  On December 27, 2013 at 2:37 am

    Excellent analysis, thank you! Have tweeted it to the followers of an Australian group that aims to Reduce Immigration: @reduceimmigratn For more on the Australian campaign, see http://reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/

  • Roger Gough  On December 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    I apologise if you have mentioned this Robert but I don’t see it: the cost of caring for the elderly family members of immigrants who come to this country to join their sons/daughters and have made no contribution to our ‘services’ in their lives.

  • Calvin  On January 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Good list of overlooked factors, but basically the whole argument rests on the false premise of “more paid in tax than claimed in benefits”.

    The true comparison in any evaluation of the economic benefit of mass immigration, should be made by a comparison between contribution (tax) and consumption of tax funded services (benefits). For mass immigration to be beneficial it is not merely necessary that migrants pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits, it must be shown that their benefit/consumption status is BETTER than that of the indigenous population.

    For example; migrants could be making an average contribution that is 10% greater than their consumption, but if the average contribution of the indigenous population is 20% greater than their consumption, migrants are having a NEGATIVE economic impact.

    I have no idea what the actual contribution stats are but I do know for certain that a positive assessment that is not based on a comparative analysis is %100 bogus. This is a plain statistical fraud.

  • prayerwarriorpsychicnot  On May 31, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs and commented:
    This is just one example of the absence of research or concealed research which accompanies many govt policies. My guess is the costs were ignored because the monied interests knew they were on to a winner, and our political class are chiefly the servants of the monied class. The alternative would have been, if a change to society had the result of making the mass of the population better off, and the monied classes worse off, the change would not have happened.

  • Millennial Woes  On June 5, 2014 at 2:43 am

    I’ve done a reading of this article for my YT channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVB_SYGnTeI


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: