Do migrants add to economic growth?
Yes. But they also add to population. In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry in April 2004, the Prime Minister claimed that growth would be nearly 0.5% per year less if there was no net immigration. The correct Treasury figure was 0.4% and this figure was based entirely on the fact that net immigration would add 0.4% to the working age population. This level of immigration adds 0.25% to the total population every year. So the benefit is only 0.15% per head per year - a trivial amount compared to the extra congestion involved. Over a longer timescale the impact is even smaller as immigrants grow older and have children.

Do migrants account for 15% of economic growth?
Trend growth is 2.75% per year. 0.4 is 15% of 2.75 so this is the same claim, dressed up to look more impressive - it takes no account of the extra population.

What is wrong with a "managed migration policy"?
Nothing. But, in reality, it is not managed. Over 85% of asylum seekers remain in Britain even if they are refused. Nearly 2 million non-settlement visas are issued every year yet there are no checks on departure. David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary, has admitted publicly that "he hasn't a clue" who is in Britain. The Government must put in , place the necessary tools to be able to manage migration - notably, embarkation checks and ID cards. Until then, "managed migration" will remain merely a slogan.

Do we need immigration to boost our economy?
Major studies in Canada and the United States have concluded that the benefit of immigration to the economy as a whole is positive but very small. The impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head is a small fraction of 1%. In Britain, congestion costs probably wipe that out since we are 12 times as crowded as the United States. It follows that the case for large scale immigration is a matter for decision on political and social grounds. The economic case is fairly neutral.

Can we do without skilled workers from overseas?
An exchange of skilled workers is to everybody's benefit but it is not a sufficient reason for net foreign immigration at the present level of 340,000 a year. In the medium term it is essential that we train and re-train our own workforce. Immigration can never be a substitute for this. Would London collapse without foreign workers? No. The Jobs being done by foreigners in London are being done by British people in the many parts of the country where there are few, if any, immigrants. What is happening is that Londoners are moving out of London as large numbers of immigrants arrive. Over the period 1999 – 2003 there has been a net international inflow of half a million people.

Don't we need foreigners to do the jobs that British people are unwilling to do?
No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled. At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. That partly explains why we have 1.5 million unemployed and a further 2.2 million whom the Government wishes to move from welfare to work.


Who will pick Strawberries?
There is a need for seasonal labour in the agricultural sector. There is no reason why students and others should not come to Britain temporarily for this purpose. The problem with present arrangements is that there is no check on their departure. However, since the recent expansion of the EU, workers from Eastern Europe have supplied most of the labour necessary for this purpose.

Do we need immigration to fill 600,000 vacancies?
No. The government made this claim three years ago. From 2001 - 4 there was net immigration of almost 700,000 yet there are still about 600,000 vacancies. The reason is that immigrants also create demand so the argument from labour shortages leads to an endless cycle of immigration.


There frequently made statements on asylum and immigration, many of them false or misleading, which are constantly repeated by the immigration lobby. Here is a selection.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"Britain (or usually Europe) has a declining population and work force".

The Facts
The British population is officially projected to grow by 7.2 million by 2031 of which 6 million (83%) will be due to the assumed level of immigration (145,000 a year). Even with no migration the population of working age will be above its level in 2004 until 2027 because women will be working longer. With a fertility rate of 1.78, Britain is in a completely different situation from Italy and Spain whose fertility rate is about 1.2. It is therefore misleading to treat Europe as a single entity for this purpose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"Britain needs migrant workers to help pay for our pensions"

The Facts
False. Immigrants themselves grow older. To maintain the present population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants a year up to 2050. That would double the population to 120 million and leave us with the same problem. This is why the Turner Commission on pensions dismissed the argument saying that “Only high immigration can produce more than a trivial reduction in the projected dependency ratio over the next 50 years.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"Migrants contribute a net £2.5 billion to the exchequer"

The Facts
False. The relevant Home Office paper was heavily qualified, describing the results as conditioned on the period in which they are calculated and the country's position in the business cycle. In fact the year chosen was one in which the public sector accounts were in surplus so everyone was contributing 5% more than they took out; to correct for this deduct £1.3bn. Furthermore, Corporation Tax from shareholders resident abroad was wrongly attributed to migrants; deduct a further £0.8bn. The study also overlooked the key point that, since the early 1990s, migrants have added to our population so it ignored the cost of new facilities required and the costs of special education (such as teaching English as an additional language) etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"In 2001 the total number of successful asylum applicants was as high as 51% (Refugee Council)".

The Facts
False. This includes those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) - a category now abolished by the Home Secretary because it had been awarded too liberally. In the period from 1997 - Q3 2005 just 23% were granted asylum and a further 14% were granted ELR (now renamed Humanitarian Protection). Source: Home Office Asylum Statistics 1997-2004 and Q1and Q3 2005. In 2004, 75% of asylum applicants were refused any form of permission to stay in Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"The UK ranked twelfth in the EU in terms of asylum applications in relation to the overall population in 2001"

The Facts
Misleading. Some small countries do take more than their ‘fair share’ of asylum seekers but overall, in the period 1997 –mid 2005 600,000 asylum claims were lodged in the UK – 21% of the total for the EU-15 as a whole. The UK’s share of the EU-15 population is just 16%. The Myth "Britain takes only 2% of the world's refugees (Refugee Council)" The Facts False. According to UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures Britain held 3% of the world’s refugees as at the end of 2004. Its share of the world’s population is under 1%. Most of the people counted as refugees by the UNHCR are fleeing wars and famines and are not seeking asylum under the terms of 1951 Convention. They naturally flee to the nearest safe country until they can return home. The benefit of dealing with them near to their country of origin is demonstrated by the fact that over 400,000 Afghans were able to move back to their home country from Pakistan (and over 900,000 returned in total) in 2004 alone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth
"Those who oppose large scale immigration seek to establish "fortress Britain".

The Facts
Absurd. In 2004 there were 97 million international arrivals in Britain. Of these 68 million were British nationals returning home. 17 million were nationals of the European Economic Area and 12 million were from outside the EEA. Not exactly a fortress. The issue is not how many come to Britain but how many come to settle here, often illegally.

The usual IMC post

First a report, this being IMC it was of course of a wonderful event where everybody was inspired and had a great time. There were no disenting voices and no disagreements
Secondly we have a comment where some real facts are presented
Thirdly the IMC control freaks hide the post with the facts because only the biased Indymedia view of the world must be presented.

It is hardly surprising Indymedia in the UK is losing readers and contributors hand over fist when you continue to try and present a warped, innacurate view of the activist world. Take a look at other IM sites around the world who concentrate on REPORTING news and events instead on attempting some sort of social engineering among the community

Immigration and people movement is one of those issues where the wider public should NOT be told the facts. At the moment there is more than enough resistance to immigration and asylum seekers and the public have no idea of the true figures. Can you imagine what it would be like if they knew the truth ???

We need to keep the campaigns focused on the human element with stories about Mr X and Mrs Y being denied the right to stay, children made friends here, local people supportive etc. the debate about the real numbers must be kept low profile and we must never, never talk about the reality of how many will come if the border controls are lifted.