this would be the basis of my talk, still interested ?


Do migrants add to economic growth?
Yes but they also add to population.
In a recent parliamentary debate, a Home Office Minister gave an official estimate that "migration has increased output by at least £4 billion and (accounts for) 10 - 15% of economic trend growth" But the Government had failed to take into account the addition to population. In 2005 net immigration was 185,000 which, on a population of 60 million, is 0.31%. At the same time the government’s estimate of £4 billion on a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately £1,250 billion is 0.32%. The benefit in terms of GDP per head is therefore trivial – about 0.01% of GDP or just 4p per head per week – less than a Mars bar per month.
As for the claim that migration accounts for 10 - 15% of trend growth, the result is the same. Trend growth is 2.5% so 10-15% of trend growth is 0.25% to 0.375% of GDP. The effect on GDP per head is therefore a small negative or positive amount.
Other recent studies in the UK, and studies carried out in other countries, point to the same conclusion – namely that immigration makes little difference to GDP per head.

What is wrong with a "managed migration policy"?
Nothing. But, in reality, it is not managed. Work permits are almost entirely employer driven. About 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. Three quarters of asylum seekers remain in Britain even if they are refused. 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 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 at best 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 nearly 300,000 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. In the 10 years from 1995 to 2004 there was a net inflow of 880,000 international migrants to London. During the same time period a net 726,000 people left London to live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

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 1.7 million unemployed and a further 2.7 million on incapacity benefit one million of whom the Government wishes to move from welfare to work. These figures include 1.25 million young people who are not in education, employment or training.

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. From 1 Jan 2007 20,000 Romanians and Bulgarians will be admitted for six months periods to work in agriculture and food processing but there will be no means of ensuring their departure at the end of their contract.

Do we need immigration to fill 600,000 vacancies?
No. The government made this claim 6 years ago. From 2001 - 2005 there was net immigration of nearly 900,000 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.


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

Statements on asylum and immigration, many of them false or misleading,which are constantly repeated by No Borders. Here is a selection.

The Myth
The economy would collapse without immigrants.
Obviously. They comprise 8% of the population and about a third of Londoners. The economy would also collapse without people who are ginger-haired or left-handed. Nobody is suggesting that any of these categories should be removed. The issue is whether we need to continue with very large-scale immigration which will add the equivalent of the population of Birmingham every 5 years and for whom we will need to build 1.5 million houses in the next 20 years.


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

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

The Facts
Absurd. In 2005 there were 102 million international arrivals in Britain. Of these 69 million were British nationals returning home. 21 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 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 1.8, 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……and this would be only a temporary effect unless still higher levels of immigration continued in later years…..” The reason should be obvious. Immigrants also get older.


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

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

The Facts
False.
Close examination of this claim reveals that the outcome depends on how the cost of children of “mixed” marriages is allocated. There are about ¾ million children with one foreign born parent and one born in the UK. If they are all charged to the host community the result is the government’s figure. If they are all charged to the immigrant community the result is that immigrants cost an extra £2.5 billion in the year for which the calculation was done (1999/2000). The fair and logical course is for the cost to be split 50/50. On this basis, immigrants cost £900 million in that year.


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

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

The Facts
False.
Between 1997 and Q3 2006 just over a third of applicants (37%) were granted any form of permission to stay in the UK.


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

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. By contrast, of approximately 40,000 Afghan refugees in Britain, only about 40 are known to have returned home

O dear, I see by looking at the Hidden section that somebody has decided to state a few facts about migration. Not what is wanted by the No Borders people in any way.

Luckily the admins hid it pretty quick