³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

as you say in your article that when they first arrive they share flats/apartments between 4 or 5 but once they settle in an area they get a flat each and some bring there wives over and rent houses which is the problem with the housing shortage in northern Ireland
also as the case is arising in the south of Ireland that when less houses get planning permission less builders needed the migrants who lived in the flat with there mates all head back home stagnating the housing market which could easily lead to recession and we'll all be worse off then

just my view

Some interesting points, I really don't think that we have a very good understanding of types of migration in this country, and your article rightly points out that there are different types of migrant.

Anecdote isn't very useful and that's often what the 'British Public' have to rely on to analyse the true costs and benefits of migration, it's about time we really understood this issue properly.

I am an economic migrant. I work in the public sector, pay taxes and own my own property (3 bed semi). My children were born here and are fully integrated into the life of the village we live in. I am studying for and MSC (while still working full time) too further my skills. However I do not consider myself representative of migrants. It seems to me that there is a lot of prejudice arround and stereotypes based more on heresay rather than propper evidence. In fact, NOT EVEN the government knows exactly what is going on and we might need to wait until the next census to be able to know for certain the effects of migration. For my part I believe I make a positive contribution to UK plc by both working and paying taxes (never claimed any benefits), however that might not be true for all migrants, and that is what generates a negative stereotype.

For me, the biggest issue is one of impact on resources of population growth through migration. I would not like to see our country become even more overcrowded with the pressure on all our scarce resources, including housing (with it's impact on land, sewerage, power, gas, natural products etc). Your 19kms square area might be one of outstanding natural beauty (metaphorically speaking). Perhaps we need to accept that there might be a limit to how many people can occupy a small island on principle.

When does this all end? Are we to be left with 'Bladerunner' style cities devoid of open spaces? The UK's infastructure is already saturated, with little capacity in roads, health and education.

It may sound like a David Cameron soundbite but there is a time when economic considerations become secondary to social welfare and family well-being.

This creaking island of ours requires a breather from unchecked migration otherwise we face meltdown. UK Plc is overtrading and as any good businessman knows chasing growth without consideration of the consequences leads to bankruptcy.

Just visit the ares in the country which are known to have a large number of immigrants. You can then see exactly how they have affected the country. Visit Hackney, Peckham or Bradford. See for yourself - then you will realise.

Much of the discussion rightly focuses on housing, but other basic issues are ignored, for example, if every 1 Million migrants consume an average, say, two meals per day each, that equates to 735 million meals per annum. Food production in this country has declined rapidly in recent years as many farmers continue to go out of business, so migrants are bound to have an impact on the already high food imports bill. And not much is said about the extra cars on the roads, most of which are now made abroad. Recent reports suggest so much money earned by migrants is sent home that the benefit to the British economy is marginal. The picture needs to be looked at as a whole to assess the benefits or not of large-scale migration.

Most the unskilled migrants i have met ( and i have met quite a few), are older, with families back home ( eastern Europe)- that they want to move back to once they save enough to retire on. I really think, long term, this is a non problem.

Only the UK, Ireland and Sweden have given some new EU members full access to their labour markets. In approximately four and a half years they will be given access to the other EU states what is going to happen then ? I suspect most Poles will go to work in Germany, Austria etc which is only a short drive away. Hence who is going to do the jobs they do now then ?

The UK is pursuing diametrically opposed policies in regard to economic growth and social equality which are becoming harder and harder to sustain. On the one hand, encouraging immigration of low skilled labour in order to boost GDP growth while suppressing wage demands and inflation. On the other, raising the overall tax burden to fund income transfers to low income families hurt by the immigration trends encouraged by the government. As the report on child poverty released this week shows, these policies are not working. Child poverty in the UK is increasing and now one half of all children in inner London (the epicenter of immigration) live in poverty, despite the fact that Labour has massively increased spending on anti-poverty measures. At the same time, the ever growing tax burden in the UK is making the country less and less competitive on an international basis.

As the ERM debacle in 1992 demonstrated, you can't pursue economic policies like this that are moving towards opposite goals -- it's a house of cards that will ultimately collapse. The UK can either have high social spending and low inequality, or it can focus on immigration driving high GDP growth, but it can't do both.

Discussions like this never really consider properly the effect of people who are also going.

I'm moving to the US in a months time. That is going to be the loss of one highly skilled engineer due to lack of support for the manufacturing sector in the UK, but at least I'll provide a house for a load of brickies.

What a load of dross. Britain is getting full, period!

I sometimes feel that this housing issue is being looked at from the wrong angle. Firstly all those people who are unable to get on the housing ladder are living somewhere - usually in rented accomodation so does this not indicate that it is the recent craze on 'buy-to-let' that
has actually fuelled house price inflation. Secondly I am seeing some pretty decent properties on the market for less than the UK average price (Gloucestershire) yet they sit there waiting for a buyer for, in some instances, months. (Although it has to be said that in the pretty villages houses fly off the shelves at the most ridiculous prices). I do wonder whether sometimes people are reluctant to give up their standard of living (eating out; takeaways; holidays etc.) and save the money for a deposit. Life is not a comfortable cushion and sacrifices need to be made to get what you want.
On the matter of immigrants, my daughter was recently interviewing candidates for jobs and offered work to two Eastern European workers however, they turned down the work once they learnt the money was not 'cash in hand' and therefore taxable!

This is quite bizarre. This article contributes absolutely nothing to anyone's understanding of migration.

Surely a ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ economics correspondant shouldn't be dreamily putting stuff out about which he has 'no idea how significant the effect is'?

Also, treating Migrationwatch as if it was just another source is shocking..anyone can see the fear of being 'swamped' pervades the Migrationwatch site.

They have a deeply unpleasant agenda, and, more than this, their figures (though based on govt stats) are used in such a way to inspire fear and panic.

So what you're saying Evan, is that the issues surrounding immigration are complex and interdependent on a whole range of factors. I wish tabloid editors and outspoken media pundits would remember this in future. A sophisticated debate is not something the UK has been subject to thus far.

Migrants tend to be intelligent, educated, law abiding and hard working: Model citizens, in my experience. In light of this, I feel that it is in our interests to encourage inwards economic migration to the UK. (This should include dependents, to reduce the flight of cash in the form of remittances).

The real issue is the DIRE shortage of housing, especially in the south-east. We need to build at a vastly increased rate, and at much higher densities than present. I am afraid that tower blocks are back, and this time we have no choice in the matter.

It is not just migrants who are living in ever more cramped conditions, the rapidly increasing cost of housing is entirely nondiscriminatory, affecting everyone regardless of their background.

How about the effect on the "exporting" countries? If one reason for the countries to join the EU is to develope their infrastructure can these countries afford to lose so many skilled peaple?

I live in southampton, which has a large and growing polish population. In my road three of the 3/4 bedroom houses accomodate about 17 people between them. But its not a problem, due to the working patterns of the residents. SOme work nights, some days, so they sleep and are at home in shifts.

There are a number of shops that cater specifically for the eastern european population, most of which sell great food.

The most interesting example is a chinese supermarket, with about 4 polish staff and a similar number of chinese staff. THe owner also owns the houses, that they live in and some of the work goes towards paying rent.

Its a good arrangement with different migrant groups helping each other out.

I will add my agreement with Sarah and NickT, in saying that no-one can make sweeping statements about migration as NO-ONE knows what the actual figures are. While this information is not known/in the public domain, then we will have statements made about immigrants in ignorance of the facts, which is exactly what the government wants.

I would welcome an independent, full and frank study into the types of migrant (Skillset, age sex), their visa status (EU, ILR, Self-employed, asylum), how long they stay, no. of dependants, what country they come from and where they settle in the UK.

Only when we have this information can we assess a migrant's impact on our economy.

For example, the measures taken against Bulgaria & Romania by the UK government in response to public concern about migrants from Poland was done completely for PR, out of the UK ignorance about the countries concerned. Poland - economic crisis, hardly any welfare state, poverty, unemployment, population of 40 million. Bulgaria - economic growth, good welfare state, employment increasing rapidly, population of 7.5 million.

The government wants to keep the UK public in the dark so that they can do something ridiculous like this to look like they are "doing something" about immigration, gain votes, and gain the support of the public in doing so whilst actually doing nothing.

I note that there is no concern about overcrowding in housing, human rights. Perhaps that family don't WANT to have 4 people sleeping in a bed, they're forced to. We're supposed to be a developed country but young people are forced to live in smaller and smaller spaces, and in poor private rental properties that damage their health. No surprise that educated people are migrating elsewhere.

this is a poor analysis of the situation.

Thanks Evan, great topic.

Traditional British house design is based on an evolution of a hall turned sideways. This wastes a lot of space. Rooms are rarely multi-purpose and storage space is minimal. My ideal home would be built along a Swedish and Japanese inspired design. I’m sure this would appeal in terms of land pressure and domestic living.

A typical single bedroom flat in Britain is the same size as a typical flat in Tokyo where a family of two adults and two children would live. This is tight by British standards but multi-purpose rooms, better storage, and ways of living make this less of an issue, and the lower resource cost and increased family interactivity is a bonus.

Osaka is renewing its housing stock, and improvements in flat design and provision of communal space have made living arrangements in new properties better, and both adults and children have somewhere to relax and play. Better heat and sound insulation, and well maintained public gardens only add to quality of life.

A higher population density and living arrangements encourage more local shops and services in an area than would otherwise be possible. In theory, this would mean that British cities hollowing out could be reversed and would see a growth in local shops, and better and more frequent public transport as it becomes more cost effective.

Far from being a problem, I only see opportunity.

A major missing point from this blog is the associated extras from housing.
The extra water / power needed for the extra homes, the extra wear and tear on the roads from the extra traffic, the overcrowding on the railways/tube. The increase in school class sizes, the increase in rubbish generated. Extra usage on the NHS services. All of which takes time and money to sort (if possible) which the rapid increase in migration hasn't allowed.

The majority of migrants are low paid or 'cash in hand' work, in both cases they don't pay their fair share of tax (due to our progressive tax system higher earners pay more tax and subsidise lower earners). So the more migrants that come into the country earning low wages mean that everyone on average wages or higher has to pay more tax to cover them.

I think you are forgetting another group of economic migrants, of witch I am one, and that is the highly-skilled workers. Tens of thousands of foreigners are employed in the Square Mile. I work for a City bank, and most people recently employed are from overseas (both EU and non-EU). They don't live in one-bedroom flats with their families. They want nice houses in west London and have money to pay for them. Many invest their bonuses into buy-to-let properties.

UK is short of skilled workers, ranging from plumbers to commodity traders. And as long as the situation persists, companies will keep brining people from overseas.

You are proposing that we develop the two tier system that operates in places like New York?

There, as migration increases, pay rates go down, house prices go up and the existing workers are then caught in a poverty trap and cannot get out of their multi-occupancy homes.

I'm alright Jack :-(

I note that there is no concern about overcrowding in housing, human rights. Perhaps that family don't WANT to have 4 people sleeping in a bed, they're forced to. We're supposed to be a developed country but young people are forced to live in smaller and smaller spaces, and in poor private rental properties that damage their health. No surprise that educated people are migrating elsewhere.

Jayne - I'm not sure it's a human rights issue. you only have to go back two generations to find a time when large british families - 9 or 10 people - would share the same space that smaller families - 3, 4 or 5 - do now.

To some extent, we're spoiled

Extract of information contained in a Foreign and Commonwealth Office document held by HM Treasury, received by HM Treasury 12 July 2004:

"... The impact of low skilled A8 migration on the UK labour market is more difficult to assess. Whilst there are vacancies, there are also unemployed and inactive low skilled UK workers. [Information redacted] Inactivity rates amongst low skilled migrants are actually higher than the rate for the UK low skilled population. This reflects barriers for low skilled migrants to entering the job market, particularly language ability. Therefore integration policies must be designed with this in mind. [Information redacted]

However, in some occupations, UK workers seem unwilling to take low skilled jobs, such as cleaning, some social care work and low skilled jobs in hotels and restaurants. In many cases, the jobs undertaken by low skilled migrants are valuable and irreplaceable, and would not be done otherwise . Evidence suggests that the effect of migration on both the employment prospects and wages of native workers is negligible (Dustman et al 2003)."

If the jobs are 'valuable', then wouldn't (/shouldn't) labour rates rise to reflect that 'value' in the absence of migrant labour ? (assuming an ample surplus of labour to fill the demand). Let's have a heated debate ...

I agree with Ian Rowley (comment 7 above) and m walkling (comment 8). It is all to easy to discuss this issue as one of economics. Why, when the social issue is raised, are we made to feel as if we're being racist, or at the least xenophobic.

Evan's article is good, but lacking. Lacking in what so many journalists and politicians do not see each day as they can afford to live outside the areas affected by considerable immigration (which has been much, much higher in the last 10 years, from both within the EU and from outside the EU). They can afford to run the businesses which benefit from falling wage levels due to increased numbers of workers. They can employ the nanny, the builder, etc., and reap the benefits. Others, a sizeable amount of others do not reap a benefit, quite the contrary. And, of course, all of this happens without anyone ever been asked directly to agree to such levels of immigration.

No normal person wants to be shut off from new cultures. But there are limits. In my opinion, such limits were reached long ago.

I just think that migrations roots need to be looked at more. Migration is an effect of a greater cause. These causes need to be dealt with more than the effects i.e. Half the world (nearly three billion people) live on less than two dollars a day. Figures like that show why people travel inside what can only be described as buckets, across vast oceans in the hope of a better life in the west - this is a representation of how bad things are in their countries that they would risk their own, and the lives of their families to come here. Now again this is only one area of migration but an important one that has been overlooked.

The problem with this country is not the hard-working immigrants but the British born underclass who exploit the system to claim vast amounts of benefits for their sprawling families. I would happily keep on accepting E Europeans in Britain, if only we could send our Chavs the other way!

What if we set a day, agree with all employers in the UK, to have a "Migrant workers duvet day" where all migrants, (economic or otherwise) don't turn up to work for the day, and (piror arrangements and preparation important) then employers complete a questionnaire maybe online on how many did not turn up, what their nationalities are, how long they have been in the country, how long they have been working for them etc (basically all questions that bring a better understanding of migrants) and take it from there.

Anyone with me?? I am a migrant and I think this will help......

Evan, yes - complicated issue at the fringes, but at the core is a fairly simple debate. Do we want to target higher GDP (aggregate) via population growth (mostly immigration), or higher GDP PER CAPITA via increased productivity?

I would argue the former is only good for big business, and wealthy people looking to take advantage of cheap labour. The current policy is unsustainable, likely to reduce the standard of living for the average Brit, and lead to escalating social tensions and genuine shortgage of essential resources (water, transport infrastructure, and space to build quality housing).

In essence, not all economic growth is nescessarily good for the population. I would encourage you to promote this aspect of the debate in the national media. If we are not prepared to invest in infrastructure and build on the greenbelt then I see this as yet another New Labour manifestation of short term gain / long term pain.

Two points;

Migrants who have come here to work are going to move where the work is, which is often where housing is in short supply - Since internal "migrants" are moving there too, for exactly the same economic reasons (and are the reason why there is spare housing in some parts of the country - there's a lack of work there).

As for "three people living in a one bedroom flat" - They're still consuming three peoples' worth of water, producing three peoples' worth of rubbish, needing transport capacity, health care, etc..

Accommodation is far from being the only constraint, and it can take years to add infrastructure, even where that's possible within the limits of space, natural capacity (such as water), etc..

I'd gladly swap hard working immigrants for some of the lead-swinging Brits, but the present rate of increase is exceeding the rate of expansion in infrastructure.

And in many instances increased demand cannot be acomodated without a general decline in availability &/or quality - be that water rationing or the daily commute to work.

Duncan Pratt - "The majority of migrants are low-paid, cash-in hand work". No they aren't and where did you get the figures for that?

Most migrants are registered to work here in order to get their visas, so therefore are not cash-in-hand, as they have to provide proof of earnings to the government. Many of those run limited companies (because they can't get PAYE work), or are skilled (nurses, engineers etc,). Most want to work honestly, those who can't find work go home, as they can't afford to live and have no-one to depend on but themselves.

Very, very few are asylum seekers. Even fewer are illegal. And anyway, whose fault is migrants working cash-in-hand - the migrant or the UK chappie who employs them?

The governement is very, very tough on illegal working by migrants now, so it's getting harder and harder for them to find work - UK business sometimes will not even consider their CVs, if not from the UK. Even if they work picking fruit, the migrants have to be registered with the gangmaster and the premises are raided regularly by immigration officials.

However, when one of these "migrant workers" - a friend of mine- tried to get staff for his restaurant, ALL of the applicants (white & British) asked to work full-time, whilst either being paid cash-in-hand or were asking to be registered as earning under the limit so their benefits would not get stopped. His restaurant is in a high-unemployment area. He ended up employing 2 Poles and one Brit (part time, so she didn't lose her benefits). On the first day of work, only the Poles turned up. They work full time and pay the correct amount of tax. If my Bulgarian friend loses his business he loses his visa, and therefore his status in the UK and will have to go home, with no recourse to benefits even if he's been paying tax and NI for 5 years.

The grand majority of benefit cheats and cash-in-hand jockeys are born and bred in the UK. What is galling for the migrants is that it's their taxes that are paying the benefits for UK lazy people, benefits to which they are not entitled.

Hi.. I am from Nepal and what Nepal has witnessed over the years is the flow of Ex-British Gurkha (EBG) to the UK.This is something which the UK government has passed from the parliament and invited the EBGs and their family to live in Britain. That something which has both positive and negative sides. Positive side, EBGs who served Britain in the past get to live their and fulfill their dreams and negative side is:
1.Stoppage of flow of money into Nepal as EBGs live in the UK, what goes out stays there itself.
2.Growing economy like ours need people to invest and lack of entrepreneurs means slow growth in the economy.
What do u have to say abt that?

All evidence I see (a very limited amount I'll concede) suggests that immigrants don't put such a strain on accomodation as might be thought. I think it's more a case of people hating high density living and people see the indirect conqequences of high density housing.

My landlord recently had a house of Polish men move out. 14 Poles were crammed into an averagely sized semi in a less desirable area that had already been converted to a 5 bedroom student property. They moved out as two of them had gone home and they thought rent split between 12 was "too expensive" (all right so they were bargaining but still). Fast forward a couple of months, the house is full again with all 5 bedrooms let out, a row erupts as one of the tenants moved his family into a room without telling the other tenants or the landlord. When I was looking for a housemate a while ago I got a lot of e-mails from immigrants asking for a big double room. When they came to look round some were quite open and said it was to move their family in, whilst others were a bit more cagey but I think most wanted to do that.

I see the latest person to blame immigrants is Gordon Brown (https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6506873.stm), who says that the reason for having to increase the rate of corporation tax for small businesses was because Eastern European workers were being "encouraged" to set up companies rather than taking salaried jobs.

That's a bit rich, given that it's the government that's encouraging them to do this in the first place. If, as an Eastern European immigrant, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office issues you a visa that says you have to be self-employed and not take a salaried job, what are you supposed to do?

BTW, I see in the same story Gordon Brown claims that the "vast majority" of UK businesses would be unaffected by the rise in corporation tax. Has there been some massive shift in the business world that I'm not aware of that now means the vast majority of businesses are big businesses?

I am surprised so few of the above postings (except Duncan Pratt No.25)do not refer to the simple effects of overcrowding. Britain is planning for a huge population increase, with all the effects on housing, transport, schools,NHS,and the environment. Commuters are already packed like sardines, and this will become worse. What is the limit?
Secondly there is no reference to the fact of the indigenous population slowly being not just added to, but replaced by foreigners. Does anybody mind?

There is no housing shortage in the rental market, which is where you would expect most economic migrants to be, rather there is a glut of available properties. The shortage is limited to properties available for sale, quite likely caused by the over-investment in buy-to-let, not by increased demand from immigrants.

HannahA (Post 36)
I said the majority so of course there are exceptions to the rules.
I never mentioned asylum seekers, benefit thieves or made any negative connotations about migrant workers wanting to get something for nothing or not working to a high standard. This does show why an open debate is needed because any negative connotations made against migrants are often responded to with insinuations of racism or xenophobia rather than criticism of the whole argument.

Many posts here and on other debates agree that a lot of migrants are in poorly paid work, not through any fault of their own or any grand design to gain benefits, just because often that is all the work they can get and even if they work hard for all the hours available they are still relatively low paid and therefore pay less tax which would be less than the average tax paid by the population (therefore being subsidised by the higher earners.

The cash in hand comment is systematic of employers of low paid work where the meagre earnings are illegally raised due to not paying tax or NI, it’s not solely down to migrants but all in really low paid work (and will only get worse with the withdrawal of the 10% income tax band)

Remember too that there are two forms of migration; immigration which has captured everyone's attention, and emigration. There is an increasing number of people like myself who were high earning professionals contributing to the UK economy. Due to the increasing tax burden, the hypocrisy of politicians and the burgeoning nanny state I have left and have no intention of returning (other than for short visits).

I agree with Loderingo (31).

Some people have assumed of course that all migrants are immigrants. This is not so.

in the generations since tertiary education became common, newly qualified youngsters have migrated away from their places of birth, initially to wherever their higher education course was located. Thereafter, only a small proportion return to their parental homes, most either move to where they can get work or remain in the town or city where they settled as students for a few more years. Their post-student patterns of accomodation follow the trend set by student accomodation, i.e. a group of young adults jointly renting a property & sharing costs. This initial position is much the same for internal migrants as for immigrants.

However, as young internal migrants get older & (hopefully) more affluent, they will aspire to better & more spacious personal accomodation. The pressures on immigrants as opposed to internal migrants may be subtly different. The reason for changing country may have been economic, often the desire to provide economically for a family who wouldn't even dream of coming to Britain. Their pattern of accomodation remains minimalist so they can export the maximum financial prosperity to their family at home. Their initial aspiration is almost always to return. Of course, from this there will always be a few that settle here for various reasons, e.g. economic/political problems at home & even the fact that immigration to UK has been made so difficult that having got here, there's no way they will leave as they won't have any hope of getting through all the red tape a second time.

However, in terms of long term settlement, more Brits leave the UK permanently than immigrants arrive. The demographic growth therefore doesn't come from immigration, but from breeding. To generalise, the most economically active part of the population also breed most, emigrant Brits are by & large those middle-aged people who have made their pile & see far better prospects in another country.

So immigration isn't the problem, but the problem is where the jobs are.

Your map places the 19km square in about Nottingham or Derby, but 80-90% of the need is in the already overcrowded South-East of England. If it weren't for family ties & inertia, how many older people would actually remain living where they do?

Perhaps the problem could be best resolved by a Robert Mugabe-esque expulsion of all economically inactive people from the crowded regions of Britain. Can I be serious?

The problem is there's no incentive for older people who may have migrated twice already to get to the most prosperous location, to get up & move. They're economically provided for & in a comfortable rut. Just like the 30mph driver blocking the queue of traffic, economically inactive (usually elderly) homeowners block the queue of potentially economically active people moving into where the jobs are.

So is it the elderly rather than immigrants that are the real problem? They claim the right of having worked for what they've got & having been there first. Not only that, but most welfare costs (I hear figures of 85-95%) are spent on the over 65s. In fact it is the elderly rather than the young who could be the real problem.

So how do we resolve it?

Perhaps it's time to bite the bullet of getting rid of all state pensions. As houses in the South East are worth so much, they can be used for income purposes instead & the elderly migrate to warmer & cheaper countries for their retirement. Is it really so unthinkable?

I disagree with such mass immigration for many reasons, some (such as cultural) without tangible costs.

However, the article fails to point out a fairly simple economic fact of immigrant housing. Myself and my girlfriend are looking to rent in the midlands a modest 2 bedroom house. Unfortunately we are competing with a growing number of Eastern Europeans, who are willing (as you mentioned) sleep 2/3 to a room.

This means they clearly have at least 2 to 3 times the buying power. Local estate agents have admitted to us that this has pushed the price of such starter homes up abnormally - and we are now struggling to find a place to live.

It is not necessarily that there is a shortage of space, but that the occupants are willing to pay well over market value.

I think most things mentioned here miss a fundamental underlying point. If the UK economy was very healthy, we would not need immigration to sustain it. Immigration cannot go on forever, as we will not have enough housing, infrastructure or basic facilities for everyone. What will we do then? If the economy was healthy it would function well without immigration. The basic issue is that we have a government that has encouraged low paid people in the UK to opt out of work. It has introduced ever more taxes on people willing to work in order to pay for those who don't, and then had invited in immigrants to do the work that the people in the UK should be doing. This in turn puts ever more pressure on all our services and infrastructure. Now that wages have been suppressed and speculators have inflated the UK property market, the large majority of working people have had to take on huge debts in order to keep going. The fact that more money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul, and debt is now seen as wealth, is portrayed as economic growth. It is a complete shambolic mess and someday the whole charade will collapse. The majority in the UK will then finally realise when it is too late.

As university graduates my wife and I have left Poland. It was for just a couple of years, hopefully enough to save money for a flat. That was almost 20 years ago... Why did we stay? Part of the reason was we liked my new life (initially in the US then in the UK and now in Australia) but an even bigger one was that our children started their education in English and we just could not see the point of switching them to schooling in our, not theirs, mother tongue (obviously switching countries and continents did not bother us). My question is: how many of the migrants from the 'new wave' will stay in the UK permanently? Although there's a limit to how long you can share a flat but with the house prices as they are it would be difficult to afford their own house, I suspect that vast majority are here to stay.

From spanish guy point of view, it is very good you (UK society) think about immigration. In Spain it is also one the topics in the every day policy discussion. I'm living here (Bedfordshire) from last september and I have NOT seen many news about immigrant thieves or immigrant violence. Tagging foreign people has been a problem in Spain from ages. Whatever discussion else, congratulations for it!

Mr. Evans.

Your references to the utterances a fictional characters are reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's (&, I think, George Bush's) references to character in western movies as if they were real. They are unnecesary.
Your artical was interesting. I live in United Arab Emirates where business is booming. The Emerati population is small & migrants form the bulk of the labour force, coming here on contracts for, usually, specific projects.Increasingly this labour force is accommodated in specially constructed accommodation blocks, bussed to & from their places of work &, when their work project or work is completed, return to their native countries. Most are well looked after. Many stay to work on other projects because of their skills acquired skills but, ultimately, they will leave.

UK employers should adopt a similar system.

We've also gone into other people's countries - drained their resources and run other people's countries like protection rackets. And when we were asked to leave, we didn't! In fact, we still go into other people's countries today...Spain, France...

I dont understand why a lot of people stereotyped the majority of migrants work in low pay jobs.

I myself is a migrant work in square mile one, pay tax in the 40% tax band and from my experience less than a third of colleagues in my work place are natives, the rest are all migrants!

Please research and logically analyse any available data thoughtfully before writing about "migrants". These blog sites offer opinions based on lack of evidence and pander to extreme tastes and tangential thoughts of no real consequence. Blog sites are more popular but even though they appear more
"democratic" and, I dare say, "profitable / economic" does not make them journalistically right. Does a professional journalist have integrity
or heart or are we all high paid entertainers with our name in lights ?
The way forward in an imperfect world is to surely not follow the crowd of conventional thought but to offer intelligent and well thought out alternatives. If journalists only offer knee jerk reactions to events then the politicians will react in the same way and not deal with the underlying causes and proper debates will cease. As for migrants I think there are many reasons why people move about most of them are either ambitious, desperate, lucky or curious etc. The world sometimes wants them sometimes not and freedom of movement in the world is not yet a human right. Lets face it - Where you are born can make a real difference to your quality of life as well as the colour of your skin, your health and the wealth of your family. This is the world we live in full of barriers to try and maintain the positions as they are by, guess who, the majority at the better end of the system. We treat others generally badly and call it democracy because it is what most people want. Politically speaking the world has no answers now as just providing for larger numbers of people will mean less space and resources for everyone.
We either have to learn to live with or without each other.
Perhaps some external event may make the choice for us like a worldide disease or catastrophe or an internal event like a war or accident. In any event we are special in one respect as we have a spiritual side and this must be developed to the benefit of all mankind. Read the Bible and watch and pray in all situations for help and love.

While everybody seems very concerned with the number of emigrants coming to work in UK nobody seems to worry too much that the English folk going to Bulgaria to buy a second home, that will be used only 2 weeks per year, drives the local prices up and makes it impossible for people who have decided not to emmigrate ever to get on the property ladder. A quick look on typical shows that the cheapest property there is out of the lifetime reach of the normal Bulgarian with 100 - 120 pounds monthly salary. Perhaps it would be more balanced approach if this view point is to be considered when looking on the reasons why so many emigrants come here. It is only natural that the people in Eastern Europe want to be able to buy a home and the only way in the current situation with prices rocketing because of the influx of Western home buyers is to come here and look for better income.

I am concerned about population increase because of strain on our infrastructure, but I think that stereotyping immigrants' needs doesn't help us to understand the situation.

Some recent migrant workers cram many people into a single house or flat. With several of them in one flat, they can afford more and local rents go up.

Others have large families. My local housing association is no longer building/converting to one and two bed flats, it is building/converting to five and six bed houses for the local Asian community.

Each immigrant community is different.

What goes up goes down. Interest rates and inflation are rising around the world. Much of western industry is working at full production. The DOW is down 5% in the last 3 months. Gold is up and up. China's stock markets are starting to look like 1928.

We have a huge percentage of sub-prime mortgages which includes millions of self certifiers and buy to lets. An economy dependant on an international financial services sector. A population with very high levels of debt.

The question is has the government so restricted the supply of housing that prices won't fall, and increased the number of cheap foreign workers to stop wage inflation so that house prices don't fall in real terms. They hope so.

But this government has changed many factors. Independence of the BoE, bank liquidity rules, bankruptcy, tax credits. Others changes are due to commercial practice such as self-cert mortgaes, end of final salary pensions, etc. Some changes are social such as huge immigration and emigration, low birth rate, increase in state dependant deliberate one parent families. All these mean unintended consequencies are probable.

Right immigration can only help britain grow, in fact thats the key hope. UK has only 2 or 3 primary industries- trading, high end knowledge (IT, education) and tourism. Rest all is secondary services catering to indigenous population. Manufacturing is dead and tourism has gone down recently. In this light what will drive british economy? retail, banking, insurance, utilities, govt are secondary services and require economic growth to grow but do not drive growth. As I see it, currently immigration is the prime growth drivers- keeps pound, housing and your standards up. Turn out the Roman Abr., Mittals etc and you will see what I mean.

Also, worthwhile to assess outward immigration from Britain/

Migration is not a new phenomenon. Europeans not only migrated to the so-called new world but also went to the old worlds of Asia and Africa to trade and ended up colonising them, for the same reasons as those for migrants today coming to richer nations – which is, to try to make a living for themselves and their families. That Europeans thought it would be strictly one way, and they could shop and return and close doors, was not someone else’s fault – usually a road can be traveled on both ways, and if it is uphill the migrants today have more incentive to travel nevertheless, since their resources have been depleted beginning with arrival of Europeans. They work hard because they have all the incentive to do so, as any orphan adopted into a rich family does. . Eventually the orphan might wish for one’s own family, and this is only human. A lot depends on how well the adopting family is able to absorb and integrate the adopted. And there are a few people of British and other European ancestral origin who have settled in India and other nations in Asia and so forth, and haven’t returned when they could any day. Independence to the nations of Asian and African continents meant the same that it would to say France post ’45 – it was the occupiers rule that was unwanted, not the friendly tourists or even those who loved the land enough to stay on sincerely.

The arguments in nearly all of these posts are economic. The focus seems to be on the the large numbers of Eastern European wokers who have arrived recently and culturally are different but similar to the British.
The real immigration problem is the 3 million Muslims and the illegal and legal immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and South East Asian etc.These are not casual or temporary economic migrants but are , in many cases, non-integrators who wish to bring in more of their own (e.g.forced marriages) and superimpose their culture on the country. It is the change in the nature of the country that worries most people equally as much as the economic side. However, large numbers of any particular cultural or national group leads to ghettoisation and will lead to racial/cultural strife between the immigrant groups themselves.This will then involve overseas parties interfering on behalf of their own. The general homogeneity necessary for a successful nation will disappear.Law and order will break down and there will be a massive general decline as conditions become worse and rats leave the sinking ship. Think about it before you exploit cheap immigrant labour, you are destroying the system you wish to maintain. it will take decades to sort out a new modus vivendi for ther nation.

Duncan Pratt Could you please explain how the cancelation is making the situation you believe is at the root of your objections worse? Everybody under 18500 is paying more taxes, in some cases considerably more, not less, so the tax revenue out of the lowest segment of the market rises contributing to a "fairer" share of the burden.
Another issue I would like to rise is this. Why concentrate on the impact of immigration down South? There is life up here north of Slough and a lot of it is depending on migrants in different states of integration. Manchester's redevelopment of its rundown eastern quarters would be pointless if there weren't all these immigrants living in the hovels they want to replace. Liverpool has been runnning on immigrants since the start of the Industtrial Revolution and Bradford would be a rundown mill town without them. There is still plenty of room for immigrants to come and work here, because the wages are so low that the Brits are about to give up on them. When you now that 70% or more is going to your fixed costs, you'd be crazy not to look for a job elsewhere that gives you more spending room. That is where immigrants fit so nicely in the planning of both our employers and Mr Brown. They don't know these facts when they arrive and when they do know they don't care because even after fixed costs they are often left with more than they would get at home. I know this first hand since I was one of those idiots to take a job in the UK and be happy with it. And to be clear I still am.

Duncan Pratt Could you please explain how the cancelation is making the situation you believe is at the root of your objections worse? Everybody under 18500 is paying more taxes, in some cases considerably more, not less, so the tax revenue out of the lowest segment of the market rises contributing to a "fairer" share of the burden.
Another issue I would like to rise is this. Why concentrate on the impact of immigration down South? There is life up here north of Slough and a lot of it is depending on migrants in different states of integration. Manchester's redevelopment of its rundown eastern quarters would be pointless if there weren't all these immigrants living in the hovels they want to replace. Liverpool has been runnning on immigrants since the start of the Industtrial Revolution and Bradford would be a rundown mill town without them. There is still plenty of room for immigrants to come and work here, because the wages are so low that the Brits are about to give up on them. When you now that 70% or more is going to your fixed costs, you'd be crazy not to look for a job elsewhere that gives you more spending room. That is where immigrants fit so nicely in the planning of both our employers and Mr Brown. They don't know these facts when they arrive and when they do know they don't care because even after fixed costs they are often left with more than they would get at home. I know this first hand since I was one of those idiots to take a job in the UK and be happy with it. And to be clear I still am.

The major point people are missing is the changing landscape of our communities. I live in a seaside town of 12,000. Over 1,000 (8%) are from the EU. Our local school has over 25 different languages spoken. The government and local authorities have not legislated for the impact upon local people. I feel this is just a way to supress English workers wages and keep the working class working.
Thanks a lot Tony and Gordon.

Migration's short-term effect is to lower wages. But mainly for low-paid jobs. So it increases inequality. Secondly it puts an enormous un-planned strain on some local resources. These have been paid for by local residents for years, but when they want to use them, they may find them out-competed by the newcomers. Finally, the government has no idea how many immigrants there are - and there are some worrying indications that the last census was avoided by hundred of thousands of presumably illegal immigrants. This poses a major issue - terrorism. We don't know where they are who they are, nor where they came from. Terrifying indeed!

Evan:
I have a high regard for your economic and analytical skills.
Now can we look at your arithmetic?
200 households a day for 20 years is 1,460,000 households ignoring leap years. You plan that these would be accommodated at 40 per hectare using an area 19 km square.
Let's look at the reality. Take an established community which is much more than the 40 houses per hectare of the developers. It has roads, schools, parks, hospitals, factories, shops etc.
Coventry is a good, simple, compact example. 2001 census shows 122,353 households, a population of 300,848 and an area of 9864 hectares.
That is about 12 households per hectare. Doesn't fit well with your 40, does it?
Put it another way, 1,460,00 households would be nearly 12 times as many as in Coventry. So a fair description of the potential growth you spoke of would be, not 19 km by 19 km, but about 12 new Coventries. Wouldn't it?

Alf

To those who denigrate Migration Watch: yes, they are a bit OTT, but to implicitly accuse them of racism is reductionist and unhelpful. To have a proper debate about migration, listening to Migration Watch is as important as listening to fashionably pro-immigration groups.

For instance, it's worth pointing out, re Evan's comments, that 19km X 19km may not look much on google earth, but it covers an area larger than the entire city of Birmingham, which must have a huge impact on the country (assuming, obviously, that MW's figures are correct).

And it was Migration Watch, not the government, who more accurately predicted the size of the influx of workers from Eastern Europe- whether or not you think it was a good thing. Accusing people on the other side of the debate of having an "unpleasant agenda" is neither mature nor useful.

I am British but currently working in Tokyo, Japan. (i guess a short term economic migrant myself)

But, I have recently become concerned about mass population rise in the UK. These are some of the problems of overcrowding currently in Tokyo* - a city of 30 million people.

You may have seen the pictures of commuters in Tokyo being stuffed onto trains. This still happens.

I have been on trains so full i couldnt move at all. Sometimes i have not even been able to get on or anywhere near the platforms there are so many people. It is very stressful as you can imagine.

Then there is the demand for housing, more people means smaller and more expensive houses, further away from city centres.

Many people here only live in appartments with 1 room.

And then there is the 1 hour and a half commutes.

Not to mention the multi-generational morguages to pay for such 1 room flats.

I can see the UK going this way. I would hate to see this happen.

I think the quality of life for many would be significantly reduced in the future if the UK population continues to rise as it does. Economic development in this case actually reducing peoples quality of life.

(*This e-mail is not an attack of Japan, just evidence to highlight the problems of overcrowding).

I think it is not only UK's problem is a global problem, I am from Buenos Aires and the city is inhabitable due to traffic, and large amounts of people!

The difference is that UK is smaller but there are so many people who are British and claim benefits aducing drug problems and psychologic problems or teenage mums!!

Get a grip UK and go and work!

I grew up in the Texas/Mexico so immigration is always an issue since we are on the fringe of both the Anglo and Hispanic Worlds. I think that over regulation by the government often backfires in regards to immigration reform (or deform). A good example is the horrid outcomes of the French guest worker program that has led to huge riots and a tense racial situation.

It is amazing to see how upperly mobile the Mexican or Central American immigrant can be when given the same rights and priveleges as native born Americans. Now, more people with hispanic names are buying homes. I have actually seen rundown neighborhoods be transformed into cute latin enclaves by immigrants who have revitalized old homes.

In the short-term immigration does often lower wages, but if the immigrant population is given a stake in the system, they will shortly demand the same pay as native-born. I am a bilingual kindergarten teacher and now more and more of my students are of mixed ancestry and I teach both Anglo and Hipanic students English and Spanish. My own family is a hodge-podge of various immigrant groups who have made Texas home - Korean, Hispanic, Native-American, Scottish, French, and Jewish. The long-term benefits of immigration out weigh the short-term losses.

What most of you fail to understand immigration is a short term fix to a long term problem, why do you think people rather take up benefits than work, this comes down to competing with immigrants in the labour market, immigrants can live 4 5 6 etc.. to a rrom for a few years save up and then return to their country and buy a nice home, however the same British workers have no option but to stay in this country because they are on a low wage with no prospects of even buying a home.

Immigration has lowered wages for the British while taxes etc.. continue to rise, the current immigration policy is aim for profits and not aimed for the social well being of f this country. The government failed to understand the social aspects which lead to economic aspects immigrants pay low taxes because they are on a low wage and can live many to a room, yet a british family can’t really live on the same wage so they claim benefits which means a cycle of ever increasing taxes for the working population, costing the state more money the only true gainers are business the rest of us suffer just to make huge profits for businesses. It’s got to a point were its not worth working.

Social housing policies should be aimed at uk citizens, immigrants shouldn’t be able to get social housing nor should asylum seekers, the difference between this new barrage of immigration to all others is Britain is swapping low skill for high skilled workers, more and more highly skill British workers are leaving Britain and more and more low skill workers are entering Britain in the long run we will see a decline in output and innovation.

With regards to pensions people now are due more pensions that 20 years ago because they are contributing more to the pension system yet they plan to raise the retirement age, this government has shot its own citizens.
The most important factor in any economy is a cheap affordable housing this motivates people to work given then hope for the future, not like now where people have lost hope and ambition.

The problem the government seek to address is a lazy UK workforce that won't do jobs the migrants will. Many of these are legal economy jobs subject to minimum wage legislation (eg bus drivers).

The government's solution is to import labour to a country with a population density 4 times the European average. Not to mention the problems of housing and social cohesion.

Why? Because they are too scared to take on the politically untouchable welfare system which allows 1000s to live off the backs of those who work. The greatest incentive to work is necessity.

Limit immigration and welfare drastically and the UK can reap dramatic benefits. Lower public spending, less pressure on housing and infrastructure, the welfare class 'socialised', social cohesion etc

I tend to have a quite positive view of immigration from an economic point of view. The stereotypical image of an immigrant coming to live off benefits is absurd.
I do have concerns about illegal immigration, as this leads to exploitation of the immigrants. I also believe that immigration affects the white working class badly in the short run. However, whether the long term result will be increased competitiveness from the white working class as they adjust to new conditions or destitution, I don't know.

My principle concern about immigration is about ideas. By importing people we also import new ideas. Many of these are beneficial but some are malignant- Islamism being a case in point. Should we continue to import people without taking note of their ideological beliefs?

Martin J (74), the majority of people discussing here presented positive opinion of hard-working immigrants - where did you got "the stereotypical image of an immigrant coming to live off benefits" from? I appreciate that you don't agree with it, but _The_Stereotype_ here seems to be "immigrants are working hard, working below their skills and education being low-paid and habiting densely like 3 people in one room". That's as far as Eastern Europe migration is concerned.

And what's that intollerance to Islam?! Isn't that enough you can trade with people fair? I (myself) deal with people from Arab islamist countries and they seem to be more honest than some Americans that I was dealing with. There are worse ideologists with more power in the White House killing thousands of people to strenghten the dollar which depends on oil price.

Never mind what '200 homes a day means' what does 19 kilometres by 19 kilometres mean - nothing. Put it in English i.e. 12 miles by 12 miles so that normal people understand what you mean.

You have to view the general attitude of "dirty, sponging immigrants" as simply the new way of bein a rascist but in a socially acceptable way.

You aren't allowed to say certain things about another person simply because of their skin colour or cultural origin - so instead if you are an ignorant, lazy and uneducated "English" person or work for the media repesenting them (can you say "The Sun" or "The Mail" ?) then you are allowed to say that immigrants are to blame for all societies woes.

While I can, from personal experience, associate certain cultural groups from personal experience that are "dangerous" to the wellbeing of the wider society I live in, I am not so stupid as to generalise but sometimes you have to else your brain starts to leak from carrying all those distintions in your head.

i.e. Not everyone from "Elbonia" comes here to work as a Social Services agency temp (for example) with the objective of stealing from/abusing the vunerable elderly. But my personal experience is that most of those, again for example, who work as agency temps for Social Services and commit these crimes seem to come from "Elbonia". Anyone who doesn't read Dilbert may not know Elbonia is a fictional country, but just in case...

Now, in the above example, replace "Elbonia" with "asylum seeker". Voila. The Daily Mail on a plate.

Evan,

I like your put-it-all into context reports on Radio4.
You have a very good gift for unraveling the issues and putting them all back together into a compelling analysis for the common man.
It is a type of editorial break out to make sense of the news, join all the dots.
Andrew Jansen