Seven Facts Everyone Should Know About Immigration

Immigration is in the news once again. Not that it ever leaves it. A complex issue made harder by distortions, stereotypes, and populism. One could argue that its social and cultural effects are the trickiest to articulate and hardest to pin down. Certainly not easy to capture in a dry opinion poll.

Its economic effects are somewhat easier to measure, as I intend to demonstrate. More often than not, we’re dealing with hard facts, not feelings. Assertions that can be backed up evidence, and not based on gut instinct or prejudice. Below are seven facts that everyone should know, but often don’t, about immigration. No doubt politicians of all stripes are aware of them. But, selective amnesia means conveniently dropping stats in favour of rhetoric.

 
1.      Effect on wages:  

The Migration Observatory, an independent organisation based at Oxford University, found the effect of immigration on overall wages at specific time periods to be extremely small. Between 1997-2005, a one per cent increase in migration to the UK born working-age population resulted in an increase of between 0.2-0.3% in average wages. For the period 2000-2007, a similar proportion of migrants led to a 0.3% fall in average wages.

There were however wage variations between different working-age groups resulting from immigration. It found that:

“The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1 percent increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6 percent decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.”

2.      Effect on employment:

A number of empirical studies have shown there to be no significant impact in levels of unemployment from immigration to the UK. The first major study in this area, carried out between 1983-2000, did find:
 
“adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).”  

Two very recent authoritative studies, one analysing data from 1975-2010, the other 2002-2011 - thus taking into account periods of low economic growth, as well as past and present recessions - found no impact on unemployment from immigration.

3.     Youth Unemployment:

There is no direct correlation between rising youth unemployment and Eastern European immigration to the UK since 2004, contrary to what certain reports have said. Jonathan Portes, director of the highly respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), disputes the findings of a report by the think tank MigrationWatch UK. The latter noted that between 2004-2011, youth unemployment rose by around 450,000, at the same time as an extra 600,000 Eastern European workers entered the UK. But, as Portes notes:
 
"The vast majority of that rise in youth unemployment took place during 2008 and 2009 [during the recession caused by the financial crisis]. During that period, the number of Eastern European workers actually fell.”

According to Matt Cavanagh, an associate director at IPPR:

“The countries in the 'old' EU which have seen the steepest rises in youth unemployment since 2004, including Spain and Greece, have not had very high levels of migration from Eastern Europe; while Germany, which has had relatively high migration from Poland (despite maintaining transitional controls for the longest possible period), has relatively low youth unemployment.”

   4.      Work-related benefits :
 
371,000 migrants claimed benefits in 2011. That’s 7% of the total migrant workforce, classified as non-UK nationals when they first arrived in the UK. This compares to a figure of almost 17% for all British nationals. According to Jonathan Portes, the figures on migrants and benefits can be summed up thus:

• migrants represent about 13% of all workers, but only 7% percent of out-of-work claimants;
• migrants from outside the EEA represent about 9-10% of all workers, but about 5% of out-of-work claimants
• foreign nationals from outside the EEA represent about 4.5% of all workers, but a little over 2% of out-of-work benefit claimants.

A Department for Work and Pensions sample of 9,000 non-EU migrants found just 2% had made false benefit claims.

5.    Impact on public services: 

An NIESR report on non-European economic and student migrants in January of this year concluded that they:
 
“impose costs on UK public services that are small both relative to the total cost of these services and to the share of these groups in the population as a whole.”

 It goes on to state that:
 
“The literature review indicates non-European economic migrants are likely to be comparatively light users of health and social care services due to their relatively young age profile, good health, their status as employees and presence in professional occupations.”

“In addition, the professional status and educational attainment of non-European economic migrants make it more likely that they will be consumers of private health and education in comparison to the population as a whole and so make fewer demands on public services.”

"Total expenditure on state education, health and personal social services accounts for 44 per cent of public services expenditure. The average expenditure per adult migrant for these services is estimated to be significantly lower than for non-migrants: expenditure per non-European economic migrant is estimated at between 16 and 23 per cent less than for non-migrants and for student migrants, between 41 and 49 per cent less.”
 

6.      Fiscal impact:

According to the Migration Observatory, the fiscal impact of migrants largely depends on their characteristics (age, skills, length of stay).  A Home Office report in 2002 estimated that for the 1999/2000 financial year, migrants’ made a net fiscal contribution (what they paid in taxes versus what they used in benefits and state services) of about £2.5bn.

In 2005, and covering five years of data, the IPPR think tank found that during the period when the government began to run a budget deficit, migrants were less of a drain on the public purse than the UK born population: 

“In 2003-04, when the Government ran a budget deficit such that all taxpayers on average consumed more public benefits and services than they paid in taxes, the IPPR study found that the average immigrant cost the exchequer £74 in net terms compared to a net cost of £892 per UK-born person.”

In the four fiscal years following EU enlargement in May 2004 and the migration that followed, figures shows that:

  “Migrants from the A8 countries made a positive contribution to public finance, despite the UK running a budget deficit.”
 
7.      Public Opinion: 

The public overwhelmingly disapprove of levels of immigration over the last decade, with 67% believing it’s been a bad thing for Britain. They support the government’s attempts to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands a year to tens of thousands. However, over three-quarters of them doubt this will happen.
 
But, according to Peter Kellner, President of YouGov:

  “There is a huge gulf between people’s perception of immigration as a national issue, and one that affects their own lives.”

Whilst immigration comes second (behind the economy) in terms of national importance, as viewed by voters, when people are asked to comment on issues which directly affect them, its level of importance shrinks from 45% to just 12%.  Kellner believes the best solution is for politicians to stop worrying about what voters tell them on this subject:

“Instead, they should work out what is right for Britain: for its economy and its society. They should do this honestly and openly, admitting that the task is complex, and that the problems are real and will take time to solve.”

Now that really would be a novel idea.

This article was first published by The Huffington Post on Saturday 22nd December 2012

At last, Labour understands voters’ concerns on immigration

Ed Miliband is not someone who shies away from a challenge. He has demonstrated this admirably since becoming Labour leader. Getting to grips with the thorny issue of immigration is one thing. Getting to grips with his party’s record on the subject is another. This year he has attempted to do both.

It’s surely no coincidence he chose the week of the release of the latest batch of 2011 Census stats to give his second keynote speech on the subject. Official figures showed the biggest ten-yearly increase in population since the Census’ inauguration in 1801. An additional 3.7 million people now reside in England and Wales, with net migration responsible for 55% of this rise. Inevitably, this last figure got pundits talking and heads shaking. Unsurprisingly, because Labour was in office for most of this period, it has faced a barrage of criticism and been blamed for letting immigration spiral out of control.
 
Miliband has already conceded that Labour got certain things wrong. He has tried to reassure those who worry about high levels of immigration; about Britain’s ability to cope with such a large influx in such a short space of time. Back in June, he told an audience, at an event organised by the think tank IPPR, that people had every right to be concerned:
 
"Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They are anxious about the future.” 

He admitted that his party had lost touch with the real life experiences and worries of ordinary voters, acknowledging that anxieties were wrongly dismissed:

“Quite simply, we became too disconnected from the concerns of working people. We too easily assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past. Unrealistic about how things could be different. Even prejudiced.

“But Britain was experiencing the largest peacetime migration in recent history. And people's concerns were genuine. Why didn't we listen more?
 
“At least by the end of our time in office, we were too dazzled by globalisation and too sanguine about its price. By focusing too much on globalization and migration's impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth – and the people who were being squeezed. 

“And, to those who lost out, Labour was too quick to say ‘like it or lump it.”

Last week, he picked up where he left off. Once again, he delivered a speech which was measured and sensible in both tone and substance. Again, he returned to the theme of voter unease:

 “We must not fall into the trap of believing that to talk about people’s anxieties is to fuel them.”
 
This time he touched upon social and cultural matters: the crux of the problem for many people, the trickiest to speak about, and the hardest to measure using cold empirical data. 

“The capacity of our economy to absorb new migrants was greater than the capacity of some of our communities to adapt.”
 
“Of course immigration has always been unsettling. With new ways of life, new religions, new people in neighbourhoods. It takes time for people to get to know each other. The extent of change can intensify the anxiety.”

“But too often we were a bit optimistic. Thinking people’s connections with each other would just take care of themselves. That as long as the economy was doing well, that services were well-run, people would learn to get on together, and our common life would flourish automatically.
 
“And while the problems were real. Our solutions seemed too abstract. We talked about “shared citizenship”. But we did too little to tackle the realities of segregation in communities that were struggling to cope.” 

Slowly but surely Labour are skilfully tackling this issue. Ed Miliband has been very careful not to demonise or caricature, but to see immigration as a complex, multi-layered topic. One which leads to a number of sub-topics. Sometimes these are incorrectly conflated but, for now, Labour has the balance about right.

Robert Ford, lecturer in Politics at Manchester University, identified the pitfalls for left wingers confronting this issue:

 “Any proposal will be dismissed by commentators on the right as tokenism which does nothing to address the real issues, and by many on the left as pandering to prejudices which should be challenged. On top of this, the media will reinterpret any message on immigration and identity in terms of its own negative dominant narrative of segregation and division, regardless of whether this accurately reflects the content.” 
 
Over the course of last Friday, discussion was more focused on how this speech had been pre-spun, with heavy attention given towards integration, and a call for immigrants to know how to speak English, than its actual content. 

Stressing that those hoping to work in publically-funded, public-facing jobs, should be proficient in English, seems about as uncontroversial a proposal as one could suggest. People doing important jobs that involve dealing with the public need to be able to properly communicate with them. And yet, there are still some on the left who won’t even accept this, seeing it as “hollow populism.”

The commentator Suzanne Moore correctly tweeted about the importance of women from immigrant groups learning English: “I want people i.e. women to speak English. Without it they are often trapped at home, dependent on children to translate.”

I have written about what one academic has called the “culturally threatened” before. What certain left wingers see as economic grievances, decades of research has found to be:
 
“...a perceived sense of threat to the cultural unity of the nation – rather than economic threat – that is the strongest driver of prejudice, and also the desire for more restrictive immigration and asylum policies.” 

It is far easier and a lot safer to approach immigration from an economic perspective. To talk about it in terms of its effect on wages, jobs, and housing. The real challenge is to talk about it in terms of its effect on demographics and culture. Not an easy thing to capture in an opinion poll, hard to articulate, but something which people see with their own eyes. At long last, Labour seems to understand voters’ concerns on immigration.    

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 19th December 2012