Immigrants cost Britain £3,000 a day each, says report

[Ticktock]

well as the Telegraph & Migrationwatch say £3000 a year I suspect its Flashman.


the Migration watch report is worth a read.

The URL for the Telegraph says £3000 a day, so I think it was more a case of an error in their article that has been corrected, rather than an outright lie.

[vetran]

The URL for the Telegraph says £3000 a day, so I think it was more a case of an error in their article that has been corrected, rather than an outright lie.

that did sort of occur to me but it doesn't fit in with the CUK tradition of blamestorming!

the fact that the congregation went on how it was so obviously wrong and weren't migration watch stupid and should never be believed made me laugh.

[sasguru]

If that's the case how come London which apparently is only 40-50% native white British, generates 1/5th of the GDP of the UK, subbing the rest of the country? Most immigrants in the UK live in London and it's an economic powerhouse - if the majority of immigrants were a burden, surely London would be a basket case?
All the immigrants I know are successful professionals, so clearly there are some immigrants who are net contributors.

[vetran]

If that's the case how come London which apparently is only 40-50% native white British, generates 1/5th of the GDP of the UK, subbing the rest of the country? Most immigrants in the UK live in London and it's an economic powerhouse - if the majority of immigrants were a burden, surely London would be a basket case?

strangely I suspect London's success is a bit more complicated than where the population came from, if only we had someone competent with statistics they could explain it to you.

[doodab]

If that's the case how come London which apparently is only 40-50% native white British, generates 1/5th of the GDP of the UK, subbing the rest of the country? Most immigrants in the UK live in London and it's an economic powerhouse - if the majority of immigrants were a burden, surely London would be a basket case?
All the immigrants I know are successful professionals, so clearly there are some immigrants who are net contributors.

It's because we have all the money to begin with.

[sasguru]

strangely I suspect London's success is a bit more complicated than where the population came from, if only we had someone competent with statistics they could explain it to you.

I'm actually using statistical thinking here.
MigrationWatch are saying that "on average" every immigrant is a burden to the tune of £3K. Notice they are not saying new immigrants since their figures go back to the 90s.
And I'm saying if that were the case, logically, London would be a basket case since more than half its population would be a burden.

So two possibilities:

1. MigrationWatch's figures are wrong and biased
2. London's success is down to the amazing productivity of the non-immigrants, who are not only subbing the immigrants but also the rest of the UK.

As a born and bred Londoner, I know which one is true.

HTH, BIDI.

[darmstadt]

I'm actually using statistical thinking here.
MigrationWatch are saying that "on average" every immigrant is a burden to the tune of £3K. Notice they are not saying new immigrants since their figures go back to the 90s.
And I'm saying if that were the case, logically, London would be a basket case since more than half its population would be a burden.

So two possibilities:

1. MigrationWatch's figures are wrong and biased
2. London's success is down to the amazing productivity of the non-immigrants, who are not only subbing the immigrants but also the rest of the UK.

As a born and bred Londoner, I know which one is true.

HTH, BIDI.

Both? Remember, as a Londoner you'll always have a plan B...

[SueEllen]

I'm actually using statistical thinking here.
MigrationWatch are saying that "on average" every immigrant is a burden to the tune of £3K. Notice they are not saying new immigrants since their figures go back to the 90s.
And I'm saying if that were the case, logically, London would be a basket case since more than half its population would be a burden.

So two possibilities:

1. MigrationWatch's figures are wrong and biased
2. London's success is down to the amazing productivity of the non-immigrants, who are not only subbing the immigrants but also the rest of the UK.

As a born and bred Londoner, I know which one is true.

HTH, BIDI.

Gosh I actually agree with SAS

"Foreign born" is a pointless term.

Someone who came here in 1940s but was born in India will be classed as "foreign born" according to statistical methods commonly used to collect data, but so would someone born in Poland who came here in 2007.

[sasguru]

Gosh I actually agree with SAS

I'm getting tired of saying, if I had a penny etc etc.

[vetran]

I'm actually using statistical thinking here.
MigrationWatch are saying that "on average" every immigrant is a burden to the tune of £3K. Notice they are not saying new immigrants since their figures go back to the 90s.
And I'm saying if that were the case, logically, London would be a basket case since more than half its population would be a burden.

So two possibilities:

1. MigrationWatch's figures are wrong and biased
2. London's success is down to the amazing productivity of the non-immigrants, who are not only subbing the immigrants but also the rest of the UK.

As a born and bred Londoner, I know which one is true.

HTH, BIDI.

its the 'on average' bit you obviously need help with, if we had 10 vagrants and Bill Gates as a group then on average they would all be billionaires, but in reality we have a few beggars and Bill Gates. Even if you scale it up to a few million people + Bill Gates then it looks like all of the group are fairly well off.

We all want Bill Gates to come into the country and spend money. Bill Gates with an entourage of millions of poor people we probably don't need.

Its the same with immigration, we have a small (relatively) number of high value migrants which no sensible person would be against letting in and millions of low value migrants. lumping them together with less desirable migrants and assuming that the whole population is similar is obviously quite idiotic but its what the pro migration lobby consistently do.

If it can be shown despite the value of your mates, Russian Oligarchs, deposed tyrants and tax avoiding billionaires the whole population actually costs £3000 a year each it seems like something we should discuss.

of course you can carry on using anecdotal and unscientific arguments to support your case or you could show some intelligence and give us some facts.

Of course using your scientific process we could probably show that as many jellied eels are eaten in London then the cause of London's success is down to Jellied Eels.

HTH