UK Admit immigraton figures are wrong. Are we wrong too?

[freedomlover]

We're not a low birth rate country. We have the highest birth rate in the EU by a mile. Our birth rate is around 15 per 1,000 population. The EU average is about 10. And in many EU countries its around 8.

Nope; France and Iceland exceed us at 1.98 and 2.07 respectively. We're only marginally above many of the other European States. (See this chart.) We're at 1.88 - anything under 2.1 is below replacement can be classed as "low birth-rate".

[quote:2hh6dzhc]Very well, I take your point. But, the figures in your table aren't the birth rates. They're the fertility rates, which isn't quite the same thing. I agree with you that our fertility rate is too low and we should increase it. Even so, our fertility rate (1.880) is the second highest in the EU after France (1.983). Its way ahead of Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Austria, Switzerland, eastern Europe and southern Europe, which are all around 1.3-1.4. But, below non-European countries like the US and New Zealand. Also, the figure your table gives for Ireland is for 2005, most of the others are for 2006. We know the number of births in Ireland in 2006 increased by 5% and the child-bearing population by 2.5%, so I'd calculate Ireland's fertility rate in 2006 was up to 1.93. Even so, that's too low and we should try to get it above 2.1 as soon as possible. If we did, we'd have a great advantage over those countries where its stuck at 1.3-1.4.

"Great advantage over those countries"!! What happend to concern about the population explosion then?[/quote:2hh6dzhc]

Those mainly continental European countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain and many others with very low fertility rates have rapidly ageing populations. We are ageing too but not nearly as fast as them. As a result, it will be increasingly difficult for their relatively small populations of working-age to pay for pensions, healthcare etc for their relatively large retired populations. These countries are facing demographic disaster. For example, in many of them the number over 65 is allready greater than the number under 18. In Ireland the number under 18 is still well over twice the number over 65. Ireland, along with France and a few others, is on the same slippery slope as well, but nowhere near as far down it. We should at a minimum keep it that way. But, even better if we could get our fertility rate up so our population hardly ages at all.

[Eddie Collins]

[quote=Conor]

“Coleman said A NUMBER OF STUDIES SHOW THAT the net economic benefit of immigration per head of population is about 0.1% of GDP”.

First - He is simply stating that a number of studies have shown this, not that he agrees with it – and he then goes on to show the low value of such claims (£22 per head per year).

Well, he could hardly draw on his own research, because he's not an economist. Surely he wasn't arguing against the point he made?

[quote="Eddie Collins":2p3lwli9]Second – This claim is purely GDP per person and does not allow for the increased costs of migration – particularly rampant crime - which he calculated at £8.8 billion or £350 per household per year.[/quote]
"[b]net[/b] economic benefit".


"The myth that immigrants provide a positive net contribution to the UK economy has been comprehensively trashed by all leading academics. "
Can you name one?[/quote:2p3lwli9]

The term “net” increase in GDP allows for the increased population which reduces the GDP per head, as well as the overall increase in GDP.

“That is because immigrants come for many reasons and many do not enter primarily to take part in the workforce, or are even qualified to do so. Some do, earn high salaries and pay lots of tax, to the general benefit. Others are economically inactive. In many countries, the net effects almost balance out.
Naturally immigrants increase overall GDP but they also increase population, and what matters is GDP per head.
A number of studies show that the net economic benefit of immigration per head of population is about 0.1% of GDP”.

Nothing to do with the huge costs of immigration.


“There is a whole section of the report devoted to the contribution of migrants to GDP per capita. It claims that, since 1998, immigrants have added 3.1 per cent to Britain’s GDP. That is true. But there is another, critical fact: during the same period, immigrants have added 3.8 per cent to the total British population. Put those two together and you get the result that the additional amount produced by immigrants has been smaller than the number of people they have added to the population."

Bob Rowthorn - professor of economics at Cambridge University”

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/21/nimmigcom121.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... com121.xml[/url]

[Eddie Collins]

We're not a low birth rate country. We have the highest birth rate in the EU by a mile. Our birth rate is around 15 per 1,000 population. The EU average is about 10. And in many EU countries its around 8.

Nope; France and Iceland exceed us at 1.98 and 2.07 respectively. We're only marginally above many of the other European States. (See this chart.) We're at 1.88 - anything under 2.1 is below replacement can be classed as "low birth-rate".

[quote:3pu10spw]Very well, I take your point. But, the figures in your table aren't the birth rates. They're the fertility rates, which isn't quite the same thing. I agree with you that our fertility rate is too low and we should increase it. Even so, our fertility rate (1.880) is the second highest in the EU after France (1.983). Its way ahead of Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Austria, Switzerland, eastern Europe and southern Europe, which are all around 1.3-1.4. But, below non-European countries like the US and New Zealand. Also, the figure your table gives for Ireland is for 2005, most of the others are for 2006. We know the number of births in Ireland in 2006 increased by 5% and the child-bearing population by 2.5%, so I'd calculate Ireland's fertility rate in 2006 was up to 1.93. Even so, that's too low and we should try to get it above 2.1 as soon as possible. If we did, we'd have a great advantage over those countries where its stuck at 1.3-1.4.

"Great advantage over those countries"!! What happend to concern about the population explosion then?

Those mainly continental European countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain and many others with very low fertility rates have rapidly ageing populations. We are ageing too but not nearly as fast as them. As a result, it will be increasingly difficult for their relatively small populations of working-age to pay for pensions, healthcare etc for their relatively large retired populations. These countries are facing demographic disaster. For example, in many of them the number over 65 is allready greater than the number under 18. In Ireland the number under 18 is still well over twice the number over 65. Ireland, along with France and a few others, is on the same slippery slope as well, but nowhere near as far down it. We should at a minimum keep it that way. But, even better if we could get our fertility rate up so our population hardly ages at all.[/quote:3pu10spw]

As people live longer in the west, the only way to “get our fertility rate up so our population hardly ages at all” is to have a population increasing at an exponential rate – for ever.

Not feasible – so we have to adapt to a higher proportion of old to young people – although a population decrease should be avoided (by financial incentives for people to have more children if necessary – not immigration)

[Electro]

Not feasible – so we have to adapt to a higher proportion of old to young people – although a population decrease should be avoided (by financial incentives for people to have more children if necessary – not immigration)

Ach, but that's not going to suit the consumer economy so much. Less mortgages, less apartments/houses being bought because of families, less disposable income. Drop-in population replacement in the form of immigrants is the most compelling economic answer to the low birth rate problem. It also pleases the two most powerful groups in our society - leftists and big business.

The "financial incentives for people to have more children - not immigration" option is never going to go down with capitalists and socialists.

[Twin Towers]

although a population decrease should be avoided (by financial incentives for people to have more children if necessary – not immigration)

Working parents find it almost impossible to have more than one child given that monthly creche costs are equivalent to an additional monthly mortgage repayment.

[Eddie Collins]

France has increased incentives for larger families - this could work elsewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4274200.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4856992.stm

[Twin Towers]

France has increased incentives for larger families - this could work elsewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4274200.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4856992.stm

I note in the second link that Ireland's fertility rate is highest of the countries listed yet still below population replacement level.

[Pauli]

France has increased incentives for larger families - this could work elsewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4274200.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4856992.stm

It could work elsewhere. In countries with proper childcare structures. This rules out Ireland obviously. Our child care facilities are absolutely abysmal. No foresight, no vision, no joined-up thinking, no planning is applied to this subject by our idiot government. So, yes, while it could work elsewhere, eliminate Ireland from the reckoning.

[JCSkinner]

How can he be an immigrant by moving places within his own Country?

By moving from one state to another.

If I'm a citizen, I'm not an immigrant even if there are two states involved, Conor. And I assure you, I am very much an Irish citizen.

[kim chi]

"Perhaps dailymail.co.uk and migrationwatchuk.com might not be considered the most impartial of sources as well"

So how about giving a couple of examples of where they're wrong?

I didn't say they were wrong, I did say they weren't the most impartial of sources.

OK, I think you're getting near to sophistry, but maybe you have something substantive to offer. So tell us where they are/weren' t impartial then.