Britain lures, and accepts, migrants from Asia, Africa and America


Bar Spain, Britain accepts more non-European immigrants than other EU countries

20th January 2011: Britain continues to lure, and accept, migrants from Asia, Africa and America.

The latest figures suggest that, bar Spain, the country accepts more non-European immigrants than any other EU country.

multiethnic.pngIn fact, in 2008, 307,000 migrants went to Britain from Asia, Africa and the Americas, against 284,000 received by Italy. Germany was third with 238,000.

The figures from Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics department, reveal only four member states accepted more than 100,000 immigrants from outside the EU in 2008.

The statistics come as a surprise to many, as Germany for decades accepted more migrants than any other European country; and Italy is `the destination’ for hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East, as they see it as the easiest route into Europe.

For most Latin Americans, Spain is the European country of choice. According to the figures covering 2008 Spain took 499,000 non-EU migrants.

Reacting to the statistics, MP for Clacton Douglas Carswell said they have made a promise to cut net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. These figures show the Government needs to pull its finger out and get on with it.

The statistics come at a time, when it is clear that the country gains from immigration. Only recently, a report showed the residents of Western European countries experienced wage gains, on average, from immigration, while they experienced wage losses due to emigration’. 

The report on `Wage effects of immigration and emigration’ by Université Catholique de Louvain, the World Bank and University of California, Davis, clearly says: `We find that European countries experienced a decrease in their average wages and a worsening of their wage inequality (between more and less educated) because of emigration.

`To the contrary, immigration had the opposite effects. These patterns hold true using a range of parameters for our simulations, accounting for the estimates of undocumented immigrants and correcting for the quality of their schooling and the labor-market downgrading of their skills.

`Our results imply that, from a wage point of view, the prevalent public fears in European countries are misplaced; the main concern should be the effects of emigration, not immigration’.

It concluded: `The magnitude of the wage losses due to emigration is roughly equal to or larger than the gains from immigration. This is due to the fact that both immigrants and emigrants in European countries are, on average, more educated relative to non-migrants.

`Moreover immigrants are generally imperfect substitutes for non-migrants bringing skills that only partially compensate the losses due to emigration. Our analysis also finds that immigration in Europe was somewhat more beneficial to the less educated natives, reducing their wage gap with highly educated, while the opposite is true of emigration.

`These surprising results imply that European countries should begin to discuss more seriously the causes and effects of their large emigration rates, rather than obsessing with immigration that has mostly been beneficial in terms of wages.


Throw out the immigrant with the bathwater

30% of varsities considering move to set up campuses overseas