The Impact Of Immigration On The Uk - amazonia.fiocruz.br

In the UK, immigration is frequently characterised as a detriment to the economy.

From the repeated assertion that free movement drives down wages, to newspapers proclaiming the harm that migrants inflict on public services, the discourse is awash with the notion that immigration equals economic demise. But are any of these claims rooted in fact? Although they are widely circulated, this is not necessarily a testament to their veracity. Immigration is a hugely salient political issue, and such associations may stem from a calculated attempt to depict immigration in a negative light, rather than from robust and accurate data.

The only way to establish truth The Impact Of Immigration On The Uk to take a close, objective look at the evidence. This process is inherently complex- researchers reach very different conclusions regarding the exact revenues and expenditures to take into account. Similarly, fiscal costs always include services such as NHS care and education, but at times encompass government spending on The Impact Of Immigration On The Uk. The ability for researchers to be selective in this regard yields very different findings, thus providing scope for migrants to be portrayed in a more negative or positive light depending on stance.

Further to this, a lack of accessible data means that assumptions are a necessary part of the calculation process, such as when deciding on the exact share of taxes paid by UK businesses to attribute to migrants. This too leads to considerable variation within findings, enabling commentators to focus on those that most closely match their point of view.

While migrants may represent a fiscal cost in a particular year, the UK-born may represent an either bigger cost, thus rendering the findings substantially less negative than they first appear. A similar truth holds for static versus dynamic analysis.

other Blog Posts

In contrast, dynamic analysis does look at the entire lifecycle, but is hampered by a reliance on assumptions. It is now important to assess whether such narratives are backed up by hard evidence. Despite the varying conclusions that researchers draw, two points are consistently agreed upon.

First, that EEA migrants contribute more than non-EEA migrants, and second, that more recent migrants contribute more than migrants overall. Focusing solely on these figures, it is wholly inaccurate to depict all immigration as economically harmful. But by picking and choosing which elements of the data to focus on, a negative picture can be created. Although it analyses a different year to the Oxford Economics study, this alone does not explain the marked difference in findings.

What does are the different assumptions made by the researchers, such as the proportion of taxes paid by businesses to attribute to migrants. The second point of agreement- that recent migrants contribute more than migrants overall- also sheds light on how results can be manipulated to suit particular narratives. In almost every instance, migrants are found to contribute more to the public purse than the UK-born population.

However, as the numbers can be shaped and presented in accordance with stance, negative stereotypes can be created. For truth to prevail, evidence must be presented in an objective and comprehensive manner.

Cameron Boyle is a political correspondent for the Immigration Advice Immigratinoan organisation of immigration lawyers that help undocumented migrants to regulate their status. Required Name. Required Invalid Email Email. Thank you, an email was sent to your inbox which includes the download link. Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Disclaimer.]