Saturday, 21 February 2009

The "benefits" of mass immigration

Governments, such as the USA, the UK together with most in Europe and those media organisations who favour an open door immigration policy keep telling us how much our economy benefits from immigration on account of all the wealth immigrants allegedly create and "bring into the country".

As an answer to this claim, I would like to suggest a little exercise, which you can try whilst sitting at you computer. First go to or any other search engine, and type in the words Sending money home then click search, and count the number of result options you are given.

I suspect that the figure you see will come as a surprise, and may give you an inkling as to exactly which economies are benefiting from mass immigration into countries like Britain and America.


alanorei said...

The Somalis seem to be doing well in this respect.

Migration Watch estimated some time ago that immigrants benefitted the UK economy by about £400,000,000 a year, about 0.04% of GDP (any government figures i.e. £2-6 billion, are a myth). At the time they were sending about £1,100,000,000 overseas.

The old gangsters have redefined the word 'benefit' to have a dual meaning. It means 'handout' for foreigners and 'theft' for the indigenous British population.

Dr.D said...

Sarah, this could be a point at which the immigration problem could be attacked, I think. If we could make it where they could not send money home effectively, many would not come.

Any economy, whether it be the UK, the USA, France, or wherever, has the reasonable expectation that wages earned in that economy will be spent in that economy and thus remain within the system. No economy can stand the wholesale export of cash from its system.

One way to stop this, I think, would be to create a confiscatory tax on such transfers, say 85%. Very few folks would be willing to make the transfer if only 15% would get through. Legitimate business transfers that could be substantiated with an invoice for goods received or services rendered should be allowed to pass through without the tax, but the "sending money home" transfers should be taxed heavily.

Our leftist leaders would oppose such a move, but it makes sense for the good of our people.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Of course these money transfers are only a part or the problem. Western Union, and the myriad other money transfer firms, are how low to average wage workers are sending cash out of the country.

The small businessmen, doctors and shop owners, especially those from the Asian sub continent use the banking system. They all bank with Asian based banks who are legitimately transferring ££Millions out of the west every day, and only nominal sums back.

The bank regulators can do nothing about it because they are not actually breaking any laws, at least not after the right accountants have massaged the figures.

There are all sorts of laws against money laundering and supporting terrorism, but none remain which prevent someone from transferring money from one account to another, where it can be spent or invested in an economy other than the one in which it was acquired. However, billions are leaving the country in that way, and very little of it is coming back.

Incidentally Dr D, as an American you might want to try typing the words "Sending money out of the USA" and see what figures you get. I recommend you sit down before doing so.

Edwin Greenwood said...

A 2005 DFID report estimates remittance outflow at £2.7bn. Given the number of money transfer agencies in the UK -- every other "ethnic" shop seems to offer the service -- that figure seems rather low to me.

I don't have the patience to read through the report, but since it was prepared in co-operation with the banks, I would be surprised if it includes funds transferred through the hawala mechanism, which by its nature is unaudited, more or less unmeasurable and probably impossible to control.

And if this Guardian piece is to be believed, "confiscatory" deductions are not the effective deterrent that Dr D. suggests.

Dr.D said...

Mr. Greenwood perhaps failed to read my suggested tax rate of 85%. The maximum charge (which seems to have been a fee, rather than a tax), mentioned in the Guardian article was only 40% with most of the fees being much less. I still think if there were a tax of 85%, with a transfer fee imposed on top of that, we would see a substantial reduction in money sent home. We would have to, because it would be coming back into our economy through the tax that has been collected. So let them send it, by all means. It just means that most of there remittance comes right back to us. I have no objection to that, and I doubt that you would either.

Anonymous said...

Takk fyrir ahugaverdar upplysingar

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Anonymous 00:58

Þú ert velkomin. Ég held að þú arethe fyrstu gestir frá Íslandi