Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
So, if i am following, we all agree that:
- Immigrants are good for the economy
- Increasing the wealth of the nation building hospitals, houses, schools and so on is good
- Jobs are not a finite resource
- Immigrants are almost universally hard working law abiding individuals who want to help themselves and their family
The problem with point two is that when an immigrant comes over, they need a house, gp, dentist, etc now. So basically, the government has to tacitly ask the electorate if they want to put the country into into more debt to build the infrastructure capable of supporting these immigrants who might improve things in the long run. Gl with that.
Incidentally, a quick google of the economic benefits of migrants from eastern Europe suggests:
Quote:
Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.
This is not a lot of money to build the infrastructure necessary to supplement the migrants from Eastern European EU countries.
Meanwhile:
Quote:
Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits
So, migrants from central Europe are much better for our economy than those from Eastern Europe. In fact, I would guess based on those figures that when you take in the cost of building the infrastructure necessary to support immigration, those from central Europe subsidise those from Eastern Europe.
The overarching point is that should we leave the EU, these people will still want to come, however we will be able to select who we take.
Suorce:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...EU-immigration