The central tenet of those who support unrestricted mass immigration has long been its putative economic benefits.
When the social costs of mass immigration were pointed out, the Homo Economicus argument would be deployed.
I have long seen through the sham of this argument and I am on record slamming it regularly.
See or example:
- Immigration sophistry debunked…again
- The Guardian group sinks further into insanity…
- On hearing Simon Hughes is calling for increased immigration…
Today I read of a vindication of sorts. It turns out that people like Robert Henderson and I were absolutely right all along.
From the BBC:
Record levels of immigration have had “little or no impact” on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said.
It says competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on the low paid and training for young UK workers, and has contributed to high house prices.
The peers, including two ex-chancellors and other Cabinet members, say there should be a cap on immigration levels.
…In their report, “The Economic Impact of Immigration”, the peers said the government “should have an explicit target range” for immigration and set rules to keep within that limit.
…And they rejected claims by ministers that a high level of immigration was needed to prevent labour shortages as “fundamentally flawed”.
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Immigration ’small benefit’ to UK
Post a Comment