April 2008

Immigration ‘small benefit’ to UK

by Limbic on April 1, 2008


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:

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


[Update: Not so fast folks! In an article sent to me by Steve over at BB Films, I see that professional divers are being advised to do CPR as usual (with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation). I think the consensus now is that if you cannot bring yourself to do mouth-to-mouth, then at least just do the compressions (see American Heart Association clarification).  That said compressions and assisted breathing is best (old style CPR), and with drowning victims even more breathing is probably in order (2 breaths for every 30 rapid compressions instead of the usual 1). For more information on CPR, see Learn CPR or the American Heart Association]

This came as a surprise to me. No need to do mouth-to-mouth when doing CPR,  just pumping away at the chest is as effective. From SFGate:

In a break from decades-old first aid guidelines, the American Heart Association on Monday endorsed “hands only” cardio-pulmonary resuscitation – rapid chest compression without mouth-to-mouth resuscitation – to improve the odds for victims of cardiac arrest.

The new guidelines, published in the journal Circulation, recognize that recent research has shown no real advantage to conventional mouth-to-mouth CPR in outside-the-hospital cardiac arrest cases. In addition, studies show that bystanders are often reluctant to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on strangers, but are more likely to try rapid chest compression.

Hands-only CPR greatly increases survival odds