The real taboo Nov 6th 2014, 18:04 BY THE ECONOMIST
RESEARCH published this week has sparked further, furious debate about the merits of immigration into Britain. The political effects of this debate are increasingly unpredictable. As the arguments rage, Blighty has obtained an exclusive excerpt of a speech due to be given next week by Egaraf Legin, the leader of the newly-formed United Kingdom for Immigrants Party (UKFIP). Once regarded as a fringe outfit, its views are fast gaining traction among new arrivals to the country. Mr Legin is a flamboyant and controversial figure, often seen around the wine bars of Tower Hamlets with a glass of Pinot Grigio in his hand.
Speech by Mr Egaraf Legin, UK FOR IMMIGRANTS PARTY
“My fellow non-countrymen,
“The release yesterday of research by Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini of the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found what immigrants to this country have long suspected: that Britons take far more out than they put in.
“The authors found that European and non-European immigrants who had arrived in the country since 2000 contributed more in taxes between 2001 and 2011 than they received in benefits. Arrivals from the ten eastern European countries who have joined the EU since 2004 were also net contributors to the country’s fiscal ledger. But native-born Britons were a massive £617 billion drain on resources in the same period.
“If the British were highly skilled and productive, there would be no problem. But the educational attainments of the locals are much worse than those of the new arrivals. According to the UCL paper, 24% of native-born Brits resident here in 2011 had a university degree, compared with 35% of European and 41% of non-European immigrants. Around 8% of recent immigrants from eastern Europe left school before the age of 17, compared with more than half the native-born population who were resident here in 2011.
“The Brits are numerous: more than 43m of them above the age of 15 in 2011, swamping just 7m immigrants. Many of them make no effort to adapt to immigrant culture, resolutely failing to learn any language except their own.
“They are old: an average age above 40, compared with just over 26 for the recent east European cohort. Worse, they have a nasty tendency to stay in Britain. As people age, they tend gradually to take more out of the state’s coffers than they put in. Immigrants, by contrast, are far more likely to head somewhere else. According to the UCL research, the median length of immigrant stay in the UK decreased from 24 to 12 years between 1995 and 2001.
“I’m not against Britons. Some of my best friends are British. The native-born have qualities we all admire. But for too long the establishment has closed down a debate about the effects of Britons on Britain. This is about what is right for the country, and the evidence is overwhelming. The burden of the native population on this country is simply insupportable.