Has the EU's open border policy caused mass migration

[JoanOfMarch]

I was reading about Italy's state of emergency today and it got me thinking does freedom of movement/open borders work?

Europe is facing a huge influx. Schengen allows illegal migration as no one checks to see who is entering/exiting. People gain access to a country and can walk through Europe unfettered and a country has no idea who is living within it's borders.

If there was better protection on a country's border would the problem exist to this extent it is now?

Should the EU step up and take action and close borders, even if it's short term - say for 5 years to try and halt the problem.

Or is it a harmless, tiny pain-in-the-ass problem we all have to live with, but worth it to enable us to access these countries without checks?

YABU - no, open border policy has not caused mass migration
YANBU - yes, open borders are a massive problem and it needs addressing

I feel sorry for most of them. They risk their lives coming to Europe, end up doing the crappest, low paid jobs. They have to live in an expensive city on that low wage and still send money home to their families. Yet many countries in Africa have the potential to be wealthy if their governments weren't so corrupt.

This. I suspect Nelson Mandela would have been heartbroken by the reality of ANC rule in South Africa given the poverty and inequality.

Genuine, non-goady question. If many migrants end up doing lowly paid jobs, where does the net economic benefit come? Presumably their taxes don't cover the cost of their healthcare and education so it's from a corporate perspective as they have a pool of cheap labour?

"Genuine, non-goady question. If many migrants end up doing lowly paid jobs, where does the net economic benefit come? Presumably their taxes don't cover the cost of their healthcare and education so it's from a corporate perspective as they have a pool of cheap labour?"

Benefits to society are not only economic. Without people doing the "lowly paid jobs" society ceases to function. Rubbish piles up, there is nobody to care for the sick and elderly, nobody to pick, process and deliver the food, no truck drivers to deliver fuel and other essentials and so on. Not that these jobs should be "lowly paid" - but some societies, such as the US and increasingly the UK, make the same error of assigning an economic value to everything and overlooking the social and structural value of these activities. The current UK government is driven by a philosophy that deems that "Profit" is the God to be worshipped, that the Free Market (operating on the basis of things are only worth doing if they provide a profit) will solve all problems and that unprofitable activities are either to be curtailed or operated with minimum funding. They know the cost of everything, but cannot tell you the value of anything.

There was a perfect example of this yesterday. Gove proposed that tourist rentals, second homes and airbnb properties should be subject to licensing and planning permission. While I'm not Gove's biggest fan, this is a fairly sensible suggestion that might go some way towards alleviating the housing problems in tourist hot spots where local residents are priced out of the market by investors buying up residential properties to rent to tourists, or where second home properties stand empty for most of the year. It is also very similar to the system that operates successfully in much of Europe. Cue Conservative MP Simon Clarke, Gove’s predecessor as housing secretary, accusing him of imposing “anti-business” restrictions on landlords - i.e. looking solely at the impact on businesses and their profits, and completely ignoring the social benefits.

If we talk Just want to add that most Brits are also not net contributors into treasury. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that the articles were saying EEA immigrants overall were net contributors while only about half of British adults were. So not only they do the jobs needed for non state finance benefit, they are also most likely net contributors as well.

Halpy to be corrected!

Benefits to society are not only economic. Without people doing the "lowly paid jobs" society ceases to function.

I'd agree with that. It's just the net economic benefit I wonder about. I can see it might be net for certain groups (for example, higher earners working in financial services).

But I'm not quite sure how the low-earners end up being net economic contributors per se. If you earn £20k, you pay £2,500 in tax. Assuming they're not in receipt of any benefits, the average cost per head of the NHS is £3,005 according to the BMA pre-covid). This deficit would be increased if they have kids and you add schooling at £6,700 per pupil. I guess they pay VAT on purchases so that's unaccounted for in this calculation.

As I say, not being, goady, just interested in lower-earners being a net economic gain rather than cost. (Ignoring the contribution to society plus the benefit of cheaper labour for U.K. companies).

@dig135 some foscal impact is explained here with references
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

One big difference is also that they themselves didn't cost anything for education etc, which I think is accounted for in some of the calculations overal.
So no cost before coming here to work and pay. Many non eea also pay surcharges to NHS

That's very interesting, thanks for sharing.

So the net economic benefit is based on a straight tax receipts v benefits calculation. But excludes other costs such as healthcare and education.

So the net economic benefit is based on a straight tax receipts v benefits calculation. But excludes other costs such as healthcare and education.

In these calculations. In other it's included for the actual person. The person didn't cost uk anything first two+ decades of life so they account for that. In some children are counted instead.
We also can't just count all, at least eea, immigrants the same when it comes to healthcare considering how many of us fly back to countries to get our health sorted faster...

"just interested in lower-earners being a net economic gain rather than cost. (Ignoring the contribution to society...)"

@dig135 But it is not possible to ignore the contribution to society, otherwise all that happens is that people are seen as "units of cost" rather than being seen for the value that they bring. This meaningless "net economic gain" figure is being used by certain politicians in an attempt to create a divide between "people who contribute" to society and people who allegedly "take" from society. It is driven by the Conservatives' worship of "Profit" and is being used to demonise those members of society (and the services that these people provide) that are deemed by them to be "unprofitable."

A simplified illustration: A low paid bus driver drives 50 people to and from work every day. These people only pay a few pounds for their ticket instead of hundreds of pounds for a car, insurance, petrol, repairs etc. Without the bus, many could not afford to work - or wages would have to rise to pay for their increased transport costs without there being any associated rise in productivity. Even if the monthly cost of the bus fares is the same as the cost of owning and running a car, the bus pollutes less than 50 cars do, and causes less congestion and wear on the roads, and doesn't need 50 parking spaces. So while the bus driver may only pay (using your example) £2,500 a year in tax, society "saves" the cost of the roads, car parks, congestion, pollution etc.

Your bus driver proposition's really interesting. @Havanananana. Having no buses would be better from a pure Conservative point of view. 50 people buying cars, paying taxes on their cars plus running costs and fuel, generates more economic activity and income. Importantly, it increases profits to car importers and fossil fuel suppliers.

It also, as you say, generates more pollution and traffic congestion, contributing to the climate problem. It puts bus drivers, bus company workers and bus manufacturers out of work. It leaves disabled or old people and low-income families stranded at home; low-paid workers have to quit their jobs if they can't get there & back.

But fuck them. They're unprofitable!

My local bus (rural) stops at several large farms. Pre-Brexit, this bus used to get packed at lunchtimes and pre/after school with knackered-looking young Eastern Europeans wrangling children & shopping between farm and town. Now the bus is never packed and the farms are going out of business.

There has been no sign of Africans or South Asians flocking to take their place. The bus service has been drastically reduced. You have all relied on the produce of these farms, which are now not producing. Immigration's a complex issue, it has repercussions on every aspect of society & economy.

I will point out that England is very densely populated. The UK figure's low because of Scotland & Wales. So population expansion needs to be managed; I just don't think we're taking anything like an intelligent approach to it!

I'm not ignoring societal gain. I was just interested in the assertion that lower income migrants are a net economic gain as its referred to frequently as an advantage of migration.

Which transpires to be the case on a tax v benefits basis (that information provided by a PP was interesting) but not when you factor in other costs such as healthcare and education. So in the broader sense, they don't provide a net economic gain. Granted they contribute in other ways.

Hands up, I do worry about the population density of parts of the U.K. possibly as I live in one of those areas. Traffic congestion and pollution is dire, there's a housing crisis so they're looking to build large-scale developments on the green belt, our GP service is on its knees, the sewage system is at capacity with frequent overflows and schools are significantly oversubscribed. Adding more people to the creaking infrastructure in our area feels a the tipping point where it all starts to unravel.

Again you refer to the fallacy of "Net Economic Gain."

The example that you use earlier (If you earn £20k, you pay £2,500 in tax) only considers income tax. Individuals also pay other taxes to the Treasury, such as VAT, alcohol and fuel duty, and tariffs on imported goods, as well as local taxes such as Council Tax. If this person buys a £6 bottle of wine in Tesco, about £4 of the price goes directly to the government as VAT and alcohol duty. Out of the £2 that goes into Tesco's bank account, if there is 50p of profit, then Tesco pays a percentage of this to the government in the form of Corporation Tax. Other companies also pay Corporation Tax based on the profits generated by the people working in these companies - often for £20,000 a year or less.

The "Net Economic Gain" calculation is flawed in a second way. Over time, people's "contribution" changes. From birth to around 18 or 19, individuals "contribute" very little in terms of economic "gain" - they are in school and are "costing" the country without contributing any tax, but hopefully society will benefit in the future from the education and training that these young people receive. From around mid-20s to 60 they are usually working and paying income tax and various consumption taxes, so are net contributors. In old age they receive pensions, healthcare and do not work, so are probably no longer "contributing".

This is where the Conservatives' argument is in clear perspective. They are only interested in "economic contributors" - and are actively hostile to what they perceive to be "non-contributors," be they students, pensioners, the low paid, immigrants etc. They favour the American model - if you want decent education, healthcare, transport, child care, elderly care and a pension then the Free Market will provide it, but only if it turns a profit and at a price only affordable by the rich. Everyone else is "worthless" and can be ignored.

Do people have a limit in mind when considering mass migration or should people be free to move

When countries become more inhabitable can all displace?

What does that look like?

There needs to be grown up conversations on this - now -

And they need to be kind conversations- we cant consign millions to death from climate change

But we need to prepare and plan because that will be easier to manage than an army of homeless desperate people turning up on the border

Again you refer to the fallacy of "Net Economic Gain."

I'm wasn't, I was trying to understand the calculation behind the assertion of net economic gain which is often put forward as a benefit of migration. Which I now do.

I'm a chartered accountant so I'm fully aware of all the tax implications beyond income tax. (I'd already mentioned VAT earlier in the thread).

Really interesting re the economic contribution of migrants. However it seems to me that we are looking for these people to do jobs that individuals in the uk just don't do, often because they are 'dirty' or low paid (and they will lose benefits). Essentially we have the population but they don't want to do the work, so we import people to do it who, whilst they contribute more than economically, are putting lots of pressure on all other areas of infrastructure, just adding more population. Stats also show that these people have more children.

I also feel that the expectation is that illegal immigrants should be given the opportunity to work. What happens if they, like the indigenous population, decide they don't want to do the low paid dirty jobs? Presumably they will also at some be able to claim all the benefits

Surely the best thing to do is to value and pay more to your existing population?

We seem to moving to a situation where countries like the uk will just let anyone and everyone in whilst the countries like Aus and NZ are keeping their population under control and only letting in the professionals they need.

This kind of nonsense is so far off the mark, it’s real.

In unicorn fairy world, all this may be true. In the real world, stuff needs to be paid for. With real money. Not printed or borrowed money. For real money, you need people to pay more than they consume. Unless you earn almost £40k, you are not a net contributing. So no we don’t need people just for airy fairy feel good factor. We need to import people who produce more than they consume. This means wages for low paid roles are increased and employers are forced to automate rather than pay the higher wages. Which is a win win for the economy and the people already living here.

The next time people read and believe this kind no of nonsense, just think about UK’s weak economic growth and why nothing works here. Because we adding more people than output.

The nonsense on this thread continues.

No one needs to turn up anywhere because of climate change. The Dutch don’t move around because of rising sea levels, they just build around it.

As someone already asked, how many people
from Asia, Africa and Latin America are you prepared to let in because their corrupt governments are not doing what they should be doing.

I'm from an EU country and when I was living in England (before Brexit) I couldn't access free healthcare for the first few years of tax-paying residency, and obviously weren't eligible for free nursery, tax credits etc. Not sure about education as our son was too young for school but the point is there have always been safeguards in place ensure a migrant pays in a lot before they can ever take.

Not many people live in the Sahara
As Africa turns into desert no wall building will help

I find it surprising that people still don't understand how devastating climate change is likely to be

And I'd love to know who will build a walll round Bangladesh

@sst1234

"In unicorn fairy world, all this may be true. In the real world, stuff needs to be paid for. With real money. Not printed or borrowed money. For real money, you need people to pay more than they consume."

There are two issues with this. Firstly, some people cannot pay more [tax] than they consume. Many low paid workers are actually employed directly or indirectly by the government - in healthcare, social care, teachers and the rest of the public sector. Yet it is the government that sees these employees as being unproductive (they provide essential services, but generate no "profit") and refuses to pay them a decent wage.

Secondly, there is the question of who pays (in the real world with real money). In some countries, the costs of essential services, education, healthcare etc are socialised. People pay according to their means - i.e. in a progressive tax environment, the more people earn, the more tax they pay. The same applies to companies. Everyone pays into the pot - to ensure that everyone benefits, because at any given point in time, nobody can know what will happen in the future. A car crash, work accident or health diagnosis can be unforeseen and life-changing for the worse, so socialisation is an excellent "insurance" against this.

In the UK, this idea has been steadily undermined over the last 30 years, from Thatcher claiming that anyone using public transport was a failure, to the demonisation of "scroungers" and the latest attempt to define people as "Contributors" or "Burdens"

"We need to import people who produce more than they consume."

More of the same claptrap - "people" reduced to economic units that only have value if they produce a notional "profit". The country needs people with both skills and a desire to work. Many will be doing jobs that for some reason the UK population either doesn't want to do, or which are now seen as being low-status and therefore somehow "beneath" them. 30 years ago, teaching and nursing were seen as respectable, high-status jobs that paid reasonably well and were something to aspire to. Today teachers and nurses are vilified in the press, seen as being a drain on the economy and yet the same media that attacks them complains that there are not enough teachers, not enough nurses and that "something has to be done" - the something being importing cheaper, disposable labour from the Commonwealth and elsewhere on short-term contracts.

@sst1234 "just think about UK’s weak economic growth and why nothing works here."

Indeed - and then compare and contrast with the European countries where there is better economic growth, a better standard of living and where things work. Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Netherlands ... All countries that pay far higher taxes than the UK (despite what the Conservatives say, the UK is a relatively low-tax country) and where there are hardly any hospital waiting lists, there is cheap and reliable public transport and other services, people work fewer hours than in the UK and the national debt is far lower than that of the UK.

@Havanananana do you have an upper limit on numbers? So when mass migration really kicks in how many people do you envisage

What is it like in your view, can you describe how you see it working out

Loving the posts @Havanananana and @sst1234 . Interesting discussion.

If we restrict the (unlimited) supply of cheap and exploitable labour, then three things can happen: (1) the price of that labour can rise; (2) substitutes for labour (automation) can be sought; (3) businesses who don't adapt can exit and the capital can be used elsewhere.

The policy of allowing low-skilled migration from the developing world into northern Europe (as PPs have pointed out, this is a deliberate policy choice, not a mistake) seeks to avoid these consequences of restricting supply. Who does that serve? It serves the owners of capital in existing, entrenched businesses. It serves them continuing to do what they've always done, and to make profit from it.