To think immigration will always mean that we have high levels of inequality?

[Bumpitybumper]

Just looking at the latest immigration statistics and it seems like nearly a million people have come to the UK over the past year. Most are from countries that are poorer than the UK and many people have come with very little or nothing in terms of financial resources and are unable to speak English. I am also constantly reading articles and posts from people on MN about how inequality should be lowered or completely eradicated in the UK. These articles and posts always seem to skirt over immigration and never really address the obvious fact that it is going to take an immigrant a long time (sometimes several generations) to be in the same position as someone that has lived in the UK for many decades.

AIBU to assume that inequality and immigration are strongly linked and no matter what government initiatives are put in place then it is unrealistic to expect inequality to reduce when we have such huge levels of immigration? Even if you tackle inequality for the people that are currently here then another million people could come next year that would hugely impact the statistics.

I agree that there will always be inequality. Its an impossible problem to tackle.

The Equality Trust do research into exactly this.

If you are genuinely interested, you could look it up.

But the general answer is that immigration does not significantly impact levels of inequality. For example, big increases in inequality in the 70s and 80s despite net immigration being low.

Immigration increased in the 90s and 2000s but inequality stayed stable.

35% of immigrants have a degree (compared to I think 25% of British people) so not really accurate to paint them as a drag on equality - they are more educated and skilled than we are, and fill skills gaps in public services.

The link between inequality and immigration is tenuous at best, OP.

I hate to break it to you, but this was net immigration. However for 2023 (2024 figures are incomplete) just under 62,500 immigrants were refugees.

For 2024 we have about 450,000 HE students counted as immigrants. They must pass a demanding English competency test in order to get their student visa, and they pay frankly extortionate tuition fees. It is sadly accurate to say that they are propping up our once proud HE sector.

Then of course we must import many health care professionals, particularly but by no means exclusively nurses.

Aside from refugees and the small number of others granted humanitarian status, every immigrant is here for a reason. You can no longer buy your way in as an investor but you can come on a Global Talent Visa which has a very, very high bar. Almost everyone I know on a GTV speaks excellent English. All are higher rate taxpayers.

You can come on a work visa as the HCPs do, you can come on a student visa, etc. You can of course bring your immediate family.

It is true that for a variety of reasons, in the past members of certain ethnic groups have been over-represented in lower income brackets. It is my strong impression that at present many people tend to confuse the concepts of ‘immigrant’ and ‘refugee’.

But I would welcome an explanation of how you reached your conclusion.

I don't think that research really addresses the question at hand.

We have never seen immigration into this country before in terms of the number of people involved and the background of those entering our country. Previously the numbers have been much lower and more weighted towards skilled migrants and those from EU countries. Over recent years this has undoubtedly changed. It is completely logical that this will have a massive impact on inequality.

This proves it…there is literally nothing some people won’t blame immigrants for.

Inequality is more the result of hereditary wealth and capitalism.

I know it's net migration. I don't know why you think I would be disappointed by this? Also it's obvious that immigrants are here because of our immigration policy. I don't really know why you have felt the need to breakdown the fact that so many have visas etc. Of course this is the case! I wasn't suggesting that all immigrants were here illegally or were asylum seekers.

My point was most immigrants come from less wealthy countries and don't come with lots of financial assets. They may well have degrees but they are statistically much more likely to be under employed and in sectors that don't pay well. Not all degrees are transferable between countries. I find it bizarre that people on this thread seem to suggest that a million people entering the country with the obvious disadvantages of not having a lot of money, not being able to speak the language and struggling to find employment that fully utilises their skills and education wouldn't be a source of inequality?

I'm not blaming them for inequality. I am merely pointing out that the stats will include them.

For example a migrant child entering the country in their teens will be at a huge disadvantage when compared to someone that has grown up in the UK and followed the curriculum that they will all be tested on for major exams. Many people read the stats on educational inequality though and think it's possible to reduce or remove it. Patently this would be very difficult, if not impossible in all cases. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

they are statistically much more likely to be under employed and in sectors that don't pay well.

Can you point us to those statistics, please? A link would be cool. Cheers.

Hmmm not sure about that. The immigrants I know are hardworking and successful. And our education system is on its knees - better to be had in countries perceived as "worse".

DM had an operation last month. The nurse, the anesthetist, the surgeon and the person bringing the food were all immigrants. I say this not because the of the colour of anyone's skin, but because they all spoke (good) English with accents showing that it wasn't their first language. But all were skilled, polite and hardworking and the operation was great. It was a private hospital, however.

Most are from countries that are poorer than the UK and many people have come with very little or nothing in terms of financial resources and are unable to speak English.

What's your evidence for this? As previous posters have pointed out, there's a higher level of education among immigrants than the general population. The numbers also include hundreds of thousands of students that can clearly speak English and have the financial resources to fund their studies.

I think the entrenched class system, and a 'political class', along with ridiculous amounts of wealth and land being hoarded by a minority means that inequality will inevitably get worse. Particularly with working and middle class being pitted against each other and amongst themselves by those hoarding the wealth and resources to take the focus off the very real issues facing them.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/

Of course immigrants can be hardworking and successful. I am not bashing immigrants. There are also some highly skilled and some very wealthy immigrants so it really isn't possible to make sweeping generalisations.

My point is more a statistical one that when we look at the data around inequality the assumption is that the UK system has somehow failed those in deprivation and poverty. This obviously isn't true if someone has just arrived to the UK last year and hasn't really got themselves established yet. The UK will therefore always have relatively high levels of inequality when we have high levels of immigration managed in the way we manage it.

This links to the wider question of why we have to import labour to do jobs at the lower end of the pay scale (e.g health & social care) when we have a large amount of the indigenous population apparently disinclined or unable to work. We're paying 'our own' to not work, and need to import labour to fill gaps.
Personally I think this is to do with welfare dependency, to a degree.

I believe the data shows that migrants claim far fewer benefits than natives, happy to find a reputable source for that if anyone's interested.

Inequality, overall is a fundamental part of capitalism. You can only address it with high levels of progressive taxation then used to improve education / housing / access to good work, which us what helps social mobility.

I don't think you can make the underemployed claim. From your own link:

In 2022, the employment rate of working-age migrant men (82%) was higher than that of the UK-born (78%) (Figure 2). Most region-of-origin groups had higher employment rates than UK-born men. Among women, the overall employment rate for working-age migrants was 71%, slightly lower than for the UK-born (73%). However, EU-born women had unusually high employment rates (80%).

Or the non-well-payed sector:
Taken as a whole, the occupational distribution of migrant workers did not differ much from that of UK-born workers in 2022, although migrants were slightly more likely to be working in jobs classed as both high- and low-skill than the UK-born.

Your claim "statistically much more likely to be under employed and in sectors that don't pay well." doesn't stack up.

I cannot understand the obsession with eliminating inequality. So what if some people have multiple yachts while I have a 6 year old Yaris?

The focus should be on ensuring all essential needs are met which they are with free education, health and even money if you need it.

Underemployed doesn't mean unemployed but that someone is deemed to be overqualified for the job they have. Stats show that immigrants from most regions are more likely to be overqualified than UK 'natives' and those from some countries have double the chances of being overqualified. I think those statistics absolutely corroborate that claim.

Immigrants are more likely to be in low skilled sectors than UK 'natives'. Your quote verifies this. They are therefore more likely to be overrepresented on data regarding disadvantage and deprivation. The fact that some migrants are highly paid doesn't take away from this fact.

OP, Please look at Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford.
According to the 2021 Census in England and Wales, 41% of those born abroad had a university degree, compared to 25% of people born in the UK. Migrants were more ethnically diverse, healthier, and more likely to live in privately rented accommodation.

Forecasts are that immigration levels will actually go down in future.
See here: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

So I’m not sure where your linkage of inequality and immigration comes from, nor the fears about another million people coming next year. Whilst there are some immigrants whose English isn’t great, a lot are students who have to pass an English and people here on work visas (as mentioned upthread).

Interesting thread. You have been provided with a lot of facts OP - perhaps take the time to digest them,

I don't believe your statement :- It is completely logical that this will have a massive impact on inequality.

It might be logical in your mind, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Immigrants are more likely to be in low skilled sectors than UK 'natives'. Your quote verifies this. They are therefore more likely to be overrepresented on data regarding disadvantage and deprivation. The fact that some migrants are highly paid doesn't take away from this fact.

Of course it does! Because you are talking about inequality and if immigrants are also overrepresented on the highly paid side it balances out.

But inequality isn't measured like that. Having more people on the top and bottom and less in the middle would drive up inequality measures. They don't just balance each other out as you suggest.

No, sorry they don't. I have posted the source of the statistics myself and have clarified their meaning to other posters. This isn't about a lack of comprehension and understanding, although I'm sure you would love to put it down to that.

Nothing posted here has disproven my hypothesis.

I think the full phrase ‘net immigration’ is very important, OP. In my experience most who don’t use it don’t understand the difference. As you do, I apologise.

Thank you for the link to the Migration Laboratory report. My connection is currently wonky, so I have only been able to scan the first part briefly. My reading thus far agrees with @KrisAkabusi . Could you please explain why you interpret the report differently?

I look forward to reading the whole report soon.

The standard entry route to the UK is the Skilled worker visa which now requires a firm job offer with a minimum income of £38,700. The median UK income as of April was about £37, 400. So present policies require relatively high earnings for entry. The jobs with those earnings usually require decent English.

Many children also learn English at school, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East. Obviously learning in a new-ish language is challenging, but there are lots of resources and many, many pupils all over the world do this successfully. The younger, the better, of course. Parental attitudes are very important.

The new regulations will probably change the faces of immigration to some extent.

Most British do not start out with capital at their disposal. ( Whether you have access to The Bank of Mum and Dad is becoming a great divide amongst YP. ) I can’t see that immigrants mostly failing to bring financial capital is of great significance.

I literally posted their stats upthread. Having a degree isn't useful if you aren't using it, hence the importance of the underemployed statistics.

The argument you made is that an influx of immigrants in low paying jobs is leading to a high level of inequality. What I'm refuting is that immigration is all people taking low-paying jobs. What you are trying to avoid discussing is that there are immigrants in high-paying jobs as well. Therefore the problem is not immigrants.