“Immigration of the information provided, therefore it

“Immigration is the international movement of people into a
destination country of which they are not natives” by wiki immigration. Wikipedia is
however looked on as not being a reliable source as anonymous people can edit
much of the information provided, therefore it is hard to establish what is
true or false. By exploring the positives and negatives of immigration
this essay will enquire how immigration contributes the economy in different
countries globally. In this case, negative refers to the decrease in economic
growth due to migration, whereas positive refers to the employment of migrants,
contributing to an increase in the economic growth. Economic growth is an
increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared
from one period of time to another. On a global scale, the consequences for the
economy due to immigration includes things such as immigrants depending on the
state. Conversely, immigrants show an increase in the labour force; they are
more likely to be of working age. Some would argue that immigration benefits
the consumers as immigrants tend to take on the lower paid jobs that many
citizens are not interested in. However, countless immigrants face language
barriers and therefore are less likely to be accepted into a job, leading them
to depend on government paid housing and money, especially if they are classed
as illegal immigrants.


It is argued that immigration
contributes to the growth of the economy through paying more in taxes than they
receive in benefits and other state assistance, since 2000 immigrants were
estimated to have contributed £1.34 for every £1 the government took out in the
EU alone. Furthermore, outside of the EU, immigrants contribute £1.02 for every
£1 received, therefore these contributions increase economic profits as many
immigrants are giving more than they are receiving. As the majority of
immigrants are of the working-age, they are likely to be putting in more than
they are receiving through the hard labour of low-paid work. The net fiscal
impact of immigration is the difference between taxes and other contributions
immigrants make to public finances, and the cost of the benefits and public
services they receive (there is no “correct” estimate of this). Studies
suggests the fiscal impact in the UK is relatively small, with it contributing
to 1% of the countries Gross Domestic Products. Depending on how young, skilled
and high-paid work the immigrants contribute to will mean that they produce a
positive fiscal impact, whereas unemployed immigrants or those working in low-paid
jobs produce the opposite how
immigrants affect public finances. This
source claims that they don’t support any political party or campaign, they also
work with the government to ensure that corrections can be made if needed. Therefore,
this source is useful and reliable. Internationally,
studies have been carried out resulting in the findings of the net fiscal being
better in the UK than many other countries. However, the positive fiscal impact
of immigration was shown to be better in 10 countries than that of the UK,
including; Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal and Spain. In 2008, the University of
Cambridge carried out a study which showed that the immigrant population
contribution in 2003-4 would have been about +0.6 billion if the UK had been
balancing their budget. On the contrary, if
immigrants have family still living in their original country, they are likely
to send money over to them in the hope of giving them a better quality of life.
Although this positively increases the flow of foreign currencies and their
economy, it affects the host county negatively. In America alone, according to
the country’s central bank, $27 billion in remittances was sent to Mexico,
however Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto quoted “remittances are an
invaluable contribution to national development and indispensable for millions
of Mexican families.” A remittance is a transfer of money by a foreign worker
to an individual in his or her home country. Money sent home by immigrants
competes with international aid as one of the largest financial inflows to
developing countries. On a global scale, remittances have grown from $296
billion in 2007 to $445 billion in 2016, therefore Mexico is not the only
country relying on remittances, as countries such as Asia and Latin America
also receive money from the U.S. immigrants
around the world… Marketplace. The website this information was taken from
has over 14.6 million listeners every week, meaning that this source may be
reliable due to the large audience. Money from wealthier European countries is
usually sent to East and Central Europe and to Africa, which doesn’t come as a
shock due to the average wage of wealthier countries will be able to
accommodate for this. Remittances, overall,
enable migrant households to maintain stability in the face of social, economic,
and environmental changes. They are an important factor in the global economy,
and help drive growth both at home and abroad. It is important for the
developed world to provide guidance on the prudent use of those funds, and for
developing countries to develop policies that will ensure that growth is
efficient and well planned. Increasing global migration patterns have a
significant impact on remittance flows. The conference observed that because of
increasing global migration caused by persistent income inequalities between
origin and destination countries, increasing immigration, other factors related
to globalisation, remittances are expected to continue growing well into the
foreseeable future. 



In contrast, many are of the opinion
that immigration is a burden on the growth of the economy due to the
unemployment of immigrants, outside and inside of the EU there are 5,309,580
number of claimants receiving benefits (by Telegraph, how much do immigrants
claim? article). However, this article does state that this figure only
includes people who were non-UK nationals at the time, but they could now be
classified as a British citizen and it also excludes illegal immigrants. The
main reason presented for this substantial figure incorporates immigrants in
low-paid work ‘settling down’ and having children, which then leads to them
being unable to afford the expenses of childcare and in the worst cases,
necessities. Due to this, many immigrants are unwillingly forced to work a
limited number of hours for low-paid labour. Welfare is undoubtedly an
important factor when it comes to jobs, as the withdrawal of the benefits
leaves individuals facing significant marginal effective tax rates, reducing
the incentive to take the work. This becomes even more of a problem when the system
is geared towards people finding full-time work (which is what the majority of
immigrants cannot do due to childcare costs), making coming off and on benefits
more difficult. Due to this the governments have suggested that welfare reform
will encourage more national citizens to take up work on places such as farms,
where immigrants are stereotyped to work in this sector. Numerous farmers state
that immigrants from developing countries such as; Romania and Bulgaria are
more flexible, more hardworking and more productive, because of the
consequences of the wage difference between their developing country and the
native country. Ababi Mircea, a Romanian worker who immigrated to the UK gave
evidence of the wage difference when he expressed that ‘the money I make here
in one week I make in one month in Romania’ (presented by the BBC). Because of
this, it is no wonder that immigrants do low-paid labour as to them it is worth
the work they put in issues online
website. Furthermore, at the end of
2010 2.1 million additional jobs were created, with 53% (1.1 million) of them
being taken by non-UK born workers. For some immigrants, this would have been
beneficial as this would have allowed them to make an earning and provide for
their families, while also being able to contribute to taxes improving the
economy. Extensive academic evidence shows that immigration does not harm
native employment or wages, although there can be short-term negative effects
if there is a large inflow of immigrants to a small region, if immigrants are
close substitutes for native workers, or if the destination economy is
experiencing a downturn. A native worker means that two individuals do not
compete for the same type of job, for instance, immigrants may be less
productive or educated than some share of the native workers, making them fit
particularly at some types of labour intensive jobs. Realising the benefits of
immigration hinges on how well new arrivals are integrated into their
destination country’s labour market and into society. Today immigrants tend to
earn 20 to 30 percent less than native-born workers. But if countries narrow
that wage gap to just 5 to 10 percent by integrating immigrants more
effectively across various aspects of education, housing, health, and community
engagement, they could generate an additional boost of $800 billion to $1
trillion to worldwide economic output annually. This is a relatively
conservative goal, but it can nevertheless produce broader positive effects,
including lower poverty rates and higher overall productivity in destination
economies the guardian, jobs and wages.


As well as this, one must consider
the financial pressure immigrants place upon the governments due to the global
housing crisis. In 2012, the UK prime minister Theresa May claimed that more
than a third of new housing demand in Britain was caused by immigration. “There
is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices
could be 10% lower over a 20-year period”, essentially this means that without
immigration there would be no need for more housing is immigration causing a UK housing crisis. This information was taken from an article produced by
The Guardian, as this is one of the UK’s most trusted newspapers it is likely
to be accurate and reliable.