No, Philip Hammond, migrants don't threaten our standard of living - your policies do

Cameron's EU renegotiation could end up disadvantaging hundreds of young British adults. Why is he so afraid of migrants, against all evidence?

By Sheryl Kalra, The Independent, 2015.08.11

The face of Britain is changing. In fact, it has been under construction for a long time. The problem is, we haven’t really been paying attention to the fact that it might look very different to how we might expect – and now, with the Calais migrant crisis in full swing, it’s been illuminated by a torch.

What irony that Hammond should bring up living standards, when it’s his party that has so determinedly driven them down. The harsh austerity regime that the Tories put in place included the reduction of welfare benefits by £12 billion, while local government authorities have had their budgets chopped by £18 billion since 2010. This toxic combination attacks vulnerable people on both fronts: by directly taking away the money which supports them, and by crippling the areas in which they live.

Today, in an effort to bar EU migrants from claiming benefits, the government is considering whether to disadvantage our own young people – those born and bred within the safe confines of the United Kingdom – in order to keep others out. Those who would be affected include 50,000 under-22s who are in work and receiving tax credits, most of whom have children. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The government’s attitude towards immigration is so frustrating precisely because it is so wrong-headed. There is endless proof that the long-term benefit of migrants and asylum seekers are manifold – Ugandan refugees, for instance, have created approximately 30,000 jobs in the Leicester since 1972. Last year the Treasury’s independent advisers said that immigration is beneficial to the economy as new arrivals are most likely to be of working age – and even the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, stated that growing immigration to the UK “does tend to produce a more beneficial picture” for the economy.

Britain needs to face the consequences of its past choices. Its murky past in colonialism has contributed to the unrest across Africa which drives migrants towards our shores. Migration flow between 2002-06 was at its trough. Why? Because of decreased levels of regional conflict. The best way to prevent migration is to invest in the stability of countries like Libya, rather than ignoring our history.

The Tory government must come to terms with the fact that their social and political culture will be altered – for the better – by incoming migrants who are owed a place of sanctuary by Britain. I, for one, welcome that.



Cameron couldn't care less about immigrants, but he realises something you don't, namely that the British public ARE concerned about it and they want it brought under control. He also knows that his party will pay a heavy price if he fails.

All the stuff about the colonial past is bunk: Britain certainly exploited colonies, but also brought roads, education, technology and, in many cases, civilisation to the lands it colonised. We owe you nothing.


I know all about the changing face of Britain. In the central London council block I live in the only people who are white British are all over 60. On the bus I'm frequency the only white person or the only one speaking English. When I log on to my council's housing site I'm presented with an electronic Bengali narrator to help Bangladeshis apply for housing housing. When I call I'm played Bhangra as I wait to be answered by a (usually) Asian officer . I'm not sure anyone asked me if this is the UK I wanted .


Miss Kalra ... you are clearly not British/English, and you seem to hate the British/English.

Why don't you move to a country that is more "like you"? ... India, Pakistan, Bangladesh come to mind.

It would be a win-win situation for both you and the UK.


The article is the view of an immigrant. You can't, therefore, expect any empathy from the author with regards to the loss of identity and social standards perceived by the indigenous population.




How has mass immigration benefited anyone who is not in control of industry?


Standards of living have dropped because there are fewer state handout. - When your basic premise i flawed then the whole argument is incoherent.


"No, Philip Hammond, migrants don't threaten our standard of living"

Have you seriously never heard of Female Genital Mutilation, Forced Marriages, First Cousin Marriages, Sharia Courts, Burkhas, Honour Killings, Gender Segregation...?

Not all immigration is bad and not all immigrants practise the above, but these problems have increased massively in recent years following large scale immigration from poor African and Asian countries.

Immigration must be carefully controlled and we need to rid our country of the above obscenities; we can't just open our doors and let an indefinite number of more people in.


Shreya Kalra, as much as you're very pretty the issue cannot be debated. Illegal immigration must stop. Pure and simple. If these thousand people are giving the chance to set up their feet on the UK and have social benefits, what about the next round of thousands to come every month? Is this sustainable? Even if we spread them over other european countries, the only difference will be the time that would be needed until Europe is filled up.


Are we in the UK really in any way responsible for the mess many African countries are in today more than half a century after independence, and having given them trillions of pounds in'foreign aid'?

Britain has no moral or practical responsibility for any but its own citizens. If migrants and some few genuine refugees wish to settle in a place of safety then they can travel to African not European countries. Win-win-win-win: they don't undertake hazardous journeys; they don't put money into the hands of evil criminal people smugglers; they settle in cultures attuned to their social and religious norms; and they don't seek illegal entry into European countries who neither need nor want their presence.

What's not to like?


Someone forgot to tell you that the cat's out of the bag. We now know that non-EU immigration is a net drain on our resources. Economic considerations aside, no-one in their right mind wants more Muslims in a country which already has 3 million too many. We especially don't want people who try to enter the country illegally, because by doing so they prove their criminality.


'Social and political culture will be altered – for the better – by incoming migrants'

Schools in parts of London have only 9% white British children as it is, and they are in the minority in every single London borough. How much more alteration do we need before the British cease to exist?


If some politician shouts "British schools have not enough white children!" - What do you think will happen? Political correctness, liberal idiots and the broad existance of many humanitarian organizations always advocating in favour of non-europeans would be the damnation of the UK and Europe itself.


'Social and political culture will be altered – for the better – by incoming migrants'.

I take that to be not only an affront to the host culture, who provided the author's relatives with a chance at living in a safe and generally law-abiding country, but also racist, in implying that English, or British people, are not enough and must be 'enriched'. I've lived in foreign countries before and enjoy mingling with the host population and never would I besmirch them by claiming they need to be less homogeneous. Why does it seem so many immigrants or there ancestors, support mass immigration? I personally find it a bit disrespectful.


It is the inability of Africa and the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent to provide stable peaceful environments, for their own people, in their own nations, which has lead to this mass influx of economic migrants. Tony Blair and Cameron have not helped but one thing is for sure if it continues Europe and Britain in particular will be reduced to economic parity with Sudan.


Why take able bodied young men away from their own countries? Who is going to make their countries prosper..Let me see ..the woman perhaps! You argue that Britain prospered but you say it was at the expense of Uganda.. Poor Uganda..It's not Britain that needs the help and if immigrants are useful they should be redirected to the countries in need..also British history is of advancement and equality not a return to stoning! But you ignore that!


'Its murky past in colonialism has contributed to the unrest across Africa which drives migrants towards our shores.' Shreya Kalra

Britain sank billions of taxpayers into Africa, and still does! Britain built 1,000s of miles of road and rail, built 1,000s of schools and hospitals, put democratic governments in place of corrupt, racist tribal arrangements. Britain raised the living standards of Africa's millions and offered the best University education to the children of the leaders of these newly rich countries.

Then the ingrates kicked us out, kept the riches, but installed corrupt bullies as leaders. Now they are suffering the problems such kleptocracies breed and their people want to come here to escape.

No thanks! They made their own bed, now they can lie on it. That's our so-called 'murky past' Shreya.

Post a comment

Private comment




Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.