Item — HN Reader

I have. The effect is very small for most purposes. It's largely fabricated right wing propaganda.

From Oxford University: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...

Does immigration create greater unemployment or greater inactivity among existing workers? The first systematic study of this issue used data for 1983-2000 to analyse how changes in the share of migrants impact on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of existing workers (Dustmann, Fabbri and Preston 2005). It concluded that immigration had no statistically significant effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers. The study did, however, find statistically significant effects on specific educational groups of UK-born workers: immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O-level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).

A separate study carried out by researchers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed the impact of labour immigration of A8 workers on claimant unemployment during May 2004-November 2005 (Lemos and Portes 2008). The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2004 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).

1 comments

Your own comment contradicts what you're saying:

> an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment for those with skills most similar to the migrants in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years), but that immigration has no significant impact on unemployment in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2010).

A period of 10 years is a quarter of a person's working lifetime and is, at a personal level, not short term. Being in a European country I should point out too that the rate of large-scale immigration events happen more frequently than 10 years, and so some industries now remain in a constant state of upheaval in terms of indigenous employment.

I was in an industry that saw an almost overnight shift in indigenous employment, and worker's rights, upon migrations from Brazil, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It's only now, 10 years later, that it's becoming viable as a career prospect again because net emigration has increased. Of course, we had to put up with massive unemployment for under 30's in the meantime, and all of the social ramifications of this.

But yes, it's a small effect and is just propaganda. 30-40% of people under 30 just stayed unemployed long-term for fun.

I'd need to see concrete numbers showing the reason behind those 30-40% unemployed was immigration, rather than other reasons.

When an immigrant moves into a country he contributes plenty to the local economy. He needs a haircut, so he goes to the local hairdresser. He needs groceries, so he goes to the local shop. He pays rent, buys a car, furniture, pays taxes, schools, etc etc. This helps a lot of people stay employed.

Economic crises happen. Industries - like paper and many others - simply become obsolete and some are going to die. If you are trivially replaced, or only qualified to work on a dying industry you're in for a tough time, and no amount of immigrant bans or protectionist policies is going to help you.