Skip to content

The Coffee House Wall

Write ruthlessly what you believe to be the truth, or else shut up!

Menu
  • The Coffee House Wall – January 2019
Menu

Unemployment problem? Let’s import some more!

Posted on April 30, 2013

MigrantsThere are plenty of good reasons to reduce and restrict the very high level of immigration which we see each year. The most obvious reason is that giving out 670,000 National Insurance numbers to foreign nationals each year cannot help but increase our own domestic levels of unemployment, especially among the young and the less well-skilled. But statistics produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows that a large proportion of certain migrant communities are destined to add their numbers to the ranks of the unemployed, and therefore we are allowing those to immigrate who have little hope of benefiting the nation.

The EHCR provides employment statistics for working aged men and women of different ethnicities. We can take the figures for White British men and women as a base line. Between 2006/2008, 79% of White British men of working age were employed. Of course those who were not employed were either unemployed, in education, disabled or unable to work through illness. At the same period, 72% of White British women were employed. Many more women were employed on a part-time basis of course.

Of course many of those migrating to the UK at present are from within the European Union. The EHRC provides the employment figures for those of working age who are in the White Non-British category. Among these migrants, who will include Canadians, Australians and other white Commonwealth migrants, there are also the much larger numbers of European migrants. 83% of men in this group were in employment, while 70% of women in this group are in employment. Whatever we may think about the effects of such migration on the employment prospects of British people, we can at least say that generally speaking members of the White Non-British category, as defined by the EHRC, are working and therefore contributing to some extent to the national economy.

If we consider the Pakistani community, however, we find a different pattern. These statistics are concerned with those of working age, so any disparity is not due to elderly members of any community. In the Pakistani community only 61% of working age males are in employment, while only 26% of Pakistani women are in employment. The Bangladeshi community tells a similar story. Only 61% of Bangladeshi males are employed, whether full-time or part-time, while only 23% of Bangladeshi women are in any employment.

The EHRC report points out that in many different respects the labour participation of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women is very much lower than that of other groups, even for those women who have been born in the UK. The EHRC compares the employment of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men with White British, White Non-British and Indian males and finds that it is very much lower in each case, even when compared to Indian males from the same Asian Sub-continent.

Very conveniently the EHRC also compares the rate of employment between those of different religious backgrounds. Their report says..

“While there is some variation in employment rates among different religious groups, the most significant gap is for Muslim people who have the lowest rates of employment in the UK”.
In fact only 47% of Muslim men, and 24% of Muslim women are employed. Even second generation Muslim women are much more likely to be unemployed than Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. 51% of second generation Muslim women are unemployed, compared to 17% of second generation Hindu women, 4% of second generation Sikh women and 3% of Christian women.
So what does all this mean? Surely it suggests that there are certain communities, and the EHRC statistics point to the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, whose recent migrants, and many of whose second generation, will not find employment. That the statistics for unemployment in these two communities are so much higher than those in the wider population, even among other migrant communities, means that society is bearing the burden of unemployed migrants and their children from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic origin.
In a time of economic crisis it has to be considered whether continuing immigration from countries where migrants will statistically not be employed is reasonable. In the last two years about 340,000 visas have been issued to migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Yet the EHRC report clearly indicates that a very large proportion of these migrants, their families and children, will not enter employment. Nor are these migrants asylum seekers, escaping from dire circumstances and not immediately expected to sort their lives out. On the contrary these are economic migrants who are not able, for one reason or another, to become economically active in the UK.
At the very least, based on this official report, we would expect migration from Pakistan and Bangaldesh to be very strictly controlled so that only those migrants with a definite employment offer, that can be verified and monitored by HMRC, should be allowed a visa. It is EHRC itself which also points our that Muslims are much less likely to be employed than other migrant group, such as Hindus and Sikhs. Therefore it would make sense that Muslim economic migrants should also be subject to the same restrictions at present. If we are going to allow mass economic migration, and most of us do not agree with this policy, then at least let us only allow those who have a real and measured offer of employment access to the UK. Without such an offer, monitored for the extent of a migrants residency, what we are seeing from some countries, as the EHRC points out, is not economic migration at all, but benefits migration. The UK can’t afford it any more.

1 thought on “Unemployment problem? Let’s import some more!”

  1. Redneck says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Excellent Peter, thank you.

    I think most of us innately know who we’d be happy to accept into our country and, by implication, who’d be of benefit and integrate seamlessly. Sadly, even thinking that constitutes a thought crime, I suspect.

    I have said this before but you have to think that the perpetrators of this wholesale takeover of our country must be rubbing their hands in glee: they can’t be far away from completing their task.
    They must hate the UK and us Britons so much. Why? Who controls the whole phenomenon? I just don’t believe it’s some benign happenstance…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have Your Say

  • DT – What does every European leader think about Britain’s demands?
  • DT – Foreign Office under pressure to justify aid spending

Support the Coffee House Wall

Your financial support is necessary to allow the site to be maintained and improved. A £15-£30 a year voluntary subscription will help to cover the costs of making this site available and keeping conversation free.

Archived Posts

Latest Coffee House Wall

Blogroll

  • Alexander Boot
  • American Digest
  • American Thinker
  • Anthony Watts
  • Ask Marion
  • Biased BBC
  • Big Brother Watch
  • Bog Paper
  • Britain Watch
  • Chicago Boyz
  • Conservative Commune
  • Daniel Hannan
  • Freedom Association
  • Gates of Vienna
  • Gatestone Institute
  • James Delingpole
  • Magna Carta Plus
  • Mark Steyn
  • Melanie Phillips
  • No Hot Air
  • Norman Tebbitt
  • Sultan Knish
  • The Commentator
  • Trolltopia

Pages

  • Advertisers Information
  • Coffee House Wall Politics Club
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
©2025 The Coffee House Wall | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme