Migration, problematic or helpful, and to whom?: Britain’s immigration vs. Latvia’s emigration
Starting Point
Questions I’d like to look into:
1.What’s actually going on, and on what scale?
2.Why?
3.What are the difficulties this poses to each country?
4.What are the benefits this poses to each country?
Answers found so far:
1. Britain is experiencing huge immigration, over and above its substantial, but not overwhelming, emigration levels. It is thought that in 2005 1,500 immigrants arrived every day, a net population gain of 500 a day given that In total, 565,000 people arrived in the UK in 2005 saying they intended to stay for at least a year. At the same time, 380,000 people left. More than half of the 1,000 people a day who left the UK were British citizens. One assumes that the other half were semi-permanent migrants not wanting to reside for ever in the UK but to work there for a year or so, given the phrase “565,000… intended to stay for at least a year.” Of the 1.42 million total number of immigrants who arrived in the UK since May 2004, 427,000 were people registering to work from the eight former Eastern Bloc countries, which include Latvia, which joined the EU in 2004, with the vast majority coming from Poland. They brought with them around 36,000 dependants although there are no concrete figures. While this may seem at complete odds with the latest figures, the 600,000 total represents all those arriving to work for any length of time in the UK, rather than just those saying they intend to come for a year. The ONS figures suggest that approximately 80,000 people a year are coming from Eastern Europe to live long-term in the UK. The overwhelming majority were Polish with an estimated 49,000 Poles coming to live in the UK for at least a year in 2005 - three times the number in 2004.
Latvia, by contrast, is experiencing more emigration than immigration. While remembering that the population of Latvia is only around 2.5 million, figures provided by the Ministry of Economics show that about 40,000-50,000 Latvians work in other EU Member States. This information was obtained by analysing the data from the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, the Central Statistical Bureau, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other institutions. The actual number of emigrants may be even higher than this figure, as family members usually accompany jobseekers and illegal employment is also possible.
According to data from the Ministry of Economics, the majority of Latvian emigrants work in Ireland. Altogether, it is estimated that some 15,000-20,000 Latvians, or according to another source about 35,000 Latvians, live and work in Ireland. In addition, approximately 15,000-20,000 Latvian people work in the UK, 1,500 in Norway and Germany, 1,055 in Denmark, less than 1,000 in Sweden and about 400 in other EU countries.
2. People migrate essentially because they believe it will enhance the quality of their lives, if they are doing so out of choice rather than obligation. Looking at where UK residents emigrate to could reveal their motives; the most popular destination, where around a fifth of emigrants go, is Australia. This could be for its promise of better weather, more exotic surroundings, and an emerging vibrant culture. The next most popular are France and Spain, presumably because they promise a glamorous Continental lifestyle or relaxed Mediterranean feel. Of course some emigrants are returning to the countries whence they came, having earned the money or had the experience they came for. This is the starting point to explaining why people come to Britain. There are five main criteria for permission to immigrate to the UK from non-EEA countries:
Tier 1: Highly skilled individuals to contribute to growth and productivity
Tier 2: Skilled workers with a job offer to fill gaps in the UK labour force
Tier 3: Limited numbers of low-skilled workers needed to fill specific temporary labour shortages
Tier 4: Students
Tier 5: Youth Mobility and temporary workers: people allowed into the UK for a limited period of time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives
Although these do not now apply to Latvians, as EEA nationals, they do help pinpoint reasons why people move to the UK: for better-paid skilled and non-skilled work (tiers 1, 2, 3 and partly 5) and for study (tiers 4 & partly 5). So Latvians moving anywhere, not just to the UK, are likely to be seeking these things. Migrating for work may seem extreme, but we must remember that some other EU countries have stronger economies than Latvia, so whatever they earn abroad may well be more plentiful (earnings in Euros) or more valuable (earnings in Pounds Sterling) in Latvia.
3. Difficulties posed to Latvia are, essentially, the absence of much of the labour force, slowing down the economy. Furthermore there have been instances of teenagers lacking parents because they are out of the country working.
Difficulties for the UK of having an influx of immigrants include the development of insular communities since many immigrants do not speak English or are unwilling to adopt British cultural manners. This needs to be looked into further, as it is a complex issue. Furthermore we have housing shortages and a strained NHS brought on (at least in part in the second instance) by a burgeoning population, a significant percentage of which can be attributed to immigration. All of this accrues costs: of teaching people to speak English, of housing them in council properties on occasion, of treating them on the NHS. Migrant workers will also work just as hard as UK citizens, for less money. This leads to the laying-off of UK workers in their favour. For example, Irish Ferries recently fired half of its workforce to replace them with Latvians. Hence there is increased unemployment of pre-existing residents, and less of the positive multiplier effect of people being employed since the employees now earn less. All of this is not to damn immigration, but merely to mention, without bent or bias, a handful of factual adverse effects of mass immigration.
4. Benefits to Latvia are essentially those applying to individual Latvians – better salaries (which can be sent home or saved, to attain a better quality of life), even for less skilled work than that which they could undertake in Latvia, good quality education if they come for study and attend one of our better universities, and, indirectly, improved working conditions at home: a deficit of labour leads to higher wages. Although these have not been high enough to stop the emigration, they are certainly beneficial to the workers remaining. However, it should be noted that this also leads to inflation, so the benefit is mitigated somewhat.
Benefits to the UK are surprisingly significant. For example, it has been said that we need seven million more immigrants to survive, given our ageing population. Only they can generate enough production in this country to prop up our elderly.
There are also smaller-scale benefits, if morally dubious ones, for our industry and business. Migrant workers will accept less money for the same jobs as pre-existing citizens would, as mentioned earlier. This can be of benefit to the companies employing them, since with the same revenue but decreased costs their profit margins increase.
I have found an interesting-looking paper on effects on Latvia of its migration patterns too involved to sample here but that I would like to use in extending this project. “Migration from Latvia Post EU Enlargement: Causes and Consequences” by Charles Woolfson, University of Glasgow and University of Latvia, looks to be most informative.
All of this could be extended a great deal, and I would also want to look into effects on teenagers/youth in some depth. Vox pops and interviews could centre on people’s opinions of current immigration and its effects, their awareness of its true scale, and what they would do about it if they had the power. MEPs could be asked to comment on migration quotas (to bring in/tighten/make more lax?) and criteria (fair/unfair/necessary/unnecessary?), adverse and positive effects of migration, etc.