“he years 1991 – 2006 there was a net movement of some 2.3 million people to the UK - only 8% of which came from the new East European members of the EU”1
(SEE PRINTED GRAPH)
Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf
claims that immigration is now 15 times the scale of asylum and that 76% of the population favour caps on immigration.2 states that this is an “unprecedented scale” and that the net migration for 2005 was “292,000”.3
claims that 50,000 illegal immigrants are detected every year but no one knows how many will come in.4 claims to England being twice as crowded as Germany and four times as crowded as Paris.5 points to a 33% increase in the demand for visas, reaching 2.5 million a year.6
Against claims that immigrants bring economic growth affirms (1) that the benefit they bring is basically proportional to the increase in population they provoke. (2) They will not solve the pensions problem, as they themselves will become old (3) drive wages down and encourage British citizens to remain on benefits.7
Problems: (1) resentment amongst native population, shared by majority in ethnic minorities (2) fear that Britain is losing its distinct culture (3) formation of parallel communities with little loyalty to Britain, often at odds with one another, influenced by overseas satellite television (4) Pressure on housing and services (5) changing in the configuration of cities, especially London, claims that in the last decade 600,000 Londoners have left to be replaced by 700,000 immigrants (6) problem of immigration.8
Defends (1) limit on immigration so that those coming in balance those leaving (2) “explicit nation building” to integrate minorities. 9
Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008]
claims that until the 1950s there had been no major immigration into the UK, except from Ireland.10
1996 settlement figure 61,000 2005 figure 179,000.11
claims that the work permit system has become a major avenue for immigration.12
on illegal immigration 2001 Government estimate of between 310,000-570,000 centred on 430,000 with MWUK updating this to 515,000-870,000 centred on 670,000 estimating for asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.13
“Net migration reached a record high of 222,000 in 2004 before falling slightly to 185,000 in 2005. During the 60’s and 70’s emigration generally exceeded immigration and in the 80’s and early 90’s net immigration was generally below 50,000 people a year. Such very high migration into Britain is therefore a new phenomenon. Net non-EU migration to the UK has been rapidly increasing from 44,000 in 1992. In 2004 it reached a new record high level of 268,000. In 2005 it fell to 203,000 reflecting the fact that ten new countries had acceded to the EU in May 2004. There has been a steady net outflow of British citizens during this period - reaching a record high of 120,000 in 2004 before falling slightly to 107,000 in 2005. Net flows of EU citizens into the UK have been modest until recently. The maximum net inflow of citizens of the 15 continental European countries which were EU members before May 2004, in the period 1995 –2004, was 24,000 in 1998 and the maximum net outflow was 35,000 in 2002. This changed with the accession of the 10 countries to the EU in May 2004. The international migration statistics show that a net 49,000 and 65,000 people migrated from the accession countries in 2004 and 2005 respectively bringing total net migration from the EU up to 74,000 and 89,000 in these years. However, net migration from the accession countries only accounts for about 1 in 5 of net foreign immigration in total.”14
claims that the argument that immigrants do the jobs Brits do not want results in the creation of an underclass.15
denies, compared to other countries in Europe, that Britain has a demographic problem.16
“Over half of migrants live in London and the South East and more than 75% of new
migrants are settling there.”17
29% of the population of London consists of ethnic minorities.18
Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008)
Deny that the influx of immigrants is due to globalization but attribute it to government policies.19
1Migrationwatch UK, “2.3 million immigrants come to UK in 16 years” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pressreleases/pressreleases.asp?dt=02-June-2008 [Accessed 3 October 2008]
2Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
3Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
4Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
5Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
6Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
7Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
8Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
9Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 3.
10Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
11Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
12Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
13Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 3.
14Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 3.
15Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
16Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
17Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
18Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 5.
Showing posts with label Mgtuk: London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mgtuk: London. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Migration Watch
points to the different policies of the political parties on immigration.60
main issue is whether contributing to society as a worker for 3-4 years should automatically have a path leading to settlement.61
economic migration (note admittance that most do not migrate for work purposes) may benefit employers, but costly for taxpayers and sectors of the indigenous population.62
contra claims of contribution in taxes claims (1) year used 1999/2000 atypical in terms of overall government surplus (2) ignores costs of immigrants (3) unfair in that it compares young immigrants to an, in average, older indigenous population.63
remittances have a negative effect on foreign exchange.64
claims of immigrant contribution have underestimated their impact on population growth, especially children born in the UK.65 in another paper this is amended, Government treats UK born children of mixed marriages as UK children, MWUK would rather they were treated as half/half.66 Still maintain there is no net benefit when compared to existing population.67
Quotes M Wolffe “The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.”68
note fear of a “Back door” route into the UK, especially through (1) amnesty to illegals in other countries (2) fast access to citizenship/settlement, would prefer 10 years of residence.69
points to London receiving 65% of immigrants.70
complains about the excessive extensions granted to student visas, which it sees as another “back door” into the UK.71
Statistics on Brazilian students (new visas/extensions) 2001: 10700/3395 ....2002: 9700/4635....2003: 8840/753072
claims that with zero net migration only 30% of the current projected homes built on greenfield sites would need to be built.73
Disputes claims by IPPR that granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants would bring in £1 billion a year to the treasury claiming that the cost would actually be of £0.8-1.8 billion a year. Main arguments: 1) IPPR calculations do not include the various public funds that immigrants would have access to 2) IPPR calculations underestimated the number of immigrants but overestimated the number in employment and how much they are earning.74 [note however that MWUK do not factor in the cost of deporting the illegal immigrants]
Outlines the UK Borders Act of 2007, significant for 1) the power of deportation at ports 2) biometric ID for immigrants 3) automatic deportation of foreign criminals.75
suggests that confusion may arise because of changes in terminology.76 Because Home Office is not always able to send Presenting Officers to Immigration Appeals, proposes that judges be allowed a more inquisitorial role.77
“The internationally accepted United Nations definition of a migrant is someone who changes his or
her country of usual residence for a period of at least a year”78
60Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 51–54.
61Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
62Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
63Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
64Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
65Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
66Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
67Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
68Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 9.
69A Green, “Evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) – INQUIRY INTO ECONOMIC MIGRATION TO THE EU” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_8_inquiry_into_economic_migration_to_the_eu.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
70Migrationwatch UK, “Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs on ‘The Economic Impact of Immigration’” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_18_Submission_to_Hof.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
71Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 1.
72Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 2.
73Migrationwatch UK, “The impact of immigration on housing in England” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Housing/7_9_Impact_of_Immigration_on_housing.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
74Migrationwatch UK, “THE TRUE COST OF AN AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_19_True_cost_of_Amnesty.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008].
75H Mitchell, “UK Borders Act 2007” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_21_UK_Borders_Act_07.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008]
76H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
77H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
78Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
main issue is whether contributing to society as a worker for 3-4 years should automatically have a path leading to settlement.61
economic migration (note admittance that most do not migrate for work purposes) may benefit employers, but costly for taxpayers and sectors of the indigenous population.62
contra claims of contribution in taxes claims (1) year used 1999/2000 atypical in terms of overall government surplus (2) ignores costs of immigrants (3) unfair in that it compares young immigrants to an, in average, older indigenous population.63
remittances have a negative effect on foreign exchange.64
claims of immigrant contribution have underestimated their impact on population growth, especially children born in the UK.65 in another paper this is amended, Government treats UK born children of mixed marriages as UK children, MWUK would rather they were treated as half/half.66 Still maintain there is no net benefit when compared to existing population.67
Quotes M Wolffe “The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.”68
note fear of a “Back door” route into the UK, especially through (1) amnesty to illegals in other countries (2) fast access to citizenship/settlement, would prefer 10 years of residence.69
points to London receiving 65% of immigrants.70
complains about the excessive extensions granted to student visas, which it sees as another “back door” into the UK.71
Statistics on Brazilian students (new visas/extensions) 2001: 10700/3395 ....2002: 9700/4635....2003: 8840/753072
claims that with zero net migration only 30% of the current projected homes built on greenfield sites would need to be built.73
Disputes claims by IPPR that granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants would bring in £1 billion a year to the treasury claiming that the cost would actually be of £0.8-1.8 billion a year. Main arguments: 1) IPPR calculations do not include the various public funds that immigrants would have access to 2) IPPR calculations underestimated the number of immigrants but overestimated the number in employment and how much they are earning.74 [note however that MWUK do not factor in the cost of deporting the illegal immigrants]
Outlines the UK Borders Act of 2007, significant for 1) the power of deportation at ports 2) biometric ID for immigrants 3) automatic deportation of foreign criminals.75
suggests that confusion may arise because of changes in terminology.76 Because Home Office is not always able to send Presenting Officers to Immigration Appeals, proposes that judges be allowed a more inquisitorial role.77
“The internationally accepted United Nations definition of a migrant is someone who changes his or
her country of usual residence for a period of at least a year”78
60Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 51–54.
61Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
62Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
63Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
64Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
65Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
66Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
67Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
68Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 9.
69A Green, “Evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) – INQUIRY INTO ECONOMIC MIGRATION TO THE EU” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_8_inquiry_into_economic_migration_to_the_eu.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
70Migrationwatch UK, “Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs on ‘The Economic Impact of Immigration’” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_18_Submission_to_Hof.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
71Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 1.
72Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 2.
73Migrationwatch UK, “The impact of immigration on housing in England” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Housing/7_9_Impact_of_Immigration_on_housing.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
74Migrationwatch UK, “THE TRUE COST OF AN AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_19_True_cost_of_Amnesty.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008].
75H Mitchell, “UK Borders Act 2007” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_21_UK_Borders_Act_07.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008]
76H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
77H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
78Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
Migration Watch
First source of data is the Office of National Statistics International Migration Estimates. This is based on the International Passenger Survey which is a small voluntary sample of migration. Main weaknesses, (1) does not include land entry and smaller airports (2) does not include asylum seekers (3) is based on the declared intention of passengers which is not a clear guide. ONS seeks to correct some of these limitations. 2005 Estimate, net international migration of 185,000.79
Second source is the Settlement Data enumerating those granted indefinite leave to remain.80 Third source of data is the census.81
international migration to places where there are already existing ethnic minorities.82 London preferred area with 750,000 coming between 1993-2002.83 Balanced by the departure of white residents, especially young couples with children; increase in commuting.84 Higher the presence of ethnic minorities, higher the departure of white population.85 Brent white population declined from 136,600 in 1991 to 122,400 in 2001.86 Claims that this process leads to the separation of the white population from the ethnic minorities, and makes the integration of immigrants more difficult.87
2003 18.6% of births to mothers not from UK compared to 12.1% in 1993.88 (reached near 20% in 2004)89Outer London 41%; Brent 65% Greater London 47%90 2004: Births to foreign-born mothers are concentrated in particular areas. In Greater London as a whole the percentage is 49% (Inner London 57%, Outer London 43%) and the following London boroughs have 60% or more of births to foreign-born mothers:
Brent 68%
Camden 61%
Haringey 60%
Kensington and Chelsea 67%
Newham 71%
Tower Hamlets 69%91
MWUK claim that their stance is that immigration policy should reflect UK needs contra IPPR “apparent stance” that social policy should adapt to immigration trends.92
proposes tighter rules to discourage intercontinental marriage.93
“It is relevant to the UK that those granted amnesty in the EU will eventually obtain
documents that will permit them to travel to Britain. In Spain, anyone who has held a
resident permit for ten years can apply for Spanish nationality; for nationals of Latin
American countries and the Philippines, the qualifying period is only two years.”94
“It was also claimed that £4.7 billion would be “saved” by not undertaking their
forced removal. Nobody is suggesting such a course. One might just as well suggest
that we can “save” £100 billion by not sending a man to the moon!”95
Rather than removal suggest (1) stricter control on entry (2) stricter control on labour market (3) use of ID cards to deter from use of NHS and granting children access to school. (does not deal with human rights issue...nor the costs of these stricter controls.)96
79Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1–3.
80Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
81Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
82Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
83Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
84Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
85Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
86Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
87Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 7.
88Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
89Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
90Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
91Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
92Migrationwatch UK, “IPPR Report- Beyond Black and White” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_18_IPPR_report.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
93Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
94Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
95Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
96Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 6.
Second source is the Settlement Data enumerating those granted indefinite leave to remain.80 Third source of data is the census.81
international migration to places where there are already existing ethnic minorities.82 London preferred area with 750,000 coming between 1993-2002.83 Balanced by the departure of white residents, especially young couples with children; increase in commuting.84 Higher the presence of ethnic minorities, higher the departure of white population.85 Brent white population declined from 136,600 in 1991 to 122,400 in 2001.86 Claims that this process leads to the separation of the white population from the ethnic minorities, and makes the integration of immigrants more difficult.87
2003 18.6% of births to mothers not from UK compared to 12.1% in 1993.88 (reached near 20% in 2004)89Outer London 41%; Brent 65% Greater London 47%90 2004: Births to foreign-born mothers are concentrated in particular areas. In Greater London as a whole the percentage is 49% (Inner London 57%, Outer London 43%) and the following London boroughs have 60% or more of births to foreign-born mothers:
Brent 68%
Camden 61%
Haringey 60%
Kensington and Chelsea 67%
Newham 71%
Tower Hamlets 69%91
MWUK claim that their stance is that immigration policy should reflect UK needs contra IPPR “apparent stance” that social policy should adapt to immigration trends.92
proposes tighter rules to discourage intercontinental marriage.93
“It is relevant to the UK that those granted amnesty in the EU will eventually obtain
documents that will permit them to travel to Britain. In Spain, anyone who has held a
resident permit for ten years can apply for Spanish nationality; for nationals of Latin
American countries and the Philippines, the qualifying period is only two years.”94
“It was also claimed that £4.7 billion would be “saved” by not undertaking their
forced removal. Nobody is suggesting such a course. One might just as well suggest
that we can “save” £100 billion by not sending a man to the moon!”95
Rather than removal suggest (1) stricter control on entry (2) stricter control on labour market (3) use of ID cards to deter from use of NHS and granting children access to school. (does not deal with human rights issue...nor the costs of these stricter controls.)96
79Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1–3.
80Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
81Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
82Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
83Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
84Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
85Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
86Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
87Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 7.
88Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
89Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
90Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
91Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
92Migrationwatch UK, “IPPR Report- Beyond Black and White” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_18_IPPR_report.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
93Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
94Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
95Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
96Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 6.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Datta Work
Claims London is increasingly characterised by inequality in the labour market, especially with the expansion of lowly paid jobs occupied by migrants.1 suggest that these migrants keep London going by their presence in the “public reproductive and services sector”2
“The most recent, and perhaps most contested in terms of definition, has been a focus on
transnationalism and transmigration. This approach stresses the interconnections and networks
developed among migrant groups between source and destinations areas and how social, cultural
and economic fields often become transnational in nature”3
Britain “neo-liberal” policies: 1) decline in manufacturing 2) expansion of service industry, both in the banking, finance and creative industries, and in the low paid jobs 3) less secure employment for low paid jobs through subcontracting, agency staffing and temporary employment 4) decline in trade union power 5) creation of a “migrant division of labour”4 London: 1 in 7 workers under £5.8 an hour threshold; 1 in 5 under £6.7 an hour threshold.5
“Many of those in the lower echelons of the labour market are migrants. Indeed, London receives
around one-third of all migrants to the UK and it is estimated that between 1975 and 2000, some
450,000 migrants migrated to London (Hamnett, 2003). Furthermore, many of these migrants were
recent arrivals. Drawing on the latest Labour Survey Force (2002/2003) and the 2001 UK Census,
Spence (2005) notes that out of the 2 million Londoners born outside of the UK, 23% arrived in
this country before 1970, and 45% arrived after 1990. The ethnic profile of migrants is also diverse
with Whites constituting the largest group (40%), followed by Asians (27%) and Blacks (20%).
Also significant is that the majority of London’s migrants come from the Global South (70%), with
India, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan and Kenya providing the largest groups. Migrants
now account for 35% of the working age population and 29% of the total population in the capital
(ibid). Furthermore, these figures do not account for informal workers, including undocumented
migrants, so that the true size of the economically active migrant workforce is likely to be higher
than that reported officially”6
“London migrants have much lower employment rates (65%) than Londoners born in the UK (78%),
although migrants from developing countries show lower employment rates (61%) than those from
developed economies (75%); the latter are more likely to work in professional and managerial
occupations, while the former are concentrated in services and especially the hotel and restaurant
sectors. Moreover, migrants constitute 46% of all workers in typically low-paid ‘elementary’
occupations, such as labourers, postal workers, porters, catering staff and cleaners. People from
Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and South Asia often find it especially hard to
secure well-paid work, even if arriving in the UK with good skills and high level qualifications”7
Migrant acceptance of jobs which do not match their educational qualifications, with nearly half of those sampled having “tertiary level qualifications.”8 often involves a sense of loss of dignity.9
income maximisation achieved through working long hours, including overtime at normal rates of pay, with implications on leisure and family time. Students often forced to exceed the 20 hours limitations on their work.10 extra jobs taken on, especially in catering and cleaning.11 continuous changing between jobs.12 very low up take of state benefits, even in cases where migrants were eligible.13
multi-earner households, and restriction on consumption patterns.14
household sharing and reduction in utility bills.15
use of networks to share information about work, tendency of managers/supervisors to employ workers from a similar background.16 use of networks to share information about housing and cheap consumption patterns.17
ethnic identity and ethnic networks acting as a barrier to encourage a “migrant” identity/solidarity.18
hostility between different ethnic groups, increased with A8 accession.19
“The existence of such exclusion on ethnic based grounds and the existence of fractured or
‘perverse’ social capital potentially undermines the creation of community-based coping strategies
on class-based grounds.”20
“However, despite these divisions, from an organisational point of view, it appears that faith-based
organisations are potentially the most appropriate fora through which trade unions and migrant
groups can organise to address and overcome the exploitative conditions of work in global cities
like London”21
1K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 1.
2K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 1.
3K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 2.
4K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 3–4.
5K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 6.
6K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 7.
7K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 7.
8K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 10.
9K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 11.
10K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 11–12.
11K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 12–13.
12K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 13.
13K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 14–15.
14K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 15–16.
15K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 16–17.
16K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 17.
17K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 18.
18K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 19.
19K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 19–20.
20K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 20.
21K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 22.
“The most recent, and perhaps most contested in terms of definition, has been a focus on
transnationalism and transmigration. This approach stresses the interconnections and networks
developed among migrant groups between source and destinations areas and how social, cultural
and economic fields often become transnational in nature”3
Britain “neo-liberal” policies: 1) decline in manufacturing 2) expansion of service industry, both in the banking, finance and creative industries, and in the low paid jobs 3) less secure employment for low paid jobs through subcontracting, agency staffing and temporary employment 4) decline in trade union power 5) creation of a “migrant division of labour”4 London: 1 in 7 workers under £5.8 an hour threshold; 1 in 5 under £6.7 an hour threshold.5
“Many of those in the lower echelons of the labour market are migrants. Indeed, London receives
around one-third of all migrants to the UK and it is estimated that between 1975 and 2000, some
450,000 migrants migrated to London (Hamnett, 2003). Furthermore, many of these migrants were
recent arrivals. Drawing on the latest Labour Survey Force (2002/2003) and the 2001 UK Census,
Spence (2005) notes that out of the 2 million Londoners born outside of the UK, 23% arrived in
this country before 1970, and 45% arrived after 1990. The ethnic profile of migrants is also diverse
with Whites constituting the largest group (40%), followed by Asians (27%) and Blacks (20%).
Also significant is that the majority of London’s migrants come from the Global South (70%), with
India, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan and Kenya providing the largest groups. Migrants
now account for 35% of the working age population and 29% of the total population in the capital
(ibid). Furthermore, these figures do not account for informal workers, including undocumented
migrants, so that the true size of the economically active migrant workforce is likely to be higher
than that reported officially”6
“London migrants have much lower employment rates (65%) than Londoners born in the UK (78%),
although migrants from developing countries show lower employment rates (61%) than those from
developed economies (75%); the latter are more likely to work in professional and managerial
occupations, while the former are concentrated in services and especially the hotel and restaurant
sectors. Moreover, migrants constitute 46% of all workers in typically low-paid ‘elementary’
occupations, such as labourers, postal workers, porters, catering staff and cleaners. People from
Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and South Asia often find it especially hard to
secure well-paid work, even if arriving in the UK with good skills and high level qualifications”7
Migrant acceptance of jobs which do not match their educational qualifications, with nearly half of those sampled having “tertiary level qualifications.”8 often involves a sense of loss of dignity.9
income maximisation achieved through working long hours, including overtime at normal rates of pay, with implications on leisure and family time. Students often forced to exceed the 20 hours limitations on their work.10 extra jobs taken on, especially in catering and cleaning.11 continuous changing between jobs.12 very low up take of state benefits, even in cases where migrants were eligible.13
multi-earner households, and restriction on consumption patterns.14
household sharing and reduction in utility bills.15
use of networks to share information about work, tendency of managers/supervisors to employ workers from a similar background.16 use of networks to share information about housing and cheap consumption patterns.17
ethnic identity and ethnic networks acting as a barrier to encourage a “migrant” identity/solidarity.18
hostility between different ethnic groups, increased with A8 accession.19
“The existence of such exclusion on ethnic based grounds and the existence of fractured or
‘perverse’ social capital potentially undermines the creation of community-based coping strategies
on class-based grounds.”20
“However, despite these divisions, from an organisational point of view, it appears that faith-based
organisations are potentially the most appropriate fora through which trade unions and migrant
groups can organise to address and overcome the exploitative conditions of work in global cities
like London”21
1K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 1.
2K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 1.
3K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 2.
4K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 3–4.
5K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 6.
6K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 7.
7K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 7.
8K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 10.
9K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 11.
10K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 11–12.
11K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 12–13.
12K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 13.
13K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 14–15.
14K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 15–16.
15K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 16–17.
16K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 17.
17K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 18.
18K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 19.
19K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 19–20.
20K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 20.
21K Datta, C Mcllwaine, Y Evans, J Herbert, J May & J Willis, Work And Survival Strategies among Low-Paid Care Migrants in London, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_3.pdf , 22.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Muir
Hounslow as ethnically diverse, with immigrants tending to occupy different sectors.1
concern for community cohesion built up after riots in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham in 2001.2 concern increased with 9/11 and 7/7; difficulty for government to balance need for security and the damage of intrusive measures.3
London: 2001 census 59.7% declared themselves to be “White British” compared to 89.4% elsewhere.4
Although greater acceptance of cultural diversity in London, lower indicators of social capital.5 reasons (1) high incidence of single person households (2) international and inter-regional migration (3) high rates of residential mobility.6
high incidence of child poverty; income polarisation, competition for social housing, unemployment7
follows Putnam in distinguishing between bonding social capital, which is inward focused, and bridging social capital which is outward focused.8
points to Hounslow as one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in London, whose ethnic population 35% in 2001 is expected to grow to 50% in 2010.9
residential discrimination and rise of extremism in Hounslow although on the whole relatively good relations.10
concern for community cohesion built up after riots in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham in 2001.2 concern increased with 9/11 and 7/7; difficulty for government to balance need for security and the damage of intrusive measures.3
London: 2001 census 59.7% declared themselves to be “White British” compared to 89.4% elsewhere.4
Although greater acceptance of cultural diversity in London, lower indicators of social capital.5 reasons (1) high incidence of single person households (2) international and inter-regional migration (3) high rates of residential mobility.6
high incidence of child poverty; income polarisation, competition for social housing, unemployment7
follows Putnam in distinguishing between bonding social capital, which is inward focused, and bridging social capital which is outward focused.8
points to Hounslow as one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in London, whose ethnic population 35% in 2001 is expected to grow to 50% in 2010.9
residential discrimination and rise of extremism in Hounslow although on the whole relatively good relations.10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
