Net migration figures released.

[brad465]

The hotly-anticipated migration figures are in for 2022, which while lower than the predicted 700k, are still a record 606,000. If Brexit has allowed us to have greater control of borders, the Government are doing a fantastic job of not allowing this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832

Net migration added 606,000 people to UK’s population in 2022​

The official figures have just dropped - net migration added 606,000 people to the UK’s population in 2022, the highest number on record.
Stay with us as we unpack the new migration data and bring you the latest reaction and analysis.

The reality is for as long as we go with this pyramid scheme economic model, and have low domestic birth rates, high immigration is going to happen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is there data for how those numbers break down by the type of visa issued?

 

[brad465]

Is there data for how those numbers break down by the type of visa issued?

The spreadsheet underneath 'year ending 2022', via this link, has a summary table. For the latest year it gives a net change of -4,000 for UK Nationals, -51,000 for EU Nationals, and +662,000 for non-EU nationals.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The reality is for as long as we go with this pyramid scheme economic model, and have low domestic birth rates, immigration is going to happen.

The young looking after the old is not a Ponzi scheme.

As for immigration, I’d be interested to know what visa categories are used the most.

I also really do question the idea that immigration is bad. There’s a lot of focus on student immigration at the minute. It’s now apparently bad that students bring their families with them. But students a) put huge sums of money into the economy and b) have to be completely financially self-sufficient. International students will pay huge fees to be here (as an example, a non-UK Law undergrad student will pay fees of £21,600 a year at Newcastle). Cut these student numbers and “home” students (and the taxpayer) will need to pay more. Why would anyone cut their nose off to spite their face?

 

[najaB]

Why would anyone cut their nose off to spite their face?

Where have you been for the last thirteen years?

 

[DC1989]

The young looking after the old is not a Ponzi scheme.

As for immigration, I’d be interested to know what visa categories are used the most.

I also really do question the idea that immigration is bad. There’s a lot of focus on student immigration at the minute. It’s now apparently bad that students bring their families with them. But students a) put huge sums of money into the economy and b) have to be completely financially self-sufficient. International students will pay huge fees to be here (as an example, a non-UK Law undergrad student will pay fees of £21,600 a year at Newcastle). Cut these student numbers and “home” students (and the taxpayer) will need to pay more. Why would anyone cut their nose off to spite their face?

So there's a few things with the student issue -

Firstly - many people say 'oh it's just student's, they come and then they will leave' - this is accounted for in the figures released each year 'net migration' so it includes the students from previous years who left

Secondly - For many people the student visa is just a way to gain entry to the UK. Once you have completed your masters (9 months in the UK vs 2 years most other countries) you can stay and work for 2 years - more than enough to find a job, once you are in that job you can simply transfer to a normal working visa and then after 3 years you can stay forever. Studying for the masters is simply a means to an end to gain entry.

Thirdly - I believe the wage needed to earn to gain a working visa is just 23k. You can come and a do a masters in data science and then get a job in Lidl and in a relatively short time have leave to remain. Of course then you can starting brining your extended family over

During the Brexit referendum there was lots of evidence that communities from outside the EU were very pro brexit - because they saw it as a way that immigration from their home countries could increase once EU nationals stopped coming in. I pointed this out to many of my friends who voted for Brexit due to mainly immigration reasons but they just wouldn't believe it. It gives me no great pleasure to have been telling them 'I told you so' recently

 

[ainsworth74]

Secondly - For many people the student visa is just a way to gain entry to the UK. Once you have completed your masters (9 months in the UK vs 2 years most other countries) you can stay and work for 2 years - more than enough to find a job, once you are in that job you can simply transfer to a normal working visa and then after 3 years you can stay forever. Studying for the masters is simply a means to an end to gain entry.

How terrible. Someone comes over here, gains a higher level qualification and then stays and works paying taxes and spending money in our economy. Terrible state of affairs

 

[DC1989]

How terrible. Someone comes over here, gains a higher level qualification and then stays and works paying taxes and spending money in our economy. Terrible state of affairs

Whether it's terrible or not is down to each one's own politics. I'm just pointing out that many students DO stay (As I've read alot of assumptions from folk that they come, pay for uni for a year then leave, which isn't true)

Let's not forgot, the government has won the last 4 elections on the back of promising to get net migration from outside Europe to the 'tens of thousands'

 

[ainsworth74]

Let's not forgot, the government has won the last 4 elections on the back of promising to get net migration from outside Europe to the 'tens of thousands'

Which, considering the track record, is quite an impressive feat to be fair to them. Would love to know what their secret is that means they can manage to persuade that "We said we'd reduce migration, something you're keen on, and guess what its reaching record high levels but you should still vote for us because we'll reduce migration despite the evidence of the past decade!" is a good reason to vote for them.

 

[MikeWM]

During the Brexit referendum there was lots of evidence that communities from outside the EU were very pro brexit - because they saw it as a way that immigration from their home countries could increase once EU nationals stopped coming in. I pointed this out to many of my friends who voted for Brexit due to mainly immigration reasons but they just wouldn't believe it. It gives me no great pleasure to have been telling them 'I told you so' recently

But the difference is that the government now has the ability to control the numbers to be whatever it decides it wants to be. The fact that net immigration has actually increased is now a political decision by the government to issue that number of visas etc. rather than something out of their control.

Those who voted for Brexit on the basis of reducing immigration may well not like the practical results, but it is now a policy that can now be changed by either a change in government policy, or a change of government. (Though I agree that while birth rates of UK nationals are well below 'replacement' numbers, no government is actually likely to dramatically cut net immigration, lest we end up like Japan).

On a related note, there was a good bit of expectation management going on here, first by leaking the 'about a million' figure a week or two back, then it was 800,000, then 700,000, and the real figure we now know being a little over 600,000. Even cynical old me seems to have fallen for that one, mentioning the 'almost a million' figure on here last week. I really should know better.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Secondly - For many people the student visa is just a way to gain entry to the UK. Once you have completed your masters (9 months in the UK vs 2 years most other countries) you can stay and work for 2 years - more than enough to find a job, once you are in that job you can simply transfer to a normal working visa and then after 3 years you can stay forever. Studying for the masters is simply a means to an end to gain entry.

People coming here, putting a load of cash into the economy and then staying here paying taxes. Terrible. Should be banned.

Sarcasm aside, it comes back to my original question: what is wrong with this anyway (and this is a general question, not directed at you)?

Thirdly - I believe the wage needed to earn to gain a working visa is just 23k. You can come and a do a masters in data science and then get a job in Lidl and in a relatively short time have leave to remain. Of course then you can starting brining your extended family over

It’s actually £26,200, or the “going rate” for the sector if this is higher, and you need to be working for an approved employer and in an approved sector. Shelf-stackers are not an approved sector, although store managers are.

 

[ainsworth74]

But the difference is that the government now has the ability to control the numbers to be whatever it decides it wants to be. The fact that net immigration has actually increased is now a political decision by the government to issue that number of visas etc. rather than something out of their control.

Those who voted for Brexit on the basis of reducing immigration may well not like the practical results, but it is now a policy that can now be changed by either a change in government policy, or a change of government. (Though I agree that while birth rates of UK nationals are well below 'replacement' numbers, no government is actually likely to dramatically cut net immigration, lest we end up like Japan).

It is quite amusing in some respects. This is precisely what we promised. A points based migration system which would allow us to control our borders. I suppose the issue is that politicians were happy for people to assume that "control our borders" was shorthand for "reduce migration to historic lows" and then not worry about how those people might feel when it turns out "control our borders" only meant that.

On a related note, there was a good bit of expectation management going on here, first by leaking the 'about a million' figure a week or two back, then it was 800,000, then 700,000, and the real figure we now know being a little over 600,000. Even cynical old me seems to have fallen for that one, mentioning the 'almost a million' figure on here last week. I really should know better.

Agreed, my reaction was "Oh, that's not that many is it?" which I imagine was precisely the point of saying "about a million" earlier.

 

[Sm5]

How terrible. Someone comes over here, gains a higher level qualification and then stays and works paying taxes and spending money in our economy. Terrible state of affairs

Perhaps the OP would prefer they come, spend their money on a masters degree and start picking fruit ?

A nation of Masters degree educated people doesnt sound like a bad problem to have myself.

 

[jon0844]

If they stop foreign students coming as a result of changes to visas and conditions, the universities will have a word and stop it. If rich foreigners, including children of very important people, don't come then the standing of our universities will be eroded - and just make us as a country less and less significant in the world scene.

Some Brexiteers might love this, but fail to realise that if we become as isolated as they want then we're really going to struggle, and it will be even less true than it already is that everyone else needs us more than we need them.

I think the modern phrase is f-around and find out.

 

[Sm5]

Whether it's terrible or not is down to each one's own politics. I'm just pointing out that many students DO stay (As I've read alot of assumptions from folk that they come, pay for uni for a year then leave, which isn't true)

Let's not forgot, the government has won the last 4 elections on the back of promising to get net migration from outside Europe to the 'tens of thousands'

A country with no immigration also means its stagnant.

its idealistic to think you can have a 1 in 1 out policy at the door.

if the country is growing economically, it will attract immigrants, as much as the economy will need them across all roles to both accomodate them, and the industries thats growing the economy.

similarly it will shrink when the economy goes into reverse.

Last year was an odd year, we had the Afghan exit, Ukraine refugees and Hong Kong immigration (lets not forget Hong Kong immigration are those who were born in a country which was part of the UK at that time.. ”they” are “us”).

Germanys immigration last year will be whopping compared to ours… Polands immigration last year is greater than some small countries entire population.

Whats missing from this story is EU citizens leaving.. the number is in reverse. Thats a sign of our hostile anti-EU stance, nothing more nothing less..more Europeans are leaving than arriving, despite having the rights to stay post Brexit… obviously they see no future here and a better future back in the EU… to me thats the real story.
The
But lets not stop headlines from journalism.

What the anti-immigration lobby will be appeased with is easy targets… last year was a covid rebalance, with additional global events… I would suspect next year will deflate naturally and considerably, by doing nothing… but of course Tories will seize on that as “look see what we did”… so i’ll suspect this headline will be allowed to roll to political high capital this year which can be cashed in next year… so the various “anti”-xxxx groups will feel like they gained something and might vote tory again.

 

[telstarbox]

Does Brexit mean that the emigration side of the 'net' figure is going down because people can't retire to France or Spain as easily?

 

[ainsworth74]

(lets not forget Hong Kong immigration are those who were born in a country which was part of the UK at that time.. ”they” are “us”)

Worth noting that that isn't necessarily the case. The British National (overseas) visa programme for Hong Kong applies also to children born on or after 1 July 1997 of a BNO holder, which is after the handover of power. To be clear, I'm happy that we're making it possible for many Hong Kong people to come to the UK but just thought it worth clarifying that the scheme is slightly wider than just people who were British subjects prior to the handover.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The British National (overseas) visa programme for Hong Kong applies also to children born on or after 1 July 1997 of a BNO holder, which is after the handover of power.

True, but they’re the immediate descendants of people who were British subjects, and citizenship can usually be passed on.

I hold dual citizenship because my parents were economic migrants to Australia in the early 1980s. So to start with I don’t see an issue with moving to another country to seek a better life. They returned to the UK
as it didn’t quite work out- it was a long way in the mid-80s when a return plane ticket was £1000 in 1980s money- but still.

And, happily, because I hold dual citizenship then so do my two daughters. No doubt I’ll regret this when they bugger off to Sydney for uni and never come back…

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The young looking after the old is not a Ponzi scheme.

No, young looking after the old doesn't make a Ponzi scheme. But bringing in more people, thereby growing the population in order to look after the old very much is akin to a Ponzi scheme: Because, what happens when the people you've brought in grow old? You bring in more people and grow the population again to look after them? And then again for the next generation? We can't sustain unlimited population growth, either in the UK or in the World as a whole.

I also really do question the idea that immigration is bad. There’s a lot of focus on student immigration at the minute. It’s now apparently bad that students bring their families with them. But students a) put huge sums of money into the economy and b) have to be completely financially self-sufficient. International students will pay huge fees to be here (as an example, a non-UK Law undergrad student will pay fees of £21,600 a year at Newcastle). Cut these student numbers and “home” students (and the taxpayer) will need to pay more. Why would anyone cut their nose off to spite their face?

I don't think there's any widespread idea that immigration per se is bad: That looks like a strawman to me. The issue is that there's only a certain level of immigration that any society can sustain - in terms of infrastructure, social cohesiveness, rate of being able to find more land to build on, etc. Immigration is great up to that point, but once you've exceeded that level, more immigration starts to do more harm than good.

Of course there's going to be a lot of subjectivity and scope for argument about what the sustainable level actually is - and to some extent, it'll depend on how good the Government is at building infrastructure. However I'd note that through most of the 2000's and 2010's, when typical net migration was 200K-300K a year, that was already causing a lot of infrastructure issues and anguish amongst communities that were seeing rapid changes in the their population, so there's probably at least a reasonable argument that the long term sustainable level is less than that figure.

 

[Wynd]

Cracking job with Brexit eh?!

Lets not forget the wonderous images of BREAKING POINT!

EU referendum: George Osborne compares Ukip ‘breaking point’ migration poster to Nazi propaganda

SUMMARY

www.telegraph.co.uk

Tell me, which part of Brexit has delivered its promised benefits? Any of it? Anything whatsoever?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The spreadsheet underneath 'year ending 2022', via this link, has a summary table. For the latest year it gives a net change of -4,000 for UK Nationals, -51,000 for EU Nationals, and +662,000 for non-EU nationals.

Thanks! So, looking at the spreadsheet: Total (non-EU) immigration was 900K. To get down to sustainable levels, we probably need to half that figure (assuming emigration remains the same and net EU migration remains about zero).

The breakdown for 2022 appears to be:

• 235K Work: 127K coming to work, bringing 108K dependents
• 361K Study: 276k students, bringing 85K dependents
• 51K Family - that'll be mainly people coming to live with husbands or wives etc.
• 52K Hong Kong
• 114K Ukraine
• 248K Other humanitarian or asylum granted

(And a small number of 'other' - I'm not sure what that is).

Of those: Ukraine is likely to be a temporary thing that we can ignore when thinking about long term trends, and the work and especially study categories are probably inflated because of pent up demand from Covid - some of those will be people who would've come in 2020 or 2021 but couldn't because of lockdown, but it's largely guesswork how many. But from that, I imagine a reasonable guesstimate would be that the underlying long term total rate is more like 700K than 900K, so the Govenment needs to find a way to knock another 200K off the figures to get migration to sustainable (and politically acceptable) levels.

On basic humanitarian grounds, I doubt you can significantly touch the family or humanitarian routes, so we're looking at work and study. That might partly explain the Government's recent decision to restrict students' rights to bring dependents to research-based postgrad students. But students are almost certainly the most beneficial form of migration to the UK: They pay vast sums to study, and at the end of that time they either stay doing very highly skilled jobs or return home, very often taking something of Western cultural/democratic traditions and some affection for the UK with them - which in the long term is good for security and spreading human rights etc. So personally I'd be very reluctant to restrict students in any way. That leaves us with work-related immigration - which is presumably mostly people coming to do jobs for which employers can't find British people trained and willing to do them. That looks to me like a very good argument for doing more to sort out our labour market and do more training etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

On basic humanitarian grounds, I doubt you can significantly touch the family or humanitarian routes, so we're looking at work and study. That might partly explain the Government's recent decision to restrict students' rights to bring dependents to research-based postgrad students. But students are almost certainly the most beneficial form of migration to the UK: They pay vast sums to study, and at the end of that time they either stay doing very highly skilled jobs or return home, very often taking something of Western cultural/democratic traditions and some affection for the UK with them - which in the long term is good for security and spreading human rights etc. So personally I'd be very reluctant to restrict students in any way. That leaves us with work-related immigration - which is presumably mostly people coming to do jobs for which employers can't find British people trained and willing to do them. That looks to me like a very good argument for doing more to sort out our labour market and do more training etc.

Funnily enough we're in agreement (mostly, I think we need to touch the humanitarian routes, but just so that we actually have some beyond the very specific routes for Ukraine for instance) for once! I really wish that some politicians, particularly on the Tory side of the equitation (what with them being in Government at the moment) would admit that a lot of the migration is actually extremely important to the UK but if we want to get the numbers of people down just saying "we want to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands" isn't going to do it. It will take some decisions being made and some time (nurses don't grown on trees for instance and a lot of work based migration is for healthcare settings).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Funnily enough we're in agreement (mostly, I think we need to touch the humanitarian routes, but just so that we actually have some beyond the very specific routes for Ukraine for instance) for once! I really wish that some politicians, particularly on the Tory side of the equitation (what with them being in Government at the moment) would admit that a lot of the migration is actually extremely important to the UK but if we want to get the numbers of people down just saying "we want to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands" isn't going to do it. It will take some decisions being made and some time (nurses don't grown on trees for instance and a lot of work based migration is for healthcare settings).

We're probably even more in agreement than that: Like you, I also would in principle like to have better, legal, humanitarian routes for asylum seekers. The problem is that I can't figure out how that could work in practice - because you will always hit the issue that, if you make it much easier to claim asylum, then vastly more people with legitimate cases will do so. And if immigration levels were already unsustainably high before you made claiming asylum easier, then you've just created an even bigger problem

 

[PeterC]

How terrible. Someone comes over here, gains a higher level qualification and then stays and works paying taxes and spending money in our economy. Terrible state of affairs

Paying taxes and NI is a slippery slope. They end up being entitled to the benefits that they have paid for such as health care.

 

[Ianigsy]

Does Brexit mean that the emigration side of the 'net' figure is going down because people can't retire to France or Spain as easily?

And not just retirement either.

The whole point of EU freedom of movement was that the most successful countries would pick up the slack from those who had a surplus of labour. It also meant that companies didn’t move their production to the countries with the lowest labour costs.

The UK probably always was a more attractive option than other countries for many migrants because they already had enough English to work as a cleaner or doing a repetitive job in a factory. The problem is that there are structural problems in our economy and society which aren’t readily solved and nobody knows how the changes in society post 2016 are going to pan out long term.

 

[XAM2175]

True, but they’re the immediate descendants of people who were British subjects, and citizenship can usually be passed on.

Yes. For clarity's sake, the carve-out was necessary in this case because British National (Overseas) status cannot be transmitted by descent.