Sociology

Net immigration  i.e., total number of immigrants minus the total number of emigrants  is considered to be a chief factor contributing significantly to UKs expanded population. The beginning of 1990s saw UKs net immigration figures posting an influx of less than 100,000 people per year. By 2006 however, the same has exceeded an influx of 300,000 persons. Without net immigration, UKs population will decline. This pattern is, in fact, already observable in many western countries nowadays.

This essay explains why the advantages of immigration do not outweigh its disadvantages. Specifically, the study shall be narrowed to focus on employment rates and job vacancies as indicative of an economys present standing. Focus will be given on highlighting the effect of net immigration in UK. Yet similar incidences palpable in EU and the United States shall be cited as well, if to show that a long history of immigration can provide reliable statistical data on the effect of immigration to an economy.

Net Immigrations Impact on Economy
Legrain (2007) believes that the primary benefit of net immigration lies in most immigrants willingness to take the jobs which natives are unwilling to do. Yet it appears that the most powerful contribution it renders in an economy is the creation of newer jobs, owing primarily from an increased demands of goods and services because of an increased population. That is to say, these immigrants will make use of public transportation, buy food for daily consumption, go out and dine in restaurants perhaps, or not buy clothes, as well as a decent shelter. Business enterprises are thereby necessitated to produce goods and services demanded by immigrants, and thus are able to employ high-, mid- and low skilled workers in the process. In simple terms, immigration stimulates a countrys employment rate  i.e., the percentage of labour force that is employed (TheFreeDictionary 2010).

Legrain also mentions that several studies point to the fact that that immigrants contribute very less harm on the economy, specifically in the allocating jobs for natives. Even in a recession, argues Legrain (2007), immigrants do not cost jobs. They are still consumers who create jobs for others, and they will still do work that others refuse to do (p.139).The author claims that several immigrants act as entrepreneurs in creating jobs for other people. One example which can be cited is the Silicon Valley in the United States, where approximately 40 percent of the companies are either owned or operated by immigrants of Chinese and Indian origins. From such standpoint, one can clearly argue that net immigration does not spell negative effects on employment rates. To the contrary, it delivers positive implication, especially when one considers its ability to bring different skills and educational background to complement, and not to supplant, native workforce. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, having quoted by Best, Griffiths, et. al (2008), expresses the same sentiment in 2004, when he said that there is a need for labours to cover available job positions in the market. There are half a million vacancies in our job market, say Best, Griffiths, et. al., and our strong and growing economy needs migration to fill this vacancies (2008, p 33). The table below indicates the job vacancies, measured in thousands, in UK during a period of six years (Best, Griffiths, et. al. 2008).

Herein, two propositions can be raised. First, the graph challenges the idea of Tony Blair in saying that recent immigration in the UK has reduced the amount of job vacancies in the job market. Second, the table strengthens the idea that the number of job vacancies in the market has remained relatively unchanged despite an increase of nearly 300,000 in net immigration recorded in 2006, further showing that vacancies are merely indicative of exceed in demands against availability of workers who are willing to perform the job. Whilst therefore net immigration may be considered as an issue, Best, Griffith, et. al. nonetheless argue that this is a sign of healthy economy (2008 p 5).

Coleman and Rowthorn (2004), for their part, claim that the employment rate of locals in the entire UK has decreased as a result of immigration. As a matter of fact, the authors argue that a 10 increase in immigration causes local unemployment of 2-6. In particular, Coleman and Rowthorn (2004) believe that a wider flexible job market  i.e., where it is easier to hire-and-fire workers independent of ethnic background, as well as, without reprisals from unions or job defenders  can result to a significant reduction in unemployment among locals. This contention stems from an observation that, in some countries, where flexible job market is not observed, and immigrants are said to be fired easier rather compared to locals, there is a tendency to hire immigrants instead of natives. Whilst immigration may generate insecurity from among the local people, owing from the completion of employment positions up for grabs, UK has, just the same, sustained job vacancies over the years.
Furthermore, Coleman and Rowthorn (2004) clarify that the commonly held view that immigrants are needed insofar as they take the jobs which locals are unwilling to take is misleading, if not all together false. The reality is that there are very few unskilled immigrants in UK nowadays they can be employed side-by-side the locals. Local people therefore, as a result, are more unlikely to resist concerning themselves with low-levelled jobs, characterized by far-from-ideal working conditions and low salaries. Herein, the issue is not that employers must hire immigrants instead of locals, but that they must improve working conditions so as to fill the gaps generated by vacancies in employment.

Kemnitz (2003), meanwhile, makes mention that a percentage increase in net immigration effectively decreases UK  specifically in 2002  unemployment by 1 percent. This is, by far, a better indication compared to the data of other countries. The table (Coleman and Rowthorn 2004) below presents the point being contended.

The table shows the relative changes being effected in respect to the employment of the natives when a percentage increase in immigrants share in labour force is observed. But as a general observation, Kerr and Kerr (2008) maintain that immigrants have lower employment rates in most of Europe than natives, and that the employment rates of immigrants seldom reach the same levels with that of the natives the exception being UK immigrants, as well as Nordic immigrants in Sweden who are more likely to be assimilated within the workforce than any country outside Europe.
In view of the foregoing, it would appear that despite the promise which immigrants bring into the economy of a country, particularly UK, there is still an enduring discrepancy between the employment as against the unemployment rate between natives on the one hand and immigrants on the other hand. This is given evidence by the table below, which presents the relatively high unemployment of immigrants compared to locals in UK.

It is palpable, based on the table presented hereinabove, that the unemployment rate of immigrants in UK, in juxtaposition with that of the natives, manifests striking discrepancies. And yet, this figure fare considerably well than the figures in other countries outside UK. Kerr and Kerr (2008) illustrate the point in reference to the table below.

The table provides the high rate of unemployment rate of immigrants compared to locals. EU(27), in fact, suffers an 8.3 unemployment rate in 2009 (The European Commission 2010) UK, on the other hand, maintained the same within the 7.1 level. Thus, whilst there is a need to further strengthen governmental efforts to bring down unemployment in UK, the fact that UK still maintains a respectable level of unemployment rate for both immigrants and natives, is an accomplishment in itself.

Brief Summary and Conclusion
In sum, this paper delved on the issue of net immigration in a positive light. First, it was argued, along with Legrain, that immigration creates new jobs on account of rising demands for goods and services. Legrain was moreover quoted in arguing that, despite the heavy influx of immigrant in 2006, job vacancies have remained virtually the same. Next, it was also contended by Coleman and Rowthorn, that immigration may improve working conditions, but can also sparks fierce competition in favour of the natives. It was also seen that immigrants are likewise skilled inasmuch as the native workforce. Local unemployment however, Kerr and Kerr argue, tends to increase by 2-6 in direct proportion to a 10 immigration rate. But it was argued in the end that, whilst there is a discrepancy in employment rate in favour of the natives, UK has nonetheless kept the unemployment rate of immigrants at a measly 12.

It is therefore concluded that, after having presented the facts and arguments hereinabove, the advantages of net immigration in UK do not outweigh its disadvantages.