While the UK migration may have been net outflow in the past - ie in times
of imperialism - there have been substantial benefits both of this outflow
as it subsequently provided markets and manpower for wars etc plus of the
inflow in providing stimulus.

In some countries, emigration is a serious problem but historically this
has not IMHO been the source of the loss of UK influence - that has been
more to do with 2 devastating wars and the inevitable rise of more
productive economies due to our inadequate managers and politicians of the
20th century.

The UK - England in particular - has benefitted not only from immigration
but also in the longer term view from exporting people, culture (well
poltical systems and liberal economics are sorts of culture) and language
(with a little help from former colonies) around the world.

Isn't it curious that in the recent BBC poll of the Greatest Briton, the
winner was Isambard Kingdom Brunel.  He was the son of a French Hugenot
emigrant who moved to New York after the revolution only to come to
England to build the world's first production line in Portsmouth in 1802
making pulley blocks for the Navy.  Where would we have been without him?

Long may migration carry on, also spracht ein old fogey.

John

John Logsdon                               "Try to make things as simple
Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK         as possible but not simpler"
[log in to unmask]              [log in to unmask]
+44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675       www.quantex-research.com


On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, John Bibby wrote:

> As is so often the case, this is not really just about numbers.
>
> What seems pefectly clear is:
>         1. Globalisation has increased. (Didn't Marx predict this?)
>         2. People are moving about more - especially the young and economically
> active.
>         3. Old fogeys don't always like this. Nor do others who feel threatened.
>         4. Some immigrants are buggers.
>         5. Others are not.
>         6. There's always a fear that we are losing out to others who are
> younger/more able/richer/more beautiful/slyer than us.
>         7. Some countries have net-inflow. Others have net-outflow.
>         8. The UK has been net out-flow for centuries. Right now we may be in-flow.
>         9. Race matters. (for some more than others)
>         10. Counting is difficult.
>
> Would anyone care to add to this list? ......#
>
>
> JOHN BIBBY
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email list for Radical Statistics
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Spicker
> > Sent: 24 August 2004 11:38
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Migration Watch
> >
> >
> > Thanks to John Barker for the provenance of the figure of 153,000.  It
> > doesn't alter the basic criticisms of Migration Watch's figures.  Their
> > numbers don't add up.  There is liberal rounding up - 233,000 becomes
> > "nearly 250,000", 153,000 has 50,000 added for illegal
> > immigration, and 5.9
> > million people become 7.6 million people.  Projections are based on the
> > highest annual figure available: average immigration since 1971 has been
> > less than one-sixth of their projection for the next thirty years.
> > Countervailing trends - like the out-migration of half all in-migrants
> > within five years - are ignored.  There are inconsistent figures used,
> > chosen to show their case in an alarmist light.  The main appeal they make
> > is to the changing cultural and ethnic character of the population through
> > these population flows, which is crudely xenophobic.  This is a political
> > position, not a reasoned appeal to evidence.
> >
> > Both Migration Watch and Gaia Watch  claim that the UK has reached a limit
> > for population density - Gaia Watch refer to the UK's limited "carrying
> > capacity".   This is myth.   At 77,925 square kilometres,  Scotland is the
> > same size as the Czech Republic (78,370 sq km).  Scotland has about five
> > million people at a population density of 65 people per square kilometre;
> > the Czech Republic has 130 people per sq km.  Italy, to take another
> > comparison, has a population density of 193 people per square kilometre.
> > Scotland would need 5 million more people before it reached the
> > same density
> > as the Czech Republic, and 10 million more people before it
> > reached the same
> > population density as Italy.  The problem currently with expanding the
> > population is not the numbers of people per se, the quality of
> > the climate,
> > or the scope for different land use; it is the lack of an
> > adequate economic
> > infrastructure to support it.
> >
> > Paul Spicker
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> > message will go only to the sender of this message.
> > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> > to [log in to unmask]
> > *******************************************************
> >
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
>

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************