6

In a UK panel show, Question Time, a politician says:

However, if you have a country in which the population goes up as a direct result of immigration, what you find is not a shortage of green fields [...] you find a shortage of primary school place, you find a shortage of GP surgeries [...] you find congestion [...] What you find is [...] the general quality of life for the mass of population has gone down.

He goes on to specify immigration in the UK since 1990 as an example.

However, quality of life rankings suggest Britain doesn't have a serious problem with quality of life.

Is there any evidence to support the claim that countries with population growth due to immigration suffer from lowered quality of life standards (e.g. the Human Development Index).

719016
  • 485
  • 2
  • 9
  • 2
    It seems like it would be hard to separate correlation and causation for something like this. Many other things have changed in the UK in the past 25 years, for instance. – Is Begot Dec 12 '14 at 19:14
  • 4
    Immigrants are largely responsible for delicious Indian food, which might be a contributor to British obesity :-) – DJClayworth Dec 12 '14 at 20:04
  • 1
    I seriously doubt that any research of this is possible, first, because quality of life is affected by so many other factors that seriously isolating causality visavi immigration would be immensly difficult on a whole country level; and second because such research would be so politically incorrect that nobody would dare undertake, fund or publish it. – user5341 Dec 12 '14 at 20:40
  • 4
    the pilgrims to America, they brought the measles to the natives. – ratchet freak Dec 12 '14 at 23:12
  • I think "quality of life" varies from person to person: some people may think it's high while others think it's low (e.g. because different people have different lives). Therefore the claim (that quality of life has dropped) may be true for some people and false for others. Therefore I'm voting to close as this topic as "primarily opinion-based". – ChrisW Dec 13 '14 at 00:17
  • 2
    @DVK The question isn't asking to prove causation (between immigration and lowered quality of life), it's only asking for any evidence of correlation (i.e. whether they've ever both happened at the same time). I think that people do study (i.e. measure) both, e.g. the OP suggested that we look at HDI as a proxy measure for "quality of life". Similarly people might measure the few "quality of life" indicators which Farage mentioned in the claim, e.g. number of schools per person, number of doctors, and how crowded the roads are. – ChrisW Dec 13 '14 at 06:44
  • 3
    Number of schools and doctors per person is a poor measure of quality of life when there is a time factor is involved. Improvements in technology means that these you might need less teacher or doctors to provide the same level of education/health service. – Lie Ryan Dec 13 '14 at 10:14
  • @ChrisW Well, there is a trivial correlation. Of course people will immigrate to a country if there's a high quality of life. – Superbest Dec 17 '14 at 06:26
  • The reference to quality of life rankings proves nothing. Whether immigration lowers quality of life is a very separate matter for how different countries compare to each other in quality of life. First, most countries with good QoL have similarly high immigration, and second, you can have your actual QoL decrease without losing your rank. Also, even if QoL is constant over time, it may be that it would have increased if not for immigration. – Superbest Dec 17 '14 at 06:30
  • I would speculate that rather high *emigration* is strongly correlated with a decrease of quality of life. – gerrit Jan 08 '15 at 23:34

2 Answers2

10

The statement provides only two reasonable measure of 'quality of life' - availability of primary school places, and number of doctors per person.

The percentage of children in primary school has remained constant from 1990 to now, since attendance at primary schools is compulsory, and local authorities are mandated to provide them. The number of children not in primary school is limited to those who are illegally prevented from attending by their parents, and the very few who are actually in transition between schools.

The number of physicians per thousand persons in the UK was 1.6 in 1990. In 2014 it was 2.8, an increase of 75%.

Conclusion: The statement is entirely false according to any measurable quantity.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • I expect it's not that simple. If you'll excuse a Daily Mail quote, [Five HUNDRED GP surgeries have closed in just five years as number of patients needing their services has increased](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754036/Five-HUNDRED-GP-surgeries-closed-just-five-years-number-patients-needing-services-increased.html) suggests that the number of surgeries *is* decreasing, as claimed. It's facile to blame that on immigration, but when there's a perception of shortage, etc. – ChrisW Dec 13 '14 at 20:36
  • 1
    I'll excuse a Daily Mail quote if you will excuse me saying "The Daily Mail is a hack-rag that wouldn't know a fact if it bit it on the arm." Seriously, since the number of doctors is increasing, then any shortage of GPs must be due to something other than immigration. – DJClayworth Dec 13 '14 at 21:31
  • 1
    One thing here: The number of surgeries closing does not necessarily correlate with lowered availability of care. In the US smaller practices have been on a slow decline for years in favor of practices with many doctors. It's just an economy of scale thing - 10 docs sharing office staff is less total overhead per doc than if they each have their own staff. – Michael Kohne Dec 13 '14 at 23:14
  • 3
    I think you have successfully shown that **in the UK** and **by these two measures**, his early statement is false. It may still be the case that his later vague statement about Quality of Life is correct, and it may be the case that there is still a correlation of these factors across all countries. (I see this as more of a problem with the question than your answer, though.) – Oddthinking Dec 13 '14 at 23:42
  • @MichaelKohne That's true, however also, "the number of doctors increasing does not necessarily correlate with increased availability of GP care". Also, depending on your geographical location, and depending on your health condition etc., care might become more available for some people while less available for others (for example https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/WheredidalltheGPsgo.pdf says that geographical distribution is becoming less equitable). IMO it's also facile to say that the **average** has improved and conclude that, that proves that the claim is **wholly** false. – ChrisW Dec 13 '14 at 23:54
  • 1
    @ChrisW - actually, I think the best we can say is that 'these numbers tell us not a blessed thing'. Because they don't give anything resembling a real clue as to whether the situation on the ground is getting better or worse. – Michael Kohne Dec 14 '14 at 01:53
  • There are also children who do not attend school because they have behavioural problems and no school (including special schools) will take them. – gerrit Jan 08 '15 at 23:29
2

I think for the purpose of this question, a country with extremely high immigration rates compared to the UK would be better for illustrating the effects of immigration.

In 1990, Singapore had 10% of its population as immigrants who did not possess permanent resident status or above. In 2012, this has risen to around 30%. Compared to the UK (at 13%), Singapore has had a far greater amount of immigration.

In the meantime, Singapore's HDI has risen from 0.75 to 0.9. Other metrices show more or less the same trend of a vastly improving quality of life, which was strongly correlated with the increase in immigrant number.

Interestingly, there has been increased numbers of people campaigning to restrict immigration in Singapore in recent years, just like the UK. I cannot help but be reminded of #firstworldproblems.

March Ho
  • 18,688
  • 12
  • 81
  • 109
  • 2
    It's an interesting comparison; the main issue I see with it is that you are talking about correlation, not causation. How do we know the better quality of life did not cause a surge in immigration? – P_S Dec 14 '14 at 09:25
  • As already stated in the comments, we cannot easily separate correlation and causation, especially since migrants are strongly attracted to highly developed countries. However, it can be seen that even if migrants do cause a decrease in quality of life, their effect must be rather minimal in comparison, given the large numbers of migrants in Singapore. – March Ho Dec 14 '14 at 09:42
  • Another question is, what kind of immigration happens in Singapour? There's major difference in the kinds of immigrants allowed into UK (mostly Muslims from poor countries, many poorly educated), USA (mostly Latinos from poor countries, many poorly educated), and Canada (or for that matter, ironically, Mexico) where only those who are more educated and likely to contribute to economy are allowed in. – user5341 Dec 15 '14 at 20:42
  • At the moment, a majority of the immigrants are relatively unskilled labourers from India/Bangladesh and China who work manual jobs (eg construction), so the issue is not unlike that in the UK. – March Ho Dec 16 '14 at 07:48
  • I'm not aware of evidence from the claim that immigrants to the UK are "mostly Muslims from poor countries, many poorly educated". I especially doubt whether it's true for recent (e.g. "since 1990") immigration. – ChrisW Dec 17 '14 at 10:39
  • @ChrisW: The Beeb says that the top 5 countries in terms of arrivals to the UK (May 2013 - April 2014) were China, India, Poland, United States, and Australia, which suggests not. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29594642 – Charles Dec 23 '14 at 15:26
  • @Charles Yes, references like that one suggest it's 'obviously wrong'. I'm sure whether it's just 'obviously wrong' like that, or whether it was also 'completely wrong'. – ChrisW Dec 23 '14 at 17:31
  • @DVK The 19th century immigrants to the USA were mainly Christians from poor countries, mostly poorly educated. And most immigration to the UK is actually from Europe by skilled craftspeople. So although one could split the question based on the background of the immigrants, the conclusion may be the same either way. – gerrit Jan 08 '15 at 23:32
  • @gerrit - 19th century USA didn't have welfare economy; neither did it have post-industrial knowledge economy. On the contrary it had heavy agrarian and industrial sectors, absorbing unskilled labour. Analogy FAIL. – user5341 Jan 09 '15 at 16:12
  • @DVK Undocumented and new migrants don't get welfare either. They make up a higher share of the U.S. labour force than of the U.S. population. It's funny how some xenophobes accuse immigrants of stealing jobs, and others accuse them of relying on welfare (it can't possibly both be true). And what exactly is a "welfare economy"? – gerrit Jan 09 '15 at 16:36
  • @gerrit - leaving aside the fact that (at least in USA) many commit document fraud and DO get welfare, what I was also referring to as "welfare economy" is in addition the fact that they get "free" medical services and "free" education for their kids - both of which absolutely dwarf mere direct welfare payments. In addition, any kids born to illegal aliens in USA (not sure about Europe) become full US Citizens and thus fully eligible to 100% of welfare state bonuses. – user5341 Jan 09 '15 at 16:49
  • @gerrit - Also, (1) if an illegal alien is better problem-solver than you and can figure out that he can both work for cash AND get welfare (or get work on one fake ID and welfare on another), that's a problem of your lack of imagination, NOT a problem of opponents of illegal immigration; and (2) I'd be appreciated if you drop your offensive canard about anyone who disapproves of illegal alien immigration being "xenophobic". – user5341 Jan 09 '15 at 16:51
  • @DVK I don't have figures on medical costs, but educating kids who are likely going to stay in the country is a no-brainer as an investment. As for opposing immigration, I find it mind-boggling that in a country where 99% (or so?) of the population mostly descends from people who immigrated WITHOUT consent from natives, any non-native dare oppose further immigration. (i.e. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/86/ca/ff/86caffa248f5c8d1c76f5219e6b4983e.jpg). To return to the question — is quality of life now higher than before vikings came in ~1000? (But: correlation != causation!). – gerrit Jan 09 '15 at 17:05
  • @gerrit - Long term it may be an investment. Short term, it's a giant money sink, at least for the next 15 years. Also, everyone here is a descendent of non-natives. The "natives" that anti-Western-culture types like to trot out merely took over earlier tribes/cultures, but they are no more innately "native" than anyone else. Just like anglo-saxons aren't native in Britain. – user5341 Jan 09 '15 at 17:12
  • The term "native" is relative. My point is that European immigrants did not seek permission of the established local population for immigration (rather they committed ethnic cleansing, unlike any later immigration wave), yet their descendents do expect that new immigrants require *their* permission. That's a double standard, and a whole lot more recent and legalised than different Native American tribes displacing each other or the anglos displacing others in what is now the UK. Not sure what you mean by anti-Western-culture types — Islamic State and Boko Haram? I'm confused now. – gerrit Jan 09 '15 at 17:43
  • @DVK Also, you're saying that there wasn't any welfare state, but under the homestead act, poor farmer immigrants were given large areas of land almost for free. This continued until 1976 (1986 in Alaska). Although different from todays benefits, it is a massive asset right there. – gerrit Jan 31 '15 at 16:23
  • @gerrit - the special objectionable feature of welfare state isn't that someone gets an **asset** (which was not participating in the economy). It's that someone gets money from **other people**. So no, homestead act as pretty much nothing to do with it – user5341 Feb 01 '15 at 01:03
  • @DVK Those pieces of land *were* participating in the economy. They were in use by the existing population. So, in one case it's a government redistributing land from prior population to immigrant population, in the other case it's a government redistributing money from prior population to (resources for) immigrant population. – gerrit Feb 01 '15 at 03:04
  • @gerrit - Supporting a small tribe of hunter/gatherers isn't exactly what most people consider as "participating in economy". We are discussing economics here, not ethics. – user5341 Feb 02 '15 at 03:42
  • @DVK The native Americans living in the midwest as Euro-Americans arrived were agricultural and quite numerous. They were not hunter-gatherers. Their quality of life was certainly lowered by European immigration, which was what the original post was asking. And no, we are not discussing economics, we are discussing quality of life, which involves more than just economics (genocide is unethical and affects quality of life; it might or might not affect the economy negatively) – gerrit Feb 02 '15 at 16:24