A study conducted in a 2-minute pub conversation has concluded that immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 add ‘nothing’ to the UK, in contrast to the recently announced findings of an exhaustive empirical study by academics at University College London.
The focus group of middle-aged middle-of-the-road racists used a range of biased anecdotal evidence and received opinion to reach their conclusion over a pint. “A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems,” said co-author Stan Bellow. “Now, you can conduct a substantial review of statistics going back over a decade like a nerd, or you can just jump straight to the right answer which is that they’re thieving parasites on the British welfare state. Job done.”
Professor Christian Dustmann, who worked on the opposing UCL study, explained that EU migrants tended to have “higher average labour market participation compared with natives” and “lower receipt of welfare benefits”.
“Look, how do you know that?” countered Bellow. “Don’t show me a graph! We already know what we think, unlike these left-wing academics. Bloody statistics, we can do without them.”
“Except for ‘£55 million a day’,” he added. “That’s the only good statistic.”
The UCL study has, however, been criticised for sticking to the realm of facts and overlooking the emotional arguments surrounding the UK’s immigrant debate. “This bunch of dry stats and figures may seem superficially compelling, but it doesn’t help me feel secure when I think about Romanians – who I’ve always been unable to tolerate,” explained Chris Matthews from the pub study.
“It’s all just words and numbers based on the objective reality of the external world – how are we meant to trust that versus base prejudice and gut feeling?” he added. “Look, all I know is that at the end of the day it’s the government’s job to do something about all these immigrants and send them back where they belong.”
Labour were hesitant to be seen to support either study. “Both studies have their contribution to make about whether Labour chooses to be for or against immigration,” said shadow immigration minister David Hanson, carefully. “However, I will say that the system needs to be fair and robust, because that sounds good but is also incredibly vague. I’ll also say that we should have stronger border controls against illegal immigration, which is of course completely irrelevant to this debate. Yep, that should do it.”