Large scale immigration does not have economic benefits

(Robert Rowthorn,Prof. of economics,Kings College,Cambridge.)
(The Weekly Telegraph,5.7.06-11.7.06,p.20)

The British Governments’ claims about large scale immigration generating large-scale economic benefits for the existing population is false.

Prof. Rowthorn “has examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration” and there is no evidence from any of them that the Governments’ claim about the benefits of large scale immigration is anything but false,“Immigration can’t solve the pension’s crisis,nor solve the problem of an ageing population.  It can only at most delay the day of reckoning,because immigrants themselves grow old and they need pensions.”  “Large numbers of unskilled immigrants benefit the nanny- and the house cleaner-using classes:it benefits employers who want to pay low wages but it does not benefit indigenous unskilled Britons who have to compete against immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant working conditions.”

The British Labour Party,which still insists that it is the party of the poor and vulnerable endorses a policy the purpose of which is the creation of what Marx called “a reserve army of labour” the existence of which will drive down wages of the unskilled work force in the U.K.  Only 10% of migrants to England are asylum-seekers and refugees.  Most permanent immigration consists of people who are economic migrants together with their dependants many of whom will not work.

In 2004 223,000 more people migrated into the U.K. than left it and David Blunkett when Home Secretary announced there was “no natural limit” to the numbers of immigrants Britain could absorb.  An expected increase of 12 million by 2046.

Where do the Australian governing class stand on this issue?