Poorly considered objections to immigration include:

[]Not enough infrastructure for the increased population

Heathrow Airport has to battle for twenty years for planning permissions. Housing planning permissions take forever. This suggests that NIMBYs are ridiculously dominant,not that infrastructure can't be built.

[]England too overcrowded.

It's all relative. After five years in boarding school in which the dormitory contained one flush toilet and about forty five screened off cubicles,one per student, nothing has seemed overcrowded to me ever since.

On flights over England,one can see that there are vast empty spaces. Those who complain about overcrowding should go there.

[]Some immigrant groups are colonising instead of integrating.

Immigrant families with limited English tend to be ruled by the customs and culture of their country of origin. It may take several generations for them to integrate fully. But what difference does forty to sixty years make?

patrick slattery, Dublin, Ireland

I agree with you Dave, the report said nothing and they have inadequate resources at their disposable to find out the cost to each Britain of migration. It would be impossible to calculate. As far as I'm concerned, its done a massive benefit to the UK and Ireland, the latter especially. The government just hasn't done enough to actually deal with the migration problem that some areas have and hasn't helped the country to deal with it. It's completely wrong. The infrastructure just isn't working and they need to fix it. For immigrants as well as the rest of the country.

I suggest that the HOL educate people that migrants don't contriubute to the current economic slowdown, as many people on these comments seem to think. History reeks a warning in that, blaming these people for the current crisis is very very bad. It's very worrying.

Sarah , Northern Ireland ,

How does such a thoughtful and well argued article result in posters predicting apocalypse and lumping polish plumbers together with Palestinian suicide bombers? Calm down, people, calm down!

Shirley, London,

It is symptomatic of the artificiality of political debate in this country that an article with this heading can appear at this time in a leading publication. We have an island that was already over populated 30 years ago and certainly the most densely populated European country of any size, and one which cannot possibly feed the indigenous population without importing a high percentage of its food. This debate should have taken place 20 or 30 years ago, and if ever there was a case for a referendum in this country it should have taken place then on whether the indigenous population wanted this large influx of aliens, with a thorough prior examination of the costs and benefits. The matter of whether or not we are a member of the EU is altogether trivial in a comparison.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Our sustainable population level is between 17 and 27 million. The larger the number of people who need energy, food , and water , the more likely it is that we will have to engage in resource wars. We actually need to reduce our population size and keep it there or be brazen about what we need to do and the military budget needed to do it.
Economics serves money it does not necessarily serve human happiness.

Alan , Croydon, UK

There are some things more important than simply making money, especially one’s cultural and national identity. Pure capitalism is just as evil as pure communism.

It’s ironic that a so called “socialist government” thinks it OK to sell out the country they are supposedly representing because it’s in “the economic interest”. Doesn’t sound like a socialist argument to me!

Ian, Cambridge,

I respect and admire Daniel Finkelstein and his allegience to his Jewish ancestry. Perhaps he will acknowledge my allegience to my English ancestry.
If as he says the import of tens of thousands of people, some of whom wish to destroy our customs and way of life is good for Britain, would he accept that the same importation of possible terrorists would be good for the future of Israel, and if not why not?

C Mather, Wigan, England

To Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro 52037, Italy

In the very first words you say that the full right to 'enjoy' british citizenship should have people who has formed and/or defended this country thus excluding late-comers. Bare in mind however that plenty of Poles were actively and efficiently defending this country flying and fighting off Nazi bombers over London during the WWII. (Take a look at the statistics of the 303 Squadron formed mostly of polish pilots.)

That falls into your category of those defending the country, doesn't it? Are you in the first line to welcome the late-comers from Poland now?

I think you should...

Chris, Eastbourne,

The English have this immigration problem because their Scotch prime minister doesn't see fit to join in (the opposite of opting out) of Schengen.

If England joined the Schengen area and if we harmonised tax and social security benefits throughout the Union, the immigration issue would be shared and resolved over night.

Within the Schengen area there is little illegal immigration, because there are proper controls in place and benefits are only given to legal immigrants and EU citizens.

And lets face it who is going to choose to live in the south east of England if you can have the same benefits in the south east of France?

Second thoughts, stay out of Schengen, and remain an immigrants' paradise

Peter Goddard, Le Rouret, France, EU

Dear All,

Let me remind you the fact that 40% of NHS staff (clinical)are foreign born. I do not see any french men but from the third world so stop putting everybody in one basket. Grow up, please.

RTN, London,

Well, yes Mr. Vaz, to my mind 'we' do have exclusive rights to the benefits of citizenship of the UK if we are born to a succession of forebears of British stock; and those ancestors helped to form and defend what we have now; by service in the two great wars and other engagements; and through clearing and tilling the land; and through creating and working the quarries and mines; and through building and operating the canals, railways and roads; through the shipbuilding, the Merchant Marine and the fishing industry; through manufacturing, commerce and exporting; through academic excellence and invention; through domination of banking and insurance and exchange; through all that over more than three centuries we and our forebears created something wonderful and substantial. That is our inheritence. Those late-comers after the second great war and during their own lifetimes are not in the same 'right' at all under any heading or any construct. We 'originals' are not happy. Beware upset!

Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro 52037, Italy

Typical British view, typical immigrant view. Once your position is secure you start to look to preventing others the same privileges you receive.

The British public seem to have very goldfish memories. It was not more than a decade ago that the economy was stagnant and Britain was a laughing stock of the first-world nations. I challenge you to actually categorize the wealth imported or created in the last ten years by virtue of national origin. The findings will shock you.

However, having lived here long enough, I have come to expect this behaviour. You desire my wealth, not my person. No different from the 100 years ago that you colonized my nation in the pretext of "civilization". Nothing has changed for you. A lot has changed for me. Deal with it, or look elsewhere for your happiness.

rss, cambridge,uk,

I wonder are there any denizens of the South of France and Spain longing for restriction on the number of Brits flooding into their domain, pushing property prices up and steadfastly refusing to integrate, even at the most basic level?

Shirley, London,

Immigration is good, it actually kicks out the incompetent from the job market.

We just need to stop our benefits system.

Those who are against immigration, let them remind that they don't have exclusive right to enjoy Britain.

If they can't compete, they should migrate.

N Vaz, London, UK

The GDP argument is overstated. Even if GDP has grown by £6 billion because of immigration, so what? There are several million more people here for it to cover. The whole macho claim that "my GDP is bigger than yours" is nonsense.

GDP is not a measure of quality of life; it measures financial transactions over a given period of time - regardless of what they are about. An airliner crashing in central London would increase our GDP, with all the insurance, building, medical & legal costs. If we built 12 more large airports, and 100 new motorways it would vastly increase our GDP - and make life hell for tens of millions of people.

Immigration may be of short-term economic advantage. But with a growing world population, all demanding the same consumer goods as we have, the coming shortages of food, energy & raw materials will reveal how unsustainably high our population is. Never-ending growth in a finite world is not possible.

Dave, Wrexham,

Just as the sentiment surrounding bankers,mortgage lenders etc has become hostile,I have no doubts what -so- ever that in two years time, it will be the turn of the greedy employers that elected to employ 'economic migrants' above their fellow citizens.
I look forward with some zeal to this occasion-and the naming and shaming ,of such organisations.
As night follows day-this will happen as the British economy flounders.

antony Graham, southport, England

Is a Scot less foreign than a Pole (commentator from London)? Well, we didn't ask the King of Scotland to become King of the UK - you did! And the Union of Parliaments was instigated by England not Scotland. Read your own history.

As for the report, you'd be better using the following maths:

Immigration = (Free movement of labour) = Benefit
Immigration = (Free access to benefit) = Disaster

Those equations always work for countries that really do benefit without caveats or smoke and mirror arithmetic.

You have forgotten that the Sangatte camp wasn't put there by the French, they just built the huts and fences. It was put there by illegal immigrants who came to Britain because they knew they would get money and housing free and gratis from the British taxpayer.

Thanks NuLabour. Now do us all a favour and emigrate.

KR, Stockport,

Immigration, by definition, requires integration; Otherwise, it is called colonization.

When the immigrant adheres to the social standarts of the society he is immigrating to (akthough obviously keeping an heritage) he becomes part of the country. That is the more logic situation.. If You go live someplace You probably like their way of life.. or You wouldn't go, right?

But there are people who move to a country but do not adhere to the values and ethos of their new country: People that just want to reproduce elsewhere their original society. That, I suppose, is the sort of situation Lester from Salisbury complains about: The subversion of brithishness by colonists who do not want to live like brittons.

Most of us have the same problem, to one extent or another, and it puzzles me too: If they want to live like fish, why do they come out of the water????

Rui, Lisbon, Portugal

It is staggering to me that simply suggesting immigration should be subject to some limit is seen as a radical and potentially divisive issue. It certainly challenges Labour's bold vision for Britain in the late 21st century as one vast treeless council estate, shopping mall and motorway complex.

More seriously - lots of people throw around the word 'vibrant' when we refer to our current society. It makes our 'multicultural' society sound like one big Brazlian mardi gras. But I don't see anything 'vibrant' at all - all I see is a lot of poorly paid unskilled labour scrambling for badly paid jobs in low cost industries with low growth potential. The UK's economic future isn't found picking turnips in Norfolk.

Creating a new underclass which is now no longer just economically but also socially alienated from main stream society does nothing for our economic future or our social cohesion.

What a mess.

Mark, Berkhamsted,

A most excellent article. In fact economic theory strongly suggests both theses of the report. in their famous paper on Growth and Human Capital, Profs Mankiw, Romer and Weil indeed argue that economic conditions improve for the higher wage groups of an immigrant-receiving society.

dimitris, Cambridge, MA,

I am an Australian living in the UK, and agree with you wholeheartedly. I contribute economically to the UK, but more importantly can understand how migrants need to adapt to fit in to their new home.

Social cohesion cannot be forced on people. It is a slow, sometimes painful process. This country is such a melting pot now that nobody knows what it stands for; the indigenous population is still living in guilt of its past that it has lost the will to make immigrants adopt its values and culture.

Immigration control is necessary to prevent the UK becoming a great battleground - battles between immigrant communities that have not integrated, with the last remaining Brits hopelessly caught in crossfire.

Jon, London,

Did all the names on the war memorials die for this? Would they have done if they had known what would happen? This Labour Government have betrayed the living and they have betrayed the dead.

lester, salisbury,

We now have a golden opportunity to get the population down to a sensible level because the birth rate of the indigenous population is less than the replacement level.

So what does the gummint do? Open the floodgates!

ben foster, penley,

Immigrants aren't the problem. Undesirable immigrants are, but the biggest problem of all has been the anarchic 'Let 'em all come' approach of successive governments, and particularly the current one.

Nicholas Lee, Windsor, UK

If the net effect is zero, and your are better off, well, my maths is a bit shakey, but, surely to balance that equation, some else lost?

So, the polish immigrants gained, the Tesco upper management and shareholders gained, but the working cklass lost their jobs, and the middle classes taxes went up to pay the unemployed's tax credits.

Winners, immigrants and the elite, losers, everyone else

Dominic, Manchester, UK

Totally underplays the issue that immigrants may work for a lower cost than indigenous population so benefiting the employer, but the state then picks up direct and indirect costs which far exceed the savings to the employer.
The direct costs are for health and social services supporting the immigrant and his family. The indirect are the infrastructure costs of supporting a population that is growing too fast.
However, of even more concern is the impact on the growing gap between those in work and those unemployed.
The rapid decline of manufacturing jobs could have been offset by the construction boom of the last 10 years. A great opportunity to train youths with valuable skills. But the government and the industry failed to grasp the opportunity.
It was much easier and profitable to take on immigrant workers than face up to the structurally inadequacies of social policy and the lack of country wide skill training.

All are welcome in the UK providing it benefits both parties.

Eddie Price, Birmingham, UK

Pinch me: I must be dreaming! ...Some people are STILL trying to justify shoehorning even more people into the UK?

Read carefully: some things just MIGHT be a priority over the economy, such as security, social cohesion, and preserving our values and way of life, and in a world suffering from climate change, global warming, and dwindling resources, we need more people in Britain like a hole in the head!

Brian Clacey, Croydon, UK

Shurley the response to the BMP artical yesterday say's it all, we dont care if immigration is any good for us or any body else, walking round in your own country as a minority is not what we want liveing in country where nobody and i mean that nobody speakes English is not what we want.

The people who live here have spoken and at the end of the day thats all that matters, close the boarders brick up the chunnel and stop the ferrys we have had enough!

Put and End to the endless immigration and give us our country back!

Mr W Jones, Liverpool, England

The point of the EU is freedom of movement of people (as well as capital, goods and services).

I live in London. Why should I be happy with a Scot coming tolive and work in London, but not a Frenchman (who probably would move less far than the Scot) or a Pole? Is a Scot from a potentially independent Scotland, speaking with a thick Glaswegian accent for example, any less "foreign" to me than a Pole who might speak better English than I do? And what about people from Yorkshire, Wales, etc etc etc?

It's nothing to do with immigration from the rest of the EU, it's really a Canute-like wish to preserve an increasingly unsustainable status quo. If your parents live in a beautiful part of (say) Cornwall, you'll be in competition with some very wealthy people from elsewhere if you want to buy a house in the place where your parents live. Your parents could afford to live there only because other, wealthier, people didn't want to or didn't know about it. Just not the case any more.

Tim, London,

Stop moaning all of you. Before immigrants started arriving in big numbers, in the early nineties, this country was a joke, on the verge of the third world. Thanks to the arrival of lots of Western Europeans, excellently educated at no cost to you, without children to crowd your lousy schools and who went home to visit the doctor or dentist rather than risking the NHS, you have been pulled out of the mire. Go on, say "thank you"

Tim, London,

There is no problem with immigrants like Finkelstein - his family has integrated well and their presence here is unobtrusive. Not so with many (not all) of the Asian immigrants of the last 30 years who seem intent on what amounts to colonisation and an emphasis on their separateness through retaining alien dress codes etc.
The great Kemal Attaturk banned the wearing of the fez and veil in Turkey back in the 1920s as inappropriate for a European nation in the 20th century. In the 1980s Omanis were actively discouraged from wearing western dress in country (not abroad).
Perhaps, in the cause of social cohesion, we should proscribe middle-eastern dress here in the UK.

Henry Barraclough, Leicester, UK

Stop dithering; severely restrict immigration NOW and then decide proper future course. At the moment the situation is being allowed to grow to a potentially catastrophic problem

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

"But if immigrants earn less than the average it means income per head for existing residents has gone up. And don't you think this is more likely?"

NO!!!

That additional income has been enjoyed by business owners and corporations, not existing residents.

You fail to mention the catastrophic effect mass immmigration has had on house price inflation. While it made many homeowners feel wealthy during the boom, now that the bust is on the way, many with large mortgages used to buy absurdly overpriced houses will face ruin.

This analysis is well below your usual high standards.

anjan, london, uk

That last one is something you just can't do Marph. It would be contrary to EU treaties and the ''general spirit'' of the Community. (free movement of goods, capital, enterprise, labour)

John Smith, London,

Nice, Daniel,

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The report isn't about whether immigration is good for immigrants. It's about whether it's good for Britain. And it isn't. We didn't even need a report to tell us that - we all knew it already.

jane b, london, england

The fact that immigration is justified because it is supposed to be good for the economy suggests we are all Marxists now. But there are more important things which is why most nations concerned with their continued existence and social cohesion try to control it. It is why some countries even today are willing to endure economic collapse for the sake of national independence. The fact that we don't means we are committing national suicide. We may be richer. But we won't be we. We won't be a nation any more but a collection of foreigners whose sole interest in this country is their personal prosperity.

william, Northwood,

How much of the problem is too much immigration, how much is too slow assimilation and how much is not enough emigration?

You have a number of children of immigrants who weren't taught how to be a part of British society and are thus alienated from it. This makes the taking in of new immigrants more difficult for a variety of reasons. Finding ways to assimilate them (job training? military service?) would provide one means of reducing the burden. Finding ways for the children who don't want to assimilate to move to a country where they'd be happier would provide another (though whether such a country really exists is open for debate).

Michael, Pueblo, Colorado, US

Well, Daniel, I read quite a few blogs - not just The Times - and it seems to me that parts of the country are a tinderbox. Any little spark could set off civil unrest.
Immigration has affected the vast majority of people in this country. One way in which it has affected me is that I have been trying to find an affordable rental property for about 3 years, but the Poles have taken everything! They live 6 to a house, yet pay the same council tax as me.
If things are bad now, just think what will happen when even more countries join the EU - Croatia in 2010, also Kosovo and/or Serbia, Turkey - millions more people will be moving to this country.
The solution? Of course, get out of the EU as quickly as possible! We cannot afford to stay any longer - for economic or social reasons.

Doreen, Leominster,

Migration is a spatial, not a racial, issue and it is long overdue that it was addressed as such. Those countries with the highest population densities should have the most stringent immigration restrictions. Additionally, where a country is heavily dependent on food and fuel imports, to encourage immigration is ecologically unsustainable.

With the island of 'Great' Britain having a population more than that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand put together, it is emigration, rather than immigration, that should be encouraged. Not only that, but the infrastructure of this island cannot cope with 60 million people as it is. A net outflow of population to those countries with the land and resources to sustain them is the only long-term answer.

Personally, I'm just waiting for Sterling to recover so that I can start making plans to use my savings to escape from this overcrowded island for good!

Paul, Coventry,

Frankly I am astonished by this double whammy approach, the government and certain sector of media telling immigrants to integrate and become less dependent on state. But contrary to this, one of the report conclusions is critical of immigrants because they have done well here and its working for them. Are we simply feeding into headlines of fear?

In truth, we need to have control over the EU citizens move into this country, particularly with its endless enlargement.

H.Marph , London,