article: Research by MigrationWatch, which campaigns for tighter immigration controls, looked at employment status, wages and benefit claims. Migrants from the US, Australia and South Africa were found to earn much more than the UK-born population. By contrast, people from Pakistan and Bangladesh tended to earn much less, the research suggested. The study used data from the official Labour Force Survey of 100,000 people. It suggests: It also suggests that more migrants than UK-born people claim housing benefit, tax credits and child benefit. However, claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance differ little between migrants and UK-born people. Migrant claims were noticeably lower for sickness and disability benefits and carers' allowances, the study suggests. MigrationWatch chairman, Lord Green of Deddington, said the analysis showed that the argument that all immigration to the UK was beneficial could not possibly be right. He said any sensible policy should take account of the real differences in economic characteristics between migrants from different parts of the world. "If immigration policy has been intended to attract only 'the brightest and the best' it has clearly failed, with a very large number of migrants earning less or claiming more than the British-born," he added. "The clear message of this research is that immigration can be reduced substantially while permitting entry to those migrants that our economy really needs." The effect migrants have on a host economy depends on their skills, those of workers in the host country and other factors including rules relating to employment and wages. British research tends to indicate that migrants have two impacts. Medium and high-paid workers gain, partly because they benefit from the cheaper services of the low-paid migrant workers. But the lowest paid resident workers can lose out in competition at the bottom. Further data suggests that immigration from outside the EU could lead to more unemployment of UK workers during a recession - but these effects can change over time if migration leads to greater employment, productivity and business opportunities. A recent study found the biggest losers could be existing migrants who find themselves in competition with newly arrived workers who have similar skills at a lower price. Source: Oxford University's Migration Observatory Neil Carberry, of business lobby group the CBI, said the evidence clearly showed the "vast majority" of migrants came to the UK to study or work, not to claim benefits. The government was right to pursue a managed immigration policy, he told the BBC, but warned a one-size-fits-all approach that did not recognise different types of migration should be resisted and making assumptions based on migrants' home countries added little to the debate. Don Flynn, director of charity Migrants' Rights Network, said the analysis appeared to be spun to suggest that migrants were more likely to receive benefits than UK-born people, and some migrants were poor performers. But, he said, the overall position remained that migrants performed better than their cost to the taxpayer, and there was nothing in the study to challenge that. He added the government should focus on making sure often highly-qualified migrants were employed in
summary: Employment levels, wages and benefits vary widely between different groups of migrants in the UK, analysis suggests.