His comments mark the publication of findings by the Economic and Social Research Institute, which used 2016 Census microdata to compare the housing situation of people born in Ireland with first-generation migrants.

The ESRI found that many migrants have a much higher risk of overcrowding and homelessness than Irish-born.

In 2016, 56% of all migrants were living in private rented housing, compared to 13% of Irish-born.

A total of 75% of Polish migrants – one of the largest migrant groups in Ireland – lived in private rented accommodation.

Around 8% of Irish-born individuals lived in overcrowded accommodation in 2016, which the ESRI has described as a “relatively low proportion when compared internationally”.

In contrast, almost 20% of migrants in Ireland lived in overcrowded accommodation.

There were high overcrowding rates among some non-EEA migrants, including migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (37%), Sub-Saharan and Other Africa (39%), South Asia (41%) and East Asia (37%).

Migrants who lived in Ireland longer were less likely to be renting or live in overcrowded accommodation.

The research found that for a substantial number of migrants who came in the period 2000 to 2009, private renting and overcrowding rates were still much higher than for Irish-born.

The Census data also showed that non-Irish nationals were over represented among homeless people in Ireland; non-Irish nationals comprised 11% of the total population. Non-Irish nationals made up 25% of persons in homelessness.

Lead author of the report, Dr Frances McGinnity, said addressing “major current challenges” in the Irish housing market would benefit migrants disproportionately in overcrowded accommodation and in homelessness.

“Addressing general tenants’ rights issues, such as security of tenure in the private rental market and protection from rising rents, will benefit all those in the private rented sector, including many migrants,” she said.

Mr. O’Gorman said access to suitable housing was “essential for successful integration” in the long term.

“Migrants are heavily concentrated in the private rental sector and face higher risks of overcrowding and homelessness. These findings demonstrate that we need to consider housing as an important part of integration policy,” he said.

Source: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/0411/1291578-migrant-report/

The post Many migrants at higher risk of homelessness than Irish-born – report first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

An increasing number of people living in the UK have applied for repatriation to Germany since the June 2016 referendum result for Britain to leave the EU, according to government figures.

Individuals who were persecuted by the Nazis and their descendants made up the majority of those applying, a report on Friday said.

Of the 3,731 applications since 2016, 3,408 referred to the German Constitution’s Article 116. Under the article, former German citizens who were deprived of citizenship on “political, racial, or religious grounds” — and their descendants — are entitled to have citizenship restored.

Read more: Will Brits say ‘au revoir’ to French dream post-Brexit?

Tens of thousands of Jews fled Germany for the UK before and during World War II. They included some 10,000 children who were evacuated as part of the so-called “Kindertransport” between December 1938 and August 1939, most of whom never saw their families again.

Sharp rise in applications

The increase in those applying for repatriation increased significantly after the UK’s Brexit referendum, according to figures published by the Funke Mediengruppe newspaper group.

Hard or soft options

It’s essentially a choice of a harder or softer Brexit. Harder prioritizes border control over trade. UK firms would pay tariffs to do business in the EU, and vice versa. The softest Brexit would see access to the single market, or at least a customs union, maintained. That would require concessions — including the payment of a hefty “divorce bill” — to which the UK has provisionally agreed.

Businesses have expressed concern about a “cliff edge” scenario, where Britain leaves the EU with no deal. Even if an agreement is reached at the EU bloc level, the worry is that it could be rejected at the last minute. Each of the 27 remaining countries must ratify the arrangements, and any might reject them. That could mean chaos for businesses and individuals.

No deal – better than a bad deal?

If there is no agreement at all, a fully sovereign UK would be free to strike new trade deals and need not make concessions on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK or pay the financial settlement of outstanding liabilities. However, trade would be crippled. UK citizens in other parts of the EU would be at the mercy of host governments. There would also be a hard EU-UK border in Ireland.

Divorce-only deal

The EU and the UK could reach a deal on Britain’s exiting the bloc without an agreement on future relations. This scenario would still be a very hard Brexit, but would at least demonstrate a degree of mutual understanding. Trade agreements would be conducted, on an interim basis, on World Trade Organization rules.

Limited arrangement, like with Canada

Most trade tariffs on exported goods are lifted, except for “sensitive” food items like eggs and poultry. However, exporters would have to show their products are genuinely “made in Britain” so the UK does not become a “back door” for global goods to enter the EU. Services could be hit more. The City of London would lose access to the passporting system its lucrative financial business relies on.

Bespoke deal: Swiss model

Under the Swiss model, the UK would have single market access for goods and services while retaining most aspects of national sovereignty. Switzerland, unlike other members of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), did not join the European Economic Area (EEA) and was not automatically obliged to adopt freedom of movement. Under a bilateral deal, it agreed to do so but is still dragging its feet.

The Norway way

As part of the European Economic Area, Norway has accepted freedom of movement – something that no Brexit-supporting UK government would be likely to do. Norway still has to obey many EU rules and is obliged to make a financial contribution to the bloc while having no voting rights. Some see this as the worst of both worlds.

A Turkey-style customs union

Turkey is the only major country to have a customs union with the EU, as part of a bilateral agreement. Under such an arrangement, the UK would not be allowed to negotiate trade deals outside the EU, instead having the bloc negotiate on its behalf. Many Brexiteers would be unwilling to accept this. It would, however, help minimize disruption at ports and, crucially, at the Irish border.

No deal, no Brexit?

EU President Donald Tusk says the outcome of the talks depends on Britain, citing a good deal, bad deal or “no Brexit” as possible options. However, with both of the UK’s major political parties – the Conservatives and Labour – committed to going ahead with Brexit, that looks unlikely.

Author: Richard Connor

In 2015, there were only 59 applications, while in 2016 — the year the UK Brexit vote took place in June — there were 760. In 2017, 1,824 applied, and 1,147 applied in the first eight months of 2018.

The Funke Mediengruppe figures were obtained in response to a parliamentary question from Germany’s pro-business Free Democrats (FDP).

Read more: Germany preparing for no deal on Brexit, says Merkel

Aside from Jews, many other groups fled Germany and the Nazi regime, including members of the Roma community, homosexuals and political opponents.

‘Not surprising’

According to FDP interior affairs spokesman Konstantin Kuhle, the development showed that many UK citizens were keen to retain “the benefits of European citizenship” within the EU.

“This is not surprising given the British government’s chaotic Brexit negotiation line,” Kuhle said, adding that the EU should not forget “that many people in the UK feel close to the EU.”

Read more: Plotting Conservatives reject Theresa May’s Brexit plan

The 2016 referendum, called by then Prime Minister David Cameron, ended with 52 percent voting in favor of Brexit, and 48 percent against.

The number of Britons living in Germany who seek German citizenship has also increased significantly since June 2016.

June 2016: ‘The will of the British people’

After a shrill referendum campaign, nearly 52 percent of British voters opted to leave the EU on June 24. Polls had shown a close race before the vote with a slight lead for those favoring remaining in the EU. Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had campaigned for Britain to stay, acknowledged the ‘will of the British people’ and resigned the following morning.

The former Home Secretary Theresa May replaced David Cameron as prime minister on July 11 and promised the country that “Brexit means Brexit.” May had quietly supported the remain campaign before the referendum. She did not initially say when her government would trigger Article 50 of the EU treaty to start the two-year talks leading to Britain’s formal exit.

March 2017: ‘We already miss you’

May eventually signed a diplomatic letter over six months later on March 29, 2017 to trigger Article 50. Hours later, Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow, handed the note to European Council President Donald Tusk. Britain’s exit was officially set for March 29, 2019. Tusk ended his brief statement on the decision with: “We already miss you. Thank you and goodbye.”

June 2017: And they’re off!

British Brexit Secretary David Davis and the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, kicked off talks in Brussels on June 19. The first round ended with Britain reluctantly agreeing to follow the EU’s timeline for the rest of the negotiations. The timeline splits talks into two phases. The first settles the terms of Britain’s exit and the second the terms of the EU-UK relationship post-Brexit.

The second round of talks in mid-July began with an unflattering photo of a seemingly unprepared British team. It and subsequent rounds ended with little progress on three phase one issues: How much Britain still needed to pay into the EU budget after it leaves, the post-Brexit rights of EU and British citizens, and whether Britain could keep an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

November 2017: May pays out?

Progress appeared to have been made after round six in early November with Britain reportedly agreeing to pay up to £50 billion (€57 billion/$68 billion) for the “divorce bill.” May had earlier said she was only willing to pay €20 billion, while the EU had calculated some €60 billion euros. Reports of Britain’s concession sparked outrage among pro-Brexit politicians and media outlets.

December 2017: Green light for phase 2

Leaders of the remaining 27 EU members formally agreed that “sufficient progress” had been made to move on to phase 2. Talks will now focus on a transition period and the future trading relationship between the two sides. While the Britain’s Theresa May expressed her delight, European Council President Donald Tusk ominously warned that the second stage of talks will be “dramatically difficult.”

Author: Alexander Pearson

rc/sms (AFP, dpa, kna)

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-jewish-families-in-uk-who-fled-nazis-seek-german-passports/a-45950709

The post Brexit: Jewish families in UK who fled Nazis seek German passports first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Reaction to the MAC report from thinktanks and academics

And here is some reaction to the MAC report from thinktanks and academics.

From Stephen Clarke, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, a thinktank specialising in the needs of low and middle-earners

The migration advisory committee’s recommendations would, if accepted by government, represent the biggest change to the UK labour market in a generation.

If enacted these proposals would effectively end low-skilled migration, while prioritising mid- and high- skill migration in areas where we have labour shortages. This would represent a huge shift for low-paying sectors like food manufacturing, hotels and domestic personnel, where over one in five workers are migrants.

While it will take some time for the government to respond to this report, it is time those sectors started to prepare more proactively for change, including by looking at the need to invest in new technology, and recruiting from harder to reach parts of the existing UK population.

From Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a thinktank focusing on integration, migration and diversity.

The MAC is right to recommend that high-skilled and low-skilled migration are treated differently in future. Most of the public would agree. That should also mean the end of the one-size-fits-all net migration target.

The report also rightly notes that funding to manage the local impacts of immigration on public services needs to get to the areas that need it most. Expanding the Controlling Immigration Fund would be one way to do this. In our research across the UK we found that local impacts make a real difference to how people view immigration.

This report should now prompt politicians to step up and lead the debate about how Britain will approach immigration after Brexit – a debate that’s been ducked and delayed for the last two years, causing frustration and mistrust on all sides.

It is missing a vital element, however – the voice of the public. Neither the MAC nor the government has engaged the public in the choices we now face on immigration. That’s a serious oversight – the national conversation on immigration found an urgent need to rebuild public confidence and consent in our immigration system, and greater public engagement would help to do that.

From Ryan Shorthouse, director of Bright Blue, a liberal Conservative thinktank

The migration advisory committee has provided evidence that cuts through the exaggerations of both sides of a very divisive debate, showing that immigration generally has no or very modest positive economic and social impacts.

The migration advisory committee has offered some strong suggestions for reforming our immigration system: abolishing the cap on tier 2 (general) visas and extending the tier 5 youth mobility scheme, as Bright Blue has been campaigning for.

But this report was a missed opportunity to propose significant reforms to our post-Brexit immigration system to ensure it is more effective, popular and contributory-based.

From Prof Jonathan Portes, a senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe, an academic network, who wrote a paper that contributed to the MAC report

Today’s report is backed up by the most comprehensive evidence and research ever produced on the impact of immigration on the UK. Contrary to fears that immigration might reduce the incentive for businesses to boost productivity, my paper suggests the opposite: immigration has a substantial and positive impact on productivity. Areas that see inflows of immigrants see productivity rise. Other papers show that immigrants – especially those coming from the EU – who arrived during 2016 are expected to make a large contribution, more than £25bn, to the public finances over their entire time in the country [see 11.16am], taking account of the taxes they pay and the service they consume, and that immigration has a positive, albeit small, impact on subjective well-being – how happy people are – at a local level. In other words, much of the scaremongering we’ve heard over the past few years has little or no basis in fact.

What does that mean for policy? The MAC are too polite to say so, but this report shows beyond doubt that the government’s economically illiterate net migration target should finally be put out of its misery. After Brexit, we will need immigration – for growth, productivity, and not least to help the public finances – more than ever. Since 2010, many aspects of UK immigration policy have been based not on analysis and evidence but on unpleasant and damaging nativism. This report provides an opportunity for our politicians to reverse that, if they have the courage to take it.

From Richard Brown, research director at the Centre for London, a thinktank focusing on the needs of London

This report highlights the positive contribution that highly skilled EU workers bring to London’s economy. Yes we need bankers, lawyers, tech specialists, but we also need low skilled workers too.

Nearly 30 per cent of London’s construction workers are from the EU. A huge number of European workers keep the city’s cafes, restaurants and hotels running. London’s design, artistic and tech start-ups benefit from London’s ability to draw workers from across the continent.

Expanding the youth mobility scheme to EU workers would enable young Europeans to fill some of the gaps, and changes to the tier 2 visa system are steps in the right direction – though the process will still be daunting for many small businesses. But we need a flexible system – one which maintains the frictionless movement of people – to help London meet its needs.

Business groups warn MAC proposals could increase labour shortages

And here is a response to the MAC report from the CBI’s UK policy director, Matthew Fell. Like other business groups (see 12.42pm), the CBI is worried that the recommendations could increase labour shortages.

This report provides useful insights but is not a roadmap for a new system.

The findings are clear about the immigration dividend. Productivity and innovation benefit from migration, and training for UK workers increases. It finds barely any negative effects for jobs or wages for UK citizens.

The critical recommendation missing from the report is that migration should be part of trade negotiations, starting with the EU. The Migration Advisory Committee leaves this decision open to Government and says that it might be ‘something of value to offer in negotiations’. If it is the Government’s intention to implement a global system, preferential access for countries where the UK has trade deals will be essential to provide the basis for an open and controlled system that can work for the UK’s economy.

The current non-EU visa system is highly bureaucratic and cannot be extended to EU workers without major reform, so the MAC is right to recommend scrapping the tier 2 cap. But these proposals don’t go far enough.

But retaining the £30,000 salary threshold would block many essential workers from coming to the UK. Similarly, plans outlined for low-skilled workers are inadequate, and risks damaging labour shortages.

The government should now build on this evidence to pursue an open and controlled system that shows the UK remains open to the world, and make Global Britain a reality.

Lord Green, chair of Migration Watch UK, which campaigns for controls on immigration, is not impressed by the MAC report, the BBC reports.

Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC)

Very critical response from @MigrationWatch to the MAC’s report. It’s chair, Lord Green, says: “This is a very technical report which seems blind to the impact of high levels of EU immigration on many communities in this country as a result of rapid population growth.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/18/brexit-mac-migration-eu-confirms-emergency-summit-planned-for-november-to-finalise-brexit-deal-politics-live

The post Fall in sterling after Brexit vote has done more to make people poorer than immigration, says MAC – Politics live first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.