I’ve taken one of the last comments and decided to put it online as a separate thread as the contributor, Chris, makes an interesting point which others might like to explore with him.
He writes: “The government tells us we need immigration to provide workers for many of our commercial needs. Would it not be better to provide our own young people with the skills and motivation they need to do these jobs and avoid some of the clear difficulties that stem from immigration?
In Canada, they are desperate for young families, as their families have moved so well with the times they are not having children in enough numbers to sustain the population balance in the country - a sort of Malthusian calculation in reverse. Here, it is the middle classes who are restricting their birth-rate, and the disadvantaged classes who are maintaining theirs, particularly in Kent. There's an obvious problem of expectation and contribution to ponder!”
In several ways, Chris echoes an argument made by Professor Ian Angell at the London School of Economics, in regard to the workforce and its ability to compete in the 21st century. We do however have to accept the increasingly dependent nature of our society, which started with the mass migration to the cotton mills and cities at the start of the industrial revolution and may yet end with an equally mass flight from urban areas by those who can afford to leave. He mentions Canada but I would mention Dubai as an example of one of the new hub economies, that seeks to attract the most skilled and entrepreneurial from the workforces of neighbouring societies, leaving them to struggle with what remains.