I was once told by a Romanian care worker that she had no idea why she had come to Leeds, but the job was here and her family back home needed the money. She said, “If I leave, who will look after them?” despite missing holidays and birthdays. It was a calm, steady truth, not a dramatic plea.
Her question looms large, but the answer is rarely straightforward for care facilities throughout the United Kingdom. Immigration has been a stabilizing factor in recent years, especially since the post-Brexit staffing shortage got worse. Many vital services would probably stall without it.
A clearer picture is revealed by concentrating on actual data and underappreciated areas of the economy. The UK’s national coffers are remarkably effectively bolstered by migrant workers in their twenties. They are more likely to be in good health, prepared for the workforce, and free of the expenses associated with early education. They each make an estimated lifetime contribution of £341,000, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, without ever receiving a pension from a system they help fund.
| Area of Impact | Key Benefit |
|---|---|
| Public Finances | Migrants arriving at working age contribute around £341,000 net over lifetime |
| Health and Social Care | Over 27% of NHS nurses and 25% of care workers are foreign-born |
| Economic Growth | Higher migration could boost UK GDP by 1–2.2% by 2028-29 |
| Labour Market | Migrants fill vital shortages in tech, agriculture, hospitality, logistics |
| Higher Education | International students add over £12 billion annually to the UK economy |
| Demographics | Helps offset ageing population and support pension systems |
| Regional Impact | Strongest benefits seen in cities like London; uneven nationwide |
| Skill Variation | High-skilled migrants contribute significantly more than low-paid ones |
The benefit is immediately apparent in clinics and hospitals. Almost one in three nurses received their training overseas. Even greater numbers are reported by some trusts, particularly in urban areas. The NHS wouldn’t just struggle without foreign workers; it would break apart. The same is true for care facilities. With a 9.9% vacancy rate, the industry is already overburdened. These voids are filled by migrants, frequently in positions that local workers find too demanding or poorly compensated.
The math contradicts the long-held notion that immigration puts a burden on public resources. Migrant workers have continuously paid more in taxes than they have in benefits over the last ten years. Many come prepared to work right away, having qualifications or skills. Additionally, they frequently aren’t eligible for public funds at all, unlike citizens who were born here.
One manager at a logistics depot in the Midlands described how their supply chain was almost completely destroyed by an abrupt decline in EU drivers. He shook his head and remarked, “We were just hours away from having shelves go empty.” They have since depended on drivers from India and Eastern Europe. The movement of people determines the flow of goods.
The narrative changes from necessity to innovation in science and technology. Foreign-born scientists make up nearly one-third of the UK’s scientific workforce, and their contributions are especially creative. They initiate start-ups, file patents, and advance research in fields like genetics, artificial intelligence, and climate modeling. Our role in global innovation would rapidly diminish without them.
Anecdotally, I once attended a roundtable on biotechnology where three of the five CEOs had backgrounds and accents that were very different from those of the United Kingdom. The room hummed with immigration, but no one spoke of it. These people created jobs, not just held them.
In the meantime, foreign students finance universities and occupy lecture halls. Just by living and studying, they support local economies, pay higher tuition, and are not eligible for loans. According to a recent study, they contribute £37.4 billion annually. That includes retail spending, housing, and food in addition to tuition. Their presence is extremely effective for the educational system and surprisingly cost-effective for the UK taxpayer.
However, not everyone experiences these advantages in the same way.
Residents frequently experience the competition more acutely in towns with a limited housing supply and overburdened public services. Last year, households led by foreign-born people accounted for one-third of Brent’s new social housing rentals. The whole story is not conveyed by that statistic alone, but it strikes an emotional chord.
Large-scale migration has not significantly increased GDP per capita, according to some policymakers, including those who wrote the most recent report from the Centre for Policy Studies. Salary thresholds, visa caps, and dependents restrictions are some of the changes they have proposed in an effort to create a more selective system.
However, that strategy is risky. It might discourage the upcoming generation of international students or restrict the very groups that sustain the care industry. The ability of the UK to select who attends also entails selecting what we are prepared to forfeit.
It’s interesting that different migrants make different contributions, and that’s acceptable. Even though a Somali care worker earns eight times as much as a Canadian software engineer, both are meeting basic needs. One helps a grandmother get out of bed, while the other develops apps.
The question for policymakers is not whether immigration is good or bad, but rather who it benefits and how to more fairly distribute those benefits. Immigration has significantly increased NHS capacity, softened post-pandemic labor shortages, and improved the sustainability of the pension system over the last five years.
As I think about this, I’ve frequently questioned whether the conflict arises from what immigrants bring to the table rather than what we’ve overlooked. Many of the issues attributed to newcomers, such as housing shortages and delays in public transportation, existed long before they arrived.
As the population ages and birth rates fall in the upcoming years, migrants will be crucial for stability as well as growth. This dynamic is already essential to Scotland. The nation’s working-age population would be declining at an unsustainable rate in the absence of immigration.
By taking advantage of current migration trends, the UK can benefit socially and economically. The decision is whether to view migrants as short-term solutions or as long-term collaborators in a common future.
In any case, the issue is not whether immigration is necessary in the UK.
It concerns our readiness to adequately fund the mechanisms that ensure that immigration benefits all.
