b'6.1. Evidence concerning the impact of unrestricted EU immigration Treasury receipts totalled 5,073.2 billionof wages at the lower end of the market. (source: H M Treasury) during the periodThis is now confirmed by a Bank of England 2001-2011. A UCL study has come up withreport.21the figure that immigrants paid 20 billion in taxes from 2000 to 2011.20 Even to arrive atIn addition, the most recent LSE study found the 20 billion figure over 11 years, thethat immigrants are more likely to demand authors of the UCL report had to make heroicsocial housing than native UK citizens.22assumptions. It must be pointed out that 20 billion of the total UK tax take of 5,073.2These studies of the benefits of immigration billion during the same period was onlytend to omit the consequence of remittances. 0.39%.Remittances are monetary transfers betweenresidents of different countriesoften To put it another way, according to UCL, theinvolving immigrants in one country sending tax take would have been 5,053.2 billionmoney to families or communities in their without immigration in comparison tocountry of origin. The point is simple. Many 5,073.2 billion with immigration. Is that therecent immigrants understandably remit a point that the good folks at UCL wanted tosubstantial part of their earnings to their make? One wonders again. The cash figurecountry of origin. One effect on the domestic of 20 billion also does not take into accounteconomy of the new country is that it no the indirect costs of mass immigration onlonger benefitsor benefits less than it the UK infrastructure, for example schools,shouldfrom the multiplier effect (see roads, hospitals.Glossary). Instead, it is the economy of the country of originwhere the money gets There are consequences to massspentthat benefits.immigration. One of them is compression 127'