Unthreaded
Those who have pointed to volume of migrants, rather than migrants full stop are right. Integration only happens if there are pressures to do so. We are seeing just the opposite. The other thing that rewrites the old system is benefits, including in work ones. We are essentially subsidising a low wage economy. We are giving money to companies. It seemed like a good idea to ensure we employed as many of our own people as possible but now we're importing people. What if/when there is a down turn? How much off work benefits can we afford?
Sure, we need innovation and people with a drive to succeed but how many plodders can they support?

I'm not hostile to immigration per se, but I think TBYJ and Rhoda have just about nailed it. I've mentioned before the book "Bloody Foreigners" by Robert Winder, which is an excellent antidote to knee-jerk anti-immigration views. It sets out clearly and coherently the benefits subsequent waves of immigrants have brought to this country. However, I do see a distinct difference between previous waves of immigration and more recent ones, and I see differences in our own country between now and then, which I think are also relevant.
1. Previous immigrants (be they Jews, Huguenots, Italians) generally came from a Judaeo-Christian tradition, which made it relatively easy for them to "fit in" and integrate. More recent immigrants have often arrived from different cultures, including Hindu, Sikh and Muslim. Curiously, Sikhs and Hindus seem to integrate well, despite not coming from a Judaeo-Christian tradition, but the same by and large, IMO, can't be said of the Muslim community.
2. Previous immigrants were usually fleeing persecution or serious hardship. Modern immigrants are more likely to be economic migrants. Previous immigrants therefore intended to make a new life in a freer society. Modern immigrants are - understandably, but unhelpfully - more likely to be coming here for what they can get.
3. Previous immigrants often brought valuable skills (e.g. Huguenots), which brought great benefit to the economy. Recent immigrants are likely to be unskilled, and while that might benefit business, which can use them to drive down wages, the result is damaging to unskilled members of the society who are already here.
4. Previous immigrants arrived in a country with little if any welfare state provision. They arrived knowing life would be hard, but also knowing that if they worked hard they could make a go of things, contribute to society and possibly do well for themselves. The hardships they faced were worth facing because of the terrors they left behind. Modern immigrants arrive in a country with a sophisticated welfare state and which in many ways is a "soft touch". They arrive knowing that they are likely to be housed, receive medical treatment and state benefit, all at no cost to themselves. The hardships they face in (possibly) leaving behind friends, family and support networks are well worth it, since they arrive in a country with a state-supplied support network and human rights legislation that will in due course allow them to bring their familial support network along behind them. I'm not for one moment saying that all immigrants arrive with the simple intention of screwing the system - clearly many recent immigrants work hard, integrate, and add value to society. But not all do, and some undoubtedly are just here for what they can get.
5. The scale of immigration to the UK today is much higher than in the past. At the same time, our population density has increased substantially, to the point where many aspects of life arenow downright unpleasant - travelling by car often takes longer than in it did 20 or 30 years ago, because the roads are clogged; travelling by public transport often involves crowded and unpleasant journeys; our infrastructure is creaking. Our green belt is being continually eroded by the pressures of a rising population.
6. As others have pointed out, some young immigrants are here on a temporary basis. They have no intention of staying, and their main motivation for being here is to make money and to send it home. That is a net loss to the UK.
7. Arguments along the lines of "we need immigrants to make the NHS function" always strike me as odd. There is a higher proportion of immigrants in the population than there is working in the NHS. On that basis, we only need the immigrants in the NHS to serve the larger proportion of immigrants in the population at large! Of course,some specialists are invaluable, and the NHS would suffer if they were sent "home" (a la Enoch Powell), but the general argument, at a general level, seems to me to be false.
8. Additional costs, which I suspect are not taken into account by the many surveys telling us that immigrants add value, include such things as the pressure on the criminal justice system and prison service. It is a sad fact that immigrants and descendants of recent generations of immigrants are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and in prison. Where I live we have a small immigrant population, and it mostly comes from eastern Europe. However, most days, the newspaper has a story about an eastern European in court for something or other. That's not to have a go at all eastern Europeans - locally I have met some very pleasant, hard-working and well-integrated eastern Europeans. We cannot tar all with the same brush, but undoubtedly there are problems in some aspects of eastern European society, and we have imported a lot of those problems into this country.
9. Related societal costs also exist. I was a school governor for some years of the primary school attended 80 years ago by my parents. The area has changed substantially since then, and now includes a large Bangladeshi community. This brings in the cultural point. They, as a society, simply refused to send their children to school. This problem was a permanent agenda item for school governors' meetings, and we - and senior teaching staff - spent a hugely disproportionate (and largely unsuccessful) amount of time on home visits and efforts to get the children to attend school. I fear that despite our best efforts the education of the remaining, attending, children, may have suffered. Certainly life was rendered much more difficult for the head teacher and staff.
Whatever the rights and wrongs about immigration, I think it would be good if politicians would engage in a serious debate about it, and if those raising legitimate concerns were not simply shouted down as being bigots and racists.

Eco-loonies ER have blocked two places in London and maybe more
- Vauxhall Bridge and A4 West Cromwell Rd blocked
"Climate change protesters out here in elephant blocking the way up to Waterloo and further south"
on LBC : Nick Ferrari says "Air pollution is the single biggest threat to human health"
...nope ..pollution used to be far worse.
...Sadiqs just bringing the water cannons out ... hang on
From recording
protester Roger Hallam "The Arctic Ice is melting which will destroy weather conditions
the gov is calling a climate emergency"
Ferrari gives him a hard time ... "you are an anti ..but you haven't got a clue about solutions
..how puerile you are"
What's the still traffic , doing for air pollution ?

"On immigration it is worth remembering that, in the short term, immigrants are definitely beneficial to the economy.
Nov 21, 2018 at 7:35 AM | M Courtney"
Many people voted for BREXIT because of immigration, particularly in traditional Labour constituencies.
The BBC sending over so many news crews to the French Coastal areas to highlight the plight of refugees that only wanted to get to the UK, despite having got into the EU, was a PR disaster by the BBC.

Immigration? It's ALL about numbers and assimilation. People who come in large numbers with their own culture don't need to assimilate. When they have families they use up housing and other resources not planned for. There must be an optimum rate at which any society can absorb immigration without harm. That will vary according to the mix of immigrants. I think the UK is currently on the wrong side of that optimum rate. I don't think the rate should be zero, but it should be less than now. As an aside, there must be a better way to deal with the demographics than importing poor people to delay the impact. Perhaps we can find it, if we look.

M Courtney:
On immigration it is worth remembering that, in the short term, immigrants are definitely beneficial to the economy. They come here to work. They are young and risk-taking (emigration away from one’s support network is a risk). They are just the sort of entrepreneurial spirits that the UK needs.And in the long-term? It has been suggested that when they retire, get old, get ill and need scare that they become a cost. That may be true but so what? That is true of people in general, not immigrants.
You are conflating what I would call 19th/20th century immigration with the current type, which is incorrect. 19th/20th century immigration was a permanent relocation - travel was difficult and expensive, you made the trip and stayed there.
Their reasons for moving were usually the result of war, ethnic cleansing, or oppression. For example, the two main waves of Italian immigration to the UK - the first in the late 19th C was caused by drought and famine, the second in the 1930s by fascism. People were fleeing for their lives, they left homes behind and brought their entire lives with them - complete with businesses, capital and useful trades. They were here for a new life.
Compare with today's more economic temporary style of immigration. Young, single people come over simply to earn more money. They have no interest in developing a life here, since they are not staying - they simply import the culture wholesale as a sort of comfort blanket, and do not integrate, buy local goods, adapt to local customs. They live frugally, and send more of their money back to their established homes and families - which they have not abandoned nor intend to - and when they get bored, they return home. They haven taken from the economy, but not really contributed - there is a net loss.
What you're trying to do is use historical information about the 19th/20th century immigrants, who came here out of neccessity, set up here permanently and brought skills and business and capital into the econonmy, invested their energy into developing a life here and eventually integrated - use this information to justifiy the pick'n'mix 'here for a buck' economic migration which open borders has gven us today.
You can't do that.

While we await some proper action it is rather pleasant to indulge is a bit of fantasy - ! wish !
here
A Bit of potted background from my friend Wiki for those who have forgotten
On 4 January 1649, the House of Commons passed an ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice, to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The House of Lords rejected it, and as it did not receive Royal Assent, Charles asked at the start of his trial on 20 January in Westminster Hall, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority", knowing that there was no legal answer under the constitutional arrangements of the time. He was convicted with fifty-nine Commissioners (judges) signing the death warrant.
Although an exact number hasn't been pinned down, it is estimated that there were about 210 members of the Rump Parliament. This was approximately a fifty-five percent decrease from the 470-member enrollment of the Long Parliament before Pride's Purge. Though nine new members were admitted to the Rump parliament, the vast majority of the Rumpers were transferred from the Long Parliament.
From Wiki
Well...there are certain parallels ...The EU has been 'tried' (in a sense) by the British People ....and we have certain folk in high places of authority who are being accursed of treason ...so you can make of it what you will. But it is a bit of wishful fantasy...isn't it?

On immigration it is worth remembering that, in the short term, immigrants are definitely beneficial to the economy. They come here to work. They are young and risk-taking (emigration away from one’s support network is a risk). They are just the sort of entrepreneurial spirits that the UK needs.
And in the long-term? It has been suggested that when they retire, get old, get ill and need scare that they become a cost. That may be true but so what? That is true of people in general, not immigrants.
Corporate pension schemes and National Insurance do not work by people filling in their stamp and then getting their investment back at the end. The payments of today pay for the investments to meet the existing commitments. One of the reasons for the pensions crisis is that the number of employees in each company has declined with automation meaning the amount of people paying in now is less than those in the past who have earnt their pay out.
This is true whether those paying in now were born and educated here or not.

Breaking News
Theresa May has given away British defence in the Brexit negotiations
EU Army: This is what UK has signed up to After we voted to Leave EU
The scorn Gov't shows to electorate is contemptible and in this case Treachery
* Example:
12 September 2017, Dept Exiting EU Britain sign up to EU Defence - Ref. result ignored, continue as usual
Foreign policy, defence and development - a future partnership paper - 12 September 2017
https://www.ft.com/content/11653e68-9875-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b

@MCourtney said "On immigration it is worth remembering that, in the short term, immigrants are definitely beneficial to the economy. "
Wow simplistic black and white thinking
You can't just stop at that we need full colour thinking
Indeed there may be people whose life has been saved by immigrant nurses
and there are others who have been raped/sexually assaulted / robbed by immigrants.. and therefore don't think much of open borders.