Don't conflate issues ... immigrants are one thing. As to the indigenous population, the survival of the nation depends on the population being replaced ... having kid is therefore in the national interest and if couples are prepared to cut back on their lifeestyles in order to raise children, why should there be no financial incentive? What people forget though is that there used to be child tax relief ... i.e., you paid less tax if you had kids. Put another way, you paid more tax if you didn't have kids. Now we have child benefit ... and this is seen as a cost?
Not very often I disagree with you Dr North, but here I do.
You say don't conflate the issues, but they are combined. How can they not be, all those with children receive CB no matter how many kids they have, taxpayers & never taxpayers.
Alright what I can agree with you for taxpayers, but a limited number kids being paid for, in the national interest (although the EU passes for national interest as far as our ruling elite are concerned) receiving CB but I can't see your point in separating non-taxpaying immigrants/migrants from the issue. Apart from immigrants/migrants I also include the feckless indigenous who have never worked or intend to work in not receiving CB for churning out kids like smarties.
Before they did away with the married couple allowance they still had CB, so it's not really in place of high taxes it's been paid for years.
I'm sorry if you find my approach to this as being wrong but when I see my other half work his arse off, and not for a high wage, to subsidise all and sundry who have never paid a penny in then I see red.
To be truthful if I was a young person starting out today I wouldn't have children for them to grow up under a foreign regime, the EU or be brainwashed by the education system. I actually feel very sorry for the youngsters of today.