Immigration - when will SW1 wake up?

Many in Westminster would prefer that we all discussed blah blah.  Preferably at great length.

They'd rather we droned on about the kind of issues that excite the BBC-types - not the uncomfortable issues that ordinary folk privately contemplate. 

But the subject of immigration is sooner or later going to have to be discussed.  And then public policy is going to have to be radically changed.  Failure to do so is going to have profound implications for our society within the next few years.

Fact 1: Net immigration into Britain last year was 163,000.

Fact 2: At that rate, the UK population will reach 70 million by 2029 - with profound cultural and economic implications for our society. 

Fact 3:  In order to keep the population below 70 million, net immigration must be reduced to below 50,000 per year - a three fold reduction.

Whenever ministers are confronted with such facts, they use words that bear almost no relation to the large scale settlement that is happening or to the porous state of our borders. 

I believe that mainstream political parties have a duty to now speak up on this issue - or we will see the rise of political extremism. 

There is nothing inevitable about mass inward migration.  But where is the will on the part of this government to take the necessary steps to drastically reduce it?

Posted on 30 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

The failure to talk of immigration is part of a wider practice of political censorship generally employed by the inhabitants of SW1. The backlash, to my mind at least, is already starting, and is social and cultural every bit as much as political. Quite where we'll end up I'm not sure, but the stifling orthodoxies of certain left-liberals are, for the first time in a long time, starting to be openly challenged.

Posted on 30 November 2009 20:21 by Michael

And immigration from EU member states? Oh, sorry that is the free movement of people!

Unlike you Douglas to 'miss' the EU connection. Not deliberate I trust?

Just let us get out and stop all immigration unless the immigrant has a job to go to!

And signs to agree to abide by our laws, customs and way of life. And if that is not acceptable then they can get on the next plane/boat back!

Posted on 30 November 2009 20:29 by WitteringsfromWitney

I personally think we are over the 70 million mark already.The government have no idea who is in the country.I bet there are well over a million illegal immigrants.

Posted on 30 November 2009 20:46 by davmc

Not very free market of you, is it? Adam Smith would hate you.

Posted on 30 November 2009 21:12 by MikeSC

It doesn't want to drastically reduce it, it wants to annoy the electorate and especially the Conservatives!

Perhaps Mr Cameron has a great plan in mind for chucking out all the illegals and bogus asylum seekers who we are housing in luxury flats in London and who are living off our welfare services?

And all the while, people who have paid taxes all their lives lose their jobs, homes and self respect!

No, Mr Cameron won't speak about either. He's as bad as the rest of them and you wonder why you're not higher in the polls?

It's because the Conservatives aren't saying anything new, innovative or surprising. Just the same old crap!

Posted on 30 November 2009 22:20 by Sue

Horse, door , bolted. Its too late having a debate on immigration now. I'm sure New Labour's multi-cultural melting pot will bubble along quite nicely over the coming years what with all the grinding povrty we're about to endure. Nope, can't see any problems with this at all, thanks Gordon, thanks, Tony.

Posted on 1 December 2009 04:52 by chefdave

Perhaps what people are ignoring is the question "why do people take extreme risks to come here?"
We have about 4000 miles of coastline, which means our borders are and always have been porous - slipping ashore in a rubber dinghy from a fishing boat was a way used in reverse to get into the Nazis' Festnung Europa. If the Nazis, given their methods, couldn't stop it, what makes you think we can? (Yes, I know "Westhall"'s favourite solution involves Biometric ID cards, CCTV cameras and great armies of snoopers and state informers, but they didn't work in East Germany either). Once they are in they can claim all sorts of help to stay in and trying to deport them is virtually impossible if no-one will take them back. What are you going to do then, fly them over under full ECM and parachute them into Somalia at dead of night?
In the souks and bazaars of Africa and Asia the word is "Go to England, O my son. In England they give you a house, money for doing nothing and will treat your AIDS and TB free. Yes, and your entire family as well. You can live as you do here and if there is anything you do not like they will pay you comp-en-sation. So go to England".
Is not the solution blindingly obvious? Let anyone in (because you can't stop them), but they will have to get a job and pay tax for at least five years before they qualify for any state benefits at all and then gradually increase entitlements over the next fifteen years. Proof of entitlement is then easy - your tax code. That is already kept for everyone and so places no extra burden on HMRC (regrettably) or the indigenous population.

Posted on 1 December 2009 08:04 by Disputin

At least one supermarket chain bases its purchases on a UK population of 77 million. 60 million is hopeleslz out of date.

Posted on 1 December 2009 08:07 by John W

Oops, forgot link

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html

Posted on 1 December 2009 08:08 by John W

At the very least we should stop digging. No visas for anyone from the Indian sub-continent or Africa. We can then consider the long term solution.

Posted on 1 December 2009 09:24 by michael

Saudi Arabia has the right idea. You go to do a job a local cannot do and at the end of contract you go home. Simple solutiom

Posted on 1 December 2009 09:54 by Cynic

That is exactly the point. There is no real progress because there is no will to stop mass immigration. The politicos want it.

Posted on 1 December 2009 10:59 by Promise of Avalon

Well done, Douglas.

Once again you take the lead.

Posted on 1 December 2009 11:36 by Marcellus

End the "generous" welfare state (i.e. taking money from the people, siphoning off as much as possible, then returning it to the people)and you would find the immigration problem would begin to take care of itself.

Posted on 1 December 2009 12:15 by Tyler

The issue is a little wider than reducing net immigration: the gross flows of emigrants and immigrants are threatening to create very fundamental changes in our society, as Baroness Warsi discovered in Luton yesterday.

Posted on 1 December 2009 12:43 by It doesn't add up...

TYhe worse problem is that this is net immigtration. Thus real immigration of 3rd world people, since, as WfromW says EU immigration doesn't count, is much higher but emigrastion of some of the best of our own people cuts into it. Thus by the time popualtion has risen by 10 million the immigrant population will have risen by about 20 million.

Japan & South Korea have an immigration rate of 0.0%, at least officially, & probably lose something from that, but it is clearly possible to reduce immigrtation drasticly if government chooses to. It is shameful that the other "respectable" parties have glossed over the recent admission that Labour decided on mass immigration to "elect a new people". I think that betrayal will sicken even those Labour voers not put off by economic incompetence.

Posted on 1 December 2009 14:56 by Neil Craig

"They'd rather we droned on about the kind of issues that excite the BBC-types - not the uncomfortable issues that ordinary folk privately contemplate"

Are you SURE you're really a politician, Douglas? You really do seem to be far too sensible, and in touch with reality.

I read in todays Mail Communities secretary John Denham says labour have let down white working class people who have "suffered from the impact" of large scale immigration. What, just white working class, John? You nasty racist - better not dare appear on question time!

Posted on 1 December 2009 22:45 by Iain

If you want to know why non-EU immigration is so high, look at the website of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/mac. MAC advise government on immigration matters, particularly in relation to work permits, the points based system, etc.

It is crystal clear from reading the MAC's reports that non-EU work-permit-related immigration could very easily be cut. But MAC's "stakeholders" - the people they listen to - are primarily groups who benefit from immigration. And the members of the committee itself are primarily economists. It is hardly surprising that MAC recommends that immigration should be permitted for migrants who will benefit their stakeholders and for migrants who might be "good for the economy".

One perfect example is MAC's just released December 2009 report on "Tier 1" immigration. Tier 1 allows graduates from outside the EU to come here without a job offer. MAC's report says this is a good thing as it adds to the UK's "human capital", provides a pool of skill for employers, etc, etc, etc. Great stuff from an economist's point of view. Tens of thousands of non-EU migrants come each year via this route - not to fill a vacancy but to look for work. MAC did consider banning this sort of immigration and saying all migrants must have a job offer before coming here, but decided against it.

There are dozens of pro-immigration voices speaking to MAC. But MAC does not hear the voice of the majority of the British people. MAC does not receive representations saying sod your economics, cut the number of non-EU migrants. Indeed the MAC would disdain such voices as not worthy of consideration: those voices would be unable to support their case with numerical economic data.

Did you know that chefs are given priority in the non-EU immigration stakes? Only an economist could construct an argument for that. Most of us would say if you can't find a chef in the UK tough, shut your restaurant. Not the Migration Advisory Committee.

It is quite clear to me, having looked at MAC's reports and immigration data, that if non-EU immigration were restricted only to those who come to fill actual vacancies in occupations critical to the public services or the economic health of the UK that are genuinely unfillable by British workers, non-EU work permit immigration could be cut from 120,00 to 20,000 per annum.

My message to politicians is this: reset MAC's terms of reference. Give MAC an objective: by March 2010 to recommend how the Tier 1 & 2 rules can be changed so that the system allows in only 20,000 non-EU migrants a year and ensures it is the most vital vacancies they fill. And vital does not include chefs, hotel managers or meat boners and trimmers.

The British public are willing to forgo the theoretical potential economic benefits of the other 100,000 immigrants in furtherance of their desire that overcrowding is not further worsened, that social tensions are not further inflamed - indeed in furtherance of their, the majority's, simply desire that there be less immigration. But economists' fancy mathematical models do not take into account. Just who is running this country?

This is the Migration Advisory Committee's email address: mac@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Posted on 4 December 2009 21:57 by Michael

Make A Comment