Migration Watch UK: News

New points based system likely to result in higher immigration

The Government’s claim that their new Points Based system will result in lower levels of immigration is pure spin. The scheme has no limits and, in fact, will probably result in even higher levels of immigration.

It is so complex and bureaucratic, with potentially 26,000 job titles, that it is highly likely to lead to chaos and confusion, increasing the scope for abuse, says a report from think tank Migrationwatch which has analysed the system in detail.

'Piece by piece the Government’s case for the highest levels of immigration in our history has been dismantled, most recently by the House of Lords Economic Committee. Yet, once again, the government have ducked the issue of limits to the numbers admitted,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.

'The numbers could well take off as employers emulate their competitors, leaving the Home Office struggling yet again,’ he said. 'Including students, we could see nearly half a million applicants a year. On past form, the Home Office will not have the staff to check the authenticity of applications. If so it will be only a matter of time before they simply go through the motions for the sake of appearances. As we have seen in the past, this leads to chaos and, eventually, collapse – as in the case of the asylum system three years ago.’

In its analysis Migrationwatch lists ten specific concerns with the Scheme. The first being that the very basis of the scheme is flawed because, as the recent House of Lords report conclusively demonstrated, there is no significant benefit to the host community from large-scale immigration, yet the new scheme assumes that there is.

'Its main effect will be to open the skilled section of our labour force to cut price competition, thus reducing the incentive for employers to train British staff,’ said Sir Andrew. Furthermore, the bar has been set very low. Anyone with a job offer and a Bachelor’s degree need only earn £20,000 before tax. This is less than the average starting salary for a graduate;’ he added.

The government calls it an “Australian style” system when in fact it is entirely different. The Australians start with a limit and select within that total. The UK scheme maintains the current ‘no limits’ philosophy.

Furthermore, all work permit holders can become qualified for settlement in Britain and later for citizenship, whether or not their skills are needed beyond the short term.

'Because of the complexity of the scheme and the likely scale of applications there is bound to be abuse and, given the absence of embarkation controls and the legal and practical obstacles to removing people the numbers could well get out of hand,’ said Sir Andrew.

'The government are now promising to listen. They would do well to listen to the 75% of the public who wish to see a substantial reduction in immigration – certainly not an open ended conveyor belt adding still further to the numbers we already have from Eastern Europe. The bottom line is that a Points Based System without a limit is worse than pointless’, he added.

Recent case law on asylum and immigration

The government has recently suffered a number of setbacks in asylum and immigration cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Two cases are summarised in Migrationwatch Briefing Paper 8.25: The Libyan case and the Abu Qatada case.

Overview of the Dutch asylum and immigration system

Dutch methods of regulating migration

About the author

Dr Jeroen Doomernik is researcher and programme manager at the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES) and lecturer in political science at the University of Amsterdam. He holds an MA in social anthropology and a PhD in human geography.

Introduction

1. In contrast to the United Kingdom, Dutch migration control mechanisms are not limited to the nation’s borders. Instead, the country has a long history of administrative measures by which to regulate entry and residence of foreign nationals. Indeed, with progressive integration into the European Union the significance of borders and their controls has decreased to the extent that it is now Schengen partners who control their territory’s borders on behalf of the Dutch government. What is left in terms of old-fashioned border control is now concentrated in the seaports (notably Rotterdam and the national airport (Amsterdam Schiphol) which are gates of entry to Dutch territory and, of course, the Schengen area at large. Administrative controls within the Dutch state meanwhile have been intensified………..

43. The Netherlands has clearly lost some attraction to newcomers as we can read from the migration statistics, which currently show a negative net migration rate. It is difficult to assess this. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is the better skilled who leave the country and the poorer skilled who still seek to settle in the Netherlands. Whether this is related to migration rules, hostility towards migration in general and Muslims in particular, the economic cycle, or rising cost of living, we do not know.

44. Lastly, what has become evident from this short excursion through Dutch restrictive migration measures is that removal is the hardest element of control. Migrants who end up working in the country, and even more so those who have sought asylum, are difficult to expel if they fail to cooperate. Detention, a costly instrument, has some effect but a majority of detainees sooner or later return to the streets.

Read the full report

Observer publish a correction

In its edition of 6 April The Observer published an article that, in passing, strongly implied that Migrationwatch had been scaremongering over the health risks of immigration.

In accordance with the guidelines of the Press Complaints Commission, we sought a fair opportunity to reply to this misleading and inaccurate material. As a result, the following letter was published in their edition of 13 April:

No TB catastrophe

An Observer article last week by David Rose alleged that Migrationwatch had foretold a 'catastrophe' from TB among immigrants to Britain. We have said nothing of the kind. We have simply called for testing of medical staff recruited to Britain from countries that have a very high incidence of communicable diseases.

Commenting, the Chairman of Migrationwatch said, "To give the newspaper its due, a corrective letter was agreed as soon as the matter was drawn to the attention of the Editor."

Sir Andrew Green – Yet another apology from another newspaper

Last month The Independent published an apology and have agreed to pay costs and damages in respect of potentially libellous allegations against the Chairman of Migrationwatch.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green said "This is now the second such case in recent months. I hope that the press will learn the lesson and recognise the need for temperate language on all sides of the immigration debate."

Devastating demolition of the case for mass immigration

An article by Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK in The Daily Mail, London 1 April, 2008

Today's report on immigration from the House of Lords Economic Committee strikes a devastating blow against years of blatant government propaganda. It rejects outright the Government's argument that a high level of immigration is of economic benefit to the UK.

This is exactly what we in Migrationwatch have been saying for at least three years in the teeth of opposition and, indeed, insults from the immigration lobby.

Now, at last, after the first major inquiry of its kind in this country, our view has been endorsed by the considered verdict of one of the most heavyweight committees of Parliament, including, as it does, two former Chancellors, a former Governor of the Bank of England, and several distinguished economists as well as captains of industry and finance.

The committee's findings are devastating. The report takes each of the arguments that the Government has been putting forward for years, and tears them to shreds one by one. It is a watershed in the debate on immigration.

See the full article

Migrationwatch response to report by the Independent Asylum Commission

Responding to today’s Interim report from the Independent Asylum Commission think-tank Migrationwatch says that the document has completely ignored the fact that in recent years just over 60% of asylum claims in the UK have been rejected as not genuine.

‘Despite its official sounding title, this is a private initiative by a number of charities involved in asylum issues ‘said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.

‘Like them, we fully support a welcome for genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution. They now amount to only 3% of immigration but the extent of false claims and the failure to remove those concerned remain serious problems. If you set foot in Britain and say the word “asylum” you have an 80% chance of staying, more often than not illegally. No wonder they are still queuing up in Calais.

'These uncomfortable facts are ignored in a report which implicitly assumes that all asylum seekers are genuinely seeking sanctuary from persecution when many are clearly economic migrants,’ he said.

'The report seems designed to convey the general impression that the process is unfair and oppressive instead of tackling the abuse which is undermining public support for those who need it most - genuine refugees,’ said Sir Andrew.

The Lisbon Treaty: more red-tape round our border controls?

The Lisbon Treaty could further weaken Britain’s ability to control her own borders, according to a report out today by Migrationwatch.

The Treaty now sets the EU the specific aim of developing "common policies" for both asylum and immigration, including uniform standards for asylum. It also widens EU powers to define the rights of legal immigrants from outside the EU. In future, decisions on all these matters will be by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) which itself will be changed to make it more difficult to form a blocking minority. Finally, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) into the Treaty will introduce greater uncertainty about the extent to which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) could overrule the decisions of British courts and those European immigration laws which Britain has opted into.

It is welcome that the government has retained its right to opt out from or opt in to EU proposals on asylum and immigration law. So far, Britain has "opted in" to virtually all EU Directives on asylum and illegal immigration but, in future, because of QMV, will have little or no control over how they might be amended or developed. The government have stayed out of the Schengen arrangements and other aspects of legal immigration but our room to conduct our own immigration policy could, as a result of the Treaty, be narrowed by decisions of the ECJ.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green said "The Lisbon Treaty takes us completely in the wrong direction. It is clear, almost on a daily basis, that not only are our borders extremely porous but that, once someone has reached Britain, the chances of being removed are very remote. Adopting the Lisbon Treaty is going to make matters even worse, by adding a further legal channel, which can be used to challenge our own immigration policy.

'The government are encouraging people to come to Britain as visitors, students or skilled workers but, when it comes to removing those who no longer have any right to remain here, the authorities are bound hand and foot by legal red tape designed, almost exclusively, to ensure the human rights of migrants while ignoring the interests of our own community".

Note

1. The report was prepared for Migrationwatch by a consultant, Mr Geoffrey Fitchew, who was formerly a senior Treasury official, working on European and international financial questions and later Director General for Financial Institutions and Company Law in the European Commission (1986 to 1993). Subsequently, he was Head of the European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, dealing with all aspects of European policy. He is strongly in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EU, but was a supporter of the campaign against Britain adopting the Euro. He also supports the current campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Migrants should also 'earn' their vote

The Government's proposals outlined yesterday for 'earned' citizenship should also be an opportunity to make sweeping changes to those eligible to vote in elections in the UK, says think-tank, Migrationwatch.

In a paper out today the group point out that about a million people from Commonwealth countries who are not British citizens have the right to vote in Britain

Said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green,' It is completely contrary to the Government's proposals for earned citizenship that one of the most important benefits of citizenship - the right to choose our leaders - does not have to be earned.  If the government are serious about earned citizenship, they will bring forward measures to abolish this anachronism.'

Government figures wrong on where immigrants come from, confirms Statistics Commission

The Government has the ability to control a much larger percentage of immigrants coming to the UK than it claims.

This has emerged after think tank Migrationwatch asked the independent Statistics Commission to look at Government claims that 52% of immigrants are from outside the EU whereas Migrationwatch say the figure was 68%.

After reviewing the figures the Statistics Commission has agreed that the Migrationwatch figure is the more accurate.

Migrationwatch numbers were arrived at by looking at net migration of foreign nationals (the difference between the number of foreign nationals migrating to the UK and emigrating from the UK).  The Government arrive at their 52% figure by including migration of British citizens which Migrationwatch say are not relevant to the debate about where immigrants come from.

The Statistics Commission makes the point that, for control of immigration purposes, it may be better to consider in-migration only. On this basis, even if returning British citizens are included, the Statistics Commission confirms that non-EU citizens make up the majority (58%) of immigrants to the UK.

‘This is highly significant in practical terms,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman. The Government has no control over who comes from EU states, but it could reduce the numbers from non-EU countries. We can understand that they want to play down the numbers of non-EU immigrants because, if they are made to appear relatively unimportant, it lets them off the hook of taking effective action. They further compound matters by refusing any discussion on immigration issues as the House debates the details of the new EU’ Treaty. ’ Not a single line on this subject will be debated.

'But none of this will fool the public of whom 80% want to see immigration sharply reduced. These figures prove that more than two thirds of immigrants come from outside the EU and show that there could be a substantial reduction if the Government had the will to do it,’ said Sir Andrew.

See the full exchange of letters between Migrationwatch and the Statistics Commission.