Migration Watch UK: News

Migrationwatch Chairman gives evidence to Migration Advisory Committee

The Migration Advisory Committee, an independent body set up by the government to advise on those occupations in Britain which face skills shortages, held a session on 26 September to which they invited the Chairman to give evidence.

The Committee had been requested by the government to provide advice as to whether the present restrictions on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria should be maintained or not.

The session was a private one but, in broad terms, the Chairman advised that the present restrictions should be retained. He drew attention to the work already done by Migrationwatch (Briefing Papers 4.1, 4.7 and 4.8). The issue resolved itself into two questions: Do we need further unskilled labour from Romania and Bulgaria? And, secondly, would lifting restrictions make much difference?

Some argued that workers from these two countries would prefer to go to Southern Europe and were unlikely, therefore, to come to the UK. However, Sir Andrew Green argued that, if that was so, then there was little to be lost from maintaining the restrictions. The experience of the earlier expansion to Eastern Europe suggested that there was a close correlation between GDP per head and the scale of migration. These two countries were even poorer than Poland. Given the fact that unemployment in Britain has increased steadily over the past 8 months, it was only prudent to avoid any additional inflow of foreign workers.

New poll indicates balanced migration a vote winner - Labour and BME voters want much lower immigration

A new poll out today demonstrates there is massive backing for a substantial cut in immigration levels from supporters of all parties and shows that a programme of ‘Balanced Migration’ into the UK could have a major effect on voting intentions in a future election.

The YouGov poll, which the Cross party Group on Balanced Migration asked Migrationwatch to commission, found that were the Conservatives to adopt such a policy - in which the number of people allowed to settle in the UK in any year was broadly similar to those who left - they would be likely to improve their support among a significant number of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters.

81 per cent of Labour voters want to see a substantial reduction in current immigration numbers. Of those, 36 per cent think that Balanced Migration is about the right level, but the other 45 per cent think even that is too high.

83 per cent of Liberal Democrats want to see much lower immigration. Of these, 43 per cent support Balanced Migration, while 40 per cent believe the limit should be even lower.

89 per cent of Conservatives want a sharp reduction in immigration. Of these, 23 per cent support Balanced Migration, while 66 per cent want even tougher limits.

Among BME respondents, 75 per cent wanted much lower immigration, of whom 36 per cent supported Balanced Migration and 39 per cent wanted even tougher limits.

The poll also showed that 33 per cent of the electorate were more likely to vote Conservative if David Cameron were to adopt Balanced Migration as a policy; only 5 per cent would be less likely to support him – a net gain of 28 per cent.

Of Labour voters, 13 per cent would be more inclined to vote Conservative, with 9 per cent less inclined. 24 per cent of Liberal Democrats would be more likely to vote Conservative and 8 per cent less likely.

Commenting, Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said:

'This poll clearly shows that voters from across the board, including the ethnic minorities, strongly support a policy at least as firm as Balanced Migration. Concern about the present massive uncontrolled level of immigration is not a partisan issue. I hope that all the political parties will now get the message and engage in a constructive debate about Balanced Migration in the months ahead.

'Balanced Migration is the only policy on the table which accommodates both the needs of business and the growing concern of voters about the impact of immigration on our community cohesion, public services and infrastructure. Our proposals will allow immigrants to work for a limited period, while ending their present almost automatic right to settle. This policy would eventually stabilise the population of the at 65 million by mid-century, as opposed to the 78.6 million now projected.’

Migrationwatch invited to put forward policy suggestions

Following the evidence which we gave to the Economic Committee of the House of Lords, Migrationwatch were invited by a Cross Party Group of Parliamentarians to put forward suggestions as to how immigration issues should be tackled in a way that took account and also tackles the need to preserve the competitiveness of the economy but also tackled the numbers.

In response, they prepared a policy document which, for the first time brings together in one place the case against the very large scale immigration which has been allowed to develop. The Cross Party Group, which was announced today, accepted the broad lines of the document and will pursue its recommendations.

A separate Scottish Immigration System would be "futile"

Claims that Scotland ‘needs’ large scale immigration because of its declining and ageing population have been strongly refuted in a paper out today from think tank Migrationwatch.

Scotland’s population is not declining as is frequently claimed so substantial immigration is not required to boost the population - neither will it provide an answer to a future pensions problem caused by an aging population, nor provide a major boost to Scotland’s economic performance, says the report.

The arguments put forward by those who plead that Scotland is a “special case” have been systematically demolished by all serious studies,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.

He said that the economic claims for large scale immigration have most recently been rejected by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords after a major investigation; similar considerations apply to Scotland

Claims that immigrants were needed to pay future pensions were also dismissed as immigrants also grow older and need pensions themselves. The only viable way to tackle this problem is for people who now tend to live longer to work longer.

‘In any case, a separate immigration system for Scotland is completely impractical,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘Without full border controls it would be unenforceable. The net result would be a “back door” to England with little or no benefit to Scotland. In a word, it would be futile.’

Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill

The Bill is a draft published on 14 July 2008 to facilitate consultation. Some parts of it are still missing. The government’s intention is that a Bill be tabled in Parliament in the autumn of 2008. The draft Bill is the next stage in a process initiated by the Border and Immigration Agency (now the UK Border Agency) in June 2007 when it issued a consultative paper “Simplifying Immigration Law. The emphasis in that paper was on simplification rather than consolidation (as explained later) and on the introduction of the points based system for the issue of work permits…….

The object of asylum and immigration appeals is very different from that of civil litigation. In the latter the judge should properly remain aloof and simply pass judgment on the basis of evidence and legal submissions. But these appeals are concerned with the rights and duties of individuals as against the state and the obligations of the towards foreign nationals who wish to visit, settle, claim asylum or whatever and in large measure to enjoy the same state benefits as its citizens. The immigration judge should be concerned to elicit the truth in proceedings before him, having regard to the public interest in every appeal. Migrationwatch made a similar statement in proceedings before the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2003 and 2004. (See Second Report of the Session 2003-04, Volume II, page 60). In our view this Bill is an opportunity to make this significant improvement to the system.

See the full text of this paper