Migration Watch UK: News

Legislative Developments

In September 2008 Briefing Paper 8.28, summarising the contents of the Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill, gave an account of the Bill’s contents and of the views on it which we submitted to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons……

… There is now before Parliament a Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, which received its first reading in the House of Lords on 14 January and will have its second reading in that House on 11 February. The main purpose of the Bill is to give legal effect to the merger of immigration and customs functions in the UK Border Agency. It contains also certain new provisions on the acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation and on immigration. It does not cause Migration Watch any great concern, but it will bring to 11 the number of Acts of Parliament since 1971 and make ever more pressing the need for consolidation.

Read the full text of this Briefing Paper 8.33

The Independent - Another Apology

"For a second time The Independent has been obliged to apologise and pay damages and costs to Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch. This is despite the fact that on the first occasion, in February 2008, their apology recognised explicitly that "Sir Andrew Green and Migrationwatch, the think-tank he founded, are entitled to put forward an approach to immigration which differs from view put forward in this newspaper. We accept that language on this subject should be temperate and appropriate on all sides and apologise to Sir Andrew Green".

On this second occasion, their apology read as follows;

"In her column, "These bigots imperil our nation's future"(29 September 2008)Yasmin Alibhai-Brown referred to Sir Andrew Green, of Migrationwatch, in discussing the British Council's report on British and Italian young people's views on National Identity and Europe. She alleged that Sir Andrew Green is "gleeful" that the result showed that one in four Britains is fearful of migrants and that this outcome is the result of his campaigning. These allegations are untrue and we apologise to Sir Andrew".

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green repeated that it was particularly important in this debate to use measured language.

Asylum seekers - a serious case of misunderstanting

Summary

Confusion continues to reign over the distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee. In the period 1997 – 2007 three quarters of asylum applications were refused after a process with a reduced burden of proof and opportunities to appeal. Asylum seekers should not be confused with genuine applicants who are, rightly, granted refugee status. Claims that asylum seekers do not get a fair hearing are unjustified

Conclusions

...Our concern about correct use of these expressions is no mere legal quibble. We have always made it clear publicly that we support asylum for genuine claimants who are able to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution, but we stress the word genuine. However, the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are found not to have a genuine claim and are using the asylum process simply as a means of gaining entry to Britain which is otherwise not available to them by any lawful channel...

Read the full text of this Briefing Paper No 32

Cabinet minister admits immigration 'free for all'

A Cabinet Minister has admitted the Government has presided over an asylum and immigration “free for all” and warned that the recession could be a recipe for social tension.

Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, said Labour had failed to manage the system effectively, allowing many people to enter the country under false pretences.

See The Sunday Times for the full text of this article.

Immigration: BBC Radio 4: Beyond Westminster

Radio 4's Beyond Westminster (1100 hrs – 1130 hrs Saturday, 10 January 2009) discussed whether the record levels of immigrants are something to be celebrated or deplored and how far things will be changed by the looming recession

The BBC's Andrew Rawnsley first questioned Migrationwatch's Chairman, Sir Andrew Green, about why his organisation is alarmed at the projections for a British population of 70 million by 2031. He then spoke to Tim Finch of the left-of centre think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research about IPPR's views on the Government's immigration policy. Finally, he talked to Simon Darby, Deputy Leader of the British National Party who explained why the BNP wants immigration stopped.

Mr Rawnsley then explored the arguments with three politicians: Phil Woolas, (Lab) Immigration Minister, Damien Green (Cons) Shadow Minister for Immigration and Chris Huhne, LibDem's chief spokesman on Home Affairs.

It is possible to Listen Again to the programme.

Population out of control: Why present policies cannot keep our population even to 70 million

Summary

The government have assured the public that the population of the UK will not be allowed to reach 70 million and that their new Points Based System (PBS) will ensure that this is achieved. Unfortunately, this cannot possibly be so........

Conclusion

……Last year the PBS would have only stopped 11,500 migrants out of 237,000 arriving in the UK.

. It is quite clear that the PBS in its present form will not, of itself, be remotely enough to keep the population of the UK below 70 million. This is not surprising since it does not place overall limits on immigration, and was never intended to do so. It remains to be seen whether the Government will take serious measures, including a much tougher version of the points based system, to limit the impact of immigration on our population. There is no evidence of this so far.

Read the full text of this Briefing Paper 9.21 on population projections which was prepared by Migrationwatch at the request of the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration.