Migration Watch UK: News

BBC Today programme: asylum seekers, Calais

Sir Andrew Green was interviewed on the Today Programme at 8.35 this morning about the asylum seekers' camp near Calais, together with Donna Covey, the Chief Executive of the Refugee Council.

Sir Andrew said that the reason for people queueing up in Calais must be that Britain was perceived as a "soft touch". The official statistics suggested that this might be the case as anyone reaching Britain and claiming asylum had a nearly 80% chance of staying, often illegally.

He suggested that the government should take three steps:

1 Double the resources for removal.

2 Clamp down on employers of illegal labour.They had started to do this.

3 Take on the absurd arguments for an amnesty which could only make a bad situation worse.

You can hear the discussion on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme web site.

At last, the truth about immigration and council house queue jumping

By Sir Andrew Green 30 June, 2009

The Government's announcement yesterday that they are handing councils new powers to give local people priority on the waiting list for social housing is a clear admission that they have been misleading us over the huge impact of immigration on housing.

For years, they have been in total denial, refusing even to discuss how immigration has affected the supply of housing.

Now, at last, they have acknowledged that this is an issue which must be tackled. Supply of social housing has fallen far behind the demand for it because waiting lists have grown by over 60 per cent in just six years.

One major reason for this is the number of asylum seekers who have been granted asylum - or other forms of protection which entitle them to remain in Britain - and offered social housing…

See full newspaper article

Migrationwatch Migrationwatch comment on GLA report on illegal immigration issued on 16 June, 2009.

'These are very expensive proposals which would only make a bad situation worse. On the report’s own figures they would cost £300m in bureaucracy and £3m a week in benefits (our figure is £10m a week. See also Briefing Paper 11.11 - The True Cost of an Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants). It would also cost £6bn to provide the extra social housing needed.

Worse still, it would encourage still further illegal immigration as other countries have found. Italy has granted five amnesties in the last twenty years and Spain six; on virtually every occasion there were more applications each time. The report has no answer to this. it just remarks that it would only happen if border controls were ineffective.

But that is exactly the position we still face. We issue two million visas a year and there will be no full checks on departure until 2014, obviously, those granted an amnesty would be replaced at the drop of a hat.

The public have the common sense to see this. Our opinion poll showed seventy per cent opposed to an amnesty.

The recent European elections must surely be a lesson to the political class that they can no longer ride roughshod over public opinion with absurd, expensive and self-defeating proposals such as these. It seems that Boris Johnson is trying to buy the immigrant vote with taxpayer's money. They will know how to respond to this.'

Amnesty for illegal immigrants could cost taxpayers 'Up to £1m' per family

At a time when the Government debt is at record levels, new research shows that the Mayor of London’s proposals for an amnesty for illegal immigrants would cost taxpayers, on average, an extra £1 million over the lifetime of each immigrant.

The calculation, by think tank Migrationwatch has, for the first time, estimated the ‘lifetime cost’ to the taxpayer of a 25 year old illegal immigrant who marries and has two children while earning close to the minimum wage.

Such an amnesty, for potentially up to a million people, has been proposed by a number of organisations and individuals but they have failed to consider the ‘hidden costs’ which will have massive implications for the public finances, says the report.

Our calculations show the numbers are truly enormous, adding an unacceptable – and entirely unnecessary - burden to the nation’s balance sheet at a time when Boris Johnson himself is writing about “the horrific state of the nation’s finances”, ’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.

Sir Andrew said that the paper concentrated on the costs of an amnesty for illegal immigrants but the figures are equally applicable to many of those who are granted asylum in Britain. While some will have qualifications and will be able to earn considerably more than the minimum wage, for others the entitlements, and therefore the costs, will be the same adding further to the demands on the public purse. This makes the failure of the Home Office to be represented at many asylum appeals all the more reprehensible.

The Migrationwatch paper examines the ‘total lifetime’ cost of a 25 year old immigrant who works for the minimum wage, marries, has two children, does not have a pension and therefore in retirement receives Pension Credit, and lives throughout in private rented housing. The calculations in this paper take the costs from the date of marriage at aged 25 through 40 years of work to retirement at 65 years of age and then 15 years of retirement.

The major component of the costings is Housing Benefit. An immigrant couple living on the minimum wages who then retire on Pension Credit, will receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit throughout their working life and throughout their retirement. The total Housing Benefit they receive will be £291,000 plus a further £19,000 in Council Tax Benefit.

In London, where some 70% of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

'Clearly some of these immigrants will already be married, or will not marry, and some will work above the minimum wage so that their Housing Benefit will be lower,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘On the other hand some may have families of more than two children, thereby attracting more Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (which amounts to £2,925 per annum per additional child or £47,000 over the first 16 years of the child’s life). Or they may be unemployed – immigrants are, on average, more likely to be economically inactive than the population as a whole,’ he said.

For example compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively.

'It is clear that not only is rewarding illegal behaviour wrong in principle but the experience of Spain and Italy shows conclusively that it encourages even more illegal immigration in anticipation of future amnesties. This is a ridiculous proposal which is bound to increase illegal immigration rather than reduce it. It is also a shocking waste of public money at a time when we can least afford it,' said Sir Andrew.

Migrant stock has doubled since 1991 Immigration problem 'Home Grown' - not a result of Globalisation

The cause of the highest levels of immigration the UK has ever seen is not, as the government claims, global population movement but rather a series of failures of Government policies, says a new report out today from think tank Migrationwatch – “How did immigration get out of control?"

Now that immigration regularly features high on the list of public concerns the Government have tried to promote the view that world trends have been responsible for a trebling of net foreign immigration since 1997. However, the report demonstrates that this is simply a ‘smokescreen’ to disguise the way in which UK immigration and asylum policy has been mismanaged for a decade.

'The government seems to make a habit of blaming current ills on ‘global forces’ but our analysis shows that this problem is almost entirely ‘home grown’. It could, and should, have been more competently managed, so preventing the rising tide of resentment among the public,’ said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch.

The report shows that the percentage of the world population who are international migrants increased somewhat - from 2.5% in 1960 to 3.0 percent in 2005. The pattern in Britain has been quite different. The percentage of migrants in the UK – that is persons born outside the country - increased by only just over 1% in the first 30 years - from 4.5% in 1961 to 5.8 % in 1991. It then accelerated, doubling to 11% in 2008.

The report also demonstrates that comparisons with major European countries are often irrelevant because their demography is completely different. For example, the population of Germany would decline by 25% in mid century without immigration, whereas that of France and the UK would still increase.

Until 1997 it was the policy of successive British governments to minimise immigration into the UK, subject to the needs of the labour market and obligations to dependants and international conventions. Indeed, until 1996 government statisticians assumed in their population projections that net immigration would be zero over the long term.

Since then a series of policy measures has contributed to the rapid increase in immigration:

Embarkation controls – because of the total abolition of embarkation controls (begun in 1994 and completed in 1998) foreigners arriving on time limited visas became aware that there was no check on their departure and, as Mr Blunkett- then Home Secretary - later admitted on television, the government now has "no idea" who is in Britain.

The Primary Purpose Rule – in 1997 the requirement that the applicant should show "that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom" was abolished. Immigration by spouses has increased by over 50% since then.

Asylum – control of the asylum system was lost for several years so contributing considerably to net immigration, particularly when dependants are included. The number whose claim is rejected still exceeds the number removed.

Economic migration - Since about 2000, the government have specifically encouraged the arrival of economic migrants. The number of work permits issued has trebled since 1997.

East European workers - the forecast of numbers coming to the UK was wrong by a factor of at least 10 when, unlike most EU partners, the Government failed to impose any transitional controls over numbers.

'Many people are at a loss to know how all this was allowed to happen’, said Sir Andrew. ‘The true story is that the government has held public opinion in contempt for years. Despite having dismantled border controls, they deliberately encouraged immigration, partly to make the economic growth figures look better. The fact that the extra population cancelled out any real benefit to the resident population was repeatedly denied until exposed by a major investigation last April by the highly authoritative Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘We now face a massive increase in population just as our economy is struggling. Some apologies from the government would be in order.’

Public gives thumbs down to amnesty for illegal immigrants. New study shows amnesty would cost up to £4 billion a year.

Seven out of ten adults disagree that there should be an amnesty for illegal immigrants, a new YouGov poll has found. The research, commissioned by Migrationwatch UK,found that only one in ten people agree with the idea. In London, the poll found that 64 per cent opposed an amnesty.Just one in six Londoners supported the idea of an amnesty, which was recently proposed by Mayor Boris Johnson; only one in twenty strongly agreed.

The poll was published along with new research, which shows that an amnesty for illegal immigrants, or “undocumented workers” would cost £2 billion in its first full year of operation. As those concerned married and had families, the costs could rise to £4 billion a year.

Those granted an amnesty would be immediately entitled to apply for social housing, adding at least half a million to the waiting list (which is already over 1.5 million for England alone). They would also be entitled to bring over their families, thus moving up the queue which is largely based on “need”. Meanwhile they would be entitled to Housing Benefit which is included in this calculation.

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said:

Clearly the British public can see that to reward people with a meal ticket for life for breaking our laws is an absurd proposition. It will only encourage others to come and take their place in the hope of a further amnesty. That is exactly what has happened in Italy which has granted five amnesties in the past twenty years and Spain which has granted six.

Claims of “a huge increase in tax revenues” are ludicrous when benefit payments are taken into account. So proponents of an amnesty are left only with their claim to be advancing the cause of social justice. However, the real victims are British workers whose wages are held down or perhaps their job opportunities taken by people who came or remained here illegally of their own volition.

"As we enter a recession, competition for work by illegal immigrants should be reduced, not encouraged. The government and Opposition are absolutely right to oppose this ill-considered scheme. The only amnesty worth considering is an amnesty on departure – allowing people already here illegally to leave within a defined window without fear of arrest for immigration offences.”/P>

See Notes to Editors

We must create a culture of solidarity, not offer amnesties

Editorial from The Catholic Herald of 28 November, 2008

"Showing respect for the dignity and civil rights of immigrants to this country is not an option for Catholics: it is a non-negotiable responsibility that arises from the message of Christ and our own dignity as human beings. Immigration policy, on the other hand, is a question for civil society that falls within the remit of politicians. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between upholding the inalienable rights of immigrants (including illegal ones) and calling for controversial changes to policy in this area. Yet the Church must try to do so. Indeed, it must try harder."

To see the full article go to Migration Watch UK web site.

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.

AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS NOT A ‘BENEFIT’ BUT A MAJOR LIABILITY

Instead of “netting” £1 billion pounds annually for the Treasury an amnesty for illegal immigrants would in fact cost the taxpayer between £0.8 billion and £1.8 billion a year, says a new report out today.

A recent paper from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) claimed that an amnesty for illegal immigrants could provide extra revenue of around £1 billion a year but, when their figures were examined in detail by think-tank Migrationwatch, the very opposite of this turns out to be the case.

‘Our analysis, based on their own figures, blows their claims out of the water,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman. ‘They have presented a thoroughly biased and misleading case. They have very conveniently taken absolutely no account of the additional expenditure involved in, for example, Tax Credits, Unemployment Benefits, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Education and Health which turns this ‘benefit’ into a major liability, all of course footed by the UK taxpayer.’

In the longer term, as families are formed and become entitled to a higher level of benefits, the cost to the tax payer could be more than £5 billion a year, or £15 million every day.

Sir Andrew said it was clear that the IPPR paper had been taken up by supporters of liberal immigration policies to persuade the public that an amnesty would be a ‘good’ thing but it was high time that the claim that it would benefit the tax payer was exposed as utterly bogus.

'The more recent claim by the Liberal Democrat's spokesman that the Treasury is "losing out” on £3.3 billion of unpaid tax each year is even more ridiculous while the so called "earned legalisation" they are touting makes no difference to these costs,’ he said.

'The true effects of an amnesty would eventually be to cost the tax payer £15 million a day, add hundreds of thousands to the waiting lists for council housing, and encourage still more illegal immigration. The public are right to dismiss this absurd proposal as they have done so decisively and repeatedly,’ he said.

‘Let us have a debate about whether or not we should have an amnesty for the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants now in this country, but let us do so on the basis of accurate facts,’ he said.

'It is very clear from previous amnesties across Europe that their effect is to encourage yet more illegal immigration leading inevitably to calls for yet more amnesties, with yet more asked of the taxpayer. The public are getting very tired of hearing that those who have broken our laws for long enough should receive benefits, leading even to citizenship, rather than face penalties,’ he said.

'This would only make a bad situation worse'

Commentary
By Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK
The Daily Telegraph

Welcome to Great Britain - the softest touch in the world. That is the message sent out by yesterday's demonstration in Trafalgar Square. It may have been well intentioned - but it was also deeply misguided.

The immigration lobby, together with some church leaders are proposing that illegal immigrants who have been here for four or more years should be admitted to a " two year pathway" to full legal rights. This would entitle them to access to the welfare state and citizenship eventually. They could also bring over their families.

This is an amnesty in all but name.

There are somewhere between 500,000 and a million illegal immigrants here. Some arrived on the back of a truck, some overstayed their visas. Others are failed asylum seekers the Government has failed to remove. Many are being exploited by their employers. The Chinese cockle pickers drowned in Morecambe Bay are the most obvious example.

This hidden labour force holds down wages for all unskilled workers and enables unscrupulous employers to undercut honest ones. It also damages the reputation of legal immigrants.

An amnesty will be pointless if those who are legalised are simply replaced. Some 70 per cent of illegal immigrants are brought here by people-smugglers who will be the first to spot a new market.

Others will be tempted to overstay on visitor or student visas to work at less than the minimum wage but for more than they could earn at home.

Even now migrants are lining up in Sangatte for an opportunity to get to Britain. The prospect of an amnesty will attract even more. Italy and Spain have each granted five or six amnesties in the last 20 years and almost every time have faced even more applications.

An amnesty would be expensive for the tax payer. The immigration lobby is claiming a net gain to the Exchequer of between £500 million to £1 billion. This takes no account of the extra cost of adding 500,000 people to the welfare state.

More immediate is the effect on housing. Once granted Leave to Remain, these migrants will become entitled to social housing. As single people they would join a waiting list. If their families arrived they would move up the priority list.

There is already a sense of unfairness among the indigenous working class. They feel that they have paid into the system for many years while new arrivals immediately claim benefits. Indeed, 76 per cent of the public oppose an amnesty. The Government ignores such strong feelings at its peril.

So what is the alternative? First, we must restore control of our borders, including checking people in and out by name. This is now planned but it will be years before it is in place.

Second, we need to bear down on employers of illegal workers. The Government has spoken of heavy fines, the use of the Proceeds of Crime Act and prison sentences for company directors.

However, in the last five years there has been only a handful of successful prosecutions. Even now there are only about a dozen officials devoted to this task.

The third step is to permit illegal immigrants to leave Britain without risk of arrest. Some have been imprisoned after being arrested for an immigration offence on their way out.

A departure amnesty would make sense, especially combined with tighter regulation of the job market and restricting access to our education, health and welfare state.

The prospect of an amnesty will only retain the illegals we have and attract more. It will shift the exploitation to another group of victims and will perpetuate the undercutting of honest employers and workers. In reality, it is foolishness. It would make a bad situation worse.