BBC.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Book club

The Great Immigration Scandal

  • Newsnight
  • 7 Sep 06, 12:00 PM

moxon203_logo.jpgWhen Home Office immigration caseworker Steve Moxon was sacked for blowing the whistle on what he said was widespread abuse of the government's managed migration policy, he was denounced by many as being a xenophobic agitator. Now his ideas about immigration are beginning to be accepted by many. Read an excerpt of his book here, then leave your comments and reviews below.

Comments  Post your comment

The extract seems perfectly reasonable. The problems have only become terrible under Labour, but were there all the time. Since the first acceptance of big numbers of immigrants to 'solve' supposed problems the cheap and easy way for any Party. The 'fascism' of 'correct thinking' is a canker deeply rooted in more than the Parties though. The BBC sees itself as the high priesthood of 'PC', and most of the things Steve Moxon talks of.

He rightly sees the declining birth rate as a good thing, were it not for incompetent government claiming to be unable to manage it without a flood of immigrants. It is incredibly simple to solve with time limited work permits, so none may settle here and become part of the problem as they age, and need yet more young migrants to 'keep things going', while radically destroying, often ‘Balkanising’ the make up of the nation.

Labour supporters thinking they are the party of the low paid have been well and truely conned. High migration is meant to keep them poor. While the chattering class champagne New Labourites get cheap servants, gardeners, plumbers etc. While the overpopulation forces their house prices ever higher, and the low paid out of their nice areas.

Steve Moxon missed out in his 'what if' Labour election manifesto, the other terrible side their actions, 'We will destroy as much of the freedoms and liberties of England won at huge cost down the centuries, as fast as we can get away with it. We will create a terrorist excuse.

On immigration they have exacerbated and exaggerated long bad practice, making them a tragedy and disgrace, on our Liberties they are downright deliberately evil.

  • 2.
  • At 02:54 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • Eduardo Reyes wrote:

There is a point that is missed by Moxon (I have read his book) and by most political commentators, including some I respect.

Work Permits UK includes many professional and business-focussed staff with a great store of knowledge on UK businesses and the skills they need.

The problems at WPUK and our foreign consulates have arisen always because there has been some form of political interference in their operation.

What Moxon uncovered was not the 'norm'. Instead, scant attention was being paid to some applications because immigration minister Beverley Hughes had given a direction that backlogs should be cleared quickly to reduce the figures that coincided with the accession of countries like Poland.

Another scandal came about when David Blunkett sought to interfere in the normal process (the 'no favours, but quicker' scandal).

Left alone WPUK works better than most other countries' immigration systems. It is when ministers interfere that these notorious incidences have occured.

These scandals were not on-going - they were created in each instance by ministers.

Now John Reid proposes dissipating what expertise WPUK has by giving responsibility for permits to dispirate consulates, high commissions and embassies, mistakes will become more likely, no less.

Meanwhile we have treated the next wave of accession countries shabbily - making them jump through all the pre-accession hoops without allowing their citizens the key benefit of free movement.

  • 3.
  • At 06:52 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • JPseudonym wrote:

I'm surprised that no mention is made of the most disastrous piece of legislation the incoming Labour government of 1997 brought in - the abolition of the primary purpose rule.

That opened up the floodgates of foreign born spouses which has caused a massive immigration and community cohesion problem which we will be lucky to recover from for decades. And it still hasn't come onto the radar of the chattering classes.

I really do despair sometimes.

At least Moxon is no longer seen as public enemy no 1 by the lefties at Newsnight, so the true state of our hopeless immigration system must be beginning to hit home somewhere.

  • 4.
  • At 08:30 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • Ginny Halley wrote:

I couldn't disagree more - with most of the extract (apart from (c)) and the comments.
Immigrants should be welcomed for their contribution to society. They are cost effective and I for one am very glad to have brought up my children in multi-cultural London, (where they and their friends never seem to have had any trouble finding holiday work).

The immigration rules seem fine, though badly administered. This is the small part of the extract with which I do partly agree.
Firstly, from where I sit (in a Law Centre with colleagues dealing with the Home Office all the time) they seem far from PC. Irrational, unreasoned, and sometimes illiterate in their decision making (which does not seem to be evidence of HO people being highly educated, but impractical). Time wasting in their preparation of cases too. Those with the strongest cases to be made for being allowed to work here, granted leave to remain here, or granted full asylum etc often seem least likely to get it.

Secondly we all need to take drastic steps to reduce pollution - wherever we live. It seems totally irrelevant to a discussion about migration or even just managed migration.
We need workers from outside the UK for the jobs that no-one else will do, for those where there are skill shortages in the local population (including it seems the building trades, the hospitality trade, seasonal farm work etc) and for specialist work including all areas of the health service, dentistry etc. I don't know how much it is due to the UK failing to train enough people for these jobs, unwillingness to do some of them, and/or how much it is due to trained people leaving the UK shortly thereafter. I understand that, once again after a blip in the 90s when we had wars in Europe, almost as many British people leave the UK each year as immigrants arrive.

Thirdly there's always been migration, and bigots. You only need to read the papers from times when large numbers of Irish people or Jewish people were arriving here.

  • 5.
  • At 03:35 AM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • Matt Orwell wrote:

How can further immigration possibly help the UK's environmental problems? Even through the rose-tinted glasses of political correctness, is it not obvious that the more migrants there are, the more garbage they will generate? Do migrants not drive cars or ride on buses? Do they not use electricity created from the burning of coal and gas? Through the aircraft that carry them, immigrants start polluting our air before their feet have even touched UK soil.
I, for one, am yet to feel the benefits to society brought by migrants. Precisely what is this cost effectiveness they bring? Those with businesses to run can rake in even fatter profits by paying lower wages to desperate migrants. But I have never received goods or services of a better quality or at a cheaper price because of immigration.
Where I live, British people still wait tables and drive garbage trucks. Local students still work summers helping on farms. I don't think they are waiting for the first busload of immigrants to arrive so they can relinquish their "unwanted" jobs.
My doctor's office isn't boarded up awaiting an immigrant to take over. I don't have trouble communicating with my dentist or lawyer. In fact, I don’t see any gaping holes in society that need to be filled by alien workers.
As migrants continue to flood in and bring their own cultures - pernicious Islam, people trafficking, polygamy and forced child labor to name just a few - we should take a fond look back at our own childhoods and remember that we owe those same joys to future generations.

  • 6.
  • At 11:31 AM on 27 Mar 2007,
  • Tara Agnew wrote:

I have not heard amongst all these articles, who is paying for the migrant workers families to be taught English? Is this money coming from British childrens education? Are British children all falling through the net in order to provide specialist teachers for the immigrant workers children?

  • 7.
  • At 11:39 PM on 11 May 2007,
  • Jon Kingsbury wrote:

The lack of intellect of most posters in this respect is unbelievable. How do these ageing individuals propose to pay for public services, pensions etc. Are these people aware that Europe needs 1.4 million immigrants a year just to maintain the ratio of working to non-working population at it's current level. Oh, what about the 2 million Britons who have migrated to other European countries? Oh, and the half a million in the US, Oh and yes the millions in other countries around the world.

Bigotry is anti-English, and runs thick in Jon Kingsbury's assumption that we cannot care for our ageing population ourselves, but thicker in Ginny Halley's tiresome repetition of the attractions of English race replacement.

We are slowly gifting our homeland to alien peoples. The English are the victims here, and the racism involved belongs to those who deny us the right even to protest, calling us bigots, haters and the rest.

Only the English have a moral right to England. We are under absolutely no moral obligation to dissolve ourselves in the seas of the Third World. Stand up. Throw the faux-morality of the Ginny's of this world back in their faces. They cannot love, and wish only to harm.

Child labor can not be eliminated until influences Governments to generate rural employment and development. To meet target of 2015 Governments must reevaluate its economic growth policies for illiterate and semiliterate population. http://www.sadashivan.com/

Check my videos on child labor (through youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPk9Jns28k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QlnKpAQ1aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u80UpcatrGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZCMAwYigzk

A concern of child labour exists from poverty. We have to understand as why children go to work. If parents don't send their children to work I am sure factories will not be able to consume them. Why poor parents feel children as their assets who will earn money for their home?

  • 10.
  • At 03:30 AM on 05 Sep 2007,
  • Gerry Obrien wrote:

I write this comment, as my last one was rejected, due to the truth and really in the news media.

I think I should see what is happening in American and realize what the cost is to one's culture,customs and one's country. I would suggest oneone except former european and would try to encourage your former countrymen/women to come home. You see the state of Israel and other country, why shouldn't we?.

  • 11.
  • At 06:26 PM on 05 Sep 2007,
  • john russell wrote:

Bravo Guessedworker! I agree with you, but even if I didn't, would query the failure of the media to cover the widespread and deeply held opposition to the mass immigration to which Britain has been subjected, without the consent of the people. Keep fighting.

I too like most people I know agree wholeheartedly with Guessedworker. When did the British people vote for this mass immigration? I suppose we are unable to exclude members of the European Union but to keep accepting great numbers of Muslims to this country,with their determination to create an alternative society is very mistaken indeed.We have lost the Britain I was brought up in, no wonder Britains are emigrating in such large numbers.

Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?

  • 14.
  • At 04:37 PM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Ken Case wrote:

Immigration scandal? You Brits have an unpleasant situation while we, in the US, have a GENUINE immigration scandal.

  • 15.
  • At 10:03 PM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Charlotte wrote:

Ken, unless you are a Native American, then you are descended from immigrants! Also, your country is so much bigger than ours.

If you're concerned about immigration, then you must vote for the BNP - it is the only option. Mark my words - the BNP is going to do EXTREMELY well at next year's GLA/London mayoral election!

  • 16.
  • At 02:39 AM on 30 Jan 2008,
  • David wrote:

There's an interesting discussion at Google Answers on what it means to have 'difficulty' hiring US workers, and the role of immigrant labor:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=771850

I think it will be of interest to the readers here.

  • 17.
  • At 07:45 AM on 31 Jan 2008,
  • wappaho wrote:

it would be nice if there was a party that took some of the views of the bnp and ukip but without the vitriole. there is nothing wrong with trying to protect our way of life - after all we are constantly being urged to protect the way of life of others but i feel the bnp and ukip are still a little too aggressive/isolationist to be a serious political force. i think there is quite a bit of support for preserving a bit more of what the english-scottish-welsh used to stand for, after all it is virtually impossible to watch a history programme without there being some reference to an english-scottish-welsh modus spreading around the world - magna carta, industial revolution, religious tolerance, syncopated music, language, military organisation, education systems, and so much more.

  • 18.
  • At 12:16 PM on 01 Feb 2008,
  • Adrienne wrote:

wappaho (#18) Whilst I'm sure you're in good company, that same company has (no doubt often unwittingly) elected International Socialists (as you no doubt know, New Labour is a member of the SI), and they appear determined to Balkanise the UK and turn England into Regional Assemblies as part of their programme to politically integrate what was the UK into the EU. One of the tools in their disunity armoury appears to have been mismanaged migration, which has further facilitated de-nationalisation, just as the free-market has denationalised industry and public services. Will we be better managed/represented if the EU becomes a federation of states/regions, each with a population of 4-6 million?

Given the late vote on the Lisbon Treaty, it looks like a fait accompli. People won't vote BNP or UKIP in large enough numbers to make any difference (and for the reasons which you give). Anyone in favour of nationalism or the welfare state is likely to be made to feel like a Nazi or Stalinist by these internatinalists.

Would you like to see
denavir cream information denavir and pregnancy denavir cream france denavir children denavir cream
Plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine appear to

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites