The tide has officially turned
It has been one of the most significant migrations in Britain's recent history. In only the last six years, our population has been boosted by one million eastern Europeans, mostly Poles. At its height in 2007, an additional 200 people arrived every day from eight former Iron-Curtain countries which had joined the EU three years earlier - the so-called A8. Now the east-west tide has officially turned. In the year to last September, 12,000 more A8 nationals left than came.
This graph from today's immigration statistics [272Kb PDF] tells an extraordinary story that has had an effect on almost every community in Britain.
The legacy of this wave of migrants, however, may be permanent. Poles are now the largest foreign group resident in the UK. A decade ago, Polish beer could only be found in specialty shops. Today some 40 million pints are consumed in Britain each year. Polish delis, barbers, churches and pubs: the great Eastern European migration has left its cultural mark on the British landscape for generations to come.
The suddenness and the scale of the arrivals sent a shock-wave through parts of the UK unused to immigration. It pushed the issue to the top of the political agenda for a time. Although EU migration is not covered by government controls, arguably it has been the presence of hundreds of thousands of Poles, Latvians and Albanians that has driven ministers to promise a cap on non-EU skilled workers.
Today's figures also include some interesting detail [132Kb PDF] on what Eastern European and other economic migrants are like. Those from outside the EU are generally more qualified than the average British worker. A third are graduates; 21% work in banking or finance. 31% are in public services like health and education.
Among workers from Eastern Europe, just 5% have degrees. Just over 29% work in hospitality or distribution - relatively low-paid jobs. A quarter are in manufacturing.
It is perhaps the increasing scarcity of such work that has prompted the end, for now at least, of "the great Eastern European invasion".
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hi Mark,
Its good to know that at-least someone is doing un-biased commentary on non-EU immigrants and show that most of non-EU immigrants are good for the country rather bad but still they will be caped to make the voter happy and time will tell that its going to create bad reputation for current government when devil will come out of details.
Complain about this comment
Historically, Crewe has always had Polish residents. Remembrance Day parades have a sizeable representation of Polish veterans (nice for me to see Polish medals in wear, instead of looking at the pictures on my website!). But over the last 5-10 years there has been an influx of younger ones, especially families. The local Roman Catholic high school (an excellent establishment) has quite a few students who have arrived recently enough to not be fluent in English yet, while Polish is often heard in supermarkets and around town. At least one supermarket has an aisle of Polish specialities (some very nice, others a bit of an acquired taste!). If you need a casual labourer for a day's work, there's a certain car park where young men in search of work hang out. Personally I find it delightful and want to learn some Polish now!
Complain about this comment
Are you aware that you always approach this subject from the ‘no problem’ or ‘problem over’ side of the issue? Just like BBC interviewers who always attack/approach from the left.
For example it would be inconceivable if you had ever written of a coming problem with unexpectedly enormous levels in inward migration. This was just like Guardian readers who kept saying the UK had the hardest approach to asylum seekers which just was not true.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Once more you focus on the 'easy' statistics, Mark.
And once more I am forced to ask you the question ......
How do these statistics stack up against the immigration of DEPENDENTS & EXTENDED FAMILY who do not enter the labour force?
We really must get a picture of the HIDDEN immigration, legal and illegal, to see how the face of Britain is REALLY changing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
GeoffWard #5.
"How do these statistics stack up against the immigration of DEPENDENTS & EXTENDED FAMILY who do not enter the labour force?"
if a person comes to this country, works, pays taxes and supports their dependents, does it matter?
"We really must get a picture of the HIDDEN immigration, legal and illegal, to see how the face of Britain is REALLY changing."
sounds like some xenophobic rant to me; societies -- generally -- are enriched by migration.
Complain about this comment
Give us the stats for family reunion and marriage to spouses from overseas.
Complain about this comment
Just what I was saying when everyone was panicking about the 'swarms' etc. of inward migrants.
They came because, for the first time after 50 years of Communism, they could: to learn the language, to work abroad and widen their horizons, to appreciate what another country was really like. Isn't this what every generation of UK youngsters has done for years? Gap years, work experience, studying, posted by one's company, or simply to go somewhere else for a time....... This is all seen as rewarding and good for understanding other communities, as long as it is our people that are doing it! Anyone remember the Brain Drain in the '60's?
I am sure we shall see that a large proportion of the Eastern Europeans will return to their own home country, equipped with skills, another language, and perhaps with extra funds well-earned by hard work, (how would our restaurants/builders cope without them?), to settle down, and hopefully with good memories of their time in the UK.
Xenophobia is ugly whenever and whereever it raises it head. Let's not allow it to happen in Britain.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see the BBC has suddenly discovered imigration statistics now that those stats show a (tiny) apparent outflow. I can't remember the use of the word 'invasion' a few years back either.
Good to see some coverage of the issue, but still essentially 'on message.'
Complain about this comment
The blue line has got to leap well ahead of the red line for a long time before any impact of reducing EU immigrants is felt. What are the effects in these new EU countries of substantial exodus. Presumably not just UK but Germany, France have experienced something similar and how have they coped?
The implication appears to be that there will be severe restrictions on even highly qualified non - EU immigrants now.
Will the 2011 census pick up the population changes including those arising from unauthorised immigration - could we be in for a shock. Immigration apart time for a debate on the right size for our population?
Complain about this comment
You said
"Although EU migration is not covered by government controls,..."
Of course EU migration is covered by Government controls, its just that the Labour Government decided not to put any restrictions on A8 migration into the UK. The German and French governments did not allow the A8 citizens to take up employment in their countries, rightly or wrongly fearing an influx of cheap labour hurting their own labour markets.
you also said:
"...arguably it has been the presence of hundreds of thousands of Poles, Latvians and Albanians that has driven ministers to promise a cap on non-EU skilled workers."
I'm rather surprised there isn't any commentary on this contradictory conclusion. The stats tell us that the A8 citizens are mainly unskilled workers, yet its the presence of these groups which has put pressure on the government to cap non-EU skilled workers? That seems a lot like throwing out the baby with the bath-water, if that's the right expression here!
I must say though, Mark, I do find the idea of a "great East European invasion" slightly distasteful. This conjours up quite negative imagery which is unnecessary and inflammatory. The Poles didn't "invade" the UK - individually and collectively they took advantage of a relaxing of the EU labour markets to make improvements in their life. Considering that the UK allowed Poland to be subsumed by Russian communism after WW2, I for one am extremely proud that we paved the way for Poles and other Eastern Europeans to benefit from our labour markets and add to the UK economy, allbeit some 60 years too late.
Its worth remembering that the UK has a strong history of emigration and migration. I think its critical to put any discussion of migration into the wider historical context of the UK's empire and commonwealth building. Its unnecessary to pander to the right wing, nationalist minority mentality.
Complain about this comment
@ jr4412
"if a person comes to this country, works, pays taxes and supports their dependents, does it matter?"
I would suggest that it does matter to an extent given that a person would have to pay an awful lot of tax to ensure that they are fully contributing on behalf of their dependents. The NHS and other associated services cost money and we as UK taxpayers would likely be underwriting some of this.
If dependents do not contribute tax revenue at any point of their lives in a particular country then this places an unreasonable burden upon the public purse. Of course this is true of some of our own - I've met a few people who have never worked a day in their lives (and don't intend to!).
I have no problem with immigration itself, I do think that our policy should be overhauled though. If we are basing immigration on the skills that we require as a country then I think we should put more effort into identifying these likely skills shortages in advance and then train some of the unemployed living here.
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
....less workers, wages increases, inflation stubbornly UP !!
Where's the ''slack'' Mr King.
Complain about this comment
DonBoy #13.
not sure you thought this through.
"I would suggest that it does matter to an extent given that a person would have to pay an awful lot of tax to ensure that they are fully contributing on behalf of their dependents. The NHS and other associated services cost money and we as UK taxpayers would likely be underwriting some of this."
a person -- yes, and it does not matter whether or not they've a British passport; the economics are exactly the same.
"If dependents do not contribute tax revenue at any point of their lives in a particular country then this places an unreasonable burden upon the public purse."
have you factored-in indirect taxation? all consumers pay VAT on (most) goods and services.
"If we are basing immigration on the skills that we require as a country then I think we should put more effort into identifying these likely skills shortages in advance and then train some of the unemployed living here."
I'd agree that employers should always try and fill vacancies from the existing 'reserve army of labour' before recruiting from abroad; not all employers consider the national good though, o/wise there'd be fewer evading taxes. ;)
Complain about this comment
By the way Mark, Albania is not in the EU so how many from that country have migrated here?
Complain about this comment
Mark the title of your report is "The tide has officially turned" with the implication that net migration has actually decreased. You concentrate your report on just a mere 8 countries while conveniently ignoring the far more important statistic from the same report that: "Net migration to the UK (the surplus of people immigrating over people emigrating) in the year to September 2009 was 142,000." .
That's an increase in the population of this country equivalent to a city the size of Oxford.
In answer to #7 jr4412 I would say it does matter. You only have to look at a collection of other BBC reports so see the impact of overcrowding on our country:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6904722.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201900.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7618994.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053031.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8173773.stm
Complain about this comment
This EU business is a diversionary debate:
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/177727/This-crazy-immigration-must-end-
"More outrageously still the previous government massively increased the numbers of foreigners being granted British citizenship to more than 200,000, a rise of 58 per cent.THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF NEW BRITONS CAME NOT FROM EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES BUT FROM THE THIRD WORLD."
Complain about this comment
SoUnfair #17.
"You only have to look at a collection of other BBC reports so see the impact of overcrowding on our country."
yet, the UK is only the 51st most densely populated, go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Complain about this comment
@Political_Incorrect
I got band 7 in IELTS exam!
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #18.
rather than SHOUTING so embarrassingly digest the last paragraph of Will P's #12.
also, 'Third World' is quite a nasty, pejorative term -- just the thing one'd expect from a 'red top' paper.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
BiiBoidshateu wrote:
Right,so because "we"(over more than a century ago!)set up an empire and colonised mainly uninhabited lands,we are duty bound to accept the entire world`s "refugees" on this crowded island?
Mainly uninhabited lands ?
What are you talking about ?
The British Empire colonised some of the most populous parts of the planet and by the 1920s a quarter of the worlds people were living under British dominion.
And where were all of those uninhabited lands, the parts of Africa the British colonised were already populated before we arrived, as were the parts of Asia, Middle East, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas. The British Empire may have helped to depopulate vast areas of the land it had colonised or stolen from other colonialists but there were very few places not already inhabited by the time Europeans started their Empire building.
And where do you get the idea we are responsible for all of the worlds refugees ?
Pakistan is currently the nation with the most refugees living there and most of them are escaping from the war in Afghanistan and there are over a million Iraqi's currently in refugee camps in Syria, so in other words; the countries currently exporting the most refugees are doing so thanks to invasions our government helped start.
In 2007 there were about 16 million refugees in the world, the UK was home to less than 2% of them and the whole of Europe (including the UK) was home to just 14% of them.
No one, not even jr4412, is suggesting that the UK should take all of the worlds refugees but as a developed nation that has benefited greatly from the colonisation of other nations as well as being a signatory of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention we have a responsibility to accept those seeking asylum while their claim is processed.
The facts about asylum:
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/facts.htm#factone
Complain about this comment
24. At 7:32pm on 28 May 2010, Buck_Turgidson wrote:
Mainly uninhabited lands ?
What are you talking about ?
The British Empire colonised some of the most populous parts of the planet and by the 1920s a quarter of the worlds people were living under British dominion.
And where were all of those uninhabited lands, the parts of Africa the British colonised were already populated before we arrived, as were the parts of Asia, Middle East, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas. The British Empire may have helped to depopulate vast areas of the land it had colonised or stolen from other colonialists but there were very few places not already inhabited by the time Europeans started their Empire building.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was thinking of 17th cent America and Canada,18-19th cent Australia and New Zealand,as the main areas of colonisation by the British.Everywhere else we went we had only a tiny administrative presence.
These countries did`nt even exist as entities before we went there.
BUT THIS IS TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT because it happened long before any of us were born,and so the 21st century British population have no obligation whatsoever to give away our country just because our ancestors went out to the four corners of the world.
Surely (as good little "moralists" like the left pretend to be) we don`t punish the son for the sins of the Father?
Complain about this comment
24. At 7:32pm on 28 May 2010, Buck_Turgidson wrote:
"as well as being a signatory of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention"
Ah,ha.
The convention which states that "refugees"(funny how it makes zero mention of "economic migrants" or "colonists" eh?) must first seek sanctuary in the nearest country to the one they`re fleeing from.Which rather shoots down your attempt to use that 1951 convention as justification for the immigration invasion into this land,no?
Complain about this comment
Buck_Turgidson #24.
re. BiiBoidshateu #26.
"refugees" become an "immigration invasion". LOL
there's no point arguing against such a 'pick-and-mix' approach to reality.
Complain about this comment
Funny that no-one seems to mention the 1+ million Brits who live elsewhere in the EU...hypocrisy is a terrible thing....
Complain about this comment
@ BiiBoidshateu
Asylum seeker: A person who has left their country of origin and formally applied for asylum in another country but whose application has not yet been concluded.
Refused asylum seeker: A person whose asylum application has been unsuccessful and who has no other claim for protection awaiting a decision. Some refused asylum seekers voluntarily return home, others are forcibly returned and for some it is not safe or practical for them to return until conditions in their country change.
Illegal immigrant: Someone whose entry into or presence in a country contravenes immigration laws.
Economic migrant: Someone who has moved to another country to work. Refugees are not economic migrants.
I think you may find that the Native American tribes/nations or whatever else you want to call them had been living in Northern America for quite a long time by the 1600s and while they may not have established what we regard as countries they certainly had advanced societies that were occupying what we now regard as America and Canada.
Just as the Australian Aboriginal and New Zealand's Maori nations had done in their respective homelands.
These areas weren't empty landscapes just waiting to be populated, millions of people were living there and had been living there for thousands of years until many of them were wiped out through new diseases, war with the colonialists and ethnic cleansing. Most of the ones who survived then had an often much restricted existence as slaves or kept on reservations and other similar arrangements.
You may also find that we had one of the largest navel fleets ever assembled not to mention a very respectable army who were looking over those places where we only had a tiny administrative presence, just to make sure those pesky Asians, Chinese, Persians and Africans didn't get any funny ideas about who should enjoy the profits of their labour or who should be able to decide who got to do business there.
A selective view of history and confusion of two different groups; economic migrants and refugees, seems to be getting you rather upset. I'd recommend you go take a holiday, try somewhere in Asia or Africa and take a look at how most other people in the world live and I guarantee you'll feel so much better about how good we have it in the UK. You may also realise that the tabloids blow issues like this out of all proportion because it is a useful way of keeping lots of people annoyed enough to miss the fact that they have just been the victims of the biggest ever financial scam the world has ever seen and that there are people within our own country who are a far bigger threat to our health, wealth and happiness than all immigrants combined ever will be.
As laughingjkings has pointed out, millions of British people also live abroad:
* Over the course of 40 years, some 67,500 more Britons have left the UK every year than have returned.
* 41 nations each have at least 10,000 permanent British residents.
* There are 5.5 million expat Britons - a number that rises to six million if those who live or work part of the year abroad are included. Taken together, they represent approximately 10% of British citizens.
Most of the problems we have experienced as a result of recent immigration has in almost every case been due to poor planning by the government and a general unwillingness to deal with the issue because every time anyone tries people start shouting and screaming and far too many people seem to prefer to ignore the facts in favour of populist rhetoric and outright lies.
Complain about this comment
28. At 9:13pm on 28 May 2010, laughingjkings wrote:
Funny that no-one seems to mention the 1+ million Brits who live elsewhere in the EU...hypocrisy is a terrible thing....
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What about the 59-61-76 million (depending on who you talk to- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html )
Brits left behind unable or unwilling to flee to foreign shores?
Nations are nations for a reason.A border is de facto a discriminatory device.Anything else is merely a human ant colony.A teeming mass of rootless strangers with no ties save the ethereal concept of "The Brotherhood Of Mankind" and also(conveniently) a ruthless tyranny of "managers" to oversee and exploit the chaos.
Which of course,is the globalist`s and the left`s sad and deluded fantasy.
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #30.
"A border is de facto a discriminatory device.Anything else is merely a human ant colony.A teeming mass of rootless strangers with no ties.."
tell that to a Geordie, or a Brummie, or a Scouse -- they're all English -- second!!
Complain about this comment
29. At 9:49pm on 28 May 2010, Buck_Turgidson wrote:
Essentially you are justifying a bloodless genocide of the White British(am I allowed to say that moderator?-please don`t ban me!!!!!!!)then.
Because every year we take in more and more foreigners(am I allowed to say that word moderator-please don`t ban me!!!!!!!!!!!!!),which in of itself increases emigration of fed up White Brits,increases pressure on scant resources leading to a falling birthrate for Whites as they find that their living conditions get worse and worse while the British establishment and it`s leftist cheerleaders smile happily over the whole show.
Complain about this comment
"A border is de facto a discriminatory device.Anything else is merely a human ant colony."
ants are successful, they're survivors.
Wikipedia states that they "have colonised almost every landmass on Earth" and have been around for "about 110 to 130 million years".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant
they've done pretty well without borders. :-)
Complain about this comment
31. At 10:18pm on 28 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
ell that to a Geordie, or a Brummie, or a Scouse -- they're all English -- second!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I come from Hampshire and I know a few Northeners that have come down to the ENGLISH riviera(lol).They are MY people and I feel not a shred of hostility to them coming down here and taking the odd job off of us Hampshire folk.I`m sure the feeling is mutual.
We have something important in common you see.
Complain about this comment
33. At 10:32pm on 28 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
they've done pretty well without borders. :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
They are a lower form of life(my whole point-durrrhhh!),and they wage brutal war on other ant colonies all for the sake of "the group" genetic destiny.
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #32.
"Because every year we take in more and more foreigners..,which in of itself increases emigration of fed up White Brits,increases pressure on scant resources leading to a falling birthrate for Whites.."
this sounds like propaganda, the sort the BNP might spread.
luckily, there's real information on this issue too:
The reasons behind declining birth-rates are a combination of social, cultural and economic factors.
Japan is particularly interesting because there are comparatively few 'gajin' resident:
Q3: What do you think is the cause of the birth rate falling?
essentially, most sources agree that affluence causes declining birth rates.
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #35.
"..they [ants] wage brutal war on other ant colonies all for the sake of "the group" genetic destiny."
sounds an awful lot like humans to me.
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #34.
"They are MY people and I feel not a shred of hostility to them.."
implies that you feel hostility towards people from outside England.
I'm rather glad not to know you.
Complain about this comment
37. At 10:56pm on 28 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
sounds an awful lot like humans to me.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes,the British establishment and their leftist cheerleaders are waging a dirty war on the White British.
War on your own kindred.How evil can you get?
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #39.
"War on your own kindred.How evil can you get?"
quite.
in 2008 our governments spent $1464bn on the means for killing and maiming humans.
http://www.sipri.org/
Complain about this comment
36. At 10:53pm on 28 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
essentially, most sources agree that affluence causes declining birth rates.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes,this "affluence" "yardstick" might also be a proxy for astronomical house prices,scarce jobs and terrible job security,no?
I know for a fact that if myself and my girlfriend had better paying jobs and access to affordable family housing we would be starting a family right now instead of scraping through a miserable pauper`s existence unable to save any money not knowing if next month we`ll be on the dole.But maybe we`re not representative eh?
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #41.
""affluence" .. a proxy for astronomical house prices,scarce jobs and terrible job security.."
"But maybe we`re not representative eh?"
representative? yes.
represented? no.
ask yourself WHY.
Complain about this comment
#42 cont'd.
hint ('on the house'):
Divide And Rule.
Complain about this comment
"Law: Genocide
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The British establishment are guilty as charged.
Complain about this comment
I fail to see how micro-analysing the roots of migrants actually helps anyone. People who wish to be British should be welcome from wherever they originally came; the argument, surely, is about those who use the UK as a convenience, and, in fairness, must include those for whom we are and have been a tax haven.
The more enlightened may consider that it is not migrants who necessarily cause our ills but governments who habitually fail to introduce policy changes that would alleviate much of the scapegoat style rhetoric that is smeared across our tabloids.
Building houses, affordable houses, changing rental laws, inhibiting buy to let deals, controlling rents, controlling second (and subsequent) home purchases through strong financial penalties, giving tenants strong rights to buy or part purchase their rentals, and so on would be good places to start. The more enlightened economists would also observe that all these policy commitments would have prevented or at least ameliorated the hot air "boom and bust" of the noughties.
We do not need a return to scapegoat riots to correct the sins of immigration ignorance. We just need someone in government who really knows what "fair is fair" actually means.
Complain about this comment
Good to see immigration being discussed. How did this article get past the HYS moderators?
Complain about this comment
# 19. JR44112 "yet, the UK is only the 51st most densely populated, go figure".
England is the 5th most densely populated country in the world and rising up the chart. Did the population agree to this? Was this planned? Was this official government policy? Why do we have US style immigration without US economic growth rates? It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of economics that the UK's public sector is too large a burden on tax payers to support large scale immigration without substantial economic growth. In the current economic climate there is no justification for a single unskilled worker, or his wife, son, daughter, mother, third cousin twice removed etc being allowed entry from outside the EU. Tinkering with skilled worker numbers is an irrelevance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/6413308/The-worlds-most-densely-populated-countries.html
Complain about this comment
Immigration figures from Eastern Europe show an overall reduction in numbers. So what?
My concern is of the thousands who are here and not living by our laws. While the large majority are no doubt hard working men and women we are also facing a massive crime wave as a direct result of immigration.
Incidents of children used as sex slaves, credit card fraud, crimes of theft, motoring infringements the list goes on and on. The criminal element are neither needed nor welcome here and whether it is exenophobic or not I would prefer that the law breakers amongst immigrants were returned whence they came.
We have enough criminality in this country already without importing it.
Complain about this comment
47. At 12:19pm on 29 May 2010, maryw wrote:
# 19. JR44112 "yet, the UK is only the 51st most densely populated, go figure".
"England is the 5th most densely populated country in the world and rising up the chart. Did the population agree to this? Was this planned? Was this official government policy?....."
.........
OK, I get it - England takes a disproportionate influx of immigrants (etc).
Luckily, once the incomers are within the UK, the Government has the right (duty?) to distribute these extra millions as it sees fit. I think it might be about time to distribute them proportionately to the size of the landmass available in each country of the GB & NI. Then each country can benefit equally.
Only in the interests of fairness and equity, JR44112. Lol.
Complain about this comment
OK also, some ex-Empire & Commonwealth countries have small numbers of people and some have lots. The rest of the world outside the EU also has lots.
Lots of these people, for some reason or other, want to come to the UK - from all over the place. And we know we can get everybody on the Isle of Wight at once, if they don't mind being very good friends.
Many years ago my little boy asked me "Daddy, how do we know when enough is enough?". Today, all grown up, he tells me in no uncertain terms - "Dad, for God's sake, enough is enough!".
Complain about this comment
The trouble is, both my boys have been displace in the English workforce by Poles. They can Get On Their Bike and try elsewhere - like Latvia, but should they have to?
Complain about this comment
maryw #47.
"England is the 5th most densely populated country in the world and rising up the chart."
according to 'The Telegraph' list, Singapore, Bahrain, Barbados, Lebanon, etc, aren't countries. curious, but it does help to promote England up in the list. :-)
"Did the population agree to this?"
did any of the other countries populations "agree"? pray tell.
"Was this planned?"
unplanned more like, given that the UK ranks joint top in the list of teenage pregnancies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123322/
"Why do we have US style immigration without US economic growth rates?"
do you really want this 'growth' rate in the UK?
"It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of economics that the UK's public sector is too large a burden on tax payers to support large scale immigration without substantial economic growth."
had you a 'modicum of understanding of economics' you'd appreciate that (a) all employment is preferable to unemployment, even if some of it is in the public sector, and (b) taxpayers are unnecessarily burdened by concessions and hand-outs to the private sector (like the bailout of the banking sector, for instance).
"In the current economic climate there is no justification for a single unskilled worker, or his wife, son, daughter, mother, third cousin twice removed etc being allowed entry from outside the EU."
I think you forgot to mention grand- and great-grandparents, both sides of the family. :-)
seiously, I wish you had read the last paragraph of my #15.
"Tinkering with skilled worker numbers is an irrelevance."
what are you referring to?
Complain about this comment
thomas #48.
"We have enough criminality in this country already without importing it."
surely, you meant to say exporting?
..the problem of British citizens who had been convicted of offences abroad..
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard #49.
agree.
let's hope the numbers divide evenly, lest we have to bring back 'drawing and quartering'.
Complain about this comment
Re #54,
Ah, good. A bit of lightening-up, jr44112.
Thought you were getting altogether too uptight.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
I am reminded vividly of the situation in London and elsewhere in the postwar period when vast numbers of West Indians came over and were willing to take on low-paying hospital and transportation jobs. We know there were a few problems with racists for a while, but that soon passed and they are now a vital and dynamic part of modern Britain. If we can hold down the racist bigots for a short time, I am sure the same thing will happen with the Europeans.
Complain about this comment
56. At 5:23pm on 29 May 2010, jakking wrote:
If we can hold down the racist bigots for a short time, I am sure the same thing will happen with the Europeans.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I.E They`ll lose their countries as well to establishment-invited foreign colonists.
So you`re another anti-White bloodless genocide supporter then(see my post44 to see the internationally agreed definition of genocide).
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard #55.
"Thought you were getting altogether too uptight."
happenz, must have been all these rabid reactionaries snapping at my liberal heels.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, immigration is like adoption.
It seems to me, that a proportion of commentators, feel the need to be against immigration, due to dogma or prejudice, instead of need. In the UK we have a high proportion of what is termed by some as "an underclass" who receive all benefits regardless, meanwhile those who come here to work are stigmatised, despite contribution.
in the same way as those who may seek to adopt have to jump through hoops to be considered, whilst the same "underclass" can breed like rabbits.
something may be wrong in the UK, but the arrival of the EU 8 members is a symptom of another issue, not a cause, of mass unemployment or disenfranchisement.
there is a perception that having 50% of young people going to university is a positive - when we do not have strategy related to what jobs or functions they may peform - the UK employs other countries graduates because they accept the conditions and have the training to do the job - whereas we produce graduates who have increased expectations, and do not see a lower position as suitable, or why they went to university!
The law of unintended consequences will last for the rest of this generation.
Complain about this comment
Just look what the "anti-racist"(anti-Whites)"liberal"(Marxist) do-gooders(Like the BBC`s Mark Easton) have done to places like Detroit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTumsb5UMA
Complain about this comment
RE: the allegations of genocide against the British establishment (post 44) against the white people
'(a) Killing members of the group;'
NOT GUILTY
'(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;'
NOT GUILTY
'(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;'
NOT GUILTY. 'Physical destruction' means you go and kill them, there's only one way to interpret that.
'(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;'
definately NOT GUILTY. It's white people's fault that they don't have enough children.
'(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
do you mean the adoption system? But it works both ways, and the scale is tiny...
So where's the genocide?
Complain about this comment
'"More outrageously still the previous government massively increased the numbers of foreigners being granted British citizenship to more than 200,000, a rise of 58 per cent.THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF NEW BRITONS CAME NOT FROM EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES BUT FROM THE THIRD WORLD."
'
Labour has tightened the immigration criteria A LOT. There were 8 separate pieces of legislation that clamped down on immigration and made immigrants' life hell.
'Because every year we take in more and more foreigners(am I allowed to say that word moderator-please don`t ban me!!!!!!!!!!!!!),which in of itself increases emigration of fed up White Brits,increases pressure on scant resources leading to a falling birthrate for Whites as they find that their living conditions get worse and worse while the British establishment and it`s leftist cheerleaders smile happily over the whole show.'
great, so how do you go about lessening immigration without attacking people's freedoms?
-do you stop people being able to marry foreigners (that would be REALLY popular)?
-do you stop businesses employing foreigners (won't ever work)?
or what do you suggest? The problem is that if you make the immigration criteria harsher you attack the liberties of your already existing citizens.
'
I.E They`ll lose their countries as well to establishment-invited foreign colonists.'
the Establishment are doing their damnedest to keep foreigners out. But they know that the people won't stand for loss of freedoms associated with a total stopping of naturalisation, so they can't do this as well as they would hope to.
'I know for a fact that if myself and my girlfriend had better paying jobs and access to affordable family housing we would be starting a family right now instead of scraping through a miserable pauper`s existence unable to save any money not knowing if next month we`ll be on the dole.But maybe we`re not representative eh?'
well, then join the Socialists. Socialism will give every young family a house and an affordable living at the expense of the super-rich.
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #60.
"Just look what .. do-gooders(Like the BBC`s Mark Easton) have done to places like Detroit"
wow, Mark Easton is responsible for all that? he must be a powerful Don and I, for one, shall try not to cross him. ;)
Complain about this comment
re:52. At 1:23pm on 29 May 2010, jr4412
Would you accept the validity that England, in comparison to relevant "peers", (large scale industrialised democracies) is the third most densely populated country? (And rising).
This is a blog about immigration levels and presumably its effect on the economy and national cultural psyche. (Not to mention environmental effects). It is not a blog about bank bail outs. The UK, culturally and economically, developed in the industrialised era as a settler/coloniser of North America and Australasia. i.e an over-crowded country which exports people. The culture and economies of North America and Australasia have overt and de facto government population policies to increase the population. For instance, in Australia, there is widespread acceptance that the current population of 21 million will rise by many millions over the next few decades due to immigration. Except in the immediate post war era, at no time has a UK government had an overt population growth policy through immigration. When did the Blair/Brown governments ever tell the population that: "It is our policy that many more millions of people should live here than presently do because.....".
The most obvious comparison is this: The average size of an Australian house is twice the size of one in the UK, for the same price. In other words, a worker in the UK busting his gut to pay for a mortgage on his house would be given his next door neighbours house for free as well, if he simply moved to Australia.
I reiterate my point: If the UK has "new world" immigration levels, it needs to have new world economic growth rates. Australia has the best performing economy in the developed world and hasn't had a recession for nearly twenty years. If the UK uses the Australian immigration points system for example, it will end up with a population of 70 million, relying on an extremely mediocre economy with a gargantuan public sector.
Complain about this comment
I see the leftists have a problem with simple mathematics.
If an African country was being intentionally flooded with millions of non-blacks you`d be screaming bloody murder quick enough.
Physical destruction means just what it says,the physical destruction of a distinct racial group.It does not have to be done through outright murder.
"It's white people's fault that they don't have enough children"
Justifying a bloodless genocide.
Complain about this comment
63. At 01:30am on 30 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
BiiBoidshateu #60.
"Just look what .. do-gooders(Like the BBC`s Mark Easton) have done to places like Detroit"
wow, Mark Easton is responsible for all that? he must be a powerful Don and I, for one, shall try not to cross him. ;)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That`s it,totally ignore the issue all you want.
People like you and Easton ARE responsible for the ethnic-cleansing of Whites in White countries.You are apologists for the attempted genocide.
Complain about this comment
61. At 00:51am on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
So where's the genocide?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Right in front of your face:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563191/UK-cities-to-have-white-minorities-in-30-years.html
Complain about this comment
62. At 01:06am on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
Socialism will give every young family a house and an affordable living at the expense of the super-rich.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not if you`re welcoming millions of "New Britons" every decade you won`t.
Complain about this comment
maryw #64.
"Would you accept the validity that England, in comparison to relevant "peers", (large scale industrialised democracies) is the third most densely populated country? (And rising)."
simply complicates things.
if we use England, rather than the UK, we cannot make meaningful comparison to, say, Germany; we'd have to talk about Lower Saxony or Bavaria instead.
"This is a blog about immigration levels and presumably its effect on the economy and national cultural psyche. (Not to mention environmental effects). It is not a blog about bank bail outs."
how can one debate "immigration levels and .. its effect on the economy" w/out being 'allowed' to talk about high-impact economic policies such as the bailing out of the financial sector?
The most obvious comparison is this: The average size of an Australian house is twice the size of one in the UK, for the same price. In other words, a worker in the UK busting his gut to pay for a mortgage on his house would be given his next door neighbours house for free as well, if he simply moved to Australia.
we do not have to go as far afield as Australia to find comparisons for size:
New houses being built in Ireland and the UK are among the smallest in the Developed World even though there is no shortage of land.
The average size of a new room in British house is .. almost half the size of those in France.
or availability:
A 10% increase or 2.5m extra homes are needed to push the UK housing stock to the average levels in Germany, France and Italy
"I reiterate my point: If the UK has "new world" immigration levels, it needs to have new world economic growth rates."
to generate growth you'll have to have more though than an economy revolving around finance. successive goverments in the UK have let the primary and secondary sectors decline and concentrated on growing a tertiary sector economy -- and now we reap the benefits (well, some 90% of us don't).
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #66.
look, I've read your #41 and can see that you're frustrated and feel cheated, but get real.
first, "..ethnic-cleansing of Whites in White countries."
Detroit is in the US of A, where 'whites' migrated to and where the indigenous peoples -- who weren't "white" -- were disposessed and killed by the settlers.
second, educate yourself a little; I'd recommend you and the missus watch Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Affair" which at some point shows Flint (in Michigan), Moore's home town, and it does look as devastated as Detroit though its history is totally different. (and yes, Moore's film shouldn't be taken as gospel but it does pack a lot of good background information)
Complain about this comment
#69 correction.
missed out the quoation marks around the paragraph "The most obvious comparison is this: ..." which was written by maryw (#64).
Complain about this comment
'If an African country was being intentionally flooded with millions of non-blacks you`d be screaming bloody murder quick enough.'
wrong, simply wrong. Eg we all supported the rights of Indians in Uganda when Idi Amin, obviously trying to copy your lot, kicked them out.
'Socialism will give every young family a house and an affordable living at the expense of the super-rich.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not if you`re welcoming millions of "New Britons" every decade you won`t.'
there's plenty (resources/space) for everyone, it's just wrongly distributed. Too few people at the top have a too large fraction of the wealth.
'So where's the genocide?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Right in front of your face:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563191/UK-cities-to-have-white-minorities-in-30-years.html'
wrong. Genocide means people get rounded up and shot. You've stolen the word 'genocide' from where it belongs (to mean large-scale murder) and used it in your own aims. Pretty disgusting really.
'That`s it,totally ignore the issue all you want.
People like you and Easton ARE responsible for the ethnic-cleansing of Whites in White countries.You are apologists for the attempted genocide.'
again crying wolf are we? Where do you see ethnic cleansing? Who gets shot?
demographics changed in the world throughout history. Through both mixing and migration. They keep changing now. There is (i) no organised intent behind it, the change is people-driven and (ii) no violence/trampling of people's rights behind it.
Complain about this comment
'Physical destruction means just what it says,the physical destruction of a distinct racial group.It does not have to be done through outright murder.'
if you want to use 'genocide' it has to be. 'Physical destruction' means you destroy something physically. I don't see any white people being physically destroyed.
'"It's white people's fault that they don't have enough children"
Justifying a bloodless genocide.'
what lovely oxymorons you use - 'bloodless genocide'. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
You want to attack people's freedoms because of some non-existent 'genocide' and because white people are too lazy/affluent to have children? Well, it won't work, we won't stand for it.
Complain about this comment
72. At 12:03pm on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
Genocide means people get rounded up and shot
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No,it means the intentional targeting and attacking of a racial group in whole or in part which leads to their physical non-existence on this planet.
White people make up something like 7% of the world population but nevertheless,we have the situation of:
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,White countries for EVERYBODY.
Complain about this comment
73. At 12:06pm on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
I don't see any white people being physically destroyed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But you do see them becoming a dwindling minority in their own homelands.
According to you,if Whites end up in a S.African situation where they are massively outnumbered that is nothing to be concerned about.
The recipe of our planned destruction is clear as day:
Democratisation,disenfranchment,and then the final mopping up operation a la S.Africa and Zimbabwe.
Complain about this comment
Genocide means people get rounded up and shot
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No,it means the intentional targeting and attacking of a racial group in whole or in part which leads to their physical non-existence on this planet.'
(i) there is no intent. The mixing is driven by people. People who exercise their freedom to set up family with those of different race. (ii) 'Attack' means you attack someone physically. To allow people to mix isn't 'attack', it's 'freedom'.
genocide is commonly used to denote killing of people. Or at least stopping them from reproducing. Allowing people to mix is not genocide, it's just progress. It's like calling female empowerement 'genocide' because those women will have less children. Well, yes, true, but female empowerement is very much NOT genocide. And neither is mixing.
'White people make up something like 7% of the world population but nevertheless,we have the situation of:
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,White countries for EVERYBODY.'
all countries are for everybody in reality. That's what it's moving towards. It's just we are in the vanguard of change. But this change will happen all over the world.
Complain about this comment
'I don't see any white people being physically destroyed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But you do see them becoming a dwindling minority in their own homelands.'
92% of the country is white, all the power is in the white hands. To suggest there is a problem that merits taking away our freedoms is like saying that we should stop flying because someone might blow up an aircraft. Scaremongering.
'According to you,if Whites end up in a S.African situation where they are massively outnumbered that is nothing to be concerned about.'
why should it be anything to be concerned about? There are plenty of countries where white people are in a minority and live happy and safe lives. You want to present members of other races as butchers with a hunger for our blood, or as some race of bloodsucking changelings, but anyone who knows a non-white closely knows how laughable that assertion is.
'The recipe of our planned destruction is clear as day:
Democratisation,disenfranchment,and then the final mopping up operation a la S.Africa and Zimbabwe.'
Scaremongering again. Whites form 92% of population: where exactly are they disenfranchised? Even when whites are a minority they will still own the country, own the media that tells people how to vote, etc etc, ie will stay in power.
In a nutshell, you want to commit real genocide (of anyone non-white in this country), or at least restrict people's rights, because of some spectre of far-off genocide of whites (that's not really a genocide because no one dies)? We won't _ever_ support something like that.
Complain about this comment
77. At 9:39pm on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
"Whites form 92% of population"
Yes,and the government`s tractor production figures are really reliable 0.1% of the time.
In London half of the births are to foreign-born immigrant mothers,still who cares right?
"There are plenty of countries where white people are in a minority and live happy and safe lives"
Like S.Africa and Zimbabwe?
"Scaremongering again"
Invasion/genocide justifying again.
"where exactly are they disenfranchised?"
Even the achingly multi-cultural BBC admitted it in their "White" season last year.
"In a nutshell, you want to commit real genocide"
I do believe in repatriation of the establishment-sponsored colonists(the British establishment had no authority to give our country away),but I would`nt want to flood their countries with foreigners like you leftists advocate for us Whites,or kill them outright as is happening as we speak in S.Africa and Zimbabwe which you leftists are very,very quiet about.
Complain about this comment
72. At 12:03pm on 30 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
'If an African country was being intentionally flooded with millions of non-blacks you`d be screaming bloody murder quick enough.'
wrong, simply wrong
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So,you`ve got no problem with for example,the Chinese flooding Tibet with Chinese colonists in an attempt to take over the country(permanently)?
Complain about this comment
This blog is confusing. Mark says that "those from outside the EU are generally more qualified than the average British worker", but the article is about immigration from INSIDE the EU. He doesn't tell us about the educational level of the immigrants from new EU member countries. And he mentions Albania, which is of course outside the EU, and whose citizens do not have any right of residence in the UK.
What we need to know about immigrants from inside the EU is whether they are putting down roots, in particular by having children here or bringing their children here. That would be a sign of a permanent increase in the UK population, with implications for infrastructure housing the NHS and social security.
There are no major cultural differences with EU immigrants (unless they are Rom gypsies), and few integration problems. But there is a big population and infrastructure issue in a small overcrowded island.
Probably some will go back because of the recession, but others will stay and base their families here permanently. There will be some permanent population increase.
Complain about this comment
The Poles and other Eastern Europeans helped this country in WWII. We all share the same cultural background and I do not see much of a problem with them. What I do take exception to is the great influx from countries that do not, and which change the face of some of our neighborhoods into something quite alien. You could try reciprocation, could we go and set up shop in their country? No way? Well sorry you cannot come here either. Lets have a level playing field on that score too just for starters!
Complain about this comment
Can we now do something to encourage those greedy, alcohol and drug dependent selfish lazy good for nothing Brits to emigrate?
Complain about this comment
Remember too that coutries like Germany and Austria have had far more Eastern Europeans, and since 1990, a fact that as far as I,ve seen the British Press overlook. This maybe because our immigration laws were more lax- Poland wasn't even a EU member then, and also that East Europeans tend to speak German as a second language rather than English- again the UK press pushes the notion that everyone speaks English, and everyone comes to Britain.
Complain about this comment
'"Whites form 92% of population"
Yes,and the government`s tractor production figures are really reliable 0.1% of the time.'
it's not just government statistics that say this.
'In London half of the births are to foreign-born immigrant mothers,still who cares right?'
foreign does not mean non-white.
'"There are plenty of countries where white people are in a minority and live happy and safe lives"
Like S.Africa and Zimbabwe?'
SA and Zimbabwe are places in which white people oppressed the indigenous population for decades (if not centuries). They are not good examples to give.
'"Scaremongering again"
Invasion/genocide justifying again.'
there is no invasion or genocide. You made those up. Your definition for both 'invasion' and 'genocide' is wrong, what you've done is taken the UN definition and pretended that it means what you want it to mean. But it blatantly does not.
'"where exactly are they disenfranchised?"
Even the achingly multi-cultural BBC admitted it in their "White" season last year.'
they are wrong then. White people run the show in this country. The whole mutlikulti thing is just a front to disguise that basic fact. Walk around in the most rich and prosperous areas of the country... you will hardly see a non-white face.
'"In a nutshell, you want to commit real genocide"
'I do believe in repatriation of the establishment-sponsored colonists(the British establishment had no authority to give our country away)'
Do the British people not have a right to decide who comes and lives here? Most people would want the freedom of marrying any person they chose, no matter where they come from, so I think that's conclusive.
Or do you just think that you are right and everyone else is an idiot? Get off your high horse.
'but I would`nt want to flood their countries with foreigners like you leftists advocate for us Whites,'
I don't advocate anything, except freedom.
'or kill them outright as is happening as we speak in S.Africa and Zimbabwe which you leftists are very,very quiet about.'
that's what hitler said 'oh yeah, we will transport slavs/jews/gypsies, we won't kill them'. Sure.
Complain about this comment
'If an African country was being intentionally flooded with millions of non-blacks you`d be screaming bloody murder quick enough.'
wrong, simply wrong
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So,you`ve got no problem with for example,the Chinese flooding Tibet with Chinese colonists in an attempt to take over the country(permanently)?'
I can't say that I have a problem with that, no. The problem with Tibet isn't the people being brought in, it's the fact that the Tibetans themselves are being heavily discriminated against and their religious leader is exiled. To pretend that anything like what's happening with Tibetans in Tibet is happening to white people here is frankly ludicrous, and some more scaremongering on your part.
Besides, no one's being 'brought in' to the UK like they are brought in to Tibet. Quite the opposite. As I've said already the last government fought tooth and nail to restrict immigration, and would do it more if they could, but they cannot go against the will of the people...
Complain about this comment
So,the stunnedsilence thinks the British establishment are against immigration?
LOL
Let`s have a look at what that epitome of BBC/establishment-ishness Andrew Marr had to say a few years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/feb/28/lawrence.ukcrime4
"They don't care. The collective breast-beating - I originally mistyped it 'beast-beating', which is maybe better - from Tony Blair, Jack Straw, the Guardian, The Observer, the Independent, Channel 4 News, Newsnight, and yes, Sir Paul Condon and his well-schooled spokesmen will change not a single mind in the relevant parts of south-east London, or anywhere else.
Why not? Because: 'It's all right for you,' say the white underclass. And it is all right for us - very much so."
"The establishment would like to see racism as something perverse, a kind of unreasonable wickedness that appears in badly-educated people. But this painless, convenient explanation can only come from people who don't really bother to look at, or listen to, their fellow citizens. In fact, racism is natural and at its worst wherever there is serious poverty."
"It's nasty and it's natural which is why I am, on the whole, against too much nature. 'Natural harmony', accurately investigated, means a bloody and unstable cycle of massacre and extermination. Though human experience happens inside nature, human progress also depends on surmounting it. The tools by which we do so include politics and taxation, as well as science and art. But it needs a whole nation to move, not simply pious exasperation directed at the lower orders. I think the silent, sullen 'complete ignoral' which greets establishment outrage about the Lawrence case is caused by too much 'natural instinct' on the part of impoverished, retreating communities, and too little political and economic sacrifice by the middle classes and the establishment itself."
"What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy.)"
"And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too."
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #86.
you quote Andrew Marr as saying "..racism is natural.."
all that tells me is that people like Marr, who were indoctrinated with Christian beliefs ("..my Presbyterian background.."), have absorbed the 'teachings' real well.
LOL indeed.
Complain about this comment
'So,the stunnedsilence thinks the British establishment are against immigration?'
look at the legislation. Look at the Home Office entrance criteria and how they've changed with time. Talk to some immigrants. Then you'll have no option but to agree with me.
what andrew marr says is not relevant, he has an interesting point of view which we can debate, but that's offtopic. Actions and words differ, do you know that? Plus, andrew marr does not run Britain. Britain is run by forces very different to andrew marr...
Complain about this comment
88. At 11:24pm on 31 May 2010, Stunned_Silence wrote:
"he has an interesting point of view"
Andrew Marr: "And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress."
LOL
Complain about this comment
Nina Szombately #83.
"..the UK press pushes the notion that everyone speaks English, and everyone comes to Britain."
..a "Little Englander" is applied to those who are regarded as xenophobic..
:-)
Complain about this comment
What is the term for a xenophile though,jr442?
A leftist?
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu #91.
"What is the term for a xenophile though..?
A leftist?"
how about 'human'?
Complain about this comment
BiiBoidshateu wrote (on a previous blog):
You`re either pro-White,or pro-White genocide
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white
In other words; BiiBoidshateu is a racist who has succumbed to paranoid delusions and right-wing propaganda...
Complain about this comment
agree with the people critising the use of the word invasion. Intuiatively although there may be net migration, i suspect there is a high propensity of people leaving the country being retired as compared to people entering the country, so on one aspect, there may still be pressure on UK jobs
Complain about this comment
Either way, it is a coment on Britain.
We are not so delightful/charming to live with these days. Immigration down and emigration up.
One could say 120,000 migrants can't be wrong, but that still leaves 60 odd million perfectly happy with the ol' country....
But are they really ??
Maybe to accompany these figures you could ask/survey UK residents, if they had the chance, would they like to live somewhere else (and what change would make that thought come about) ???
Complain about this comment
"Invasion" "tide" "wave". You MUST know that these emotive words are the delight of the anti-immigrant-brigade, copied and pasted originally from the more rabid columnists of the Sun, Mail etc.
You know that, yet choose to use them in the headline and body of your text. A bit deplorable, no?
Complain about this comment
"The recipe of our planned destruction is clear as day:
Democratisation,disenfranchment,and then the final mopping up operation a la S.Africa and Zimbabwe."
LOL - diddums den. Look up the words 'paranoia' 'fear' 'foreigners' and 'racial' on a well-known search-engine.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Some people frequently use the concerns of a net inward migration ("the country's filling up!") as a smokescreen for their 'concerns' about immmigration ("we're being over-run by foriegners").
To its credit, the new government is setting its targets in terms of net migration, albeit by reducing immigration. If it's really serious about reducing net migration, it would be a lot easier to encourage people to do what I did and emmigrate. (Of course, another country then gets the benefit of my expensive UK-taxpayer funded education and training - but net migration is down, so it's all good, right?).
Complain about this comment
'"he has an interesting point of view"
Andrew Marr: "And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress."
LOL'
you've got some brass neck to complain about coersion and repression...
Complain about this comment
93. At 11:23am on 01 Jun 2010, General_Jack_Ripper wrote:
BiiBoidshateu wrote (on a previous blog):
You`re either pro-White,or pro-White genocide
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white
In other words; BiiBoidshateu is a racist who has succumbed to paranoid delusions and right-wing propaganda...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Never mind about your pitiful PC labels("racist").
I`m a pro-White advocate and very proud of that fact.
Complain about this comment
An alternative and less rosy interpretation. What this may be showing is that there is a large sector at the bottom end of our labour market where the rewards don't actually allow the worker a sustainable life in the UK - ie the only way to build a life (eg home, family) is to regard them as something to be suffered for a few years while scraping together savings, which will then allow the worker to build a real life in a lower cost economy. For eastern Europeans, this is an opportunity to get a start at home after a spell here. For the UK citizen it's just another element of the poverty/benefits trap.
Complain about this comment
"The trouble is, both my boys have been displace in the English workforce by Poles. They can Get On Their Bike and try elsewhere - like Latvia, but should they have to?"
Why does it have to be Latvia? They are free to work in any country of the EU, just as they are free to work in any county or region of the UK.
But I agree, sitting on your backside and whinging is easier (and Britain's core skill, in my experience).
Complain about this comment
I really don't understand the problem. We've all migrated for thousands of years to different parts of Europe. We wouldn't had the industrial revolution without massive european immigration for the forges,the mills,the mines etc etc.
Should Germany also then be worried about the hundreds of thousands of Brits currently working there escaping the recession in the UK?
(Yes, I'm working in Germany too,lol!!!)
Complain about this comment
I've noticed that there appears to be a recent flood of English accents to America in general and New York City in particular. They've come here not merely for visits but to live and work. This suggests that the increasing tide of emigration of English from the UK is starting to resemble rats deserting a sinking ship.
Speaking about a sinking ship, that macaroon you've just chosen for a Prime Minister had better keep his Foreign Secretary William Plague on a tight leash. His comments in the BHOC saying he will put strong pressure on the US government to get Israel to end its blockade of Gaza will be as welcome on this side of the atlantic as a fart in church. If this is how the new government is going to behave towards the US, it won't be any more welcome here than the last one was. Keeping Gordon Brown in a waiting room for half an hour after his appointment at the White House and snubbing him at Copenhagen was no accident, it was a message. Right now between Megrahi and BP, Britain is not very popular in the US. It could become downright hostile.
Complain about this comment
dinosaur #102.
"What this may be showing is that there is a large sector at the bottom end of our labour market where the rewards don't actually allow the worker a sustainable life in the UK.."
spot on.
The UK has a higher proportion of its population in relative low income than most other EU countries
Loughborough research shows increased minimum wage still not enough to meet a minimum living standard
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with a number of others above that this is quite a poor article, even by blog standards. The title is misleading (it ought to refer to Eastern Europeans) and the statement "...arguably it has been the presence of hundreds of thousands of Poles, Latvians and Albanians that has driven ministers to promise a cap on non-EU skilled workers." is, well, arguable. I would suspect that the majority of people are more concerned about immigration from countries outside the EU, and, particularly, from muslim ones....like, for instance, Albania. I have to say that Mr Easton's lack of knowledge of geography and the membership of the EU really is lamentable, particularly from someone who is the "BBC's home editor".
Poor.
Complain about this comment
#106
And for those who benefit from the cheap labour, it's really quite convenient if the various victims squabble among themselves - the whole race/immigration wrangle serves their purposes.
Complain about this comment
The main issue here is still one of trust and competence of the government.
Before the new countries joined the EU the Government predicted only around 13,000 would arrive to work in the UK every year. In 6 years that works out to about 78,000. Of course the government weren't going to listen to voters who voiced concerns that those numbers were unrealistic. And what happened? The net immigration rose by more than 12 times that number over 6 years. That's quite a big difference.
So now the government are going to put a cap on non-eu immigration. Why? What is that going to achieve other than to deprive the country of better skilled/educated workers.
It's not the number of immigrants, or the fact that most are from Poland, rather that the government miscalculated so badly. And their solution is a white wash. Why should we trust the government at all. They are so out of touch with the majority of the population.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with immigration so long as it is controlled, fair, proportional and affordable and most important of all ... reciprocated
How many Brits have made it to eastern Europe during the same period... a few hundred at the most?
Immigration must be reciprocated to be fair ... we should also be taking in more English speaking Americans, Canadians, Australians ... also ... again, so long as the arrangements with these countries are reciprocated ... as most Brits face a language disadvantage in moving to work or live overseas ... so it never happens for most Brits although we're expected to sit back and say nothing while hoardes of foreigners take our jobs, University places, hospital care etc... or be branded some kind of racist by the British back stabbing liberalised yellow striped wussie sell out coward club.
Reciprocity is the only real measure of fairness with immigration. It's time to take our country back and make sure that things are done properly.
Complain about this comment
Foreigners come becoz they like you, so why are some Brits so angry and so hostile towards foreigners?
Countries are like football teams, if someone has played for your team for yonks surely a bit of acceptance, no matter how grudgingly given, is due?
Complain about this comment
Sorry but we should never have allowed the EU to dictate/decide who is able to live in our country. As for some comments regarding the claim that immigration is usually good for society I can give several examples where it has been disastrous for the country's social structure. Take the post Spanish era of the Philippine islands as an easy starter. So to all the screaming, quite clever, proponents of fairness and racial equality out here on this blog........May I suggest you visit a few other societies in the world to see just how laughable your attitudes are to the majority of the world's population. Is it any wonder we are seen as stupid and an easy mark?
Complain about this comment
45 Daisy
"Building houses, affordable houses, changing rental laws, inhibiting buy to let deals, controlling rents, controlling second (and subsequent) home purchases through strong financial penalties, giving tenants strong rights to buy or part purchase their rentals, and so on would be good places to start. The more enlightened economists would also observe that all these policy commitments would have prevented or at least ameliorated the hot air "boom and bust" of the noughties.
We do not need a return to scapegoat riots to correct the sins of immigration ignorance. We just need someone in government who really knows what "fair is fair" actually means. "
No, we need a government, and a BBC, able to tell the truth about immigration. We have suffered from massive nett immigration, boosting the population, and impacting negatively on our environment and economy.
The supporters of immigration need to understand the basic facts - increased supply of labour leads to less jobs and lower wages for workers here. Also, more people means more housing - so we're paving over the countryside to accommodate an ever-growing population.
Also, you people never factor in the costs of providing housing, schooling, healthcare etc for the immigrants, or explain why we should pay.
Basically, you got it wrong. Labour ex ministers have admitted immigration lost them the election. The BBC has never been truthful about the issue. Now Labour's 'come out', the BBC should, too.
Complain about this comment
Its good to know that somebody knows and knows he knows. The truth is out its costing us money.
Complain about this comment
I am very glad that people from the former eastern bloc have been allowed to live and work in the UK. They work hard at jobs British people prefer not to do. One young Latvian lady is particularly welcome and has become an important member of my own family, so I hope she won't be going back to live in Latvia! In fact she speaks excellent English, loves Britain, and is training to do a valuable job after a few years of more menial work.
On the other hand, my spouse and I have retired from England to France, and are very happy here. Why should we not move around Europe? The days when the inhabitants of one village were not allowed to move to another were over centuries ago. So long as incomers aren't a drain on society, what is the objection? The English language itself has poached from so many other languages that it is clear there has always been immigration and integration in the UK, and none of us can really claim to be "pure" British. Only the speed of movement has changed.
Complain about this comment
The nett migration figures tell us about quanity but not about quality. If the arrivals are low skilled economic migrants and the emigrants are professional managers, scientists, doctors etc then are we as a country actually benefitting ?? And if not, how moral is it that we allow e.g. foreign doctors from Asia into the country instead of training our own ? Should they not be working in the country that trained them, presumably at great expense, or does the UK government slip some money into India as a thank you for training doctors destined for the UK on the cheap?
Immigration was always about Labour jerrymandering millions of votes for itself. It was never about economic well being. How do we now? First, because that level of incompetence just could not be by chance. Second, because the GDP per capita has not increased, if anything it has gone down in the last few years. If immigration was beneficial the GDP per capita would have significantly increased. Instead in towns like my own there are no longer enough school places for our kids.
Complain about this comment
Good article and good to see the facts, that non EU migrants are not quite the arch villians and enemies of the British people.
This type of information needs to be spread wider, because non EU immigrants have been a convenient scapegoat and political football, with no means to defend themselves.
Like all people, the British will become reasonable when they have the facts.
Come proportional representation, it would be good to have an Immigrant Party to counteract the BNP. It will draw a lot of votes!
Complain about this comment
As someone who himself works around the world and has emigrated from the UK, I would like to say that the part of Kent which I moved from had many Polish immigrants.
They spoke English, were hard working, polite and a pleasure to meet. If economic pressures are currently driving them back home, I hope they leave some of their culture behind. They are possibly the best thing that EU membership has brought to Britain.
Complain about this comment
In response to many comments......The pro-uncontrolled immigration policies adopted by the western governments were ostensibly to rectify birth-rate problems among indigenous populations,however,the much touted policy of multiculturalism actually threatens EVERY ethnicity with the same result,the result being the destruction of ALL national identities of ALL peoples from ALL countries.This is not so that we can become one big happy family,its not a reflection of humanist principles,but an exercise in globalising human culture to the extent of removing any legitimacy of national,cultural and ethnic identity.We are to become one homogenous mass of global product consumers,happy shoppers in the paradise of the new world order global village shopping-mall.Why do you think that only western media ever talk about racism? In my experience as a charity worker in many countries around the world,there is just as much racism everywhere else as in the west,quite often more so,but to read/listen to our media,you'd be forgiven for thinking that its a purely western phenomena,the undeserved guilt that is foisted off upon the western democratic peoples is a despicable act of hypocrisy and deceit,by international vested interests,the era of global fascist hegemony has begun in earnest,watch and learn....
Complain about this comment
@ 105 MarcusAureliusII
Don't be hypocritical. Israel is no different than Britain in influencing and in remote cases even demanding that the The United States align with its foreign policy goals.
Ciao
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS