76% support annual limit on immigration

A new YouGov poll for MigrationWatch has found overwhelming support for an annual limit on immigration.  Only 10% of voters think that the Government is listening to voter concerns on the issue.  The recent finding that there is a backlog of up to 283,500 failed asylum seekers waiting to be 'removed' from Britain will have only fuelled voter exasperation.

This is an important poll for the Conservatives as David Cameron develops his "modern" and "compassionate" agenda.  Whilst it is true that the younger respondents to the YouGov poll are less sceptical about immigration than older voters (Download pdf of full findings), the electorate still wants 'controlled immigration' and the party will neglect this yearning at its peril. As the party moves ConservativeHome offers three reflections on Tory immigration and asylum policy at the last General Election...

(1) The cap on asylum numbers was the only substantial policy weakness of Tory policy.  A cap would have been unacceptable if a humanitarian crisis developed.  David Cameron has already shown that he understands that Conservatives must make a more generous distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants.  The centrist Damian Green has been appointed to the shadow immigration post in a sign that Mr Cameron understands the importance of getting the tone right on this explosive issue.

(2) The crude 'It's not racist' billboard advertisements offended the many middle class voters who agreed with the substance of Tory policy but wanted a more persuasive reassurance (permission) that it was not pandering to base motives.

(3) There was no balance to Tory policy as ConservativeHome wrote at the time: "Newspaper ads have showcased immigration policy but neglected the Conservative Party's policies on international development."  Immigration policy is a classic example of where the 'politics of and' can be applied.  Here is the kind of balanced policy Conservatives could move to:

"Rapid deportation of false asylum seekers would free up more resources to provide safe haven for refugees in genuine fear for their lives. In addition, adoption of Australia’s system of work permits would ensure that wider immigration serves Britain’s real economic and social needs. But at the same time that Britain closes its borders to large-scale immigration it should fully open its hearts and minds to the poorest people of the world. Open hearts will mean year-on-year increases in development expenditure to feed hungry children and treat people dying from treatable diseases. Open minds will mean that spending is channeled through development charities with proven records of getting assistance to needy people. Corrupt, authoritarian governments shouldn’t receive a penny from the British taxpayer. Aid should reward developing nations that are aspiring to stand on their own feet by freeing up markets and investing in the education and welfare of their people."

Comments

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I'm reminded of the "Yes, Prime Minister!" episode where Humphrey explains to Bernard about getting the opinion poll result that you want...

That said I agree with the broad thrust of the Editor's comments. :)

[Adrian Owens]

The real politics of "and" point should be "Controlled immigration and tackling economic inactivity in our cities". With economic inactivity rates reaching almost 30% in some parts of the country we need to produce effective Welfare to Work policies to ensure a good supply of labour to industry.

Many of my clients in north-west England reacted badly to our policy for an immigration quota. They saw, possibly correctly that this would starve their businesses of labour.

Tackle those languishing in long-term unemployment and this will reduce the inward flow of migrants more effectively than any quota smacking, as it does, of socialist thinking.

[AlexW]

I fundamentally disagree. The entire immigration policy at the last election was flawed.

Immigration has two bearings on society: the one economic, the other cultural. Economically, it is irrational to impose a hard cap on immigrants. Far better is the points system proposed by the Government, which each individual applicant is scrutinised for their potential economic benefits to the country balanced against cost. Setting the cap too high would be a meaningless and hollow gesture. Setting the cap at a rate where it made a difference (i.e. below the rate which would have occurred anyway) would necessarily entail excluding skilled workers needed to fill labour shortages and rebalance the aging demographic. It is no wonder that the CBI attacked the crude capping policy at the last election.

The cultural point is stronger, but not insuperable. Firstly, the numerical majority of immigrants arrive from the Anglosphere or the EU, so the cultural differences are relatively small. Secondly, for decades, immigrants were integrated into their local communities. Notwithstanding the problems of the 1970s and 1980s, the black community is now well-integrated, with latest statistics showing a higher proportion of black people in professional and managerial careers (28%) than those of Caucasians (26%). Moreover, other countries with large immigrant populations, in particular Canada and the US, have been able to establish a functioning integrated society - indeed, I would argue that society is the richer for it, rather than harping back to a bland and fictional view of a Britain of cricket and warm beer.

The problem, rather, stems from the particular brand of multiculturalism which is currently prevalent. We should take positive steps to ensure integration at the community level, rather than seeking to isolate new entrants into rigid and separate areas. It is not how many people immigrate each year which is the problem; it is what happens to them after they arrive.

[Chris Palmer]

And guess what the lesson of the last election campaign is..? Don't mention the r-word... ever.

[Editor]

Quite right, Chris. "It's not racist..." was the political equivalent of "some of my best friends are black BUT..."

[Richard]

Many of the immigrants do below minimum wage jobs and are therefore off the official radar. This just goes to show how a supposedly benign and enlightened policy (the minimum wage) has actually helped to contribute to this problem, as has unemployment benefit. Unfortunately, giving these the chop is unlikely to go down well at an election.

[True Blue]

Conflating asylum seekers and issues of immigration is typical of Daily Mail attitudes on this issue.

Of course everyone favours managed migration. I'm suprised the figure isn't higher, the way the question is worded. To see how silly the question is, just ask the reverse. Something as crude as a fixed cap to net migration would mean some years we get too much net immigration, other years, not enough. Of course we need to manage migration according to economic need.

This is a totally separate issue to asylum, which is a matter of fulfilling our obligations under international treaties. Remember, it was the Daily Mail using very similar language to today suggesting that Britain was too overcrowded and we shouldn't let in Jews from Germany.

"'The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage . . .' In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalfe, the Old Street magistrate, yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering the country through the 'back door' - a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."
Daily Mail, August 20, 1938

It's no good sanctifying the refugees of the past and then making excuses why we can't accept refugees now. If you look at the figures by year and by country you'll see these asylum seekers come from war zones. There are lots of asylum seekers from Iraq, for example. It would be pretty rich to turn them away. Asylum numbers reflect the stability or otherwise of the world.

There are no "false" asylum seekers. There are asylum seekers, people granted asylum or leave to remain and failed asylum seekers.

Thanks to the Daily Mail and certain other tabloids, people have a wildly innacurate idea of immigration. They think 20% of the population are immigrants, that asylum seekers get over £100 a week in benefits, and that ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants are basically the same. The more intolerant their attitudes, the more likely they are to think these numbers are higher. You won't be suprised to read that amongst existing Conservative voters, the issue of immigration is very important to the way they vote, to non-Conservative voters, it ranks very low on their list of priorities as a vote decider. I think this is a sad reflection on the obsessions of certain people within the party.

If you really don't think it's an issue of intolerance rather than sober reflection, explain this, respondents in this and other similar polls suggest that the places with the least immigrants are the ones who are complaining most about too much overcrowding and too many immigrants. The greater the proportion of ethnic minorities in an area, the greater the tolerance.

Labour will always outflank us on the right with this issue when it comes to the election.

[RodS]

The bottom line is the sheer 'quantity' of people in concentrated areas like the South-East. Where they come from is another debate.

We are overcrowded - end of story. Even the Economics Edior of the Sunday Times yesterday highlighted the social unrest when the economy contracts and all the 'immigrant workers are no longer absorbed.

Even 30/40 years ago Canada and Australia - with all their limitless space - were picking and choosing who they wanted on a points system.

[Annabel Herriott]

The trickiest one of all is the "arranged marraige" situation, where cousin after cousin is brought in to marry an often unwilling partner, who often has his or her sights set on some form of further education/career.
If male, the often naive, uneducated, illiterate country lass may hold him back, if female, its the end of her life as she planned, and in the past, has led to some sort of domestic tragedy. At best, simmering resentment.
All this may sound extreme, but as the labour MP Anne Cryer and I both know, it is a simple fact of life. There are also fiddles going on to get the spouses back into the UK.The marraige takes place in the spouses home village, then the head of the family back here arranges the affairs of the(usually) female here, to make it look as if she can support him till he gets a job. I have personally helped more than one distressed girl prevent him getting his visa, via law centres, phoning immigration, appraising them of the true facts etc. Its a wonder no one took a "contract" out on me!!
We need a truly sensitive, constructive policy on this, but should extensively consult Nadim, Sayeeds Warsi. Shailish Vara... we have the expertise here, within the party to develop and implement the sort of policy that is going to end a lot of misery
The hidden cost, apart from human misery, is that after a few layers of 1st and even 2nd and 3rd cousin marraiges, the gene pool has shrunk so much, that ressessive genes start emerging among the babies born to that marraige. In Huddersfield, we have a superb multi discipline assessment centre, for diagnosis and therapy for children with physical and cognitive problems. It is also a fact of life, go and see if you dont believe me, that children from these marraiges are vastly over subscribed. The Amish community in America has/had the same sort of problems.
So lets see what we can do. Another one for cross party cooperation I think. I admire Anne Cryer for what she is doing in Keighley, lets get together on this one. Common sense before point scoring, and save the children into the bargain. No child should have to be born with a congenital condition that totally blights its life.

[Sally Roberts]

This is a difficult policy area to handle sensitively. We are between the "devil and the deep blue sea". On the one hand, it is important to bear in mind the concerns of many Conservatives or would-be Conservatives to the right of the Party who are rightly keen to see controlled immigration, but on the other hand if we do not use sensitive language we risk alienating the opposite end of the spectrum - those who are wavering between Conservative and Liberal Democrat and who were unnerved by our bold confrontation of the issue in the run-up to the General Election. We were doing the right thing but in my view not couching it in "warm and friendly" enough language. We need to re-think the style but not the substance.

[Derek]

I believe it would be a grave mistake for Cameron to abandon the policy to limit immigration. The MigrationWatch poll confirms this. Rod S is right; it is the over-crowding which is the problem. We must set a quota each year, and it must be set much lower than current numbers. As for asylum seekers, they need to be quickly assessed and sent back if not genuine. We should direct them to the under-populated areas such as Scotland, not London and the South. Even with asylum-seekers we should have a limit; we are not the only country in the world, they should go to the nearest safe country. We are over-crowded and must stop being a soft touch!

If we were foolish enough to abandon these policies, we would be sending large numbers of voters into the arms of minority parties.

[a-tracy]

Derek "We should direct them to the under-populated areas such as Scotland, not London and the South"

I can see what you're getting at Derek but if you do send them to areas of high unemployment you open up another problem. They want to go to London and the South East because there is so much work available.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It's no good sanctifying the refugees of the past and then making excuses why we can't accept refugees now. If you look at the figures by year and by country you'll see these asylum seekers come from war zones. There are lots of asylum seekers from Iraq, for example. It would be pretty rich to turn them away. Asylum numbers reflect the stability or otherwise of the world."

I agree we shouldn't turn away genuine refugees, however, there are ways we can ensure that there are fewer refugees knocking at our door - for example, other countries could start taking their fair share of asylum seekers instead of passing them on to Britain (genuine refugees would surely be happy to stay in the first safe country they came to?) and we could take preventative measures (action against regimes engaged in persecution) to reduce the number of people seeking asylum in the first place.

"There are no "false" asylum seekers. There are asylum seekers, people granted asylum or leave to remain and failed asylum seekers."

I have to dispute this. What about all the illegal immigrants whose first reaction when caught is to hand in an asylum claim?

Genuine asylum seekers would surely do just that (seek asylum) upon arrival in the first safe country they come to rather than make their way across Europe through several safe countries to sneak into Britain, gain illegal employment and then claim asylum if/when Plod catches up with them?

"If you really don't think it's an issue of intolerance rather than sober reflection, explain this, respondents in this and other similar polls suggest that the places with the least immigrants are the ones who are complaining most about too much overcrowding and too many immigrants. The greater the proportion of ethnic minorities in an area, the greater the tolerance."

Again, I have to dispute this. In the real world (i.e. away from the artificial demographic construct that exists in such opinion polls), you may like to note that ethnic tension tends to be higher in areas with greater ethnic populations (Bradford springs to mind), which directly contradicts your claim that areas with a greater proportion of ethnic minorities have a greater level of tolerance - a claim that is about as realistic as the prospects of this year's Christmas Number 1 being a duet of Nick Griffin and Trevor Phillips singing 'Ebony and Ivory'!

[DonG]

I want our Government to take this seriously.

If immigration of conflicting cultures continues unrestricted and at present unabsorbable rates, there will serious problems - likely to be an escalating cycle of strife and police state security.

Sure as eggs are eggs.

[True Blue]

Even with asylum-seekers we should have a limit; we are not the only country in the world, they should go to the nearest safe country. We are over-crowded and must stop being a soft touch!

That we are a soft touch and are taking a disportionate number of asylum seekers is another two of the most common tabloid-promoted myths. The countries which have accepted the most asylum seekers are for example, Guinea, a poor country with a population of 7 million which has 3 million refugeess; Pakistan has 3.3 million refugees. On an international scale, we were 8th in Western Europe for accepting refugees and 32nd in the world. We host 3 refugees per 1000 population. 2/3rds of the world's refugees are in Africa and the Middle East.

I think it is shameful that people are complaining about the numbers we receive and host.

We are not seen as a soft touch; the vast majority of asylum seekers have absolutely no idea how they will be treated here. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, and receive less than £35 a week, if and only if they have followed the correct procedure when they get here.

The 1951 convention prevents us from putting a cap on the number of asylum seekers and a good thing too. The whole point of the convention was to make genocide less likely by making the the legal duty of countries to take in refugees. There is absolutely no way we can or will opt out of this, and making it policy was pandering to the worst elements in the party, and won us no votes.

And again, I'd like to remind you - asylum seekers are not the same as economic migrants.

David Cameron is all for seeking the assistance of charities - see what they have to say about asylum seekers. They are better placed to give advice than unpleasant rags such as the Mail, Express and Sun.

[Sean Fear]

"If you really don't think it's an issue of intolerance rather than sober reflection, explain this, respondents in this and other similar polls suggest that the places with the least immigrants are the ones who are complaining most about too much overcrowding and too many immigrants. "

The electoral evidence actually suggests otherwise. Those boroughs where support for the BNP is highest, and where immigration rates most highly as an issue, are those where there is a high proportion of people from ethnic minoriities, or which are very close to boroughs with large ethnic minority populations. Out in the back of beyond, immigration barely rates as an issue.

[Derek]

Of course the largest number of asylum seekers are found in those countries nearest to the regimes they are fleeing from. That is exactly what would be expected. The fact that some have come all the way to Britain, through dozens of other safe countries, is in itself proof that they are in fact economic migrants! If we are not a soft touch why would they come all that way to get here?

Wake up True Blue! Unless we act now our country will become a foreign land, and a severely over-crowded one at that. Many come here in order to access the free health system, which is already straining under the present load. We cannot and must not become a dumpimg ground for the dispossessed, we cannot cope.

Jack Straw admitted that this year visa applications will hit 2.6 milliom. This does not include asylum seekers and those entering illegally. By 2008 the number is predicted to reach 3.2 million - more than double the figure for 2000.

Migration has swollen the population by 1.2 million since 1997. More than 345,000 eastern Europeans have arrived since the EU expansion in 2004. (the government predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 a year). How long will they remain - no one knows!!

[Sean Fear]

The figure of £35 a week obvious doesn't include a variety of benefits in kind (housing, education, medical care etc.)That said, I think the number currently being admitted is a reasonable one, whereas 3 or 4 years ago, it was excessive.

My problem with the 1951 Convention is, as Matthew Parris has often pointed out, it is a promise which can't be kept (that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution can settle here).

[Sean Fear]

"The crude 'It's not racist' billboard advertisements offended the many middle class voters who agreed with the substance of Tory policy but wanted a more persuasive reassurance (permission) that it was not pandering to base motives"

If anything, I found that statement extremely defensive and apologetic. No one should be apologetic for opposing the current level of migration.

[Account Deleted]

I personally found the Conservative immigration policy something which influenced me towards voting for them.

On asylum, nowhere near us is in a state of conflict. That we are 32nd in the world in terms of asylum seekers rather than somewhere around the 150 mark indicates that we certainly are attracting people to come to us (as they have had to pass through other countries first.)

Taking apart the asylum situation and what do you have:

A great deal of people would able to claim asylum. Sudan for example - 40 million people.
Those refugees who are most at need are stuck in various camps
There is only so much the UK can do

So why on earth does letting in 75,000, or even 100,000, 300,000 actually resolve this problem. It doesn't. (In any case around 75% of asylum applications are rejected, though the individuals usually stay anyway).

The only reason people want to let in more is it is part of 'feelgood' politics. It doesn't help anyone. In fact, it diverts resources from those who need it most - those people in camps who just need tents and food and water to stay alive. But it makes certain individuals feel smug - who cares if it is a realistic solution.

We should impose a limit on refugees, but make it clear we will spend more on refugees worldwide.

An unusually high proportion of those who get here are young men - those most in need are women and children and the old, and this is where we should focus our attention.

MHoward should have been filmed putting across his asylum policy in a refugee camp somewhere - promising no more refugees being allowed into the UK but real help for those most at risk.

That would be compassionate conservatism, not just a knee jerk adoption of liberal do-good policy making (as Cameron seems inclined towards in this area). And it would be much harder for the left to smear as uncaring racism.

[True Blue]

I agree we shouldn't turn away genuine refugees, however, there are ways we can ensure that there are fewer refugees knocking at our door - for example, other countries could start taking their fair share of asylum seekers instead of passing them on to Britain (genuine refugees would surely be happy to stay in the first safe country they came to?) and we could take preventative measures (action against regimes engaged in persecution) to reduce the number of people seeking asylum in the first place.

You are wrong. We do not take in a disproportionate number of asylum seekers.
Take a look at the statistics I quoted above.

"In the real world..." - these comments make no sense. Having more than one ethnic community is a prerequisite for racial tension - of course you aren't going to get race riots in Cornwall. Other polls without the MigrationWatch agenda show that tolerance of different views and ethnicities is much higher in London than anywhere else in the country, and of course London is the place with the greatest number of ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and first generation immigrants.

As I have already shown, adjacent coutries, usually very poor take in the vast majority of asylum seekers; we take a tiny proportion and are pretty low down the list in Europe. The number of asylum seekers is going down year on year. Mixin up asylum with immigration does not help.

What about all the illegal immigrants whose first reaction when caught is to hand in an asylum claim?

And your evidence for this claim is? Calling someone a "false asylum seeker" is prejudged their case. They are an asylum seeker until their case is judged. You are presupposing criminality by this use of language.

Genuine asylum seekers would surely do just that (seek asylum) upon arrival in the first safe country they come to rather than make their way across Europe through several safe countries to sneak into Britain, gain illegal employment and then claim asylum if/when Plod catches up with them?

You are just promulgating more tabloid nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence for any of this. Asylum seekers get £35 a week, and can't work. They really don't want to be here, but it is better than being tortured and imprisoned in their own countries.

I can see that statistics won't dent peoples entrenched attitudes. At least take a look at the other side of the argumeent and challenge your preconceptions:

Read what Oxfam has to say, for example:
http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/safe/mythsindex.htm

And ICAR
http://www.icar.org.uk/?lid=5288

[Account Deleted]

In all fairness, the reason everyone loves immigrants in London is that they are too - even the white people are - from the EU/US etc etc.

[John Hustings]

"You won't be suprised to read that amongst existing Conservative voters, the issue of immigration is very important to the way they vote, to non-Conservative voters, it ranks very low on their list of priorities as a vote decider. I think this is a sad reflection on the obsessions of certain people within the party."

Where is this to be found in the survey?

Just speaking from my own personal experience, living in south London, this doesn't seem to me to be true at all.

I don't believe immigration is a left-right issue as far as the public is concerned. It is a "common ground" issue.

[Sean Fear]

Given that two thirds are rejected, even following the exhaustion of all appeals, True Blue, the term "false asylum seeker" is not an ureasonable one.

[John Hustings]

Oh and I dislike the implication from True Blue that those who "welcome" unfettered immigration are somehow morally superior.

They are not.

[Sean Fear]

Tolerant London generated 90,000 votes each for the BNP and Respect in the Assembly elections of 2004, as well as some fairly impressive votes for each party in individual seats at the general election.

[True Blue]

Wake up True Blue! Unless we act now our country will become a foreign land,

What exactly do you mean by this? This is just plain xenophobia. If you mean am I bothered what color or ethnicity people are, the answer is no. If you mean would I mind if the majority of people in this country weren't white? The answer is no. I live in London, in Brixton and I'm perfectly happy here. Being British means being tolerant, welcoming and polite, enjoying the fruits of other cultures (even if only the food!) helping poeple who need help, rewarding entrepreneurs of any stripe, and telling bigots were to go.

What worries me is the xenophobia and intolerance which promulgates the myth of the scrounging asylum seeker, the criminal immigrant and the strand of this party which seriously believes this rubbish. If you are black with a British passport, a Muslim with a British passport, or an Indian with a British passport, your idea of what it means to be British is just as valuable as a white person whose family has been here for generations. If you don't believe that, it's not immigration you have a problem with, its something else.

[True Blue]

I really am sorry about my italic problem.

[Sean Fear]

If someone who holds a British passport wants to see Sharia law introduced in this country, or believes it is legitimate to fight alongside our country's enemies, or supports a form of communal politics in which votes are delivered en bloc at the direction of "community leaders", or complains bitterly because the local school wants to put on a nativity play, then I would have to say that I do not regard that person's views as being as legitimate as my own.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I don't believe immigration is a left-right issue as far as the public is concerned. It is a "common ground" issue."

Quite right - those who frequently denounce anybody against the 'open door' immigration policy as a rabid right-winger fail to consider that anti-immigration parties like the BNP actually have rather leftist policies and tend to best in traditional Labour strongholds.

[John Hustings]

"If you mean would I mind if the majority of people in this country weren't white? The answer is no. I live in London, in Brixton and I'm perfectly happy here. Being British means being tolerant, welcoming and polite, enjoying the fruits of other cultures (even if only the food!) helping poeple who need help, rewarding entrepreneurs of any stripe, and telling bigots were to go."

You want a prize for your noble thoughts?

Let's debate the immigration issue without resorting to this kind of moral posturing.

[Account Deleted]

True Blue - what is wrong with the solution I put forwards on asylum.

"If you are black with a British passport, a Muslim with a British passport, or an Indian with a British passport, your idea of what it means to be British is just as valuable as a white person whose family has been here for generations."

Well yes, but the problem is not to do with ethnicity (or generally religion) but to do with the fact that Britain as a set of concepts and ideas has grown and developed slowly. To suddenly allow in lots of people from other cultures risks damaging the very concepts that make this country such a pleasant place to live - tolerance, religious 'live and let live', a pragmatic outlook on life etc etc.

You are creating paper tigers to knock down rather than addressing serious problems to do with the speed of integration possible under mass immigration, overcrowding, cultural strains (for both those arriving and those already here) and so on.

[True Blue]

If someone who holds a British passport wants to see Sharia law introduced in this country, or believes it is legitimate to fight alongside our country's enemies, or supports a form of communal politics in which votes are delivered en bloc at the direction of "community leaders", or complains bitterly because the local school wants to put on a nativity play, then I would have to say that I do not regard that person's views as being as legitimate as my own.

I say Muslim, you immediately jump to Sharia law? Anyone who wants to introduce Sharia law in this country is welcome to their opinion, but it goes entirely against the spirit of tolerance which I think is essential.

There are plenty of peculiar views held across the entire ethnic spectrum (as this poll demonstrates.) Nick Griffin and his cronies are another example.

Please let me know your source for this nativity play story. It sounds like the usual "They've cancelled Christmas" piece.

[John Hustings]

"Please let me know your source for this nativity play story. It sounds like the usual "They've cancelled Christmas" piece."

And of course those stories are *all* tabloid inventions, aren't they True Blue?

[lambo]

Why have a policy on immigration at all?
We should adopt a libertarian approach to immigration.

The immigration policy is single most-cited reason by ABCs, esp females, under 40 for not even considering voting Tory, a group of voters that used to be solidly behind us in the 80s. It made us look and sound like the Nasty party and it cost us votes of people at a formative age. And it went down very badly in some constituencies, eg those with high Jewish populations.

Controlled immigration is not just bad politics, its also poor economics. Anyone who is prepared to leave their home country is normally a high risk-taker, the kind of enterpreneurs you can never have too many of. The benefits immigrants have brought to this country, and others, eg US, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, vastly outweigh any downside and that will continue.

Certain of the alluded downsides are nothing to do with immigration but rather the failure of government policy in other areas, eg social security.

Immigrants should be welcome in both the UK and the Conservative party.

[John Hustings]

"Why have a policy on immigration at all?
We should adopt a libertarian approach to immigration. "

As long as we have a welfare state, we can't have a libertarian immigration policy.

[Sean Fear]

Well, it was a school in Harrow, True Blue, not all that far from where I live. It was widely reported in the local papers. I don't know how many dealings you have with public authorities, but there are numerous examples of such authorities trying to downgrade anything that is obviously traditional, Christian, and British for fear that this will "give offence" to ethnic minorities.

This is one consequence of immigration that people are entitled to resent.

And while we have no option but to live with people who are born here and hold weird opinions, I think we should be wary of admitting very large numbers of people whose belief systems are radically different from our own. I've no desire to see more constituencies replicating the result from Bethnal Green and Bow at the last election.

[True Blue]

You are creating paper tigers to knock down rather than addressing serious problems to do with the speed of integration possible under mass immigration, overcrowding, cultural strains (for both those arriving and those already here) and so on

The first thing I said was that we need mananged migration based on economic need. A points-based system sounds appropriate. However, the subtext here is not a strightforward discussion of how to manage migration (no one is talking about the huge drain on the Scottish population, for example), is it?

As for integration - it's a two-way street. I think it is very interesting to examine the way that some ethnic groups find it easier to assimilate, some are preceived as more threatening and others less. I think looking here will help us formulate a policy which helps the process. There is a hope for the future though, the younger people are, the more likely that are to be tolerant and accepting of change according to this and practically every other poll on immigration.

I am trying to emphasise that although net migration can cause problems, many of those problems are based in perception rather than reality. When a whole slew of myths appear here amongst people I would hope to be well educated and tolerant, it shows the extent of the problem.

[Sean Fear]

And it went down very badly in some constituencies, eg those with high Jewish populations

In fact, constituencies with large Jewish populations showed above-average swings to the Conservatives in 2005.

[John Hustings]

And what about public opinion True Blue? Even though polls show overwhelmingly that immigration concerns people, you just want to ignore them and dismiss them as racists?

Your tone strikes me as overwhelmingly elitist.

[True Blue]

Oh and I dislike the implication from True Blue that those who "welcome" unfettered immigration are somehow morally superior.

You want to tell me where I implied this? I repeat, I am in favour of managed migration. Who exactly is it that believes in unfettered immigration?

[True Blue]

And what about public opinion True Blue? Even though polls show overwhelmingly that immigration concerns people, you just want to ignore them and dismiss them as racists?

I don't agree that immigration overwhelmingly concerns people. They have opinions about it when asked, but it's not high up the list of things people are concerned about. People have strong opinions about the death penalty, too.

[John Hustings]

"You want to tell me where I implied this? I repeat, I am in favour of managed migration. Who exactly is it that believes in unfettered immigration? "

You strongly implied that those who list immigration as a "concern" are somehow morally less worthy than high-minded sophisticates such as yourself who enjoy the rich cultural diversity immigration has brought to your local area.

[John Hustings]

"People have strong opinions about the death penalty, too."

Ah yes, and we *all know* that their opinions on the death penalty are base and should be ignored as well.

[True Blue]

but there are numerous examples of such authorities trying to downgrade anything that is obviously traditional, Christian, and British for fear that this will "give offence" to ethnic minorities.

Aah, the Harrow one.

It isn't ethnic minority communities who are promoting this, but overly sensitive left-wing councils. You won't find anything but puzzlement amongst Hindus and Muslims about this decision.

[True Blue]

And of course those stories are *all* tabloid inventions, aren't they True Blue?

No. Not all.

[True Blue]

You strongly implied that those who list immigration as a "concern" are somehow morally less worthy than high-minded sophisticates such as yourself who enjoy the rich cultural diversity immigration has brought to your local area.

I'm glad you number me amongst the high-minded sophisticates, although I do wish I was a salt-of-earth working class man of the people like you.

You accused me of implying that belief in unfettered immigration was morally superior. I don't believe in unfettered immigration, I don't believe it's morally superior and I never stated or implied that it was. You could just concede this point.

[Account Deleted]

Please stop the italics invading our country...

[Account Deleted]

Sorry... I couldn't help myself! Serious point to follow

[True Blue]

"You won't be suprised to read that amongst existing Conservative voters, the issue of immigration is very important to the way they vote, to non-Conservative voters, it ranks very low on their list of priorities as a vote decider. I think this is a sad reflection on the obsessions of certain people within the party."

Where is this to be found in the survey?

It's not found in this survey. It's found in a MORI poll here:
http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/rd-july.shtml

"Those more likely to believe that 'there are too many immigrants in Britain' are:

Those aged 65+ (83%), compared with 62% of 15 - 64 year-olds.
Those living in the North East (78%) compared with 47% of Londoners.
Conservative supporters (75%) compared with Liberal Democrat (54%) and Labour supporters (62%)."

[Julian H]

Immigration is good. We're supposed to be free marketeers, remember?

[Account Deleted]

Personally I would not ever, ever, ever vote for a party which advocated mass (net 500,000+) immigration, and would vote for anyone in my local area to stop them (short of the fascists).

And as the poll at the start of this thread shows, our immigration policies are vote winners not vote losers, even amongst the young and AB1 vote groups.

"And while we have no option but to live with people who are born here and hold weird opinions, I think we should be wary of admitting very large numbers of people whose belief systems are radically different from our own."

I also agree with Sean Fear, and I think that all the sneering metropolitans would be much more against immigration if it was poor white Christian fundamentalists who were coming to the UK rather than poor asian muslims who are coming to the UK.
However, a majority of muslims want to come to the UK and fit in, and it is the spinelessness of UK politicians who won't make this clear - you come here, you adopt our values, who are to blame for the problem of people who get here and try to turn it into another country (one which they obviously loved so much they left in the first place!!!)

Again True Blue - on asylum what is wrong with what I proposed vis-a-vis refugees

[Sean Fear]

While that poll shows that concern over immigration is greater among the elderly and among non-Londoners, and Conservatives, such concern is nonetheless pretty widespread across all age groups, geographical locations and political groups.

[Editor]

I've corrected the italics problem. Could people who use html please preview their posts before sending the presentation - as well as the content - crazy!

[True Blue]

I think I better stick to quote marks.

Final comments, unless someone asks me a question (please refrain if you can - I can't help myself and I should really do some work):

* Immigration is net economic benefit to the UK. It's an essential part of our economy. We need it.

* There are problems to do with overcrowding in this country of which net migration plays a minor role. Most population density problems are caused by the North-South divide. This needs to be addressed. Parts of the country are losing people rapidly.

* Migration should be managed, perhaps with a points-based system. In an ideal world there would be free movement of labour. This is not possible, nor is it ever likely to be.

* People granted asylum are a separate question to immigrants. We currently have a manageable and affordable number of asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers is going down year-on-year. We take in a minute fraction of the world's refugees.

* I agree with commentators who suggest that we should be helping those contries who take in a vast number of refugees, and direct our aid to reduce the number of refugees in the first place.

* Myths about asylum seekers and immigrants promulgated by the Daily Mail and similar papers mean that a large number of people have wildly skewed ideas about the number of immigrants, their net contribution to British society and their attitudes. We need to demonstrate that such myths are not true. That is the best way to stop the BNP. If the BNP say "immigrants are spongers", our response should be to demonstrate they are not rather than say "we'll keep them out of the country."

* We should promote a positive attitude to immigrants, to ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, and assist people with integration.

I accept that my views are unpopular amongst the party, and I'm just doing my best to put this minority view forward.

[John Hustings]

"I'm glad you number me amongst the high-minded sophisticates, although I do wish I was a salt-of-earth working class man of the people like you."

Whether I'm a "man of the people" or not, I don't believe in ignoring popular viewpoints and dismissing all who hold them as nasty racists.

[True Blue]

Again True Blue - on asylum what is wrong with what I proposed vis-a-vis refugees

You did ask.

The 1951 convention means that all (or at least 143) countries do their bit. We take our 0.03 percent, Africa and the Middle East take their two-thirds of the refugees. Every little helps. If we propose a cap on refugees, other countries would. What would happen if Guinea did? What would the 3 million refugees housed their do if Guinea refused to help them? At the very least, thousands of deaths, and probably economic consequences for us.

It would set a very poor example to the developing nations who host 72% of the world's refugees.

[True Blue]

"Whether I'm a "man of the people" or not, I don't believe in ignoring popular viewpoints and dismissing all who hold them as nasty racists."

In the case of views on immigration I'd go with ill-informed, I think.

If people form opinions on a particular subject which are not based on evidence, I am suspicious of their conclusions. If someone says "there are too many immigrants" and they think the immigrant population is 26%, you have to consider the value of their opinions very carefully. Why would they think there are more immigrants than there actually were?

The best response to ill-informed opinions is information.

[Passingthru]

Is inward migration really that 'good' for the economy. Of course the economy will keep growing if we keep adding people to the workforce, doesn't mean any of us as individuals actually get richer because of it, just means more people contributing to the growth surely. Heck, if we annexed Rwanda, their economy would be reflected in our figures as growth, doesnt mean we're richer.

Seems to me, that unless the average immigrant is wealthier than the average settled citizen, we're effectively importing poverty.

[Basil Blogger]

There are now an estimated 585,000 illegal failed asylum/refugee seekers in the UK today. The Independent

[Derek]

The 1951 convention is out of date and we should come out of it. It was drawn up in a different age when the huge numbers of third world refugees could not have been imagined, in a time before people-trafficking was known and transport across the world was far more difficult. We should retain our sovereign right to decide our own immigration and asylum policy free from interference.

This is another important reason why we need to renegotiate our relationship with the EU.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You are wrong. We do not take in a disproportionate number of asylum seekers.
Take a look at the statistics I quoted above."

That's an interesting misrepresentation of what I actually said, which was that other countries should take their fair share instead of somehow seeing to it that refugees/asylum seekers get as close to the English Channel as possible and then expressing complete surprise when it is revealed that large swathes of our immigrant population passed through their country on the way here.

"These comments make no sense. Having more than one ethnic community is a prerequisite for racial tension - of course you aren't going to get race riots in Cornwall."

It seems to me that you're the one contradicting yourself, so I'll leave it for others to judge whose comments make sense. I see that you've acknowledged that racial tension is a product of multiculturalism though.

"And your evidence for this claim is? Calling someone a "false asylum seeker" is prejudged their case. They are an asylum seeker until their case is judged. You are presupposing criminality by this use of language."

My point was that genuine asylum seekers would surely seek asylum upon arrival in a safe country rather than sneak in illegally and only play the asylum card when the long arm of the law starts a-knockin' at the door - behaviour which only serves to increase suspicion, which is surely justified in such circumstances.

"You are just promulgating more tabloid nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence for any of this. Asylum seekers get £35 a week, and can't work. They really don't want to be here, but it is better than being tortured and imprisoned in their own countries."

Well done on not addressing the point I actually made. As for evidence, I think you'll find that logic/reason backs up my argument about genuine asylum seekers staying in the first safe country they come to.

[True Blue]

That's an interesting misrepresentation of what I actually said, which was that other countries should take their fair share instead of somehow seeing to it that refugees/asylum seekers get as close to the English Channel as possible and then expressing complete surprise when it is revealed that large swathes of our immigrant population passed through their country on the way here

I refer you again to my figures, as you clearly didn't read them. We are eighth in the European league for accepting asylum seekers. We are 32nd in the world. Fewer that 3 / 1000 of our population are refugees. These are reasonable numbers. Poor developing countries already house the vast majority of refugees. We can take our share.

I see that you've acknowledged that racial tension is a product of multiculturalism though

Rubbish. I've said it's impossible to have ethnic riots where there is only one ethnicity. It's just logic. It's the same as saying that there are no wild lion attacks in the UK because there are no wild lions. Where did multiculturism come into it?

[True Blue]

The 1951 convention is out of date and we should come out of it... We should retain our sovereign right to decide our own immigration and asylum policy free from interference.

Do you really think we could do this without negative economic consequences for us? It's the worst possible example we could give. If the UK puts a quota on refugees, why the hell shouldn't developing countries?

Refugees are a problem for the world - we can't just hide behind the fence. This convention is the best solution we have.

However, it is never going to happen in any case, and I very much doubt that it will be Conservative policy after what happened last time. It's just febrile little-Britainism, and I think David Cameron will oppose it.

[Julian H]

True Blue (every post) - spot on and pretty much exactly what I'd be saying if I wasn't hiding behind a pile of work. Keep it up, you're winning.

[True Blue]

My point was that genuine asylum seekers would surely seek asylum upon arrival in a safe country rather than sneak in illegally

Sorry I must have missed this one.

Home Office figures show that more than twice as many of those who apply for asylum once they are in the country are recognised as refugees under the UN convention than those who apply at ports.

[True Blue]

that unless the average immigrant is wealthier than the average settled citizen, we're effectively importing poverty.

Sorry, missed this one, too.

Government figures show that first generation immigrants on average have a greater GDP per capita, MigrationWatch says it's about neutral. I think that includes asylum seekers, which is pretty impressive considering they aren't even allowed to work.

In addition, just looking at GDP per capita doesn't show the beneficial effect on the job market in a country with low unemployment.

[Account Deleted]

We should pull out of the 1951 Convention because it does not work - and it never will. Richer countries should offer to help pay for the costs of helping refugees, not take a slightly higher number - because it will never be enough, and then poorer countries like Guinea actually get some support for taking on the refugees that they do. We should unilaterally offer more help to countries whose neighbours are at war or experiencing problems so that they can help those who are moving into their country.

Why on earth would you oppose such a move?

"Immigration is net economic benefit to the UK. It's an essential part of our economy. We need it."

Some immigration is necessary in the short term. But in the long term it is not - we are all free marketeers apparently, and in a free market there WILL NOT BE long term sectors which need immigrants (e.g. cleaners etc) - such jobs will be filled by home grown labour because no one in the UK will do it at present wage rates, wages will have to rise, and then people will do it. This may even mean those at the bottom will see their wages rise, thus reducing inequality. It's a win-win situation.

[Account Deleted]

Further, many (not all) immigrants (particularly those who are low skilled)

a) have larger families
b) often won't allow their wives out to work

This means that they are not particularly useful to the the country they are coming to.

Tower Hamlets (over 45% Bangladesh/Pakistani) has the highest economically inactive ratio of working adults in the UK. This in a borough right next to the City. That's not prejudice, that is the way it is.

[True Blue]

True Blue (every post) - spot on and pretty much exactly what I'd be saying if I wasn't hiding behind a pile of work. Keep it up, you're winning.

Well, thank you very much for that. I'll have to stop posting for a week after this thread.

[John Hustings]

"In the case of views on immigration I'd go with ill-informed, I think."

In what way are people who list immigration as a "concern" ill-informed?

They should be made to like it?

Perhaps not everyone shares your misty-eyed view of immigration. I don't see how that makes them "ill-informed".

[True Blue]

"In the case of views on immigration I'd go with ill-informed, I think."
In what way are people who list immigration as a "concern" ill-informed?

I never said that listing immigration as a concern is ill-informed. That is a very silly strawman argument. I would list it as a concern myself, or why would I be spending all day apparently banging my head on a brick wall on the issue?

The views on immigration which are ill-informed, I think I have set out fairly clearly on this thread. I may have missed out a few, but I direct you to the list of immigration myths at which I pointed you earlier. If you need any more, let me know.

My views on immigration are based on economic pragamatism and the weight of evidence, not any bizarre idealism. I think it's the frothing fringe who have mist in front of their eyes - but it's red mist.

[Michael McGowan]

I have followed this thread with interest but mounting cynicism. I am the grandchild of immigrants so have a natural sympathy for immigrants. Having said that, a lot of the arguments put forward are highly tendentious. There may well be some economic benefit to immigration (there clearly is if the immigrants are educated and highly qualified) but much of it is assertion rather than fact. The likes of Polly Toynbee have been noting with increasing alarm that large increases in unskilled immigration have simply driven average wages closer and closer to the minimum wage. This may be laissez faire economics in action and may serve well the interests of Notting Hill socialites in need of nannies and cleaners, but for other weaker members of our community, the implications are much starker than that. And people are not just digits in some economic machine.

As we have also seen only too well, in recent years there have been major problems with integration, as people like Anne Cryer have noted to howls from their erstwhile allies on the left. I doubt that David Cameron has the political courage to tackle issues such as the ghettoisation of certain ethnic minority communities and the plight of women within those communities because that would require him to stand up to the BBC and the Guardian; and to take on the self-appointed community leaders who often oppress the communities they claim to represent. Labour of course panders to such people because it relies on them to turn out the vote at election time....by fair means or foul, as we saw last year in Birmingham.

It is also true that the immigration system is a shambles and that the Labour Party has turned a blind eye to this. The UK has consistently failed to deport those whose asylum applications have been judged and have failed. The system may be "better" than in the past but as we were starting from a very low baseline, that is hardly cause for congratulation. Would the Tories do any better? I doubt it.

I will no doubt now be smeared as a racist by the usual suspects.....After all, it is now a thought crime not to genuflect before the sacred cow of uncontrolled immigration.

[Patsy Sergeant]

One imagines that TRue Blue is secure in his work, secure where he lives, and secure in his area. Perhaps he had better get on and do the work that presumably he is being paid to do.

[True Blue]

We should unilaterally offer more help to countries whose neighbours are at war or experiencing problems so that they can help those who are moving into their country.
Why on earth would you oppose such a move?

I think I have fully explained why oppose the unilateral abbrogation of the 1951 convetion. However, I agree with this last point, as I think I said.

[True Blue]

One imagines that TRue Blue is secure in his work, secure where he lives, and secure in his area. Perhaps he had better get on and do the work that presumably he is being paid to do.

I sense a subtext here - why not just say "shut up"?

I'm glad you have a picture of me sitting safe in some gated community, perhaps malingering at your expense, a lazy, rich civil servant. That would be convenient! You are right though, I should be getting on with my work - I'm going to have to pull out the stops tonight to catch up. Silly me.

If you must know, I own and run a business, I live in Brixton, send my child to state school and my house has been burgaled twice in the past four years. But yes, I do feel safe. I'm not living in a Daily Mail land of fear, where crime statistics grow every day and there is mugger round every corner, and where illegal immigrants are stealing my job, defrauding me and asylum seekers are pulling down my Christmas tree and forcing my offspring to learn Arabic.

[True Blue]

Editor,

If I miss the closing italics again, feel free to ban me.

[A Floating Voter who recently stumbled on Conservative Home]

One imagines that True Blue is secure in his work, secure where he lives, and secure in his area. Perhaps he had better get on and do the work that presumably he is being paid to do.

Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | April 03, 2006 at 17:02

A snide comment from an old lady who presumably can't think of a good enough argument to counter True Blue's and so resorts to being petty.

Thanks for making the argument for those of us who agree with you but are too busy at work to comment, True Blue!

We're hard at work getting the pension money for OAPs like Patsy even though we may never get a pension of our own and will have to work till we're 109 and drop dead.

Many floating voters come to conservativehome on a daily basis. It's nice to know that they are reading a balanced argument.

Shame that some like Patsy want to spoil it for everybody else.

[Editor]

We enjoy your contributions too much to ban you True Blue but please preview your comments before posting so these italics attacks can be avoided!

[Editor]

We enjoy your contributions too much to ban you True Blue but please preview your comments before posting so these italics attacks can be avoided!

In the meantime I've corrected the problem again.

[Derek]

What those who favour high levels of immigration need to answer is - whatis the optimum size of population for the UK? Or do they think, like David Blunkett, that there is no upper limit?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

In this whole debate, I feel as if we should make sure that all immigration is legal and that we have not done enough to make sure that this is so. We are never going to remove all the illegals here at the moment, we need to allow them to enter the legal job market, as they're breaking the law, their bosses are breaking the law, and they're lowering wages. This needs to be done without just allowing them to become benefit scroungers.

I agree with True Blue on asylum. We need to recognise that the world is more insecure and interdependent than ever before, especially since 1951. We have a moral obligation.

One thing I really dislike in this debate is the hysteria and paranoia encountered. The UK is a great nation, predictions of how this country will be overrun by illegals and asylum seekers speaks volumes about those who make those kind of ridiculous predictions. Have some faith in this great nation and relax a little. This debate needs more light and less heat.

[Account Deleted]

I think it is unfair to tell TrueBlue to pretty much shut up (though we are all guilty of getting heated sometimes) and I think you should withdraw your comments Patsy.

Anyway back to the politics.

I think that we have a moral duty to help refugees, like the majority of the public. But on the other hand, like the majority of the public I am against anything above pretty limited immigration on the current scale for a variety of cultural (it takes time to integrate people) and economic reasons (it depresses wages).

That is why I think we should pull out of the 1951 convention - and concentrate on helping people as I said, in countries closer to their origin. This both fulfils our moral obligation and reduces the numbers entering the UK.

I do think that there is an element, as has been said before, of moral superiority from those who want more and more immigration - which is wholly unjustified. Mass immigration is harmful to race relations and economically unjustifiable. Why on earth should wanting to allow in so many people that the indigenous population's culture was damaged be something to be proud of. It wouldn't be if we were talking about immigration into any other nation, so why with the UK.

This is why I distrust people who really like large scale immigration - I don't believe that they like the UK and they would like to see its culture diminished as rapidly as possible. This is the real reason many support mass immigration and the more unscrupulous try to smear everyone else as racists. And I believe we have a culture we should be proud of and immigrants to the UK should (and can) be proud of too. Why else would you be in favour of mass immigration?

I also have to put my hand on my heart and say as an old fashioned Tory I distrust those who are too prepared to uproot themselves and move around the world just to seek more money rather than fight to change the country they are in.

Have just spotted the "I feel as if we should make sure that all immigration is legal and that we have not done enough to make sure that this is so" comment. You make it sound as if we should just let people do as they please and enter or leave as they please. People who break the law are in the wrong and that is that (and please can no one claim illegal immigrants are comparable with freedom fighters/anti-Nazis etc etc. Too childish for words).

[Patsy Sergeant]

I like Michael McGowan's summation of the immigration situation - to the point and non-provocative.

My great, great grandparents were also immigrants from Poland, and I expect many, many 'English' people have immigrant ancestors, but the population of this country wasn't always as large as it is now, evenbefore the second world war it was smaller than now.

When the Jewish refugees came here in the 1930's most of them had help from their own community, which would have eased their way a little. It was not until the 50's and onwards that larger numbers of people came here from the West Indies, Pakistan and Bangladesh and then elsewhere. Although we also have emmigration it does not cancel out the greater number of immigrants, although some people would have you believe that is so.

Up till now all the tourist ads portray the UK as the beautiful LITTLE country where the weather as always friendly if not sunny, and the TV programmes show a country that is rich, eats well and buys whatever it wants. Well of course ALL the poor people in Europe, Asia and Africa would like to go to a place like that! Wouldn't you if you were poor. But look in an atlas the UK is SMALL!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Floating voter ----- Just for your information yes I am an old lady, -you might be an old gent one day! Actually I worked AND paid into my pension all my life until I retired, so my state pension is not off the back of my huband, which of course you didn't say but certainly implied.

As my post above shows I can put forward arguments with the best of you if I choose to, and could have gone into figures etc: if I felt so inclined, but I did not, thank you.

[True Blue]

I think it is unfair to tell TrueBlue to pretty much shut up (though we are all guilty of getting heated sometimes) and I think you should withdraw your comments Patsy.

There's no need - the comment proved my point about entrenched attitudes, really. I pictured Patsy with her blood boiling at the her idea of what I might be like - it made me laugh. The idea that you have got to live in an ivory tower to think immigration and diversity is a good thing is rather sad.

I think the insult to Patsy was a little unfair, though. I'm sure she is young at heart and maybe even amenable to change!

[Patsy Sergeant]

1AM - I am sorry I do not feel inclined to withdraw my comments, which were provoked by what seemed to me a fairly rude attitude by True Blue. Anyway thats boring now.

The thing about immigration from poor countries as a whole is that nobody seems to be able to help them in their own country, because so often the aid which is given is stolen by unscrupulous leaders, it has become so accepted that it is talked about quite openly nowadays, but nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. Perhaps some intelligent brains should be trying to work out a solution on that front as well.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Thank you TRue Blue!

[1AM]

Well, pressing on with the politics - I hope that people are trying to wok out a solution on International Development somewhere...

Back to immigration.

I think some people are just in favour of diversity and some people are wary of it, particularly too much. And this probably causes the strength of emotion in this area.

Personally I am with the slightly wary side. You have to have some kind of shared values between people and shared culture and too much immigration all at once damages this.

Plus we are a crowded nation and its not as if we are all living surrounded by acres and acres for everyone to live in.

[John Hustings]

"The idea that you have got to live in an ivory tower to think immigration and diversity is a good thing is rather sad."

Perhaps it was your moral posturing that led Patsy to draw that kind of conclusion.

Many parts of London aren't "diverse" at all. It is largely comprised of totally homogenous ghettos. Brixton used to be a bit like that, though recently it has become a little more fashionable.

For those who live in such ghettoised areas, your type of attitude to diversity is a luxury. For me personally, it doesn't matter so much. I have the ability to pretty much choose where I live. However, my elderly relatives and their neighbours don't have that ability. I always get angry when their views are ignored or dismissed as racist simply because they don't fit in with the dewy-eyed vision of a harmonious multi-coloured society held by our young metropolitan elites.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

What I meant to say was that we have laws to govern immigration at the moment, but that they are not being enforced properly.

Second, it is just unacceptable for ANY government to admit that there are thousands of people here working illegally whilst saying that they have no plan as to how to integrate them and no intention of deporting them, even if it could find them.

Third, we need to be less fussy about who we call English or British. Minorities do not integrate, in part, because they are told that they can never be, truly, British. That is total nonsense. Are hispanic americans or irish americans different sorts of Americans or are they equally American. They're the same, just different. If we tell people when they come here that they are British and that they must live in British way are we being racist? I don't think so.

Fourth, if you're so worried about your pension then you should welcome these immigrants. They're almost all young and have more children. They're more economically active and more aspirational for themselves and their children. Cultures that don't change just die.

[Margaret]

Agreed John Hustings. People certainly get het up with the question of immigrants and asylum seekers.

One thing that isn't mentioned is the fact that the South East is short of water. We already have a hosepipe ban. John Prescott proposes building thousands of houses on the flood plains, presumably to house the thousands of immigrants the Government are encouraging to come to Britain. Where is the water to come from, where is the infrastructure, the schools, roads, Doctors and Dentists.

The Government is destroying this country and I do not hear much from HM Opposition.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I refer you again to my figures, as you clearly didn't read them. We are eighth in the European league for accepting asylum seekers. We are 32nd in the world."

Actually I did read them but if you think chanting unreferenced statistics at me instead of answering my argument is going to get me to pipe down, then you're sadly mistaken.

"Home Office figures show that more than twice as many of those who apply for asylum once they are in the country are recognised as refugees under the UN convention than those who apply at ports."

Ah right, Home Office figures show that. The case must be closed then! Got a reference to these figures perchance?

Unfortunately your brandishing of yet more unreferenced statistics does little to counter the logic that a genuine asylum seeker would surely seek asylum at the first opportunity.

Spurious comparisons between asylum applications in-country and at ports just won't wash either I'm afraid.

You point out that the number of accepted in-country applications is twice the number of accepted port applications, but I notice you neglect to mention that the total number of in-country applications is over 5 times the total number of port applications, meaning port applications are proportionally more successful than in-country applications, which would appear to support my point that genuine asylum seekers would logically seek asylum at the first opportunity.

(Statistics here if you care to take a look.)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

And another thing, it seems quite obvious to me that the number of in-country applications would be higher, given that it affords illegal immigrants the time to learn how to play the system before eventually claiming asylum when 'the authorities' catch up with them.

I expect you'll brand me a paranoid, swivel-eyed, foaming-mouthed, goose-stepping, tabloid-reading bigot now won't you?

[Richard]

Judging by the opinion poll, it is cultural reasons that cause people to be suspicious of mass immigration. The fact that some ethnic minorities do segregate themselves is a typical example of this. The London bombings would not have occurred if those responsible had been properly integrated. As I have pointed out before, support for the invasion of Afghanistan amongst non-Muslims was around 80%. Amongst Muslims, 80% were opposed. This suggests they have loyalties that lie elsewhere. If we can't integrate those who have come here over the past few decades, how do we expect to integrate those who are coming here now?

[Derek]

Not one of those in favour of the current level of immigration has attempted to answer my simple question - What do they regard as the optimum population level for the UK? The silence is deafening.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

According to The Brussels Journal website the recent municipal elections in the Netherlands showed a very significant shift to the Left. The Labour Party showed a 50% increase in its vote and the SP (Socialist Party) 100% and the immigrant vote is said to have caused the swing. I cannot vouch for the statistics quoted. You can read the whole thing by doing a Google search on Netherlands Vote. The views of True Blue will be imteresting. It looks like tough times ahead for the Tories:

"Today the center-left newspaper De Volkskrant writes that the immigrant vote has tipped the balance in favour of the Left. This should not come as a surprise. All across Europe, immigrants tend to vote for the Left. The Left is perceived to be the welfare state’s Santa Claus. Most of the immigrants who came to Europe during the past decades were attracted by the generous welfare benefits which Western Europe lavishly bestows on the “underprivileged.” Today, owing to their demographic growth, the immigrant vote is increasing as more and more young immigrants reach voting age. In many countries the Left has begun to cater for the immigrants, aware that the immigrants guarantee their power.

According to the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam 80% of the non-indigenous electorate voted for Labour. This explains why cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Breda and Arnhem succumbed to the Left. 84% of the Turks voted for the PvdA; 81% of the Antillians/Surinamese did likewise. Of the Moroccans 78% voted Labour and 12% voted Green Left.

The center-right VVD, the party of famous Dutch policians such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Frits Bolkestein, received only 1% of the immigrant vote. The CDA got 3%, the SP 5% and Green Left 7%".

[AlexW]

Since True Blue seems to have been exhausted by this thread, I'll take up the gauntlet.

First of all, could I reiterate on True Blue's behalf that this is not a laissez-faire libertarian approach. The question is whether immigration policy should be essentially qualitative (i.e. assessing every applicant on his/her potential contribution to society) or quantitative (i.e. setting a hard cap).

The arguments seem to have been as follows:

1. There should be an "optimum population" (Derek) and the qualitative approach does not achieve that.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on what the optimum population should be? For myself, I would find it ridiculous to stipulate a fixed figure: it depends on what services, employment prospects, infrastructure and so on is available. Rather than saying "100,000 per year", we should look to factors such as housing stock and public service provisions and factor that into the qualitative calculations.

In any event, the UK population has grown just 17% since 1951, with census projections indicating that it will grow only a further 10% to 2035. I am sure that our services can cope with a growth rate of some 0.3% per year. The birth rate of the UK is currently 1.64, so to even maintain our population at a static level, we would need immigration at a rate of about 300,000 per year (assuming a generation is about 30 years).

2. We are ignoring the will of the majority - John Hustings, 1AM

Firstly, the poll has been conducted by MigrationWatch, so I would be sceptical of the neutrality of the questions put.

Secondly, as True Blue rightly notes, the poll is predicated on the disinformation sadly distributed by certain tabloid newspapers. Those taking the poll ought to have been given some basic facts.

Thirdly, it is not the role of Government to simply follow the focus groups and opinion polls: that was precisely the strongest critique of Blair's Government until at least 2003. Government is about making decisions for the good of the country - if the electorate do not like it, they will vote us out. That does not mean that we should capitulate on our ideals at the first whiff of unpopularity, or pander to populism. What would the polls have said after, for example, the 1981 Budget?

3. Our culture is being undermined.

The argument about Sharia law is specious. Extremism must be tackled in all of its forms, be it militant Islam or the BNP. I wholeheartedly supported the conviction of Abu Hamza (indeed, I was surprised at the brevity of his sentence) and would like to see stronger measures against the cartoon protestors.

However, it is difficult to see how a "hard cap" will solve this. If the cap is set at say 100,000, then it does not preclude extremists getting in altogether, but merely reduces their numbers proportionately parallel to excluding a lot of hard-working migrants who are prepared to integrate and play a full part in our society. A better system would be simply more rigorous background checks and exclusion at the qualitative stage.

4. It's a small island - Patsy

Well, first of all, the statistics would indicate that the impact of net migration on overall population is relatively limited (see above). In any case, only 10% of the country is urbanised by total land area; it just so happens that urbanisation is focused on London and the South East. Initiatives to stimulate growth in the regions would be a better solution to overcrowding, as well as bring huge benefits in its own right.

5. There will be racial tensions - John Hustings

Racial tensions are most serious in areas where the economy is weak (Bradford, Keighley etc.). This may explain why London, despite having the highest percentage of migrants in the population of any region, is relatively free of significant ethnic tensions. Where ethnic tensions do exist, it tends to be focused on the poorer areas. It is saddening for British-born citizens to remain unemployed whilst immigrants find jobs, but the bitter truth is that we cannot afford to simply raise protectionist barriers to the labour market in a global economy. If highly skilled immigrants don't come and work here, you can be sure that the jobs will go to them (in India etc.). Being a native British citizen gives you no priority to employment if you are less able on the merits than an immigrant.

[AlexW]

In addition to the above post,

3A: As for culture being undermined in a more general sense, as I have argued above, many generations of immigrants have in the past become fully integrated. Moreover, certain immigrant communities (especially, but not exclusively, East Asians) have no significant instances of racial friction.

The problem may be rather how we treat immigrant communities once they arrive. Stronger community initiatives need to be undertaken - this would be infinitely preferable to the crude hard cap proposed.

[Biodun]

**sighs**
Personally, I think there should be clear limits on the number of economic migrants allowed into the country each year.

There should not be a cap on Asylum Seekers but much more stringent checks to separate the genuine wheat from the queue-jumping chaff who get into the country dishonestly -as many honest people wait years and years going through official routes with the British High Commissions abroad.

As I sit here, I wonder if there's any country in the world that doesn't think immigrants are flooding in and spoiling everything for the rest.

In the US they're up in arms about Mexican immigration.
A few months ago, Nigerian legislators were debating a bill to stop foreigners (esp. those from Western Europe) "stealing" the plum jobs from locals.
There were even protests when a governor handed over free land and $500,000 to White Farmers from Zimbabwe in the hope that it would stimulate the agricultural industry within his state and so on.

Anyone who thinks that it's wrong to impose limits would be wise to note the immigration policies of the countries these people are coming from.

There's no point in having a free labour market if we're the only ones playing by the rules.