Tories say immigration is a 'core vote issue' for all Britons

The Government's report into the economic impact of immigration has been causing lots of media waves.  The report suggests that immigrant workers - which now account for a staggering 12.5% of the workforce - contributed £6bn to Britain's economic growth in 2006.   MigrationWatch has responded by saying that, according to research by Professor David Coleman, immigration places £8.8bn of costs onto the taxpayer.

Professor Coleman's research is summarised by the Daily Mail in the graphic on the right (click it to enlarge it).

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has attacked the Government's report and, despite the Prime Minister's talk of 'British jobs for British workers', questioned what Labour is actually doing for young, unemployed Britons: "What will they do for the million economically inactive under 25’s in the country?”  Youth joblessness has actually risen from 14.1% when Labour came to power to 14.5% today.

55% of Tory members recently told ConservativeHome.com that they would like David Cameron to talk about immigration more.  Only 5% think there should be less focus.  A press release from conservatives.com argues, however, that the party has been far from silent on immigration policy since David Cameron became leader:

• In August 2006 Damian Green urged the Government to impose strict limits on the numbers of workers able to enter Britain from new EU states.
• In November 2006 the party announced a commitment to a strict, annual limit on immigration from outside of the EU.
• In January 2007 David Cameron pledged the party to sign up to the European Convention against trafficking in human beings.
• A month later former Met Chief John Stevens agreed to run a Tory taskforce on a uniformed, border police force.
• In August Damian Green announced measures to tackle forced marriage.
• At the Blackpool Party Conference David Davis promised that net immigration will be ‘substantially lower’ than the current 190,000 a year.

Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green has written about the grand sweep of Conservative immigration policy for Platform10.  He insists that it is not a right-wing issue but one that matters to all British people and that the Conservative position is consistent with the party's one nation tradition:

"This vision of controlled immigration, and enhanced integration, is supported by British people of all ethnic groups and economic backgrounds, and indeed all political views. It is a core issue for the whole British people, not just members of the Conservative Party. A firm immigration policy is an important way of contributing to better community cohesion in this country."

Comments

[realcon]

Now, what exactly is Damian Green going to do about net immigration from the rest of the EU?

[Tony Makara]

When I'm out and about I very often come across many foreigners who clearly can't speak English and therefore are unlikely to be in employment. So I wonder what these people are doing here? They can't all be fleeing political persecution. Our country cannot take this high level of immigration. No doubt the overvalued pound is drawing many of them here in the hope of sending money home. The Labour government with its internationalist perspective probably see this mass immigration as a good thing.

[Andrew Lilico]

In my view this is a mistake. In much of the country immigration just isn't an issue at all. In the areas of the country where it is an issue the smart people tend to think it's a good thing and the less smart are more ambivalent.

Even where immigration is an issue, it is so because of (a) immigration from within the EU, not without (e.g. many high-skilled workers in London); (b) the recent history of poor management of the asylum-seeker issue by the government (and asylum-seekers *was* an important issue at the time, though one we unfortunately talked about to the exclusion of even more important issues). Where is there really any material issue of actual immigration (as opposed to asylum-seeking) from outside the EU?? Essentially the Nationality Act 1981 did all the work necessary in this area. It remains very difficult these days to enter the UK officially from outside the EU, unless one is highly skilled.

That is not to say that there is not significant immigration - of course there is: from the EU and to a lesser extent from places such as Australia. But as far as I am aware we don't have the slightest intention of limiting immigration from the EU (setting aside Bulgaria and Romania) - the only way to do so would be to leave the EU. So what, really, is the issue here that we as a Party have the slightest intention of addressing? I just don't see one at all.

[Jennifer Wells]

Editor,

Will you please put this one very simple question to Mr Green on my behalf:

"What is the point of controlling immigration from outside of the EU but not controlling it from within the EU?"

Thank you.

[Tory shame]

That table is a disgrace? Border controls are a cost of immigration? Then let's turn Britain into a prison camp. And isn't the cost of the CRE (a body which doesn't even exist any more) - isn't that a cost of racism, or do you Tories now think that people like the Lawrencies brought it on themselves?

[George Hinton]

One might also quote a recent survey from Cambridgeshire Police which indicated that crime committed by EU acession nationals last year was circa 250. This year's first six months was 1080. Of that number, 1000 was committed by Romanians!.
Are we deporting these ne'erdowells? Can we? Just how many EU nationals are incarcerated in our jails? What is being done?
Whilst we allow the bleeding hearts and the extreme left to dictate the subject matter of debate in this country, we will never get a proper resolution to the needs of the population. And lets be frank, the needs of the indiginous population should be at the forefront of every MP in Westminster. Allowing asylum seekers and migrants from overseas (and i include the EU) should be of secondary consideration. This ia a small crowded island and space is finite, as is the ability to find jobs for all. We cannot continue the present unimpeded free entry, and not police our borders to make them secure.
Biting the bullet, offering up the subject for debate is not offensive and not stooping to the agenda of the BNP/NF, it is being pragmatic and understanding the problems that face this country. Indeed it takes the wind from the thugs and hands the subject to reasonable people for fair and considered discussion, removing extreme emotional tensions from all facets of the political spectrum.
Whilst we are discussing immigration, perhaps we should also extend the debate to take in multiculturism and its failures. If incomers do not adapt, adopt and assimilate then this country has additional problems. Problems that have been highlighted by our own home grown suicide bombers and the failure of some ethnic communities to understand and embrace our democratic process.

[michael mcgough]

William Hague was repeating his 'in Europe but not run by Europe'

perhaps it should read 'in Europe and over-run by Europeans '

[David]

Impressed to see how much more hardworking these people are though; just the sort of people we want and need. Shame we can't offload some of our more lazier compatriots.

[David]

That Migrationwatch table's a bit crap though; not all of the items are directly related to immigration, or are required to support it.

[Sean Fear]

Andrew, one of the main drivers of immigration from outside the EU is family reunions, and marriage, particularly from Africa and Asia. This are types of immigration that bring no discernible benefits to this country, and ones which I would wish to see an incoming Conservative government tackle.

[Patriot]

If we really are, at last, about to grasp the nettle of immigration, then Labour really will be fatally holed below the waterline if we do it in the right way.

Labour will attack this as Tory racism, which is why it must be done in context.

No party which seriously aspires to competent government can talk about alleviating poverty without knowing what the population of the country is going to be in 5, 10, 15 or more years time. Nor can they seriously make a claim to being concerned about "green" issues - and we should talk about sustainability, not greenness - without addressing how many millions of people in the future are going to need to access finite supplies of water, and waste disposal, and food, and energy, and housing.

Only when Cameron introduces the concept of population policy, with a target population size for Britain, can we begin to seriously discuss banishing poverty, fixing the health service, having energy independence and all the other vital objectives we need to address.

I propose that we set the upper limit to Britain's population at its current figure, given the stresses and strains which are already evident in our infrastructure - health, education etc, and which are highlighted in todays reports.

And yes, this will have implications for our relations with the rest of Europe, but if you think I'm wrong about a population cap, then tell me what size population you think this country and its struggling infrastructure can support? 100 million? 200 million? 300 million?

Setting a limit now and getting the figure right will directly influence what kind of society our children and grandchildren grow up in.

[Faisal]

Cost of immigrants crime 4.8bn - Total rubbish and utter nonesense!

I've always believed that the Tories never had and won't have a policy. The proof - quoting nutty professors from Migration watch

And it's a shame Labour are as silly

[Tim]

It's because we subscribe to the free movement of goods, people and services - and all the better we are for it too.

The tone of the language on this site whenever the topic of immigration comes up is appalling and is the main reason David Cameron has been reluctant to address the issue up until now.

Nobody's saying we can't discuss asylum and immigration but the 'bloody foreigners keep stealing my jobs' attitude has to stop. It does our party a great disservice.

[Chad Noble]

The Conservative immigration policy is disjointed and prejudiced.

If the Tories believe the problem is volume, why impose limits based on nationality? Why are (for example) one million Poles OK, but 1 million Pakistanis or Chinese bad?

The only difference is their nationality.

If EU law is preventing the tories from controlling our borders, and they believe in fighting for reform within the EU, why has Cameron not once mentioned the need to take back control of our borders so volume of immigration can be applied fairly and equally?

[Passing leftie]

Migration Watch is an advocacy organisation, and as such is a very bad source for unbiased data, and when it's been further cherry picked by the Daily Mail, you are really standing on dodgy ground. They are notorious for their selective use of data.

Those Migration Watch figures are ridiculous. Once again, they conflate asylum seekers with immigrants. Granting asylum is an oblgation under international treaties and will have to continue even if we do limit immigration. So that's 1.6 bn accounted for.

There is no evidence whatsoever that immigrants with HIV are costing the country £330m, and unless you consider all non-white British people to be immigrants (which they are clearly not), money spent on the CRE, ethnic minority award schemes and higher education race relations is not directly related to immigration. Border control expenditure would increase if we wanted to limit immigration. The crime figure, even if we were to take it seriously, is a hidden cost, and you can be sure MigrationWatch aren't looking into "hidden benefits" such as the NHS and most other organisations being entirely dependent on immigrant labour.

Please try to present stronger evidence for your arguments.

[Yet Another Anon]

55% of Tory members recently told ConservativeHome.com that they would like David Cameron to talk about immigration more.
Migrants have a beneficial economic effect, in terms of revenue and hard work for employers in this country and as for the £1.4bn sent abroad by migrant workers, how is that a cost? Surely that is the best possible form of International Development helping regenerate economies which in many cases are recipients of aid - if they are benefited enough from money earned by their own population maybe they won't need IMF loans or money grudgingly given by other countries national Treasuries!

Cuts in spending in other services including restricting services to British citizens will cut spending on the rest.

There are national security implications of migrations, but then again there are of the indigenous population too - this is best addressed by the state being more watchful, less tolerant and harsher in punishment and restrictions of suspected terrorists and ending the Human Rights culture which is destroying order in this country.

[Yet Another Anon]

One possibility might be some kind of International Development Levy on immigrant workers, not as any kind of punishment, but perhaps to help countries with governments dealing with economic and climate difficulties which are no fault of their own - 10% of all wages perhaps? It could be supplemental to any International Development budget perhaps?

[Yogi]

There are three main problems here, i.e. those who come here for higher education (and to learn English) and stay on- they virtually disappear into the system; then tehre are those who come here on tourist visa and then disappear; the other case are assylum seekers, a vast majority also disappear; and the last is the EU immigration.

The first one is where we need quick action and shutting down the mickey mouse universities I am afraid to say that in some of tehse so called universities a lareg proportion are foreign students who obtain meaningless qualification which their home countries have no interest in and they end up working in the public and local government sector as advisers, case workers and form fillers. The second case can be controlled by stricter enforcement on the visa requirements and they should be handled by the Consulates abroad (not by agency services) with strict financial proofs. The third case is through the Airlines - ie. the Airline which brings the assylum seekers must be held responsible to their upkeep and must house them feed them until they are granted assylum or deported.

EU immigration will balance itself over time.

For all immigrants, public sector housing should not be an option for at least the first 24 months.

[Andrew Lilico]

PS - I don't mind Cameron talking about immigration more. I wish he'd talk more about what a good thing immigration from within the EU is for this country; about the importance of maintaining the rule of law (so no amnesty for bogus asylum seekers and tough action against people traffickers); about what his ideas are for the best model of integration between migrant groups and the native population (assimilationist, mutli-culturalist, sythesist). These would be good things to talk more about.

That's not the same thing at all as saying that we wish Cameron would start saying "The wogs begin at Calais - keep them all out." I don't believe Conservatives have the slightest interest in *that*.

[Chad Noble]

Andrew,
Why is a plumber born in Poland more beneficial to Britain than one born in Pakistan?

[Iain]

"Those Migration Watch figures are ridiculous."

Leftie, that's what Labour Government Ministers kept on saying, that was untill an instruction was sent round Whitehall telling people to not question Migration Watch figures as their findings are based on Government data.

As to the cost of imported HIV cases. The BMA estimates the life time treatment cost of an HIV/Aids patient to the NHS is between £130,000 to £180,000. The last set of annual data revealed that some 50% of 7,500 diagnosed cases of the HIV/Aids came from abroad, that amounts to a cost to the NHS of some £500,000,000. and that's just the cost of one years intake, because we have no controls on people coming into the country, this has been going on for years, and will continue to go on, on an increasing rate, until either our politicians get off their backsides, or the NHS goes bust; and that's before we begin to cost in Tuberculosis, HBV infections and the like.

[Andrew Lilico]

Chad@16:48

A plumber born in Poland is someone from the EU - part of "us", as opposed to the "them" of those from outside the EU - the EU being a Single Market, in which there is free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. Labour mobility is an integral part of the whole, without which the whole could not function. We do not have free movement of goods, services, or capital with Pakistan, and so there is little case for having free movement of labour.

We could, of course, have pursued "us-ness" with Pakistan as we used to have in the period of the Raj, and left the Poles as "them". But we gave up on that. We can't be "us" with everyone all at once - these things need to be built, piece by painful piece. I am very happy with the degree of "us-ness" we pursue with our EU partners and friends - Poland accepts our having a great deal of influence over its internal affairs, and I am very pleased that, as part of the quid pro quo and also as a positive boon to us in its own right, we have received the benefit of significant immigration from Poland.

Aren't you?

[Snegchui]

The core issue in this debate, even more so than others, is lies, damn Govt stats, and muddied waters. This Govt, not 6 months ago, had a senior Civil Servant stand up and say "Who knows how many immigrants, illegals and asylum seekers here? Not us, that's for sure". So we move from this position to quantifying a £6bn positive input from immigration (which, EU, or EU + Legal World or EU + everything) On what basis? Equally it makes the cost of immigration impossible to quantify. But leaving all this vapour and hot air and opinions-as-facts behind, I do believe the grumbling and rumbling is based on the fact that Central Govt, who both deny the numbers coming in AND control the budgets to local councils based on population, fund on numbers which are out of kilter in the communities that actually have to provide those services based on who IS there. And so by staying in denial about numbers Central Govt externalises the costs of immigration to local Govt while internalising the cost of revenue collected (assuming a gangmaster hasn't intercepted it on the way to Treasury coffers). So for Central Govt, immigration is an unmitigated good, local Govt and communities will have a different perspective especially if funding to cope with an increased client base is not forthcoming and the Local Govt bodies are called dishonest incompetent whingers to boot.

[NW Supporter]

Being a member of the EU means that there is very little we can do to 'control' Eastern European immigration, unfortunately.

The best we can do is impose 'transitional' controls', something which I think David Cameron has already mentioned.

It's just another reason why we would be better off out of the EU, and better off in the North Atlantic Free Trade Association.

[Chad Noble]

Interesting answer Andrew!

Personally, I'd prefer not to refuse people entry to this country based on something they have no control over, their place of birth as you prefer.

I'd rather we treated all potential immigrants as individuals, and based their application on its merits, matching their skills with the country's need etc.

Simple controlled immigration, finding the best people who fit our country's needs.

I think controlled immigration is a very good thing for UK plc, but if we need a plumber and the best applicant comes from India, I find it hard to understand your logic for allowing a weaker candidate to take their place.

[anthony.scholefield]

Just to say that our submissions are now posted on the House of Lords Committee website.
Incidentally there has been no submissions from any of the political parties

[lucysharp]

British people who go and live abroad are expected to conform to the way of life of their new home; no concessions are made, even in other EU countries. I tried to get a job in Germany recently: it was made very clear to me that unless I learned to speak and write the language to a very high and certificated standard (at my own expense), I wouldn't stand a chance. As for entitlements to housing, healthcare and so on, the message was clear: none at all, until I was paying tax and compulsory health insurance. If I couldn't get a job and didn't have any savings to live on I would be expected to return to England. That didn't strike me as racist, merely sensible. Why can't we do the same?

[David Belchamber]

Andrew at 15.19:

"In my view this is a mistake. In much of the country immigration just isn't an issue at all".

Whilst I am sure that Andrew could demonstrate that there is truth in his assertion - after all, a huge number of people in this country have no interest in politics at all - it cannot be ignored, because immigration, like the EU, causes great strains and tensions on our society.
It is an issue that any government has to deal with.
A Zimbabwean acquaintance on mine, who has been in this country for the last couple of years, told me the other day that we shouldn't talk about "immigration", we should simply look at problems locally to do with housing, the NHS, jobs and all the other pressures placed on the infrastructure of an area.
I myself have frequently stressed the need to define what category of "immigration" we are talking about in order to have a sensible and rational discussion.
We need and welcome certain migrants but we must take steps to control the inflow. Part of the trouble, of course, is the emergence of a huge underclass over the last ten years or so, consisting of ill-educated English people who don't want to work and have little to offer.
That situation is one that an incoming tory government should concentrate on improving.

[Mike A]

That table is pure, unadulterated innumeracy.

And, Tim, you shouldn't quote MigrationWatch - they're a discredited bunch of loons.

[Dale]

" Chad@16:48

A plumber born in Poland is someone from the EU - part of "us", as opposed to the "them" of those from outside the EU - the EU being a Single Market, in which there is free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. Labour mobility is an integral part of the whole, without which the whole could not function. We do not have free movement of goods, services, or capital with Pakistan, and so there is little case for having free movement of labour.

We could, of course, have pursued "us-ness" with Pakistan as we used to have in the period of the Raj, and left the Poles as "them". But we gave up on that. We can't be "us" with everyone all at once - these things need to be built, piece by painful piece. I am very happy with the degree of "us-ness" we pursue with our EU partners and friends - Poland accepts our having a great deal of influence over its internal affairs, and I am very pleased that, as part of the quid pro quo and also as a positive boon to us in its own right, we have received the benefit of significant immigration from Poland.

Aren't you?"

Your racist attitude deeply worries me. How dare you suggest that people of whom we have a long intertwined history,that make up a significant amount of our population are somehow unworthy to live and work in our country just because they do not have access to a common market (once again down to racism).

[David]

"I'd rather we treated all potential immigrants as individuals, and based their application on its merits, matching their skills with the country's need etc"

Shouldn't that be left for the market to decide?

Arguing that the state should somehow measure and match eeds with skills seems horribly socialist.

[Andrew Lilico]

Dale@18:22

I don't understand the rather peculiar allegation of racism. I don't believe I made any reference at all to people's race. My argument would apply equally whether the people from Poland were blond, tall, short, brunette, pink-skinned, yellow-skinned, brown-skinned, or whatever. And it would also apply equally to the Pakistanis whether *they* were blond, tall, short, brunette, pink-skinned, yellow-skinned, brown-skinned, or whatever.

Furthermore, I did not make the slightest assertion of "unworthiness" to Pakistanis. Quite the reverse - I said that we *could* have chosen to pursue "us-ness" with them. But we didn't! We've chosen to be in the EU. And part of being in the EU is that there is free movement of goods, services, capital, and labour. We can no more restrict Poles from coming to live here than we could impose tariffs on Polish apple juice or Polish ships.

[Chad Noble]

I didn't want to be as blunt as you Dale about Andrew's comments, but like you, I cannot see any legitimate reason to deliberately prejudice our friends in countries like India.

Surely any immigration policy should be blind to a person's race or nationality?

[Chad Noble]

"Arguing that the state should somehow measure and match eeds with skills seems horribly socialist.

Lol David. Of course the market decides, but the government implements the structures to match those market needs with potential applicants just like in the USA and Australia.

I'm assuming that you are not calling the USA or Australia socialist countrues!

[Iain]

“And, Tim, you shouldn't quote MigrationWatch - they're a discredited bunch of loons.”

Mike A, no they are not, as a Home Official had to point out to fellow Civil Servants and Ministers in an internal memo….

“I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that Migrationwatch migration forecasts are wrong? I have pointed out before that MigrationWatch assumptions are often below the Government Actuary’s Department high migration [scenario].”

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/papers/p_DailyMail_23Aug_04.asp

So unless you can substantiate your accusation about Migration Watch, people might assume the discredited loon is yourself.

[Traditional Tory]

Anybody who lives in the south-east knows that the country is filling up rapidly.

Of course the people who buy the 'executive homes' that are concreting over the countryside are not low-paid immigrants, but these tree-destroyers are at the apex of a pyramid of overpopulation with immigrants pushing up at the bottom.

And no doubt many of the countryside-concreters have done very well out of the exploitation of cheap labour which, after all, is the main benefit immigrants supposedly bring to our economy.

I would like to ask the lefties - in and out of our party - whether there is any point at which they would concede that immigration should cease.

Would it be when we are all standing shoulder-to-shoulder like a gigantic can of sardines?

[Michael Hewlett]

Editor,

What a great blog to get the grassroots raging....

Without doubt it is a core issue that many of the electorate wish to discuss without being labelled racist.

I find it staggering that £380m is spent on translation and english lessons.

[David]

"I'm assuming that you are not calling the USA or Australia socialist countrues!"

So if the US or Australia nationalised their economies, you'd be arguing they weren't socialist?

"Of course the market decides, but the government implements the structures to match those market needs with potential applicants"

Some how I doubt you'd accept such an argument for the government controlling, say, the steel industry.

Having the state in charge of measuring economic demand and and meeting supply is, in my opinion, a socialist method of doing things. If you want that, fine.

[John Leonard]

Andrew Lilico:

We've chosen to be in the EU

I Beg To Differ with the quoted statement. My parents chose not to join but were out-voted in 1975 when Ted Heath lied to the country. Even in those days a 3rd of the population rejected the EEC.

Furthermore, I have never had the opportunity to vote on this issue,like everybody else in this country under 50 years of age. So please do not suggest that I have chosen the EU or that I consider myself European. I am English by birth and heritage.

My own guess would be that if the question of EU Membership was put to the referendum today it would be very close but I suspect that by a small majority we would vote to leave.

Now I will accept that there maybe there are reasons to work with the EU over Security, Trade and the Environment. However, the rest of the undemocratic control they have over this country is totally unjustified and mostly unwanted.

As far as I am concerned, one the first areas we need to renegotiate is migration (Shengan agreement & amendments in the current treaty) and I agree both with the immigration policies proposed by the party and with the comments of Chad Noble.

Furthermore, the 'EU-r-US' argument you put forward is certainly selective and protectionist and does have the odour of racism. I suggest it is a very unconservative view. Certainly it gives the impression that you are a 'Little European' and perhaps a little xenophobic.

It is obvious over the immigration issues affecting this country and the EU you are in denial.

Just because you are happy in your world doesn't mean to say that the rest of us are!

[Graham Checker]

Dale @ 18:22

I knew it was only a matter of time before the usual idiotic passing leftie tried to play the race card.

Why don't you go post that bilge somewhere else?

The reality is (whisper it) that Europeans will always be far easier to integrate into the UK, and more easily accepted, because their culture/religion is much more similar. And they integrate better.

Fact.

May be distasteful (and I'm sure you'll *try* to make an argument that it's racist to say it) but it's the truth.

We all know it. We're all just afraid to say it.

[Iain]

"Shouldn't that be left for the market to decide?

Arguing that the state should somehow measure and match eeds with skills seems horribly socialist."

David Well socialism comes with international socialism, and the Nation an institution which they are implacably opposed to, so while mass immigration might be in the interests of capitalists red tooth and claw, its also fits with the red international socialists.

What we are seeing with the mass immigration policy of Labour is an unholy alliance between the capitalists and socialists, with the British people in the middle getting screwed. While we had a sovereign nation, the battle between left and right had to take place within the confines of the state, as such it might be argued the political conflict benefited the British people. It was a check and balance. Unfortunately with the dropping of our border controls the socialist left and capitalist right now have common cause, and we have lost that check and balance.

There is a third element to this, the Nation, which has so far under Labour conspired with both left and right to the cost of British people. Its a mistake to believe what is good for capitalists, is good for British people, its not, for they would have sold out our sovereignty to get us to join the Euro for a bit of currency stability, to great cost of our right of self determination.

Lets hope the Conservatives will put the Nation back in control, and do what is right for the British people, after all, the Conservatives used to call themselves the party of the Nation.

[Dale]

Graham Checker @ 19:45

You are the first person to ever call me a leftie. I'm sure that on most issues, I am well to the right of you. I am one of the few people that have posted on this hread that actually advocates eu withdrawel.

[Dale]

'The reality is (whisper it) that Europeans will always be far easier to integrate into the UK, and more easily accepted, because their culture/religion is much more similar. And they integrate better.

Fact.

May be distasteful (and I'm sure you'll *try* to make an argument that it's racist to say it) but it's the truth.

We all know it. We're all just afraid to say it.'

please don't assert your opinions as facts

[One marcus]

When the last set of new countries joined the EU the government said it wouldn't be a problem only 5 to 15,000 would come 600,000 plus later it's a problem plus the 600,000+ from elsewhere.

Very interesting what was said about Germany funny how a Brit wouldn't get the same support they get there.

The Conservatives should talk about immigration and keep talking about it, the left object because they think every immigrant will vote for them. If we carry on with uncontrolled immigration of such levels there will be economic, social and enviromental problems for all be they White British, Euroipean, Polish, Asian or African and the real racists the disgusting BNP will continue to win support.

[Chad Noble]

Hi Graham,

Surely by your own 'integration' logic, people from English speaking countries would actually be easiest to integrate, so Canadians, Americans, Australians, South Africans etc should rank far above non-English speaking EU members?

What about a brown-skinned Indian man who is fluent in English and has family in England already? Would you still rank him worse at integrating than a non-English speaking white EU member for example?

[Patsy Sergeant]

It is a pity that the 'passing lefties' who visit this website, and indeed even Andrew Lilico were not listening to the news from our local TV area this evening! There was an item (has been on several times today) about the Polish immigrants in Portsmouth and Southhampton feeling very aggrieved because they cannot get jobs that they are qualified to do when they get to this country, and they have to take menial jobs (the expression 'slave labour' was used). Now as I am part Polish, there is no racist slant in those comments!!!! (I suppose one has to still say that nowadays!!).

However this item of news did set me thinking! This business of immigrants is far more complex than just 'immigrants are necessary, and fill a gap in the labour market' or 'immigrants from some East European countries don't have many qualifications and can be a drain on welfare services and housing'.

As immigration continues with no apparent let-up in numbers (especially given this governments uselessness in controlling anything!), more immigrants who are qualified and sometimes perhaps highly qualified will arrive in this country expecting to find jobs which they will expect to be better paid than the same job in their own country. Now, the time will arrive when the apparent job spaces that are available now, will have been filled; also as young people qualify in this country (and some do), the time will arrive shortly when competition will build up between the indigeneous qualified and the immigrant qualified.

This government is so obssessed with getting everybody to University, and yet even now many young people leaving university, have great difficulty in getting jobs that they are qualified for, how much worse is it going to get with ever more EU immigrants arriving with good qualifications and perhaps a better work ethic than quite a few indigeneous applicants?

[GADFLY]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN FOR USING CAPS

[oxymoron]

I saw Reeta Chakrabati on the BBC this morning and she said "once the doors are open you can't close them".

And I just thought "why not?"

It is the feeling of inevitability, that things are out of control, that is the problem. The fact that the government, when asked about it, just seems to say "we don't know", just reinforces it.

[Graham Checker]

Dale: "please don't assert your opinions as facts"

Err.. it is a fact. They are facts. It is reality.

And I don't buy this "i'm not a lefty" stuff. I've read a lot of suspect posts from you recently. You're a relatively new poster, aren't you?

Chad: "Surely by your own 'integration' logic, people from English speaking countries would actually be easiest to integrate, so Canadians, Americans, Australians, South Africans etc should rank far above non-English speaking EU members?"

Yes.

"What about a brown-skinned Indian man who is fluent in English and has family in England already? Would you still rank him worse at integrating than a non-English speaking white EU member for example?"

Don't try and use abstract hypothetical examples. I'm talking about general trends. Not Chad Nobles theoretical "catch-of-the-day". The family almost always follows the man in cases like those. Almost ALWAYS. So your point falls down straight away.

But, even if true, all the evidence suggests that the Indian man and his family would be *far more likely* to exist in an Indian community in built up areas and integrate less into the wider British community, in the long-term. Language, culture, religion, family-ties, insecurity based on race.... whatever. This is what happens.

The reports out today highlight how evenly distributed new EU migration is across the UK - they don't cluster as much. They integrate better. Doesn't mean I like it.

I think all immigration should be tightly restricted. And I think we should leave the EU too, Chad, which I understand is 100% your agenda too - and allegedly Dales.

We need to accept how immigration works and the facts (which are facts "Dale") are uncomfortable, but need to be understood.

And let's not have any of this trying to "out anti-racist" each other rubbish. I always see people try on discussions like these to make themselves feel good and take the moral high ground. Dale is a case in point.

[Dale]

Patsy sergeant@ 20:38

The 'passing leftie' agrees with you.

I don't think that it is racist to talk about immigration, i think its very sensible to talk about it and I agree that unless immigration is toned down then it will cause problems.

However, what I do consider to be racist is treating the polish as 'us' and Pakistani's as 'them' as andrew lilico does. If everyone would like to read my posts they will see that that is exactly what i said.

[Dale]

Graham,

I am naturally very flattered that you have taken such an avid interest in my opinions. But may I ask you to list some of these suspect posts of mine?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Bit harsh to overwrite a comment for using caps Editor, don't you think?!!!!

[Northern Conservative]

I am surprised that a few bloggers have made silly comments about Migration Watch.
If they were to go to the Migration Watch UK website and follow it over a few weeks they would find it to be the most authoritative source of information on immigration matters.
Official figures and estimates are so often so far out that one could be forgiven for wondering whether there in not an element of deliberate deceit in some of them - remember the estimate of the numbers coming from eastern Europe being 30 times less than the numbers which actually came and the Government did not even take up its option at the time to limit initial immigration from the newly admitted countries!

[Mr Angry]

Immigration is now most certainly a major issue for Britons of all ethnic backgrounds, including many whose parent or grandparents were themselves immigrants. The trick though is to present views and policies that are not xenophobic and cannot be tarred by a Government that is flailing about on this matter, as racist. It is well worth remembering that it is xenphobia and not racism that does motivate many on immigration and that xenophobia is not limited to any one ethnic group and is not the same thing as racism at all.

[Mr Angry]

Oh and also, this thread rather neatly proves the dificulty of having a fair, balanced debate on immigration. On the one hand you have those who would wish to halt any and all immigration and will not accept that there can be any positive benfits to it at all and on the other those who will not accept that there are and have been any disbenefits to it. The truth is that there are both positives and negatives and we need to have a national debate on achieving a balance between those. However that debate cannot occur whilst views are so very polarised and neither side of the argument will even attempt to listen to, let alone accept, any point that the other side makes.

It is also all not helped by a wholly self serving diversity and race relations industry that cannot afford to let this debate occur for fear of losing their big fat salaries and perks and other sinecures and so cries racism at any and every criticism of immigrants, legitimate or not.

[Teck]

There are lots of issues regarding immigration - the economic impact, its effects on the infrastructure, and the long-term stability of our society as appraised in terms of cohesion, democratic institutions, legal system and national security.

It is both the quantitative and the qualitative elements that require attention; indeed, some are more important and urgent than others but one is the most troubling. This link, sent to me by my Australian connections, underlines why the public fears what the politicians ignore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9zmRMoDt58

[Chad Noble]

Thanks Graham, no tricks, I simply couldn't understand your point if EU citizens were considered the easiest to integrate and thought you were supporting Andrew's 'all EU is us' approach which I think is nonsense and is not the best way to benefit Britain.

[Yet Another Anon]

Bit harsh to overwrite a comment for using caps Editor, don't you think?!!!!
Using all Capital letters is described as shouting and normally in the past people who posted even a single message in all capitals on a chat or message board were banned temporarily, and permanently if they persisted.

[Andrew Lilico]

What a lot of bizarre comments! The EU isn't racist for having freedom of movement within it but not freedom of entry from without any more than it is racist by having no tariffs on goods going from France to Belgium but having tariffs on goods going from China to Belgium. You might think that the EU is daft, but it's surely not racist.

Look. Freedom of movement is central to what the EU is about. There is zero possibility of preventing people from France or Italy or Poland coming to the UK without leaving the EU. And the Conservative Party doesn't have the slightest intention of leaving the EU. Next, the Conservative Party does not have the slightest intention of preventing genuine family reunions from outside the EU. Neither does it have the slightest intention of preventing highly skilled migrants from coming into Britain (e.g. to work in the City).

So (pace the temporary arrangements for Bulgaria and Romania) since we haven't the slightest intention of actually restricting immigration, wouldn't we be better to talk about things we might change - like the approach to integration and community cohesion and social exclusion - rather than things we certainlt won't?

[Letters From A Tory]

Immigration is NOT a right-wing issue. It is something that everyone sees and feels when they walk outside their front door. No developed country should operate an open-door policy. Australia controls the movement of EVERYONE in and out of their borders and you don't hear them crying about a lack of skilled workers - they just let in who they need and that's it.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

[James Maskell]

I agree Mr Angry. A debate on immigration can so easily slip into a racial slanging match.

[Teck]

It was good of Letters From A Tory [Oct 18, 2007 at 10:35] to cite the Australian policy.

Immigration can only and potentially pose problems AFTER immigrants are landed. The Australian policy is so straightforward, avoids all the angst of offending communal interests and would appear to be fair to those who intend to enter the country and those who are already there, but above all ensures that the needs and anxieties of the host community are addressed.

[Teck]

As EU citizens can vote at local government, devolved legislature and European parliamentary election level, has any study been conducted on their exercise of that right, their voting preferences and what effect such a franchise might have ultimately on the political landscape of the UK?

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Anyone interested in grass roots immigration should come to Fulham. I dont know where Andrew Lilico lives but his commentary does not relate to what we see here.

From a rough count every time I drive through our local market one in four women are wearing headscarves. Five years ago you might not see one. Most of them have several small children with them.

A colony of Somalis numbering several hundred has arrived up the road.

The waiting rooms at local surgeries are totally polyglot. One neighbour attending ante-natal classes said she was the only white Briton there.

And that’s before you get to the Poles – who despite their huge numbers of recent influx scarcely seem to be a threat compared with the rest.

You don’t have to have a degree in statistics to realise the likely results.

[Passing leftie]

I'm not "a" passing leftie I'm "the" Passing Leftie! I didn't mention race on this thread.

Dale, the figures in that table are completely bogus, and I have comprehesively refuted them. I don't care what some ill-informed appartchik quoted on the MigrationWatch site says.

You total numerical illiteracy when it comes to the HIV figures is laughable, which leads me to think that you are quoting MigrationWatch again. A life time cost is not a yearly cost! If you amortize one figure across a lifetime, you have to do it for all benefits, too. You've also confused "coming from abroad" with immigrants. People "coming from abroad" includes holiday makers, who are by far the majority in this category.

You are either genuinely ill-informed about statistics, or you share MigrationWatch's advocacy.

[Andrew Lilico]

Incidentally, though one can surely talk about immigration in a racist way, I am in no way of the opinion that talking about immigration is intrinsically racist.

I just think that, in current circumstances, it's almost pointless. It would be like political parties having positions of complaining about how slothful the nation is - maybe that's right, but do you have any intention of doing anything about it? No? So why are you wasting my time?

[Dale]

'Dale, the figures in that table are completely bogus, and I have comprehesively refuted them. I don't care what some ill-informed appartchik quoted on the MigrationWatch site says.

You total numerical illiteracy when it comes to the HIV figures is laughable, which leads me to think that you are quoting MigrationWatch again. A life time cost is not a yearly cost! If you amortize one figure across a lifetime, you have to do it for all benefits, too. You've also confused "coming from abroad" with immigrants. People "coming from abroad" includes holiday makers, who are by far the majority in this category.'

Why are you telling me? I never quoted migrationwatch or said anything about hiv.

[Iain]

"You total numerical illiteracy when it comes to the HIV figures is laughable, which leads me to think that you are quoting MigrationWatch again."

No Dale I took them from the Office of National Statistics and BMA.....

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

“In 2005, 7,450 new HIV cases were diagnosed.”

“Just under two thirds (2,571) of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in 2005 were in women, and just over two thirds of the total in both heterosexual men and women (2,760) were probably acquired in Africa.”

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/BMAsexhealth

“The average lifetime treatment costs for an HIV positive individual is calculated to be between £135,000 and £181,000, and the monetary value of preventing a single onward transmission is estimated to be somewhere between £500,000 and £1 million in terms of individual health benefits and treatment costs.”

In regards to the source of heterosexual HIV infections, we have a very low level of heterosexual HIV infections caught in the UK, 500 odd in 2005, which is the basis of these figures. Africa on the other hand has very high levels of heterosexual HIV infections 50% odd, so I would think it fair to assume that if we have high levels of immigration from Africa, its going to include high levels of heterosexual HIV infected people. Now you may want to stick your head in the sand, but most people understand that by not having any sort of meaningful immigration controls, we are in the end going to imperil the viability of the NHS.

PS if you don’t care for the total cost we a loading onto the NHS, you can calculate it on an annual basis, the bottom line cost is the same in the end.

[Passing leftie]

Sorry, I thought Iain was Iain Dale. I must have got you mixed up.

[Dale]

"You total numerical illiteracy when it comes to the HIV figures is laughable, which leads me to think that you are quoting MigrationWatch again."

No Dale I took them from the Office of National Statistics and BMA.....

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

“In 2005, 7,450 new HIV cases were diagnosed.”

“Just under two thirds (2,571) of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in 2005 were in women, and just over two thirds of the total in both heterosexual men and women (2,760) were probably acquired in Africa.”

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/BMAsexhealth

“The average lifetime treatment costs for an HIV positive individual is calculated to be between £135,000 and £181,000, and the monetary value of preventing a single onward transmission is estimated to be somewhere between £500,000 and £1 million in terms of individual health benefits and treatment costs.”

In regards to the source of heterosexual HIV infections, we have a very low level of heterosexual HIV infections caught in the UK, 500 odd in 2005, which is the basis of these figures. Africa on the other hand has very high levels of heterosexual HIV infections 50% odd, so I would think it fair to assume that if we have high levels of immigration from Africa, its going to include high levels of heterosexual HIV infected people. Now you may want to stick your head in the sand, but most people understand that by not having any sort of meaningful immigration controls, we are in the end going to imperil the viability of the NHS.

PS if you don’t care for the total cost we a loading onto the NHS, you can calculate it on an annual basis, the bottom line cost is the same in the end.

Your doing the same as 'passing leftie'. Why are you saying 'no dale' To things that I didn't write? i was merely quoting what passing leftie said (hence the speech marks at the beginning and end of the quote) to ask him why he was telling me these things when he was supposed to be telling you.

[Passing leftie]

"...two thirds of the total in both heterosexual men and women (2,760) were probably acquired in Africa.”

That doesn't mean that they were brought in by immigrants. Don't you get this? In addition, testing immigrants for HIV/AIDS in the States has simply encouraged illegal immigration, and increased levels of HIV/AIDs massively.

I'll try one last time to explain the other problem. If you think that an immigrant is going to cost £150,000 in HIV/AIDs treatments across their lifetime, you have to divide it by their life expectancy to be a yearly cost.