Coffee House

The immigration van – success or failure?

27 July 2013

1:48 PM

27 July 2013

1:48 PM

Everyone in SW1, it seems, has an opinion on this controversial scheme. Most people hate it. The general assumption is that this is a Tory stunt clothed as a government policy.

The question is, though, has the van campaign been a successful policy pilot from a presentational point of view? Here are some thoughts:

1). The right-wing press. The Mail is utterly contemptuous. A leading column claims that only one illegal immigrant has stepped forward. The leader goes on to say that voters punish cheap stunts; what people want is action. And if that wasn’t enough, the paper’s front page (below) is uncompromising.

Mailimi

All of this will have gone down badly in the Home Office, which has a good story to tell about reducing net migration.

[Alt-Text]


2). Disaffected voters. If the aim was to embarrass Nigel Farage, then it has failed miserably. Not that it would ever have succeeded: Farage is a clever fool, not a flaming moron. He spoke sensibly to LBC,

‘The danger is that the kind of message that is being sent from these billboards will be taken not just by illegal immigrants but also by many people of settled ethnic minorities as being some sort of sign of open warfare.’

Beyond that, I’m sure that Farage was grateful for the easy media coverage after a quiet spell for UKIP following the excitement of the spring. Time for another pint of mild, Nigel. The silly Tories have put you back in the game.

3). Coalition differentiation. Nick Clegg has registered his disgust with his own government, while Mark Harper, the Immigration Minister, has talked tougher on immigration than he’ll ever be able to act. Everyone’s a winner; but nobody outside SW1 takes the blindest bit of notice. And neither should they, because it’s nonsense. The vans were on the streets as part of a government policy pilot. All else is noise.

4). Exposing the left. A gambling man would have bet his house on predicting the left’s reaction to this, and he would have won a packet. Once again, it seems that the political left and cultural left is in favour of illegal immigration (it isn’t, of course, but that’s how it might look if you read this catalogue of concern in the Guardian while in an uncharitable frame of mind). Labour MP Tom Harris has a thoughtful piece in the Telegraph on the damage this does his cause.

Immigration remains a serious point of contention within the left (far more so than it is on the right, in my view). Yet I’m not sure that this sort of point-counter-point between right and left plays far beyond SW1.

5).The Tories and ethnic minorities. The diagnosis is simple: ethnic minorities are not inclined to vote Tory, and this white van stunt is unlikely to boost the party’s appeal. Nigel Farage accepts that obvious logic when he talks about the idiocy of antagonising ‘settled ethnic minorities’.

This story has reached my corner of south east London, although there were no vans here. Shopkeepers, barmen and restaurateurs (you know, aspiring, entrepreneurial folk) I’ve spoken to over the last few days are unimpressed with dog-whistle politics – and not necessarily because they feel threatened by it. Indeed, I spoke to one Australian waiter who quipped that the vans must be aimed at Anglophone illegals like him, or perhaps the hopeless Australian cricket team – although I suspect that was wishful thinking on his part. His point was expressed clearly by Rod Liddle yesterday, how many illegal immigrants are going to understand this English language campaign?

It strikes me that Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more effective way to deal with illegal migrants who’ve settled here, and it would broaden the Tories’ appeal (or at least not damage it further). It’s a political risk; but voters are open minded, flexible people.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Trojan Horace

    It’s unchristian, despicable and racist, makes Enoch Powell look like a moderate and generally pushes the Conservative party off a right-leaning cliff and other than that it’s merely a threadbare, damaging, desperate idea for winning votes back from UKIP. And yet even Farage called it “nasty”… How low in the gutter do these people need to go to try to be electable? The sooner it’s quietly buried the better

  • InbredBlockhead

    So why not ban stores from displaying their policy of

    ` We prosecute all shoplifters ` in order to avoid causing fear or offence and tension to thieves in the local community ?

    Technically all immigrants ( that is foreigners born in other lands , as with the EU open border policy ) are illegal , as no mandate for their coming here was ever given or sought from the electorate .

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    The figure you really need is gross population turnover. Namely, immigration plus emigration. Then you`ll be able to calculate how long before there are more of them than there are of you. So be sure to assign blame and culpability where it truly lies; with New Labour. Those wonderful people that brought you multiculturalism.
    As an aside, the Japanese Ministry of Justice view Britain`s immigration policy as a case study. A case study in how not to run an immigration policy. So suck it up Britisher pals, because short of a BNP government followed by mass deportations, it`s Game Over for your way of life and your culture.
    Jack, Japan Alps

  • Redneck

    I am delighted that Mr Cameron et al have come up with this extremely effective immigration policy. To my mind, it is effectively a complete immigration ban. Brilliantly done sir, my brief flirtation with UKIP is well and truly over

    My “X” will go firmly back alongside my Tory candidate, for they are the true protectors of this nation.

    Bravo, Mr Cameron, bravo!

    • Daniel Maris

      Best to put IRONY in big capital letters.

      • Redneck

        Daniel

        Didn’t think it necessary!

        • Wilhelm

          Maris doesn’t do irony or jokes, like any self loathing white liberal, he’s too busy saving the world.

  • D B

    I think it’s a jolly good idea.

  • Smithersjones2013

    All of this will have gone down badly in the Home Office, which has a good story to tell about reducing net migration.

    Not know the Public Administration Committee has blown a whole the size of the East coast of the United Kingdom through the Home Office’s method of calculating net migration it hasn’t. The Home Office immigration figures are as risible as the BCS. They ‘lost’ 500,000 immigrants. The Home Office might as well use Mystic Meg for their statistics. They are a dysfunctional joke of a department run by the same type of lazy arrogant elitist ‘fast stream’ Oxbridge idiots that now lead the establishment political parties and have been for decades.

    • johnslattery

      From professional experience I can confirm that organizations do not come much more dourly and obsessively meticulous in data management than the Disney empire.

  • dave brooker

    What’s to fear of hardworking people wanting to come here to work?

    Anyone care to guess why Eastern European workers are so popular with employers, while lazy workshy Brits are not?

    • HookesLaw

      This is the core of the problem, the unemplyability of increasing numbers of people under Labour.

      • dave brooker

        So many are now benefits junkies, better off not working for fear of losing all the handouts.

      • ButcombeMan

        It started way before the last Labour government.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …and continues on with the latest socialist government, under the Camerloons.

    • Denis_Cooper

      I take it you’d be happy to personally pay the entire cost of keeping those lazy workshy Brits on benefits, or what else would you do with them? Bringing in cheap and biddable foreign labour and consigning natives to the scrap heap is a complete cop-out, and it doesn’t even make any kind of economic sense for the country as a whole rather than just for employers.

      • dave brooker

        How are they cheap?

        Minimum wage applies to all, nobody is stopping Brits from doing these jobs.

        • Denis_Cooper

          Are you on the minimum wage?

          In any case, that is only the legal minimum wage, which may or may not be paid.

          • dave brooker

            I’m self employed, I get less than the minimum wage.

  • Dogsnob

    “All of this will have gone down badly in the Home Office, which has a good story to tell about reducing net migration.”

    I wish someone would tell me the details of this story, as I could do with some cheer, here being swamped by immigrants taking my country street by street without so much as a whimper of protest.

  • MrJones

    It should be obvious it’s a con but as most people are too trusting if the van is driven around the last remaining WWC areas in London it will probably work a little bit – not much but as it’s cheap it’ll probably be cost-effective.

  • anyfool

    Mr Blackburn you say Farage is a clever fool, what makes you think that as a small time scribbler “without any original thought to your name” you can pass such a judgement on someone who millions of people voted for, who has at times had the nod from up to 20% plus poll ratings.
    Are these people clever fools or just stupid, the party he represents has only been around a few years unlike the Labour and Tory party who have hundreds of years between them, does that make them really clever fools.
    So besides not thinking the EU is the best thing since God gave up being English and became an atheist, what actually makes him and his supporters fools, clever or not.

    • Steve K

      Because Mr Farage is at best a consummate showman. He panders to the easily-pleased, but has no real substance. He’s (and his party) NOT the answer to Britain’s problems with the EU – which is why despite getting a relatively large share of votes, he’s never won an actual seat in Parliament. A couple of council seats here and there, yes, but a substantial win? Not even close.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for an anti-EU party to be elected, but UKIP just aren’t electable. Sometimes (increasingly so), I fear the only real solution to institutionalised sub-mediocrity in Westminster is another full revolution. The Plebs vs the “elected”.

      • alabenn

        I do not care that he is a consummate showman, I am not easily pleased, you are like Blackburn spouting generalisations, although you do give a few weak reasons below your assertions.
        Whether Farage is the man for the job matters not a jot, he is saying what needs to be said which regardless of his success will lead to others taking notice, which might lead to a change in public acceptance, “that it is to late to do anything about Europe, immigration and the importing of hostile alien cultures”
        I believe there will be serious clashes of cultures unless something is done to stop the wholesale degrading of the capacity of this country to generate enough wealth to cover the costs of this adventure in stupidity.

        • Steve K

          Of course it matters if he’s suitable. It’s bad enough having career politicians “governing”/milking the country for a century. Where’s the people who have actually lived and struggled? With qualifications other than law, political science and theology? Kept down and out of the system.

          Have you actually seen his record in Brussels? He talks a fine line here, in the media, but actual work? Insults Barosso and co, but then files his expenses and sods off. Would he be different if UKIP defy the odds and win something?
          I really don’t think so, Tim.

          But yeah, he’s pretty much the face of Euro-Scepticism….even if others have done more, just less publicly. I just feel he needs to flesh out his party more, than just a few issues.

      • Denis_Cooper

        Whereas Cameron has real substance and the Tory party is the answer to Britain’s problems with the EU … not.

        • Steve K

          Never said they were. Maybe under Maggie, after her awakening to their lies and propaganda, but look where that got her. Stabbed in the back and ousted by the … traitors … in her party, and a return to the Heathite ideology of “sell Britain to Europe”. We’ve got one party in this country, where Europe is concerned, wearing 3 different colours. One wants to sell us to them, one wants to not only sell us to them ,but adopt their ideological monetary system too, and the other just wants to give the country to them, not even bothering asking for anything in return.

          WHERE is the choice?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        On their issues, UKIP is establishing the political playing field, upon which the others are playing. They don’t need to hold electoral power, they exercise power through populism, as is common in such times, and is being exercised around the world right now, if you notice. UKIP influences (or more precisely, is influenced by populism), the others must respond, as we’re seeing.

  • andagain

    It strikes me that Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more
    effective way to deal with illegal migrants who’ve settled here

    I can just imagine what the Mail would say if Cameron suggested that.

  • Framer

    The other EU problem is that so many of the member states swiftly hand out nationality to their asylum seekers in the sure and certain knowledge they will up sticks and come to the UK. That is why we have nearly 100,000 Dutch and Swedish Somalis arrive here of late.

    • HookesLaw

      An Oxford university study said that 20,000 Somalis with Dutch citizenship have come to the UK.
      They found that 141,000 people, 7% of those who came to the UK under EU rules were born outside the continent.

      I think you will find, perhaps to your disappointment that groups like Somalis prefer the UK to Holland because it is less racist.,

      • Wilhelm

        Hooky my friend

        If we all lived in our own nations as God intended, there would be no ‘waaycism’ or ‘waayc’ laws to stamp out those ‘evil waaycists’. So Somalians should bug off back to Somalia and everyone, the British, the Dutch and the Somalians, lives happily ever after.

      • Denis_Cooper

        So are you saying that (over some time period) 141,000 people from outside the EU used other EU countries as their (legal) route into the UK?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Cite your source for all this, since you’re being so specific about it.

        In particular, what was the composition of the 141,000 you’re jabbering about?

        Or is this all just your socialist fantasy again?

      • johnslattery

        prefer the UK to Holland.. How do you know that, HookesLaw? Please share your inside knowledge of ‘racism’ in the UK and the Netherlands.

  • Austin Barry

    Why not just a van which states, realistically, ‘In the U.K. illegally? Welcome to you and your family. Don’t mind the racist locals. We’ll soon have them replaced. Hang in there.”

    • the viceroy’s gin

      “Signed,

      Dave and Nick and Ed and all their mates in the bubble

      P.S. Especially Boris.”

      • Daniel Maris

        …and on the other side: There’s really no need to work unless you want to. Plus we aren’t at all censorious about things like Female Genital Mutilation, election fraud, bogus whiplash claims, learning out language…so come on, stay awhile – you’ll have a great time.

        • Wilhelm

          Hmm, Daniel Maris is finally a Race Realist, congratulations.

          • Daniel Maris

            Er no… a cultural realist. I know many fine people who you would not categorise as Aryan. I also know many “Aryan” people who frankly fill me with disgust. Hence I am pleased to report I am not a “race realist” – surely one of the most absurd two-word conjunctions of all time.

            • Wilhelm

              ”a cultural realist” and what may I ask is the particular race that practices this sort of 7th century barbarism, female gentital mutilation, election fraud, sharia law, etc etc ?

              ” Cultural Realist” you summed it up best Maris, ” surely one of the most absurd two-word conjunctions of all time.”

              • Wilhelm

                Maris ”I also know many “Aryan” people who frankly fill me with disgust !!!”

                Really ? Do you live around a lot of Aryans then ? is your street crammed full of Nordics ? nah, somehow I doubt it.

                Your mock outrage and phony indignation was very melodramatic and theatrical, camp even. I found it highly amusing.

              • Daniel Maris

                Well back in the 7th century Nordic peoples carried out that sort of barbarism. The Nordic Vikings terrorised the whole of civilised Europe, destroying art, raping women, enslaving people, murdering and tortuing, looting – just as Mo’s army did.

                It was ideas and culture that changed them into the Scandinavians we know today.

    • Patricia

      ‘In the U.K. illegally? Welcome to you and your family. Don’t mind the racist locals. We’ll soon have them replaced. Hang in there.”

      Don’t forget; “You criminals on the run from the law in your own country are doubly welcome.”

  • London Calling

    Hello David….

    The Van has a punch and a kick to its Logo, it may come across as aggressive and who’s going to read it anyway? most don’t speak any English…..:O

  • OldLb

    People about the number of migrants coming in, particularly because they see lots that are on low wages. They know, for example that a worker in Starbucks isn’t paying much tax, and yet gets 2 grands worth of medical cover for starters. They are also building up an entitlement to a pension.

  • HookesLaw

    Farrage does not want to upset settled migrants?
    He heads a massively racist nutjob party, Don’t make me laugh. What a hypocrite.

    The plain facts which Mr Blackburn does not want to address is that this is a policy addressed at illegal migrants and if he were to check with Migrationwatch he will read that they believe there should be no amnesty and there should be continuing pressure to return illegal migrants. As such this is an excellent policy.

    • Alexsandr

      He heads a massively racist nutjob party

      care to give evidence for that?

      • HookesLaw

        Ever read about their candidates in the local elections
        Ever read a smidgeon of the comments here and elsewhere.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          You mean the comments that expose you Camerloonies as socialist nutjobs?

        • ButcombeMan

          But the PARTY Hookey.
          Every party has SOME nutjob extremist candidates on whatever subject. You are just smearing wildly.

    • Makroon

      Labour encouraged immigration, but are now worried and want to control it.
      The Tories also want to control and limit it.
      UKIP want to control and limit it.
      The bulk of the population want to control and limit it.
      Crikey ! even the LibDems want to control and limit it.
      The only issue is which party might actually achieve this objective.
      Guess what ? It won’t be Labour or UKIP.

  • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

    Mr Blackburn refers to Boris’s call for amnesty. Mr Clegg had this as party policy until the debates when he resiled from it. To the Left of Mr Clegg?

    • Denis_Cooper

      This was in their 2010 manifesto:

      “Prioritise deportation efforts on criminals, people-traffickers and other high-priority cases. We will let law-abiding families earn citizenship. We will allow people who have been in Britain without the correct papers for ten years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn their citizenship. This route to citizenship will not apply to people arriving after 2010.”

      • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

        Without the correct papers’ are weasel words for ‘illegal’. There is evidence from Spain & Italy that amnesty is a further pull factor. In Italy there have been 5 or 6. 3rd world get an income of say 10 times what they get in own countries – enormously attractive.
        Frank Whittle who invented jet engine campaigned for a maximum population of 30 million; 60 million is double that.
        Democracy is supposed to ‘government of the people FOR THE PEOPLE by the people’. Jack Straw said any country is entitled to decide who should be admitted. His policy was the opposite unless he equates Tony Blair with country.

  • Daniel Maris

    We deal with it in a very English way – hypocritically…we pretend the problem of illegal immigration doesn’t exist, so we make no pressing enquiries of people at hospitals or schools, and we dole out NI numbers without too many questions asked.

    Probably better than an amnesty which as others have noted would just encourage more illegal immigration.

    One question – how do the children of illegal immigrants acquire UK passports?

    • Border Boy

      The answer to your last question is that the children of illegals are not entitled to a Brit Passport – 1981 Nationality Act. The parents will often decide not to document their children as a bargaining tool in the removals dance. Foreign missions collude in this and will not provide a travel document unless the parents provide satisfactory evidence of nationality. Sometimes removed illegals are prepared to leave their children in care in the UK rather than take their children home. It is one of the many complications which makes the whole business of removals so difficult.

      • OldLb

        And that’s because they deliberate lost control over entry and exit. Now they are being played for the fools they are, and we have to cover the cost.

  • Border Boy

    This sort of scheme started at the Home Office 10 years ago. It was done in cooperation with the International Organisation for Migration which used its contacts as well as adverts inside London buses to promote the scheme. It’s great advantage was that it produced excellent results in terms of delivering removals at relatively low cost. It was going like a bomb until a careless minister mentioned the A word (amnesty) whereupon the initiative stalled. They can’t help themselves sometimes these ministers.

    The only difference now is that the adverts are more prominently displayed on the outside of buses rather than low key inside. This clearly has a political dimension, but as a practical scheme for increasing the removal of illegals it has potential.

    • HookesLaw

      fair comment

  • Austin Barry

    “It strikes me that Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more effective way to deal with illegal migrants who’ve settled here, and it would broaden the Tories’ appeal (or at least not damage it further). It’s a political risk; but voters are open minded, flexible people.”

    David, you are, I trust, being ironic?

  • paulme

    What about an amnesty by ballot? Invite those here illegally to register for a ballot where, say, 25 per cent get to stay and the rest are deported.

    • Daniel Maris

      You’d get no takers.

    • Border Boy

      Where does this get anyone? The only thing that would happen is that the unlucky 75% would beat a path to the courts alleging unfairness and inconsistency. The courts would delight in labelling the Home Office as stupid and the every applicant would get their amnesty anyway.

  • Daniel Maris

    When will you lot get it into your tiny metropolitan mainstream media minds that people are NOT interested in the net immigration figure (not least because it is meaningless – you can only have a net migration figure, not a net immigration figure).

    We are interested in the 500,000 people who come here every year: who they are, why they are coming here, whether they like this country, what values they have, why they didn’t go elsewhere.

    We also want some genuine figures. I have posted on another thread that apparently some 250,000 passports are being “lost” each year – an unbelievably high figure that suggests they are being used for immigration purposes.

    • Daniel Maris

      “In 2005 more than 286,000 British passports were reported lost or stolen, of
      which over 90,000 were reported missing during the summer months (June –
      August).”

  • Denis_Cooper

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/BriefingPaper/document/166

    “The central question is whether an amnesty would resolve the problem of illegal workers or would simply encourage more illegal immigration. The Report lists six amnesties in Italy since 1986 which have attracted 2 million applications. On almost every occasion the numbers applying were greater than on the previous one. The Report’s section on Spain is incomplete. It stopped at 1996. Had they included the amnesties in 2000, 2001 and 2005 they would have found that the numbers had doubled on each occasion, reaching 700,000 at the last amnesty. Although the circumstances differ in each country, these precedents illustrate beyond doubt that amnesties attract further illegal immigrants. This may explain the footnote in the report to the effect that they do not discuss international experience in detail (page 55). They claim that relevant points are made throughout the report where appropriate but there is no proper examination of the experience of Spain or Italy. There is certainly no mention of the fact that the unemployment rate in Spain is now 17% and could reach 20%.”

    • Daniel Maris

      One wonders what the figure for the UK would be? A million maybe?

  • Alexsandr

    A better tactic would be to stop bailing illegals that are caught for them to disappear never to be seen again. In what way could an illegal immigrant be elegible for parole?

    And peope who claim political asylum at dover are refused and sent back to France. Because a condition of asylum is you claim it at the first friendly country. Immediate deportation would reduce our asylum claims. At the ferry companies expense.

    • Patricia

      “….a condition of asylum is you claim it at the first friendly country”

      Why is this condition not forcibly applied ? There is something distinctly rotten at the core when it comes to matters of immigration – a sinister “omerta” from politicians.

      • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

        I’ve been banging on about this for months – but it’s ‘SAFE country’ per Refugee Convention. The only countries to which we have this relationship are France & Ireland – no persecution there.

        UK government should have decided when we signed up to extension in 1957 that this is what we would do. None of these people have any right to be here.

        Not all illegal immigrants are bogus asylum seekers – many just want a job.

        • OldLb

          Only 40,000 have proved their asylum claim. It’s a small number.

          Don’t confuse migration with asylum. Asylum is a moral issue. A huge percentage of migration is an economic disaster.

          • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

            ‘Only 40000 have proved their asylum claims’ – but some 800000 asylum seekers are living here & won’t be going back. If the government had applied the ‘first safe country’ rule even they would not be here but ON YOUR FIGURES there are about 760000 who are not entitled to be here. In 2002 about 80000 claims were made. Clearly they were bogus claims & because of disastrous UK bureaucracy they are here to stay.

            • OldLb

              I agree that its abused. However, I stand by the point. 40,000 people here because they have claimed asylum isn’t a problem. I suspect that even you would accept 40K, here if the rules were applied properly.

              The core problem is unfettered migration.

              Even then the core problem isn’t migration. It is that we have large numbers of migrants, in fact a majority of migrants who do not pay enough tax to cover the cost of being here.

              So they end up being a burden to others, and MPs lie repeatedly to them about this.

              e.g Boris and his amnesty. For whom? People who haven’t been paying tax and are foreign. Pure racism from Boris, where is the amnesty for Brits?

              So lets have a proper test. You have to pay more tax than the average government spend. Simple to administer. The tax system is already in place.

              That way we only get the profitable migrants. We don’t end up with lots of low skilled on welfare and lots of low paid migrants taking the jobs they should be doing.

              • HookesLaw

                You are right – we should accept and be proud to genuine asylum seekers and the problem is the fraud.

                • Daniel Maris

                  How on earth do you establish if, for instance, someone claiming to have been persecuted as a witch in tiny village in the deepest Congo is telling the truth. There is no way one can determine the facts of the matter, which is why this is all so bogus. There’s no point in having expensive hearings on such matters. We should set a limit on the number of asylum seekers allowed in per annum – say 10,000 per annum – and tell people to apply to our embassies abroad. Anyone let in should still have to meet the conditions we set regarding agreeing with our value system, learning our language and so on.

                • OldLb

                  Well, you can determine very easily, have they come by a safe country.

                  I don’t believe we have direct flights. So by definition there should be none in the UK.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  The problem is that the Labour government used it as another pretext for its policy of allowing and encouraging immigration.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and that fraud is perpetuated by the likes of your hero, Call Me Dave.

                • OldLb

                  The problem that now happens because of the abuse, and the state is at the heart of it, is that people genuinely in of asylum are going to be at risk.

              • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

                At 62m there are more than the enough people in this country. Sir Frank Whittle thought in 1930s that 30m is enough.
                Also there is the question of democracy. One poll showed 68% CON foreign immigration & 8% PRO. Even Jack Straw said that every nation has the right to decide who it admits though the Managed Migration Agenda he ran for Blair was the diametrical opposite. Would you favour a Swiss-style referendum to ascertain whether that poll was right? One of them brought a new item into their Constitution – ‘minarets shall not be built in Switzerland’.

                • Daniel Maris

                  Sir Frank was then a great sage! I also think 30 million is about right. More than enough to provide all the services a modern country needs but small enough for this island, so we don;t destroy its natural habitat and we don’t overstress our health, welfare and education infrastructure.

                • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

                  The latest projection I have seen is that we would surpass France & a falling germany at 70m+. Even if this does not reflect getting the annual figure below 100k (well below I hope) it will be incredibly difficult to keep below 65m if we are still in EU.Continuance of 1/4 births to non-UK born mothers is ‘baked in’.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  Yes, it should be put to a referendum through which the body of citizens could decide how many new citizens they would like to welcome from abroad.

                  It could be conducted along the lines of the opinion poll mentioned here:

                  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/03/there-is-no-left-and-right-expect-in-political-imagination.html

                  in which each respondent could select one of a range of numbers in answer to the question:

                  “What should be the maximum allowed level of annual immigration?”

                  Then the correct treatment of the results would be to find the median response, which in that case was about 70,000 – ie half of the respondents thought that 70,000 was too high, while half thought that it was too low.

                  It would be incorrect to take the mean or average, because with an outlier of 6% of respondents saying “No limit”, that is they want an infinite number, the mean would also be “No limit”.

  • Noa

    “…Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more effective way to deal
    with illegal migrants who’ve settled here, and it would broaden the
    Tories’ appeal…”

    This is an article penned wholly from with the perspective of the London ‘bubble’, David.

    To whom would it appeal I wonder, other than the illegal immigrants themselves? Do you and Boris cynically believe that a deciding Tory voter base can be created from this million strong army of suddenly de-criminalised invaders? Or do you mean that it would appeal to the core Tory vote? I rather think that it would not, and that they will simply flock in increasing droves to UKIP.

    An anmesty would send the message that the UK had accepted the all the consequences of unlimited immigration and was no longer prepared to defend its borders, people, economy and social structures. One might as well close the Border Agency and re-establish it as a the welcoming arm of the social services.
    I have an alternative proposal. How about the Conservative Party taking note of its long abandoned principles by being Conservative, banning all immigration until the current mess is sorted out and introducing the measures necessary, including housing,welfare and benefits support, for the fast deportation of all illegal migrants here?

    • fantasy_island

      If an amnesty were to be offered I imagine we would be staggered at the actual numbers that came forwards. At the moment everything is simply an estimate.

      I guess the government would attempt to register a family of 5 as a single application in order to save face.

      A crazy idea, as you say it would also send a terrible message.

      • Denis_Cooper

        “I guess the government would attempt to register a family of 5 as a single application in order to save face.”

        Very likely, they’re easily dishonest enough to do that.

      • Noa

        Once an illegal is granted citizenship he can apply to bring in family and dependents not living presently here.

        So the 1 million immigrant anmesty idirectly sucks in many millions more.

        • 2trueblue

          You are right, and that is the problem with some politicians, they are not engaged with the real facts of life.

      • 2trueblue

        The political elite might be surprised whilst those of us in the real world would simply be grateful that it is now out in the open. WE must remember why Liebore set out to increase immigration to unprecedented levels.

  • Patricia

    “It strikes me that Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more effective way to deal with illegal migrants who’ve settled here, ….. ”

    And how many millions is that for us to house, educate and minister to ?

    “… and it would broaden the Tories’ appeal (or at least not damage it further..”

    Do you really believe that ? I believe it would mean more votes for UKIP and the Tory party would disappear down the plug hole.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “It strikes me that Boris Johnson’s proposed amnesty might be a more effective way to deal with illegal migrants who’ve settled here, and it would broaden the Tories’ appeal (or at least not damage it further). It’s a political risk; but voters are open minded, flexible people.”

    Are you mad?

    The widespread experience in other countries is that an amnesty for illegal immigrants just encourages more illegal immigrants.

    Is that what you want, just for the sake of scraping up a few extra votes for the corrupt unpatriotic anti-democratic Tory party?

    • 2trueblue

      Denis, what party was it that increased immigration massively for their own benefit? Having done that they then destroyed any system of protecting our borders over 13yrs. It was not the Tories.

      • Denis_Cooper

        Well, the Tories were not in office at the time. But make no mistake: those leading the Tory party are in favour of mass immigration.

        • 2trueblue

          Don’t think so. Liebore did it to increase their share of the vote, there would be no such gain for the Tories.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “The question is, though, has the van campaign been a successful policy pilot from a presentational point of view?”

    No it isn’t, the question is whether it has actually induced any illegal immigrants to turn themselves in and accept deportation.

    • Lady Magdalene

      One, apparently. And he hasn’t gone yet.

    • HookesLaw

      The other point is, does it encourage potential illegals to not bother?
      Most illegal immigrants do not come in hidden in the back of trucks or hanging on the the landing wheels of jet liners.
      They come in legally but overstay their visas (so we are not talking about those horrible muslims and yes yes those ‘blacks’). The bogus student immigrants were a case of this and the govt have made progress in preventing these people coming in.
      Employers are to blame for allowing this and greater scrutiny here would expose more illegals and campaigns like the one we are talking about would encourage more the take the shilling and leave.

  • Lady Magdalene

    “Farage is a clever fool”
    If you’d stopped at “Farage is clever”, you’d be correct. As it is you’re, just showing your bias once again.

    • Denis_Cooper

      Hold on – isn’t Nigel Farage opposed to unlimited, uncontrolled mass immigration? So for the author of this article he must be a fool, or he would see the huge benefits of allowing the whole world to come and live in our country.

    • HookesLaw

      Farage is a cheap opportunist.

      • Makroon

        Correct. Nobody’s fool, a cunning snake-oil salesman.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Well, I’m glad he’s cunning. I like my politicians cunning. The alternatives are witless.

      • Lady Magdalene

        Who will be addressing 3 fringe events at this year’s CON Party Conference.
        How on earth will “the speaking clock” Cameron compete?

      • Fergus Pickering

        All politicians are opportunists. And that is just as it should be. You see an opportunity. You grab it. Disraeli and Churchill were arch-opportunists. The danger is politicians prating ideals and what-have-you. They are the ones you have do watch. Gordon Brown and his ilk. ‘

  • Lady Magdalene

    “All of this will have gone down badly in the Home Office, which has a good story to tell about reducing net migration.”
    We’re not interested in net migration. If we lose 500,000 educated, skilled BRITISH workers, and instead get 500,001 uneducated, unskilled Romanian street criminals, the number of people here will have increased by one.
    But the effect on our economy; our society; our schools; our crime statistics and our criminal justice system will be massively negative.
    What net migration disguises is race replacement. And that’s what’s going on.

    • Denis_Cooper

      Correct, and after four years or so the Tory party is rapidly running out of road for that deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate. They’ve been rumbled, and that deceit won’t wash for much longer.

    • Shazza

      It is population replacement. Remember Labour’s ‘rub the right’s noses in’ and Mandelson saying they actively went recruiting immigrants? The EU wants ‘regions’ not countries – destroy individual identity and actively promote inter racial breeding. Note the BBC’s programmes, advertising etc. all show mixed race ‘families’. Traditional values are scorned, destroy the family and replace it with the State. Cultural Marxism has won. However, when Islam bites them big time in the ***** in the not too distant future I hope they will get their rewards. They certainly deserve them. Unfortunately, we will get them too.

      • 2trueblue

        Beautifully put.

        • Shazza

          Thank you.

        • Makroon

          Yeah, “beautifully put” – “inter-racial breeding” Eh ?

          What if a big part of the 500K are retirees heading for Spain, Portugal and France, and “likely lads” looking for jobs as DJs, estate agents and “relocation agents” on the costas …. and a big part of the 500K incomers are highly motivated, well-educated professionals heading for the opportunities that London offers ?

          Can’t be right, can it ? They’ll all be bloodthirsty Islamic fundamentalist nutters, won’t they ?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …what if you’re a ranting socialist Camerloonie? Oh hang on, you are.

          • Shazza

            I think you are missing the point. Nobody is objecting to ‘inter-racial breeding’; the point is that it is being deliberately promoted to destroy identity – one of the goals of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism. (Google it). Yes, when British retirees go to Spain, etc. they take their £s with them, a loss for us but a gain for their new hosts. They do not live off the host country’s benefits. Neither do the ‘likely lads’, if they cannot cut it they have to come home. As for all those highly educated professionals, welcome! For Islam to become victorious in the not too distant future, it is not ‘bloodthirsty Islamic fundamentalists nutters’ you need to worry about, it is wombs.

            • Mike

              I’ve long pointed out the fact that many expat retirees like myself move to Spain with a minimum of 250k of assets for a place to live plus our pensions. Thats an awful lot of money going into the Spanish economy in capital followed by VAT and income tax year on year which the uk doesn’t see. Additionally there’s state health care paid for by the UK however the amount they pay is far less than the amount required if we stayed in the UK.

              As a consequence, this contribution isn’t lost on the Spanish unlike the real and direct costs that multitudinous third world immigration into the UK costs Britain. There’s massive costs health, education, translation, housing benefits plus the importation of diseases like TB that were eradicated years ago. The culture of marrying first cousins has caused an explosion of mentally and physically disabled babies that will need caring for at tax payers expense where before in third worlds they’d be left to die.

              All in all, Spain gains a lot as do other UK ex-pat destinations whilst the UK becomes a costly cess pit with fewer and fewer people able to pay for it.

              • HookesLaw

                Expats use the Spanish health service

                http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2013/04/04/expat-hit-with-e1180-bill-for-one-night-in-nhs-hospital/

                ‘AN EXPAT who paid taxes in the UK for 40 years, was handed a whopping €1,180 bill for a one-night stay at a Bristol hospital.
                Sue Woodman, 56, who has lived in Alcala La Real for six years was forced to return to the UK last June to care for her elderly mother, whowas in the last stages of Alzheimer’s.
                During her three month trip she became ill herself and was admitted to hospital after suffering a panic attack.
                So it came as a real shock when a few weeks after returning to Spain her sister contacted her to inform her that a bill had arrived from the NHS.’

                • Mike

                  From her name I would assume she’s a white Brit, born and breed and that’s why they targeted her but I’d tell them to go s**** themselves. This was obviously an emergency medical problem and NOT health tourism treatment and as such she should have been treated free of charge.

                • HookesLaw

                  Wonderful the way you bring racism into this – award yourself some points.

                  The woman (not a pensioner) was probably not paying into the Spanish system and thus not entitled to an EHIC card. Otherwise if she had one, treatment would have been free, Anyone who qualifies for an EHIC card should get one and this lady should have taken out insurance like we do for our mother in law when we take her abroad.
                  Spain has to treat our expats on their health system, which ex pats will have to pay into. Swanning off to Spain is not all sun and sangria.

                  The poster talked about ‘multitudinous’ third world immigration and as I point pout elsewhere this is overstated.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, you did point pout, as usual.

                • Mike

                  Sorry, you’re a bit out of touch here as its Britain that now issues EHIC cards for UK citizens whether living in EU countries or not. The problem existed because the UK classed her as non resident and wouldn’t issue a EHIC and the Spanish wouldn’t issue her one anyway as its now the UK’s responsibility. Basically, she got caught by the inane system that is in place. The proper way to implement emergency treatment would be to issue everyone of EU citizenship, no matter how old or where they live a EHIC card.

                  Ironically, the Dysfunctional Worthless Plonkers (DWP) issued me with three EHIC cards within the same week and my wife received two cards. If you know her address I’ll happily send one of my spares that they erroneously sent us.

                  The reason changes were made is rather perverse because a ex-pat living in Spain who needed emergency treatment in France would have France claiming costs back from Spain who then claimed costs back from the UK.

                  Anyway, why else would the NHS treat any person from any country including translator costs for free without any checks, but this British woman was targeted for paying back costs. If the rules were evenly applied it wouldn’t be a racism issue but too many times its reverse discrimination against white people.

                  “Spain has to treat our expats on their health system, which ex pats will have to pay into”

                  Not that simple – If you are of retirement age from your country of citizenship you will get free Spanish healthcare as the DWP will issue you a form to get you onto the Spanish system. You will pay towards medication (10%) as of this year but it is capped. If you are not of retirement age you either have to work and pay towards health care or in the Province of Valencia, pay an amount each month but its cheaper than private insurance and does not have pre-existing caveats.

                  Spain has a pretty good level playing field when it comes to health care despite what you may read in the press but the problem is the UK doesn’t demand a credit card or payment up front and especially towards illegal immigrants.

                  From a moral perspective, who deserves NHS treatment most, a British lady of 56 who has paid into the NI system for some years or some disease ridden illegal who jumped off a truck on the M20 !

                • Karla’s Man

                  Both shouldn’t.

                • Mike

                  Every UK citizen resident in the UK can get a EHIC card without paying for it. Children get one so I fail to see why this woman who has contributed in the past shouldn’t be given one.

                  “The pot is primarily for the British NHS”, hardly.

                  The NHS pot of receipts via NI contributions were sold to the nation as a pension and health scheme for life. You pay into the scheme and you get health cover for life and a pension at retirement age. It is NOT a benefit as government tries to call it as we paid into the scheme.

                  Whatever Aneurin Bevan had in mind has long been hijacked by successive governments as the pension contribution part should have been separated out from the beginning instead of going into the general tax take.

                • Karla’s Man

                  If we don’t wind down the scheme now, there won’t be a pot left in the future. Both the Conservatives and the UKIP are in favour of either abolishing the NHS altogether, or winding it down by abolishing some services, introducing privatisations and contributory payments.

                  Excluding the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland, for those not of retirement age, the EHIC only supposed to last for three months in Gibraltar or another European Country not of our own. I think that there should be an option to purchase extra cover from the British State for extra cover whilst abroad.

                • Mike

                  Personally, given a choice at age 21 and in hindsight I wouldn’t trust any scheme put forward by any government as they are a law unto themselves and are not accountable in the courts if they break a contract.

                  The problem is that at age 68 and after decades of paying into the system, there’s no chance of getting my contributions back and paying into a private scheme instead.

                • Karla’s Man

                  With the way things are going, there probably wouldn’t be any private pension schemes left. Schemes can’t keep on declaring phoney profits, because there aren’t any real and actual profits made, because there is a recession going on, and you can’t make much profit out of a recession, well, not for the kind of investment approved by the Bank of England for pension funds anyway.

                  I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Government eventually have to raid private (and even company) pension funds for cash in exchange for long-term Government bonds within minimum interest, in order to help the banks, even the odd building society, in writing off more and more bad debts and defaulting loans.

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  Tell the NHS to piss up a stick and don`t get their hands wet.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  £1,000 is really a whopping bill,is it? We just think it is because everything’s free. It’s brought home to anyone who has to fork out for vets’ bills – medical care is BLOODY expensve. Just as schooling is bloody expensive. Somebody has to pay for it all and perhaps general taxation is the place for a good percentage of it. Where we go wrong is the feeling it should all be FREE, FREE, FREE. I suggest all parents pay a thousand a year for schooling per pupil and all people pay twenty pounds a visit for doctoring plus a percentage (small say 10%) for operations. There would be some exemptions of course. This is really an educational measure. Oh and all dole payments stop after a year.

          • Dogsnob

            It’s just that ‘what if’ bit of your argument that lets you down.

            • HookesLaw

              He is posing argument. You are incapable of engaging.

              • Dogsnob

                So we know do we, that this is a ‘he’? It’s a pathetic argument. So much so that it’s left to a space-cadet like you to defend.

    • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

      The crux is that many uk can’t compete with over-qualified EU. Do we l

      • HookesLaw

        And if we were out of the EU and in the EEA we would need to be in the single market which includes free movement of Labour.

        Labour handled the accession countries like Poland very badly and betrayed its own core vote (and as implemented the free movement of labour policy is wrong). But these economic migrants are transient and move in and then move out. Read what Migrationwatch say. And numbers from the accession countries are declining.

        So there is one clear alternative. Keep Labour out; vote Conservative. UKIP just peddle lies.

        • Lady Magdalene

          If we were out of the EU we could negotiate our own trade treaty which doesn’t include free movement of beggers, criminals and prostitutes.

          • HookesLaw

            In your dreams.
            You want to bet on that? This is just typical of the warped fantasy world you lot live in.
            On top of all that we would like Norway be required to pay in to EU regional funds. if Norway were actually in the EU its contributions would be about 10th biggest.

            And any ‘trade deal’ that did not effectively repeat the single markest would be bad news for current and future inward investment into thr UK. Romania must be praying we leave the EU.

            Your characterisation of immigrants tells us what a nasty bigot you are. And I think we can guarantee you have no idea of the breakdown of both immigrants and emigrants.

            • Alexsandr

              why, if we were not in the Eu would we HAVE to do anything. Why would we need to be in the single market? Or pay for regional funds?

            • Denis_Cooper

              Norway is a net exporter to the EU, we are a net importer from the rest of the EU, so we would not be like Norway.

        • Smithersjones2013

          Why do you keep peddling this lie about the EEA?

    • HookesLaw

      net migration fell last year from 24200 to 153000
      Immigrants fell by 81000 and emigrants rose by 48000

      The point to bear in mind of course, which prejudice probably bars you from recognising, is than a significant number of those leaving were previously themselves immigrants.
      The number of non-British citizens immigrating long-term to the UK in the year to June 2012 was 439,000, The estimated number of
      non-British citizens emigrating long-term from the UK was 197,000.

      And of the UK citizens some are only leaving temporarily and are counted back in as immigrants.
      The number of UK immigrants emigrating long term was in fact 154000. If you look at the difference between between UK citizens emigrating an immigrating than there are about 79000 more leaving than arriving. (in say 2002 the gap was similar but the numbers higher)

      Student immigration is down as is immigration from the accession countries. The number of visas issued fell 10%.

      In short – your scare story projection is hysterical

      • OldLb

        So how is a worker in Starbucks paying their way?

        2K in taxes. 6K in education for each child, free policing, free defence, pensions rights accruing, … all for 200 a year in tax.

        It’s not economic. It’s a burden, not a benefit to the UK,

        • HookesLaw

          So all Starbucks employees are immigrants? They all have children?
          I do not defend immigration or emigration, nor do I attack it. I point out that loony toon scenarios are hysterical gibberish.

          For what it is worth given our current unemployment status I see little real reason for the importation of low skill low wage immigrants, though we should welcome high skill immigrants.
          If our circumstances were different then it would be beneficial to import low skill labour if we had a shortage.

          • OldLb

            No.

            And not all migrants are bad for the UK. Lots are good.

            The question is which migrants are good for the UK, and which aren’t?

            Then the follow up question is how to sort out the mess.

            So why don’t you start with the first question, which migrants are an economic benefit to the UK?

            Starbucks has lots of migrants working there. There are lots of people on welfare. Shouldn’t we set up the situation so that Starbucks takes on those on welfare?

            It will never be beneficial to pull in the low skilled low paid, because they won’t pay enough tax to cover the costs of them being here.

            Instead, what would need to happen is a move to automation. Coffee can be automated for example, or the cost could rise so its cost effect to pay people.

            So what’s the economic test for a migrant to be beneficial? It’s important that is economic, because that deals with a lot of the racist or religious arguments.

            • HookesLaw

              Skilled immigrants are good for the UK and unskilled would only be good if our economy was such that we had a shortage.

              The way labour managed the EU accession countries a was bad.

              The way the EU operates the free movement of labour, which in broad principle is not a bad thing, is very poor and not helpful to the point of being downright dangerous.

              This article is about illegal immigrants, the majority of who are people who overstay visas.

              • OldLb

                Skilled migrants. You’ve not provided a definition.

                Will theses skilled migrants pay more tax than they consume in resources or will they need a subsidy?

                Do we have a shortage of people who can do unskilled work?

                The free movement of labour is optional, see Cyprus and what has happen to the free movement of capital.

                • Alexsandr

                  not that convinced we need that many skilled workers. plenty of british IT people. And brits know what BACS, VAT etc are.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Do we have a shortage of people who can do unskilled work? No. The problem is to get the white underclass Brits off their fat arses, since they are paid by the State to watch television all day.

          • Daniel Maris

            Scare stories?

            from back in 2010:

            “Almost a quarter of babies are born to immigrant mothers, an official breakdown showed yesterday.

            It found that 24.7 per cent of children born last year have mothers who were born abroad – and that their numbers have doubled since the late 1990s.” (Daily Mail)

            Of course if you included all mothers from immigrant communities, that figure would be much higher – I would guess maybe more like 40%.

            There is no doubt that mass immigration has completely changed the country. You can argue it has been changed for the better but pretending it hasn’t happened is ridiculous.

            • HookesLaw

              Fertility of immigrant mothers is falling.
              As a general rule young women rather than middle aged women have babies.

              The figures speak for themselves – I have elaborated on them when someone quoted 500000 Muslims coming to Britain.
              Some immigrants are UK people coming back in and some emigrants are former immigrants returning home. Discuss the problem based on facts. Is there something so terrible about that?

              This article BTW is about illegal immigration.

              • Daniel Maris

                The facts are that probably 40% of new births are to mothers born abroad or from established immigrant communities (many of whom have not integrated into the British way of life to any great extent).

          • Fergus Pickering

            The workers in Starbucks and similar places that I come across are white Brits. I haven’t noticed immigrants thronging the streets of Canterbury though it is true there are a lot of Poles swimming in the swimming baths. I’m used to Poles since I was brought up in Edinburgh which has had a sizable Polish population since the war. They tended to run small hotels and drive buses. Their children were indistinguishable from Scottish children except for their unpronounceable names. The layabouts begging in the street with dogs are all British as far as I can see.

      • Redneck

        HookesLaw

        Always enjoy your posts.

        I have to say though that I don’t feel pacified by this post: I don’t think my eyes deceive me, there are more & more non-Britons in my little part of the UK every year.
        Your post implies that it’s really just a balanced to-and-fro of the same couple of thousand workers. I’d like to believe you but I don’t.

        Am I a bigot?

        • HookesLaw

          My post puts down a few facts. As opposed the the rubbish elsewhere. Make of it what you will, the false implication is your problem

          This article is about illegal immigrants and I have said elsewhere I support the policy of
          a – encouraging them not to even try
          and
          b – encouraging them to leave
          and
          c – deporting those we find who do not come forward.

          Immigration and emigration are topics worth discussing based on some facts rather than fantasy.

      • ButcombeMan

        Hookey
        I would quite like to see your answer to Alexsandr.
        Or has that gone into the “too difficult” tray?

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        As you say, Hookes. it`s a lot more complicated that immigration over emigration. But you could try using the evidence of your own eyes by strolling down a high street near you.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      There you go again, Britisher pals: Letting the wrong people in and keeping the right people out.
      And I think we all know who the dodgy ones are.

    • Mike

      Well said as we’re not trading like with like. I abandoned the UK and moved to Spain 10 years ago as I could see exactly what direction Labour policies were taking Britain.

      The UK’s loss of a trained computer engineer and Spains gain of a big chunk of change plus tax contributions is escalating. The breaking point for the UK will come when tax receipts can no longer support the rising welfare costs of uneducated and disease ridden immigrants and that isn’t very far off in the future.

      Everyone one has a different ‘pain’ threshold when they decide to chuck the UK in and get out but politicians like Cleggy and Cameron are in denial over human psychology and how it works.

Close