‘Net migration’ is bogus. Maybe we should look at ‘net foreign migration’?

26 March 2014

10:21 AM

26 March 2014

10:21 AM

Mark Field, MP for Westminster, has set up a brand new campaign group of Tory backbenchers called Managed Migration – as opposed, you might think, to the unmanaged sort we have at present. But he’s not actually in favour of managing migration in the conventional sense; he wants the PM to drop the party’s commitment to containing overall numbers of net migrants to the ‘tens of thousands’ though there seems fat chance of that just now.  Big increases in net migration, he says, are a tribute to the recovering economy.

He’s got a point in one sense. As the economy improves, fewer Brits want to leave, which has an effect on net numbers. So perhaps the target should be, instead: ‘net foreign migration’, viz, the numbers of people from abroad coming in less the numbers of people from abroad going out. It’s perfectly possible to work out. And would indeed tell us more about the government’s own direction of travel.

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
  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Britisher pals, you`re letting the wrong people in and keeping the right people out.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Just recently in Penang, where I was privileged to meet a number of retired Brits who had taken to wintering in Malaysia. They were finding that three months was not long enough to escape from the British winter. Some were extending to six months. As many found it stressful to keep relocating, they were considering making the move permanent. The perfect way to emigrate, hedge your bets while surrounded by a like-minded support group.
    Jack, Japan Alps

  • Daniel Maris

    ADW says “Whilst in the EU, we can do nothing about immigration from member
    states. We could do something about immigration from the third world,
    but no politician would have the guts to do it.”

    But is it true we can do nothing about EU immigration. I was amazed to hear on the radio that Denmark currenrly restricts foreigners from taking homes in designated seaside towns. It seems that we could make a very good case for stopping purchase of housing in London by EU nationals.

    Perhaps someone should put the question to Cameron…I can hear podgy-cheeks’ inane response: “…look, no one wants to control immigration more than I do. But, let me put this as frankly as I can, I am not going to indulge in meaningless gestures that can only damage this country. London is a dynamic city.. etc etc.”

    Cameron doesn’t really have any intention of controlling immigration.

  • andagain

    Tory backbenchers called Managed Migration – as opposed, you might think, to the unmanaged sort we have at present.

    We do, as a matter of fact, have laws to restrict immigration. Claiming we don’t is a simple, straightforward untruth.

    Just because it is not restricted as much as you would like does not mean it is not managed.

  • TruthBeatsLies

    Has anyone noticed how the topic of “immigration” can suddenly be openly debated in this country – as long as the presumed focus stays largely on EU migrants…??? But should the discussion stray into comment on 3rd-Worlders from Africa or the Indian Sub-Continent – watch-out…!!!

    Yet it is the presence of 3rd-Worlders that worry most people, most of the time… And why is that, do you suppose…? Because they are not only the ones with massive birth-rates, but have absolutely no intention of ever going home…!!!

  • sarahsmith232

    This person Mark Field is so absolutely typical of the ridiculous open-door lot. Saw him on Sky on Sunday, saw him on Daily Politics, the male does not seem to have any idea that all that he’s demanding is exactly, to a tee, what UKip is asking for. Yet he imagines himself their moral superior, standing in opposition to the 80% of marauding masses that also demanding only the exact same change in immigration policy that he’s advocating. Can he really be so clueless? Apparently so.
    Who doesn’t want managed migration? That’s Ukip’s position, that’s what the 80% of people who are demanding a reduction in immigration want. So why does this person believe himself the balanced, temperate, intelligent antidote to the Ukip/80% of the country/demands of the Tory Right? Prob’ ’cause for e.g when he was on Sky there was one of the Left’s idiots sat next him when he was projecting this image of himself and the idiot Leftie massaged his ego with some ‘great to hear an intelligent, superior, high status because of your alignment with we Metro members of the superior orders pass comment on immigration’.
    This person Mark Field flattered himself in the idiot leftie Metro set praise. Silly person but this is the process when they only exist in that world, the male is only seeking praise and flattery from his fellow Metro class set, a meaningful contribution to the debate on immigration he is not making. Very transparent but not to him.

  • wrinkledweasel

    The net migration issue is not a like for like thing. When the British are abroad they moan about not being able to get marmite and hp sauce. Mostly they also put up with the risk of being unhoused by bent officials. What they tend not to do is defacate in public, open churches with loudspeakers, or walk around disguised in a black sack. Generally, they also obey the law.

    The out of control flood of migrants into places like Boston has made the crime rate soar, turned the parks into open lavatories and provided a plethora of dirty food vendors and under the counter prescription drug outlets.

    So, let’s be honest, one successful emigre does not equal one feckless sponger from former Eastern Europe.

  • ADW

    I would suspect for most people the following are the relevant points:

    1. It is the middle aged rich, not the poor, who benefit from unfettered immigration. Cheap labour, cheap domestic help, more exotic food, more exotic music and arts scene in general, and best of all ever increasing house prices. For those who work in the public sector or in politics it is an ever increasing supply of victim groups needing specialist government services and forming blocks of voters.

    For the poor it is competition for state services (social housing, health & education), increasing rents, areas becoming foreign lands, increased crime, etc,

    2. Whilst in the EU, we can do nothing about immigration from member states. We could do something about immigration from the third world, but no politician would have the guts to do it.

    3. We can do nothing by way of repatriation.

    4. We could do something about integration and assimilation, but be assured we never will.

    5. Incidentally, the unrestricted multiculturalism that has caused so many social problems over the past 40 years was the brainchild of Roy Jenkins, who Charles Moore has been writing about over on the Telegraph. Jenkins thought that all immigrants would be like the foreign students at Oxford (presumably he also thought the native students at Oxford reflected all of British society ..). He therefore urged immigration and what Trevor Phillips of all people called segregation. But Jenkins lived the dream and spent his retirement moving between Luton, Leicester, Brixton, Pekham and Slough. Oh hang on, sorry, no, he spent his retirement in a tiny Oxford village, ethnic minority population hovering around the zero mark. Out of touch elite? Never …

  • itdoesntaddup

    We even have official statistics on migration by broad categories of citizenship already. It’s lazy journalism not to have provided them – readily available back to 1975. They show a consistent pattern of British net emigration that was stronger during the years of Labour government – it was an average of 46,000 in 1991-2000, rising to 82,000 in 2001-2010, and falling back slightly to 60,000 in the most recent data. The corollary is that net foreign immigration is much higher than the overall total.

    Of course there is an overlay that the data are known not to cover well after border controls were relaxed – in particular missing out the immigration of many (more than 1 million if you believe NINO data) A8 EU citizens as well as many non EU citizens who simply overstayed visas. However, EU net immigration was limited prior to A8 – averaging just 13,000 in the 1990s.

    We could also discuss the origins of immigration by reason for migration. Then we would discover the awful truth that most of our immigration is via the student route – certainly much abused until Grayling put a stop to the worst excesses of fake colleges and courses, but almost equally certainly still being abused as a route for economic migration that bypasses the quotas.

    Then there is the migration that misses the statistical radar altogther: Mode 4 migrants, who come to fill jobs notionally for less than a year, who are supposedly rotated out and replaced, and escape the normal set of employment taxes.

    Maybe we should just look at what is really going on – and also return to proper border controls so that we know, give or take undetected stowaways.

  • zanzamander

    None of the three main parties have any desire or the inclination to curb migration. This is all talk to fool us into believing that our MPs and the government is doing something.

    Despite all his promises and as if we needed more followers of Mohammad in this country, Cameron has just admitted thousands of migrants from Syria. Once settled, they’re going nowhere.

    You may vote for any party, but the end result will be the same: more indigenous, educated, young, talented and hard working people leaving and more uneducated villagers from third world with their several kids coming laden with their rigid cultural and religious baggage – we provide the rest.

    So to fight is futile.Just accept the fact that our politicians are crooked and that we will have to live with ever increasing population of people from the third world.

    That or leave.

    • Alasdair

      ‘That or leave’ says the poster who doesn’t think people should migrate into this country.

      Somebody needs hitting with the irony stick.

      • Shazza

        I would hazard a guess that for the majority of the people who leave, do so because they can see the writing on the wall.

        Nobody in their right mind wants to be a stranger in their own country and sadly, many parts now do seem to be more Asian or African with mosques in abundance and a plethora of women pushing the obligatory pram with at least two other children, enclosed in a burka.

        We lived in a large East Midlands city for 10 years post 1997 and the change in the population in that very short time was unbelievable.

        We fled and now live among people who share our own Greek/Roman/Judeo/Christian culture and values in an area which is hideously white and hopefully will be able to withstand the colonisation for a while longer.

        • StephanieJCW

          “Nobody in their right mind wants to be a stranger in their own country ”

          Err – you do realise when you move to another country, you become a ‘stranger in your own country’, a ‘minority’.

          It amazes the number of people who balk at immigrants coming to Britain, yet see no issue with themselves being a migrant in somebody else’s country.

          • mohdanga

            I would hazard that the vast majority (99%) of Brits that migrate go to the US, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, you know, those countries founded and settled by the Brits, with a culture and language similar to British so that assimilation is easy. They’e not going to Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Here in Canada we would be doing cartwheels to have more British immigrants instead of the tsunami of burka clad, enriching Muslims and Chinese who never have to learn to speak English and ensconce themselves in their Chinese ghettoes. Alas, the white emigrant is much maligned by the current system. The gov’t and elites much prefer the non-educated, non-English speaking, unassimilating type, you know, so we can all be ‘vibrantly enriched’.

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              “I would hazard that the vast majority (99%) of Brits that migrate go to the US, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, you know, those countries founded and settled by the Brits, with a culture and language similar to British so that assimilation is easy.”
              You call that emigrating? More like security clearance to Disneyland.
              Jack, Japan Alps

            • Alasdair

              Most of them seem to go to Spain, so they can never learn to speak Spanish and ensconce themselves in their British ghettos.

  • Frank

    I thought that the government had no accurate numbers on who comes in and who leaves.
    I would be very interested to know how many well educated, high calibre British born young adults left Britain for pastures new each year. I suspect that it is a reasonably significant number. These departures are much more worrying than those of retirees (who often return later, see point below).
    If Brits who have retired abroad received pension increases as they would if they lived here, more might stay abroad decreasing the total cost to Britain of their old age.
    I have just read that Mark Field had an affair with Liz Truss, rather a John Major / Edwina moment of discovery.

    • Shazza

      The population replacement carries on unabated. White, highly skilled young people/wealthy retired leave these shores to be replaced by 3rd world incomers who have a very different view of what should replace secular, civilised 21st century Western culture.

      • TruthBeatsLies

        Well said…! And far, far more of us should be saying it…!!!

        • TruthBeatsLies

          I’m on the point of going to France. Oh yes, they too have a lot of foreign immigrants, it’s true. But it’s also true that 3rd-Worlders in Paris are never permitted to forget their guest status – being kept aware they must do as the French do…!

    • Pootles

      An interesting sideline on the development of ‘our’ political elite:
      Mark Field: Oxford, law : ‘old’ politico
      Liz Truss: Oxford, PPE: ‘new’ politico.

      • Frank

        Is Mark Field “old” politico? He is not from a posh family background.
        I am not sure what constitute what these days. Just astonished that someone I thought vaguely normal had an affair with her. Perhaps she has hidden talents / depths.
        I try to keep my work and hobbies separate, perhaps it is more efficient to do it all in one place?

        • Pootles

          Hello, Frank. I was just referring to choice of subject – reading law seems a bit old hat in these PPE dominated days. I don’t have much choice on the hobbies front – my wife normally joins me on my allotment. But, then, I didn’t read PPE or law.

          • Frank

            Aha, with you now. Yes indeed, PPE the tosser’s subject. Have any of our illustrious current political leaders done a history degree?
            Probably sensible about the shared allotment visits, avoids you doing anything ill-judged, like an affair with Edwina Currie!

    • StephanieJCW

      I moved to Australia. Love it.