Previous Press Releases
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001December November October September August July June May April March February January
Press Releases for May 2009
May 28, 2009
Major Parties Help Fringe Groups With Their Silence On Immigration
May 27, 2009
Media Information
May 20, 2009
Public want a massive cut in immigration
Nearly 80 per cent concerned about the issue
May 4, 2009
Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Could Cost Taxpayers 'Up to £1m' Per Family
Full Text of Releases : May 2009
Major Parties Help Fringe Groups With Their Silence On Immigration
Immigration largely ignored in main manifestos
The three main parties are once again ignoring widespread public concern about the number of immigrants allowed into the UK in their manifestos for next week's European elections.
An analysis of the parties' manifestos on this highly sensitive issue - consistently rated among the top three concerns of the public for a number of years - finds no hint of any desire for an open and frank discussion, let alone any meaningful commitment to bring down the highest immigration levels in our history. The analysis was prepared by think tank Migrationwatch.
'Only last week a YouGov poll showed that more than 7 out of 10 adults want immigration cut by over 80%,' said Chairman Sir Andrew Green. See also the covering press release.
'Yet once again the main parties prefer to duck the issue and offer only platitudes. Either they simply do not understand the level of public concern out there - or they are displaying a wilful disregard of the public mood.
'They will therefore have only themselves to blame if the fringe parties do well in these elections,' said Sir Andrew.
On the Labour Party manifesto the Migrationwatch assessment is that while there is undoubtedly a major reform of the visa system there is no sign of any significant reduction in numbers.
The description of it as 'Australian style' is misleading. The Australians start from a limit and select within it. The new British system has no limits and is not intended to have any. Indeed it might well weaken immigration control rather than strengthen it.
There is no reference to the UK's population. Ministers have said that they will prevent the population of the UK reaching 70 million from the present 61 million. That will require a reduction of 75% in net immigration. Their own estimate is that measures announced so far will reduce it by about 5%.
The assessment of the LibDem proposals is that they are fine words with a predictable pro-European slant but in need of a reality check. What is their "coherent approach" to legal immigration from outside the EU when demography and circumstances differ enormously? And how does this square with national control of immigration. Their manifesto contains no sign of any serious policy for immigration.
The Conservative manifesto is cursory, indeed condescending, on this key issue - a single paragraph in a document of 28 pages stating that their MEPs will oppose harmonisation of policy on asylum, visas and immigration while supporting EU co-operation where it adds value. They say these sensitive matters are best dealt with as policies for national governments' competence and control.
The Migrationwatch analysis: This is completely vacuous. See Briefing Paper 11.12 for source references used in Migrationwatch's assessments.
Back to top
Media Information
Migrationwatch website has been revamped and updated. This should make it easier to find any information on immigration and asylum issues you may require. In particular, two overview papers - "What is the problem?" and "What can be done?" may prove to be useful.
Back to top
Public want a massive cut in immigration
Nearly 80 per cent concerned about the issue
A new poll has found that more than 7 out of 10 adults want immigration cut by over 80%. Just 1 in 20 adults support the current level.
The YouGov poll, which was commissioned by Migrationwatch for the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, found that 79 per cent of people were “concerned” or “very concerned” about the issue of immigration.
Net foreign immigration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants – has run at about 300,000 a year for the last five years.
- 17% of adults questioned believed that net foreign immigration should be reduced to 50,000 a year – a level last seen in the early 1990s.
- 39% of adults thought that there should be no net immigration (i.e. the number of immigrants should reflect the number of emigrants).
- 16% of adults thought there should be more emigrants than immigrants.
Over half ABC1s (52%) and C2DEs (58%) thought that immigration should be cut to either no net immigration or there should be more emigrants than migrants. Young people also think that immigration should be drastically reduced: a total of 63% of 18-34 year olds thought that net immigration should be either 50,000 a year, or there should be no net immigration; or that emigration should be greater than immigration.
There is also strong support for a significant cut in immigration in London, where nearly one third of the population are now immigrants themselves. 74% of Londoners are concerned or very concerned about the issue. Just 6% of Londoners support the current of level of net immigration. 65 % think that net immigration should be cut by 80% while 50% think that there should either be no net immigration, or emigration should be greater than immigration.
Concern about immigration was highest in the Midlands and Wales, where 82% of people were concerned or very concerned about immigration. Even in Scotland, which has received far fewer immigrants than England, 67% people were concerned or very concerned about the issue and 65% wanted to see a cut of 80% or more in the level of immigration.
Commenting on the findings, Frank Field MP and Nicholas Soames MP, Co-Chairmen of the Cross Party Group, said:
This poll shows the public’s concern about immigration is very widely felt and the demand for change very strong indeed. The issue must no longer be swept under the carpet at Westminster. If mainstream parties do not tackle these issues, the extremist parties will. Silence and inaction on immigration are the recruiting sergeants for the BNP.
Notes to editors
1. The Rt Hon Frank Field MP and The Hon Nicholas Soames MP are Co-Chairmen of the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration. The Group’s Vice-Chairmen are Lord (Bill) Jordan CBE (former President of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union) and Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury & Atcham). Other members include Tobias Ellwood MP, Roger Godsiff MP, Peter Ki;foyle MP, David Taylor MP, Lord Ahmed, Lord Anderson, Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury) Baroness Cox, Field Marshal Lord Inge KG, GCB, PC, DL, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Wakeham.
2. See the full results of the poll. They are also published on the balanced migration website: www.balancedmigration.com.
3. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2072 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 12th - 14th May 2009. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
Back to top
Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Could Cost Taxpayers 'Up to £1m' Per Family
At a time when the Government debt is at record levels, new research shows that the Mayor of London’s proposals for an amnesty for illegal immigrants would cost taxpayers, on average, an extra £1 million over the lifetime of each immigrant.
The calculation, by think tank Migrationwatch has, for the first time, estimated the ‘lifetime cost’ to the taxpayer of a 25 year old illegal immigrant who marries and has two children while earning close to the minimum wage.
Such an amnesty, for potentially up to a million people, has been proposed by a number of organisations and individuals but they have failed to consider the ‘hidden costs’ which will have massive implications for the public finances, says the report.
‘Our calculations show the numbers are truly enormous, adding an unacceptable – and entirely unnecessary - burden to the nation’s balance sheet at a time when Boris Johnson himself is writing about “the horrific state of the nation’s finances”,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.
Sir Andrew said that the paper concentrated on the costs of an amnesty for illegal immigrants but the figures are equally applicable to many of those who are granted asylum in Britain. While some will have qualifications and will be able to earn considerably more than the minimum wage, for others the entitlements, and therefore the costs, will be the same adding further to the demands on the public purse. This makes the failure of the Home Office to be represented at many asylum appeals all the more reprehensible.
The Migrationwatch paper examines the ‘total lifetime’ cost of a 25 year old immigrant who works for the minimum wage, marries, has two children, does not have a pension and therefore in retirement receives Pension Credit, and lives throughout in private rented housing. The calculations in this paper take the costs from the date of marriage at aged 25 through 40 years of work to retirement at 65 years of age and then 15 years of retirement.
The major component of the costings is Housing Benefit. An immigrant couple living on the minimum wages who then retire on Pension Credit, will receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit throughout their working life and throughout their retirement. The total Housing Benefit they receive will be £291,000 plus a further £19,000 in Council Tax Benefit.
In London, where some 70% of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
‘Clearly some of these immigrants will already be married, or will not marry, and some will work above the minimum wage so that their Housing Benefit will be lower,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘On the other hand some may have families of more than two children, thereby attracting more Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (which amounts to £2,925 per annum per additional child or £47,000 over the first 16 years of the child’s life). Or they may be unemployed – immigrants are, on average, more likely to be economically inactive than the UK population as a whole,’ he said.
For example compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively.
‘It is clear that not only is rewarding illegal behaviour wrong in principle but the experience of Spain and Italy shows conclusively that it encourages even more illegal immigration in anticipation of future amnesties. This is a ridiculous proposal which is bound to increase illegal immigration rather than reduce it. It is also a shocking waste of public money at a time when we can least afford it,’ said Sir Andrew.
Back to top