Press Releases
Previous Press Releases
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001December November October September August July June May April March February January
News Articles for July 2006
July 11, 2006
Amnesty for illegal immigrants would overwhelm social housing provision
July 5, 2006
Public comprehensively reject calls for amnesty for illegal immigrants
July 3, 2006
EU Commission spokesman denies that ECHR is essential to membership of the EU.
Full Text of Press Release : July 2006
July 11, 2006
Amnesty for illegal immigrants would overwhelm social housing provision
If an amnesty were to be granted to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants thought to be in the UK it would take 20-30 years – at the present rate of building - to provide social housing for them, says a new report out today. And it would only be possible to meet even this timetable if no further housing was allocated to those now on the waiting list.
This is one of the key findings of the report by think-tank Migrationwatch ‘The impact of asylum and possible amnesty on social housing’ (Read Report) which also points out that the number of asylum seekers granted permission to stay in the UK in recent years has exceeded the number of new social houses built in the same period by nearly 50,000.
‘The fair allocation of social housing is extremely difficult to achieve at the best of times,’ said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green. ‘When you add in the unprecedented rise in asylum seekers granted permission to stay here in the last few years and then consider an amnesty against a background of low levels of construction, there is a real risk of harming social cohesion.’
He said that applicants who are granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) in the United Kingdom become eligible for social housing and, while eligibility does not mean automatic access to social housing, it is likely that the circumstances of people given such status, particularly those with families, will warrant their being placed high on the priority list.
‘We support granting refuge to those genuinely fleeing persecution but we also want to see joined up government. The government should have realised that the numbers to whom they were granting permission to stay were very large in comparison to their provision for new social housing,’ he said.
Sir Andrew said that those calling for an amnesty for illegal immigrants had clearly given no thought whatsoever to its impact on social housing.
‘To listen to the siren voices calling for an amnesty would not only encourage still further illegal immigration but it would devastate the housing lists which are already under great pressure as a result of immigration. There is, rightly, overwhelming opposition to such a move, as our opinion poll showed only this week, with 72% against the idea and only 11% in favour,’ he said.
Back to top
July 5, 2006
Public comprehensively reject calls for amnesty for illegal immigrants
The public has overwhelmingly rejected the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
In a poll for think tank Migrationwatch, conducted by YouGov, (see results*) 72% either strongly disagreed (45%) or disagreed (27%) with an amnesty while it was supported by just 11%. The results were broadly consistent across social class and region – except Scotland - with a stronger bias in the older age ranges.
‘One of the most fundamental responsibilities of Government is the control of a nation’s borders. However you dressed it up, an amnesty would be a clear admission of failure and an invitation to others to try their luck,’ said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green. ‘Wherever amnesties have been held they have failed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. In fact they have simply made a bad situation worse.
‘An amnesty in Britain would cost the taxpayer at least £500 million a year. Our poll shows that the public fully understand that and are not fooled by the ‘spin’ put out it by its supporters in an attempt to “soften up” public opinion on the issue.’
The poll shows there is also a widespread and very strong feeling that the current level of immigration is too high. 75% either strongly agreed (47%) or agreed (28%) that there are too many immigrants coming to Britain. Just 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
And when asked if they thought the Government was in control of immigration into Britain a massive 81% either strongly disagreed (53%) or disagreed (28%) with just 8% strongly agreeing or agreeing.
There is also a feeling among a majority of the public that the highest level of immigration in our history is having a negative effect on British society.
When asked ‘whether Britain has been changed for the worse by immigration because something of our traditional culture has been lost’ 55% either strongly agreed (31%) or agreed (24%) with 27% either strongly disagreeing or disagreeing.
There was a similar division of opinion over the statement ‘We need immigrants to do the jobs that British people will not do.’ 52% strongly disagreed (23%) or disagreed (29%) but 26% strongly agreed (4%) and agreed (22%).
‘These findings are a damming indictment of the Government’s record on immigration and show just how out of touch they are with strong public feeling on the issue,’ said Sir Andrew. ‘They show widespread frustration that the legitimate concerns of the public on this major issue are effectively being ignored by a government that refuses to place any limits on immigration.’
* To view these results you may require Microsoft Excel Viewer. Please download from this link.
Back to top
July 3, 2006
EU Commission spokesman denies that ECHR is essential to membership of the EU.
Asked by the BBC's Mark Mardell whether if a country left the ECHR it would have to leave the EU, Jose Manuel Barroso's spokesman replied at the midday press briefing ( on 26 June): "the European Convention on Human Rights is an instrument of the Council of Europe, and so strictly speaking, this is not part of the EU acquis. This being said, the European Convention on Human Rights, which by the way is older than the European Union, and is also subject of a very elaborate case law, is very largely identical to what is seen as the basic principles of fundamental rights applicable throughout the member states. It has been used by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice as an important source for establishing what fundamental rights standards can be and should be and it is clearly an instrument which also has an impact that goes beyond the Council of Europe proper. But strictly speaking it is not at this stage an instrument of the European Union."
Comment: The EU requires as a condition of membership basic adherence to human rights, which has traditionally been taken as membership of the ECHR but this is not a legal condition of membership. Furthermore, the ECHR is not incorporated into EU law, so contravening it does not necessarily mean contravening EU rules.
Back to top