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 November 2002
November 29, 2002
Latest figures for asylum seekers demonstrate failure of Government to protect our borders
November 28, 2002
'Amnesty' suggestion for illegal immigrants, an 'extremely foolish proposal. The following is a comment from Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MigrationwatchUK, on the reported suggestions by the House of Lords European Committee on November 28, 2002 to offer
November 25, 2002
With 1 in 20 of London's population now a refugee or asylum seeker, MigrationwatchUK seeks enquiry into 'misuse' of NHS
November 2, 2002
The following is a commentary on the recent Economist survey of migration from MigrationwatchUK.
Full Text of Press Release : November 2002
Latest figures for asylum seekers demonstrate failure of Government to protect our borders
Commenting on the statistics on asylum seekers for July to September 2002, published on November 29, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MigrationwatchUK said:
'The latest figures for asylum seekers are bad news for the Government and for the country.
They show that Government policy has completely failed to achieve any reduction in the numbers coming here, which continue to climb. Meanwhile they have failed to remove all but a small percentage of those who have no right to remain.
The last quarter was the highest on record and 20% above the same quarter last year. Including dependants, asylum seekers are now arriving at the rate of 116,000 a year. Meanwhile, removal of those who have no right to remain in Britain are still only at a rate of 14,000 a year. By contrast, other countries in Europe such as Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Norway are achieving substantial reductions.
We welcome the end of the policy of Exceptional Leave to Remain because of the way in which it has been abused as a 'back door' into Britain. For example in the years 1997- 99 virtually all applicants from Iraq or Afghanistan were granted either asylum or ELR. It is hardly a surprise that applications from both countries took off in the following two years.
Our concern therefore is that similar mistakes will be made again.
There is a real danger that the new status of 'humanitarian protection'
will simply be substituted for ELR and that particular interest groups will pressurise the Government.
The people of Britain have a right to expect their Government to protect our borders. On today's evidence they are clearly failing in that task.'
Back to top
'Amnesty' suggestion for illegal immigrants, an 'extremely foolish proposal. The following is a comment from Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MigrationwatchUK, on the reported suggestions by the House of Lords European Committee on November 28, 2002 to offer
'An amnesty for illegal immigrants, if that is what is proposed, would be an extremely foolish proposal. There can be no effective border control without effective removal. An amnesty would totally undermine efforts to remove those who have no right to be in Britain, and it would encourage still more illegal immigrants to come here.'
Back to top
With 1 in 20 of London's population now a refugee or asylum seeker, MigrationwatchUK seeks enquiry into 'misuse' of NHS
With 1 in 20 of the population of London now either a refugee or asylum seeker, a leading migration think-tank is calling for an immediate investigation into the impact this is having on health provision in the capital.
Giving evidence to an investigative review of asylum seekers and refugees in London by the Public Service Committee of the London Assembly on 26th November, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, will say that a full and honest debate about the impact of current large scale immigration into Britain - particularly London and the south east where 2/3rds of migrants settle - requires that the costs be considered alongside any benefits.
'In a recent report we said that Government claims that migrants bring net benefit to the nation's finances are quite wrong. They did not include many of the associated costs,' said Sir Andrew.
One very important omission was the cost of extra health facilities for these additional residents - some 350,000 to 400,000 people according to the Assembly's own estimates - equivalent to about two London Boroughs.
Those who are here legally are rightly entitled to health care but, over the last 10 years a third of a million asylum claimants have been refused while there is no evidence that they have left the UK. Others are smuggled in but there is nothing to stop them claiming health care. Nor is there any effective check on tourists, visitors or those who overstay their visas.
Sir Andrew said that he was very surprised that the objectives of the committee's review dealt only with the provision of services and support for asylum seekers and refugees. The major impact on London's indigenous population was being completed ignored.
'In fact, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence of widespread abuse of the NHS by those not entitled to its benefits,' said Sir Andrew. 'People working in the service are bound by confidentiality agreements and by data protection. The result is that a serious problem is simply being covered up and as a consequence is one which the authorities are failing to address,' he said.
'I am therefore calling for an immediate investigation of the misuse of the NHS. Its outcome will be highly relevant to the debate on entitlement cards. This issue has been ducked for too long. It must now be tackled. We must not leave the field open to those - particularly on the far right - who are exploiting the concerns of the people of London for their own ends,' he said.
Back to top
The following is a commentary on the recent Economist survey of migration from MigrationwatchUK.
The main argument put forward is that, while the gaps in process of traded goods are now much smaller as a result of trade liberalisation, the gaps in wages are still very wide. This, in theory, permits large gains from liberalising immigration restrictions, particularly for unskilled labour where the gaps are widest.
However, the survey points out (Page 13) that skill levels affect costs. Migrants from poor countries are much more likely to claim benefits than migrants from rich ones; unskilled migrants are much more likely than native or skilled migrants to lose their jobs in a recession. Furthermore, the low wages that make unskilled immigrants so attractive to employers condemn their children to poverty and struggling inner city schools. In the next generation,, the children of the unskilled are not keen to work for low pay in jobs that natives shun. After all they are natives too. This can lead to alienation and, sometimes, criminal behaviour.
The survey comments (page 10) that Europe took an unfortunate road in the 1960's, importing low wage migrants to do industrial jobs. Now these jobs have one but the migrants are still here, trapped, with difficult consequences for their children. It comments further that the biggest challenges of integration, and the highest costs, arise if the unskilled settle down and have children. If society fails to integrate the next generations, these costs may stretch far into the future.
The survey points out that a report by DFID and the ILO last year found that some developing countries had lost around 30% of their highly educated workforce. The survey comments that, to minimise harm to sending countries, migration should be temporary. It does not explain how this can be achieved. As regards the impact on rich countries, the survey states that migration probably raises the living standard of the rich and increases returns to capital (page 14). The mobility of immigrants may also help the economy to run at a higher speed than might otherwise be possible thus counteracting some of the inflexibility of job markets, especially in Europe.
Against that, unskilled immigration may discourage investment.
It may also reduce the pay of the unskilled natives. The survey
concludes (page 14) that the overall benefits of immigration may
be modest and unevenly distributed. An America National Research
Council (NRC) a study estimated the benefits to be up to $10 billion
a year - chicken feed in an economy of $10 trillion. It quoted the
Rand Corporation as saying that 'The economic pluses and minuses
are much smaller than the political and emotional salience.'
In its concluding section, the survey suggests that the challenge
is to manage the labour market not to shut down migration. It suggests
that winning a political consensus for an orderly policy might mean
picking the migrants - for example the skilled and those whose culture
has prepared them for European society. It also suggests that there
should be insistence upon a working knowledge of the host country's
language.
The survey suggests that policy should be drawn up in consultation
with the sending countries, that it should apply economic instruments,
and that it should encourage temporary rather than permanent movement.
It suggests that there should be no controls at all on the movement
of labour among countries with similar levels of income per had.
For others, it suggests that a visa fee should be set somewhat below
the cost of paying a trafficker. In addition, all employers might
be asked to pay a levy - perhaps in the form of a higher rate of
pay roll tax - to employ foreign born workers. The survey does not
address the question as to whether the attraction of a welfare state
might not lead to overwhelming demand for such visas.
The survey suggests that there should be temporary visa available
for skilled worker which should run for a 2 -r 3 year period. In
fact, this system has existed in Britain for 80 years in the shape
of the work permit scheme, now being enormously expanded.
A further idea is that immigrants should but a bond, priced slightly
above the smugglers going rate, to enter legally. The bond would
be repaid to the migrant on return to hi own country.
COMMENT
These are interesting idea but they cannot be combined with the
present legal framework. It is already proving almost impossible
to return those
who have no right to be in Britain. For example 9 out of 10 asylum
applicants remain in Britain whether or not their case is accepted.
Furthermore, present legislation will permit migrants to bring their
relatives to join them, thus greatly increasing the numbers. Indeed
a move to an entirely economic framework whereby workers came and
returned home (as, for example,
in Saudi Arabia) would fall foul of European Human Rights legislation.
That said, the editorial in the same edition, makes very interesting
reading.
It recognises that immigration is disruptive to neighbourhoods,
that an economic slowdown could breed greater resentment and that
there are concerns about security and health implication.
It argue that 'The first essential is to accept voters' right to
a say about who and how many can enter must take precedence over
the rights of those unlucky enough to be born in poorer parts of
the world.' The task of politicians is to persuade voters that immigration
is not only inevitable but also in their long-term interests. That
will only be possible if migration is managed carefully.
The editorial continues that illegal immigration currently running
at about 500,000 a year into both the United States and the European
Union, indicated a breakdown of Government control. Even some legal
routes have become particularly prone to abuse. The include two
that are especially sensitive in liberal democracies; asylum claims
and family reunion. In particular, a United Nations convention (on
refugees) more than half a century old is surely no longer a strong
enough basis for deciding whether to admit ten of thousands of people
each year. The editorial calls for a more selective policy, not
a more restrictive one. This would mean favouring not just the skilled
but those from culturally similar backgrounds and insisting that
migrants learn the local language quickly. Race and religion must
be a part of the public discussion of migration. Rich countries
need unskilled workers and should create legal ways for them to
enter. There should also be measures to encourage their return home.
The final sentence is rather inconsistent with the rest of the editorial
and the survey; 'Open the door, and let in new idea, new foods,
new businesses and a new buzz along with those eager new faces.'
The editorial and survey usefully advance the debate but neither
bring out the current scale of immigration - about ¼ million
per hear. This must be tackled a part of a more selective approach
with the magazine advocates.
Back to top