UK Migration Issues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6088861/Migration-82-UKs-population-growth.html  Quoting:

* Some 82 per cent of population rise from 2001 to 2016 attributed to immigration
* Study by MigrationWatch exposed how impact of this movement is understated
* Around 5.4million people added to UK over 15 years result of mass immigration

Immigration is responsible for more than four fifths of the unprecedented surge in Britain’s population this century, a report claims today.

Some 82 per cent of the huge rise from 2001 to 2016 can be attributed to the arrival of immigrants and, subsequently, their UK-born children, according to research by the think-tank MigrationWatch. Its study has exposed how the impact of immigration has been understated, and claims that of the 6.6million extra people added to the population during those 15 years, 5.4million were the result of mass immigration – the biggest ever wave of incomers.

Because the Office for National Statistics (ONS) failed to count 2.3million children born to foreign parents as migrants – giving a lower total of 3.1million, or 47 per cent of the rise – the effect of the previous Labour government’s open-door policy was not calculated correctly.

MigrationWatch, which carried out the study using official data, said it was undeniable that the huge scale of net migration had driven population growth. It said that after Labour made it easier for migrants to come to Britain, the face of the country changed as public services including schools and hospitals came under pressure and wages fell.

Lord Green of Deddington, chairman of the think-tank, which campaigns for tighter immigration controls, said the paper ‘shone a light on this elephant in the room’. He said it demonstrated it was ‘simply not possible to discuss the state of our public services without considering immigration as a major factor’, adding: ‘The Government have been remarkably coy about the true impact of immigration on our public services. It is almost as if officialdom preferred to avoid the issue as far as they possibly can.

‘This has meant that very few people realise that over 80 per cent of our population increase in recent years has been due to immigration. The Government must get serious about reducing numbers. Immigration on the current scale is rapidly changing the size and nature of our society.’

. . . A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We are committed to bringing net migration down to sustainable levels. There is no consent in Britain for uncontrolled immigration.’

Sick. And it’s happening here too. How to change the face of Britain.
Sooner, the typical brits will be Saadiq Khan

Well, at least they're protesting this in Germany. Perhaps all isn't lost.

http://mailonline.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/showarticle.aspx?article=625d2cca-ad47-4721-8d3f-5d01a69a8bd3&key=DlsEr4Si%2f6hY9sBpZZhMfQ%3d%3d&issue=10482018083100000000001001

Warning on influx from outside EU

"Ministers have ‘failed to make serious efforts’ to reduce immigration from outside Europe, a damning report claims today. MigrationWatch, a leading think tank, accused the Government of ‘taking their eye off the ball’ over the massive numbers of non-EU migrants coming to live in Britain.

Net migration, the number arriving minus those leaving, from the rest of the world was a record 235,000 in the year to March – equivalent to a city the size of Wolverhampton. It accounts for nearly threequarters of the total net migration of 271,000, official figures show. The majority of the new arrivals are from South and East Asia. This is despite the Home Office having considerable powers to control this migration, unlike from the EU under free movement rules.

The paper called for Home Secretary Sajid Javid to ‘get into gear’ over the issue. But the Home Office said migration has fallen below peak levels."

I've been saying this for the last couple of years - the Government has had the opportunity to reduce immigration from outside the European Union all the time but has done very little. They are obviously not committed to controlling immigration but they still win elections and the main opposition parties would be even worse on the issue. What can you do when people are stupid?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6187139/Illegal-immigration-Britain-rising-70-000-year.html

Illegal immigration into Britain is rising by 70,000 every year, as campaigners brand figures 'scandalous'

* The Home Office says there are around 430,000 people living in the UK illegally
* Most of those have over-stayed visas or sneaked into the UK through Europe
* The total number including those who have escaped deportation is one million

Illegal immigration into Britain is rising by 70,000 a year, a damning report has claimed. The figure includes foreigners who have over-stayed visas, failed asylum seekers and migrants who have sneaked into the UK in the back of lorries. But it does not cover criminals who have escaped deportation. It is believed the total number of illegal immigrants in the country stands at more than a million.

. . . Researchers estimated there were 83,600 potential over-stayers a year. Another 12,850 migrants were thought to be sneaking into Britain hidden in trucks, cars and trains, while 8,500 failed asylum seekers had not left the country. This meant a total of 104,950 migrants staying in the UK without permission each year. But only 35,000 on average annually were removed or deported, said MigrationWatch.

The net rise in illegal immigration totals 70,000 a year – a staggering 700,000 over the course of a decade. MigrationWatch acknowledged that the figures were a 'rough estimate'. But Lord Green, the group's chairman, said: 'The scale of illegal immigration to Britain is a scandal that has gone on for too long. It undermines public acceptance of genuine refugees and is damaging to community relations generally.'

The report recommended a £100million boost to immigration enforcement, a major increase in the size of detention centres and the introduction of identity cards.

A Home Office spokesman said: 'We do not recognise the estimate provided by MigrationWatch UK. We are committed to reducing the size of the illegal population. When someone has no leave to remain in the UK, we expect them to leave the country voluntarily. Where they do not, we will seek to enforce their departure.'

It's a disgrace. I don't understand the patience of the British people. there doesn't have to be a great deal of violence or anything, just a consistent movement through voting away of the people who aren't doing their jobs and voting in people who are, plus protests and the like. Being called "racist" has no power if no one cares.

OsricPearl wrote:It's a disgrace. I don't understand the patience of the British people. there doesn't have to be a great deal of violence or anything, just a consistent movement through voting away of the people who aren't doing their jobs and voting in people who are, plus protests and the like. Being called "racist" has no power if no one cares.

Unlike most other European countries, we are stuck with an old fashioned voting system which makes it hard for a new or small party to gain a foothold and grow in strength. There's a long-running campaign to change to a system of proportional representation but it's a fairly intellectual matter and many people don't understand it well enough. So they keep on voting in tribal ways or for narrow financial reasons.


The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have outlined a new immigration policy for when we've left the European Union. Essentially, anyone who wants to work here, wherever they are from, will have to be 'highly skilled' and be lined up for quite a high paid job. BUT . . .

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/555 Quoting:

Response to PM's announcement on post-Brexit immigration system

Commenting, Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said:

"The public should stand by for a gold rush by employers as they race to fish in an unlimited pool of skilled foreign workers rather than train their own. This new immigration system will be widened to include medium skills, there will be no limit on numbers, no checks as to whether a British worker is available – only a minimum salary which can easily be manipulated. With immigration adding one million to our population every three years we must get the numbers down. This new system could well add to net migration. If so, the public would rightly see it as a major step backwards."

Neon Knight wrote:

OsricPearl wrote:It's a disgrace. I don't understand the patience of the British people. there doesn't have to be a great deal of violence or anything, just a consistent movement through voting away of the people who aren't doing their jobs and voting in people who are, plus protests and the like. Being called "racist" has no power if no one cares.

Unlike most other European countries, we are stuck with an old fashioned voting system which makes it hard for a new or small party to gain a foothold and grow in strength. There's a long-running campaign to change to a system of proportional representation but it's a fairly intellectual matter and many people don't understand it well enough. So they keep on voting in tribal ways or for narrow financial reasons.


The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have outlined a new immigration policy for when we've left the European Union. Essentially, anyone who wants to work here, wherever they are from, will have to be 'highly skilled' and be lined up for quite a high paid job. BUT . . .

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/555 Quoting:

Response to PM's announcement on post-Brexit immigration system

Commenting, Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said:

"The public should stand by for a gold rush by employers as they race to fish in an unlimited pool of skilled foreign workers rather than train their own. This new immigration system will be widened to include medium skills, there will be no limit on numbers, no checks as to whether a British worker is available – only a minimum salary which can easily be manipulated. With immigration adding one million to our population every three years we must get the numbers down. This new system could well add to net migration. If so, the public would rightly see it as a major step backwards."

It's exactly the same way in the US. I'm thinking we should have adopted a more parliamentary system here in the US.

Neon Knight wrote:

OsricPearl wrote:It's a disgrace. I don't understand the patience of the British people. there doesn't have to be a great deal of violence or anything, just a consistent movement through voting away of the people who aren't doing their jobs and voting in people who are, plus protests and the like. Being called "racist" has no power if no one cares.

Unlike most other European countries, we are stuck with an old fashioned voting system which makes it hard for a new or small party to gain a foothold and grow in strength. There's a long-running campaign to change to a system of proportional representation but it's a fairly intellectual matter and many people don't understand it well enough. So they keep on voting in tribal ways or for narrow financial reasons.

This sums it up nicely:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/dup-deals-and-the-warped-world-of-first-past-the-post-coalitions/

" . . . a general election in the UK is actually 650 unrelated mini-elections. To win a seat a candidate doesn’t need to win the support of the majority of voters in their constituency, just one more than whoever comes second. So if supporters of a party are spread out around the country, they can get no MPs at all, even if they number in the hundreds of thousands.

The outcome is a parliament that doesn’t properly represent the country, as millions of voters effectively elect nobody at all.

It’s why the Green Party (with 526,000 supporters spread-out across England and Wales) only have one MP, and the DUP (with 292,000 supporters condensed in the north-east of Northern Ireland) have ten MPs. Likewise, the Conservatives received 42% of the vote and got 49% of the seats.

The long and short of it is that Westminster’s voting system prioritises the geographical concentration of votes over most other factors.

The supposed benefit of First Past the Post is that it places a single party with a workable majority in government. A quick look at the last three general elections would quickly knock that notion on the head, yet parties still campaign on the basis that they will be in government on their own. So, rather than discuss who their likely partners might be during the public campaign so voters can make an informed decision, they put together a deal after the election."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6441761/Immigration-RISES-273-000-three-times-Governments-target.html Quoting:

Immigration RISES again: Non-EU migrants hit the highest level in 14 YEARS while arrivals from the EU are at the lowest level since 2012

* In the year to June 2018, 625,000 moved to Britain, while around 351,000 left
* The ONS said this meant net arrivals of around 273,000 people over 12 months
* Net immigration accelerated slightly in the first half of 2018, according to figures
* Growth in the population peaked in 2014 and 2015 at more than 330,000

Net immigration to Britain has risen to 273,000 a year as a surge in arrivals from outside the EU offset a slowdown in flows from within the bloc. People moving to the UK from EU countries was at its lowest level since 2012 in figures to June 2018. But overall immigration rose because arrivals from the rest of the world - which hit a 14-year high, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. In the year to March 2018, the figure for net arrivals was 267,000 people. The peak in arrivals in 2014 and 2015 was more than 330,000 people.



. . . Despite net migration for EU citizens being the lowest since 2012, EU citizens continue to add to the population of the UK. An estimated 74,000 more came to the UK than left in the year ending June 2018 - with 219,000 arrivals and 145,000 departures. Arrivals from the so-called EU8 - countries that joined the bloc in 2004 including Poland and the Czech Republic - have fallen particularly sharply meaning around 14,000 people left overall.

The biggest group of net arrivals in the year to June 2018 was from Asia. There were 208,000 new people living in the UK and just 43,000 departures - a net figure of 164,000.

. . . Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: 'The net inflow from the EU is still roughly the size of the British Army despite cries of alarm from industry over Brexit. Meanwhile, non-EU net migration at 248,000 is an astonishing number. It is the highest for 14 years and the result of the Government's failure to take effective action to reduce it over recent years.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47400679 Quoting:

Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says. Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004. In contrast, net migration from EU countries has continued to fall to a level last seen in 2009.



The figures are the last set before the UK is due to leave the EU next month. And separate figures released by the Home Office show the number of EU nationals applying for British citizenship hit an all-time high last year, rising by 23% to about 48,000.

In December, the prime minister said the government was sticking to its longstanding ambition to bring net migration down to the "tens of thousands". The ONS has put net migration in the year to September at 283,000. It says more than 625,000 people moved to the UK and about 345,000 people left.

Let's look at a similar graph for the United States:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6903491/Net-migration-Londons-population-soar-10-million-2035.html  Quoting:

The number of people living in England will top 60 million by 2029 unless immigration levels fall radically, an official assessment said yesterday. The 60 million figure is an increase of more than four million over the most recent estimates and indicates that Brexit turmoil and questions over future migration rules have yet to curb the growth in population.

The estimate was published by the Office for National Statistics, which said that in 2029 numbers in England will reach 60,207,000 if high migration levels continue. Its projection is based on the assumption that net migration – the number of people added to the population each year after both immigration and emigration have been counted – will continue at 215,000. The population projections also account for birth and death rates and life expectancy, as well as movement within the country.

They show that population pressure will continue to be at its greatest in London and southern England, where there is deepening concern over high housing prices and rents, poor transport and road congestion, a shortage of school places, and supplies of power and water. The growing numbers of people will add to pollution from traffic fumes and other sources, and increase demand for building on countryside . . .

Lord Green of Deddington, chief of the MigrationWatch think tank, said: ‘It is time that people realised just how rapidly our population is growing. The principal projection assumes that the level of international migration to England will be significantly lower than is currently the case – a scenario that is not likely. On the more realistic high migration scenario, England is projected to hit nearly 60 million by 2026.’

https://theconversation.com/what-the-uk-population-will-look-like-by-2061-under-hard-soft-or-no-brexit-scenarios-117475

What the UK population will look like by 2061 under hard, soft or no Brexit scenarios







"Under the Brexit scenario – the map [below] shows the soft Brexit scenario but the results for hard Brexit are very similar – diversity in 2061 would be higher across the UK, with particularly high increases for those local authorities bordering the larger cities."



"Our research shows that under all three different potential Brexit scenarios where international migration assumptions were tested, the UK population is projected to increase in size, become more ethnically diverse and the population structure shifts to one which is older . . . Those planning future immigration policy would be wise to consider what this means for public services and for society."

I don't understand. You live in an island. You don't need anymore people. Don't they care about the environment and all of that?