Category Archives: mass immigration

The EU migration and refugee crisis

The EU migration and refugee crisis

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have usually set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the state of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been phrased by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. If the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for Britain to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and the facilities and our culture and our countryside. Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to nearly two Colchesters to be built just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle.

The 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here means that a new London must be built and, given the migrants preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when politicians say that we should take more migrants whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money or using their own time and effort. The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your conscience!

Steve Uncles from the English Democrats on The Victoria Derbyshire program

 
BBC iPlayer – Victoria Derbyshire – 03/09/2015
Click here to watch >>>
 
Steve Uncles from the English Democrats on The Victoria Derbyshire program today talking about the Migrant Crisis. Watch from the start.
 
What do you think?

Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


I have posed the above title for this article as a question, but I think that once the question is asked the article answers the question affirmatively. As the English legal profession would have responded to such a question for centuries with the Latin phrase:- “res ipsa loquitur” – the thing speaks for itself!

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE


The OCR exam board unveils plans for a new history GCSE that will include a module on 2,000 years of immigration, from the Romans up to 21st century arrivals from Syria

Teenagers will be able to learn about the impact of immigration on Britain over the last 2,000 years under plans for a new history GCSE, it was announced today.

For the first time, a history module will be introduced covering new arrivals to the UK from the Romans up to modern day migrants such as those from Syria and eastern Europe.

The proposals – drawn up by one of the country’s leading exam boards – will assess the reasons for immigration, the experience of new entrants and the impact on the indigenous population.

The OCR board insisted pupils would find large numbers of parallels to the modern day, saying they would be “surprised to learn” that the black population of London may have numbered up to 15,000 in the 1750s and that at least 10 languages were used across medieval England.

Under plans, “Migration into Britain” will be included as part of an optional extended study theme, which will make up around 20 per cent of a new GCSE course being introduced in 2016.

OCR’s GCSE in history is currently the most popular version in the country, with more than 93,000 teenagers sitting it last year, the exam board said.

It is hoped the move will “reinvigorate interest in GCSE history” following claims from historical experts that rising numbers of schools were barring pupils from taking the subject beyond the age of 14.

The move is made as immigration continues to dominate the political agenda in the run up to the election. Last week, David Cameron promised the introduction of tough new rules on access to welfare benefits for migrants entering Britain from the EU.

But the government has insisted that the number of pupils sitting GCSEs in history had increased in recent years, with almost four-in-10 teenagers taking an exam in the subject in 2014.

Mike Goddard, the exam board’s head of history, said: “Migration is an ideal history topic for GCSE students to study, allowing them to consider fundamental historical concepts such as continuity, change and significance, rooted in the major events of England’s history.

“Doing this through the lens of the movement of diverse groups of people has the added benefit of contemporary relevance and will make for a rigorous, stimulating and enjoyable course.”

He said it would require pupils to explore and understand “the constant shifts in the British population”. This included the impact of invaders such as the Romans and the Vikings, the effect of the Empire on India and the West Indies and people coming to Britain to flee persecution including the Huguenots, Jews and, more recently, the Syrians.

The Government has already set out proposals to overhaul GCSEs will more rigorous subject content and a greater emphasis on exams as opposed to coursework.

Under the changes, new history exams require pupils to study a wider range of historical periods, a greater emphasis on British history and at least one extended project.

OCR is currently developing two new GCSEs in response to the reforms. One will focus on the “modern world” and the second will put more emphasis on a range of historical periods. As part of the courses, pupils will have the option of taking a dissertation-style project in the monarch, war and society or immigration.

The proposed new GCSEs will be submitted to the government next year and will be taught from 2016, subject to approval from Ofqual, the exams regulator.

Mr Goddard said: “Migration has been a constant and, in many important ways, a defining feature of our history. Tracking it thematically over time makes for a complex and fascinating study, will build on recent academic research, and will reveal many new and enlightening aspects of our past.”

Here is the link to the original>>> Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE – Telegraph

Explosive Report on Guy Fawkes’ day – Immigration of NO net economic benefit to UK!

Migration Watch UK have issued a Comment on CReAM’s revised report ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’.

CReAM is the acronym of
the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration. It is based at UCL and is part of the classic Leftist trick of creating a network of mostly bogus groups that pop up in an orchestrated or choreographed way to respond issues that are of interest to the Left. Here are some links:-

NORFACE – New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Co-operation in Europe NORFACE is a partnership between fourteen research councils to increase co-operation in research and research policy in Europe. Over the five project years, the partners will engage in a range of initiatives designed to deliver new levels of co-operative research policy and practice.
CReAM – Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration CReAM is an independent and interdisciplinary research centre located in the Department of Economics at University College London. CReAM’s research focuses on the causes, patterns and consequences of international population mobility and movements affecting UK, Europe and associated global processes.
European Migration Information Network Based in the Migration Research Unit (MRU) at UCL, it also provides a web-based system to quickly locate useful data related to migration issues.
The Economics and Politics of Employment, Migration and Social Justice Anglo German Foundation Project coordinated by Prof. Christian Dustman, University College London
Migration Research Unit The Migration Research Unit is based in the Department of Geography at University College London. It carries out high quality research on international population migration issues.

In this case most of the funding (maybe all) came from the EU funded “European Research Council”. So you, dear taxpayer, paid for it!

In assessing the credibility of Cream’s “Experts” you might like to bear this report in mind:- ” ‘Expert’ behind migrant report was man who said just 13,000 would come from Eastern Europe  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html#ixzz3IfPrzX8m
 
Here is Migration Watch’s comment:-
“This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150 billion in the last 17 years. As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures – which we dispute – their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population.”

Migration Watch UK Press Comment on CReAM’s revised report ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’

1. CReAM have now published a revised version of their paper first put out in November 2013 on the Fiscal effects of immigration to the UK. The original CReAM paper was given extensive media coverage and flourished as conclusive proof that immigration was a fiscal benefit to the UK, and that migrants contributed more in taxes than they took in public spending. It was claimed that their estimations were robust and certain and made on the most extreme of conservative assumptions.

Migration Watch published an assessment of this original paper highlighting that

The presentation of the paper had failed to highlight its own finding of an overall fiscal cost of some £95bn to the UK from 1995-2011.
Despite its claims of using ‘worst-case’ scenarios, in many cases the paper in fact detailed very much best case scenarios that were likely to have overstated the contribution made by migrants.
In areas where it was claimed that no evidence was available, there was such evidence and that a paper purporting to provide robust and certain results should take these into account.Our assessment suggested that the likely fiscal cost of migration over the period might well be over £140bn.

The authors have now carried out what they call ‘robustness checks’ using different scenarios that do take on some of the points raised by Migration Watch and others. None of these reduce the overall fiscal cost. In fact the overall finding – still absent from their headlines – now appears to be a fiscal cost of £114 billion [para 4.2.1] as a best case, and worse-case scenarios extending this to a cost of up to £159 billion [Table A7 Panel (a) (c)] . Quite different from their previous suggestion that the worst case was a cost of £95bn, and with the MW assessment well within this range.

In their press release the authors continue to avoid highlighting their overall finding of this high fiscal cost of migration of billions of pounds each and every year between 1995 and 2011.

Instead, as before, they cherry-pick particular periods or groups to distract attention from their overall result, which they now concede is an even higher cost than they previously thought.

2. Their original and much publicised headline that – despite the overall cost – EEA migrants since 2000 have contributed 34% more than they have received has been endlessly repeated as a justification for continued high levels of migration particularly from Eastern Europe. They have now revealed that even on their extreme and optimistic assumptions, migrants from Eastern Europe has barely paid its way and on what is now their best-case estimation contributed only just over 10% more than they received.

The authors continue to call this in their press release a ‘substantial contribution’ from the accession countries. Not only is this a much smaller amount than people have been led to believe, but to suggest that this is somehow more than their UK-born peers is simply wrong.

They put this contribution “mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits”. Actually, all this means is that they are more likely to be working-age and not receiving old-age pensions, and much is often made of the fact that these are young workers in the prime of life. But official statistics show that in the UK as a whole, working households without children actually contribute twice as much in tax as they receive in benefits. The assertion we hear so often that migrants in general and Eastern European workers in particular contribute far more than their UK-born counterparts is simply not comparing like with like and certainly not demonstrated in any way by this paper.

3. On specific points raised by Migration Watch:

We said that income should be taken into account in estimating means-tested benefits (including tax credits). This is an obvious and highly significant point that appears still not to have been addressed at all.

We said that attribution of company taxes by simple population share will distort the contribution of recent migrants. The authors have taken account of this in a variant scenario that – in our view correctly – no longer assumes that even the most recent migrants have just the same financial stake in UK plc as lifelong residents.

We said that employee wage data alone from the Labour Force Survey was unlikely to be a sufficient basis for any reliable estimation of personal taxes. The authors have now taken some account of this in varying their estimation of taxes paid by the self-employed.

We said that Business rates should not be attributed to self-employed individuals. The authors have taken account of this in a variant scenario that – in our view more correctly – attributes these in the same way as company taxation and better represents the financial stake that recent migrants have in UK plc.

We said that there are significant characteristics of migrants generally or specific groups that are likely to make a difference to fiscal impact. The authors have taken some account of this in relation to housing benefit, consumption taxes, and family size. On the other hand they do not appear to have taken account of some other issues we raised like inheritance tax or council tax.

The effect of even these partial changes has been to significantly up the authors’ estimate of the fiscal cost of migration and show that Migration Watch was on the right track and correct to draw attention to these issues.

4. These adjustments have a disproportionately large effect on the most recent migrant groups, particularly from Eastern Europe. In fact, the cumulative effect in the authors’ own alternative scenarios is to reduce the contribution made by this group to a mere £66 million over the ten years from 2001-2011 (Table A7 Panel (b) (d)). This is clearly likely to be less than the margin of error in the calculation, and shows that the fiscal contribution of Eastern European migrants – notwithstanding their high rates of employment and their youthful age-profile – may well be nothing at all.

Commenting on the report, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said:

“This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150 billion in the last 17 years. As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures – which we dispute – their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population.”

Explosive Report on Guy Fawkes’ day – Immigration of NO net economic benefit to UK!

Migration Watch UK have issued a Comment on CReAM’s revised report ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’.

CReAM is the acronym of
the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration. It is based at UCL and is part of the classic Leftist trick of creating a network of mostly bogus groups that pop up in an orchestrated or choreographed way to respond issues that are of interest to the Left. Here are some links:-

NORFACE – New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Co-operation in Europe NORFACE is a partnership between fourteen research councils to increase co-operation in research and research policy in Europe. Over the five project years, the partners will engage in a range of initiatives designed to deliver new levels of co-operative research policy and practice.
CReAM – Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration CReAM is an independent and interdisciplinary research centre located in the Department of Economics at University College London. CReAM’s research focuses on the causes, patterns and consequences of international population mobility and movements affecting UK, Europe and associated global processes.
European Migration Information Network Based in the Migration Research Unit (MRU) at UCL, it also provides a web-based system to quickly locate useful data related to migration issues.
The Economics and Politics of Employment, Migration and Social Justice Anglo German Foundation Project coordinated by Prof. Christian Dustman, University College London
Migration Research Unit The Migration Research Unit is based in the Department of Geography at University College London. It carries out high quality research on international population migration issues.

In this case most of the funding (maybe all) came from the EU funded “European Research Council”. So you, dear taxpayer, paid for it!

In assessing the credibility of Cream’s “Experts” you might like to bear this report in mind:- ” ‘Expert’ behind migrant report was man who said just 13,000 would come from Eastern Europe  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html#ixzz3IfPrzX8m
 
Here is Migration Watch’s comment:-
“This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150 billion in the last 17 years. As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures – which we dispute – their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population.”

Migration Watch UK Press Comment on CReAM’s revised report ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’

1. CReAM have now published a revised version of their paper first put out in November 2013 on the Fiscal effects of immigration to the UK. The original CReAM paper was given extensive media coverage and flourished as conclusive proof that immigration was a fiscal benefit to the UK, and that migrants contributed more in taxes than they took in public spending. It was claimed that their estimations were robust and certain and made on the most extreme of conservative assumptions.

Migration Watch published an assessment of this original paper highlighting that

The presentation of the paper had failed to highlight its own finding of an overall fiscal cost of some £95bn to the UK from 1995-2011.
Despite its claims of using ‘worst-case’ scenarios, in many cases the paper in fact detailed very much best case scenarios that were likely to have overstated the contribution made by migrants.
In areas where it was claimed that no evidence was available, there was such evidence and that a paper purporting to provide robust and certain results should take these into account.Our assessment suggested that the likely fiscal cost of migration over the period might well be over £140bn.

The authors have now carried out what they call ‘robustness checks’ using different scenarios that do take on some of the points raised by Migration Watch and others. None of these reduce the overall fiscal cost. In fact the overall finding – still absent from their headlines – now appears to be a fiscal cost of £114 billion [para 4.2.1] as a best case, and worse-case scenarios extending this to a cost of up to £159 billion [Table A7 Panel (a) (c)] . Quite different from their previous suggestion that the worst case was a cost of £95bn, and with the MW assessment well within this range.

In their press release the authors continue to avoid highlighting their overall finding of this high fiscal cost of migration of billions of pounds each and every year between 1995 and 2011.

Instead, as before, they cherry-pick particular periods or groups to distract attention from their overall result, which they now concede is an even higher cost than they previously thought.

2. Their original and much publicised headline that – despite the overall cost – EEA migrants since 2000 have contributed 34% more than they have received has been endlessly repeated as a justification for continued high levels of migration particularly from Eastern Europe. They have now revealed that even on their extreme and optimistic assumptions, migrants from Eastern Europe has barely paid its way and on what is now their best-case estimation contributed only just over 10% more than they received.

The authors continue to call this in their press release a ‘substantial contribution’ from the accession countries. Not only is this a much smaller amount than people have been led to believe, but to suggest that this is somehow more than their UK-born peers is simply wrong.

They put this contribution “mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits”. Actually, all this means is that they are more likely to be working-age and not receiving old-age pensions, and much is often made of the fact that these are young workers in the prime of life. But official statistics show that in the UK as a whole, working households without children actually contribute twice as much in tax as they receive in benefits. The assertion we hear so often that migrants in general and Eastern European workers in particular contribute far more than their UK-born counterparts is simply not comparing like with like and certainly not demonstrated in any way by this paper.

3. On specific points raised by Migration Watch:

We said that income should be taken into account in estimating means-tested benefits (including tax credits). This is an obvious and highly significant point that appears still not to have been addressed at all.

We said that attribution of company taxes by simple population share will distort the contribution of recent migrants. The authors have taken account of this in a variant scenario that – in our view correctly – no longer assumes that even the most recent migrants have just the same financial stake in UK plc as lifelong residents.

We said that employee wage data alone from the Labour Force Survey was unlikely to be a sufficient basis for any reliable estimation of personal taxes. The authors have now taken some account of this in varying their estimation of taxes paid by the self-employed.

We said that Business rates should not be attributed to self-employed individuals. The authors have taken account of this in a variant scenario that – in our view more correctly – attributes these in the same way as company taxation and better represents the financial stake that recent migrants have in UK plc.

We said that there are significant characteristics of migrants generally or specific groups that are likely to make a difference to fiscal impact. The authors have taken some account of this in relation to housing benefit, consumption taxes, and family size. On the other hand they do not appear to have taken account of some other issues we raised like inheritance tax or council tax.

The effect of even these partial changes has been to significantly up the authors’ estimate of the fiscal cost of migration and show that Migration Watch was on the right track and correct to draw attention to these issues.

4. These adjustments have a disproportionately large effect on the most recent migrant groups, particularly from Eastern Europe. In fact, the cumulative effect in the authors’ own alternative scenarios is to reduce the contribution made by this group to a mere £66 million over the ten years from 2001-2011 (Table A7 Panel (b) (d)). This is clearly likely to be less than the margin of error in the calculation, and shows that the fiscal contribution of Eastern European migrants – notwithstanding their high rates of employment and their youthful age-profile – may well be nothing at all.

Commenting on the report, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said:

“This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150 billion in the last 17 years. As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures – which we dispute – their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population.”