G.L-W.: Documents, Treaties, Acts & Essays

A Compilation of Documents, Treaties, Acts, Agreements, Quotes etc. mainly pertaining to Constitution, EU etc.

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

IMMIGRATION – Ukip Policy!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 24/10/2014

.

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

 

IMMIGRATION – Ukip Policy!

IMMIGRATION POLICY - EUkip 01

1 Immigration: Enough is Enough
Research by Fiona Wise
The assistance of Professor Stephen Bush,
Lynnda Robson, & the Members of the
UKIP Immigration Committee 2007 is gratefully
acknowledged
Immigration:
Action Overdue!
By Gerard Batten MEP
UK Independence Party
UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

1. Introduction
2. Executive Summary
The Problems
The Solutions – Policy Recommendations
3. Britain, a Nation of Migrants? Immigration 43AD to 1945
4. Overcrowded Britain
5. UK Post-War Immigration 1945 to 2008
6. Illegal Immigration
7. The Asylum System and its Abuses
8. The European Union and Mass Immigration
9. Demographic Changes Caused by Mass Immigration
10. Economic Effects of Mass Immigration
11. Cultural and Social Effects of Mass Immigration
12. The Islamic Dimension
13. Myths and Realities Concerning Immigration
14. How Other Countries Have Tackled Immigration
15. Who Benefits Most from Mass Immigration?
16. Appendix I. Members of the Immigration Policy Committee
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Contents
1
2 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
Until relatively recently, when the problems created by mass immigration over
several decades could no longer be ignored, anyone who dared to speak out
on the issue was likely to be labelled a racist or xenophobe by the political
and media elite; but comments that might have been shouted down just a
few years ago are now the common currency of the headlines and editorial
columns of some of the national newspapers.
The UK Independence Party is not against some controlled immigration
where it is in the interests of Britain and its citizens. UKIP is not antiimmigrant,
racist or xenophobic. UKIP has members who were themselves
once immigrants; some are the descendants of immigrants; some
are employed by immigrants, or employ immigrants themselves; some
have married immigrants. UKIP wants an immigration policy designed
for the benefit of the British people, whatever their race or ethnic
origins, not one designed for the benefit of foreigners.
The situation is now so out of control, and potential dangers so great, that
only policies of a radical nature can redress the situation. The British must
begin to value their country and their citizenship in the way that countries
such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do; otherwise we face
a declining quality of life and grave social dangers in the future. Failure by
mainstream political parties to seriously address the issues may drive some
voters with legitimate and genuine objections to continued mass immigration
(especially those at the lower end of the economic scale) into the hands of political
parties whose aims are not controlled and limited immigration but the
long-term hidden agenda of ethnic cleansing.
We all know immigrants and the descendants of immigrants who are
hard-working and law-abiding. People who contribute to the economy and are
valued members of society. Many such people are as vocal in their criticism of
the current immigration and asylum policies as anyone else. Now is the time
to be bold, to say what the vast majority of the British people, of whatever
racial and ethnic origin, want to hear, and to speak up for our country.
The Executive Summary under Section 2 lays out the problems surrounding
immigration, and then gives the solutions as policy recommendations:
sections 3 to 15 show the relevant background information. They policies may
be subject to further refinement and improvement if that proves necessary.
UKIP believes our policy recommendations are necessary if there is to be
any serious attempt to address the issue of uncontrolled and unlimited
immigration into Britain.
1. Introduction
Immigration: Action Overdue! 3
4 Immigration: Action Overdue!
The Problems
1. Since the end of World War II Britain has experienced mass immigration on
an unprecedented scale. From 1997 when Labour came to power, to 2008,
at over 6 million immigrants have come to Britain, almost 4 million people
have left, leaving a net population gain of over 2 million. The estimate for
illegal immigrants is up to one million, putting the overall figure for the net
population gain for 1997-2008 at about 3 million. Currently immigration adds
one million new people to the population every five years – equivalent to a
new city the size of Birmingham.
2. It is simply not true that Britain has always been a ‘nation of migrants’;
for the 879 years prior to 1945 Britain had very little or comparatively moderate
rates of immigration, in terms of both numbers and as a proportion of the
existing population.
3. Britain is already one of the most densely populated countries in the
world. At current immigration levels, by the middle of this century the population
will have risen by over 25% to more than 75 million people; and yet the
Government sees no limits on the number of people that can continue to be
admitted. England, where the vast majority of immigrants settle, bears the
brunt and the rate of population increase is unsustainable.
4. The current Labour Government’s policy of mass immigration has
been deliberately imposed on the British people without consulting them,
and with the support of the Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties. It can
only be described as uncontrolled, unlimited, and indiscriminate (in the true
meaning of that word).
5. The demographic consequences of mass immigration are that, on current
trends, within a few decades the majority of the people living in England will
be immigrants, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants. The English
will become a minority in their own land.
6. The purported economic benefits of mass immigration are demonstrably
untrue. The costs of mass immigration are however only too visible:
on the health and education services, on housing, roads and public transport,
on the social services and benefits systems, and on the general quality of life
due to over-population.
7. As a member of the European Union, Britain has lost full control of her
borders and immigration and asylum policy.
8. The vast majority of people coming to Britain from the European
2. Executive Summary
1
Union now come from its poorest countries and they show few signs of
returning home, even in the current economic climate. The situation regarding
European Union citizens living in the UK can only be regulated when we leave
the European Union and regain control of our borders.
9. Unlimited, uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration benefits the
immigrants, the political parties promoting immigration in order to secure
the votes of migrants, and employers benefiting from a supply of cheap labour:
it does not benefit the vast majority of the indigenous population.
10. A significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in
Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society. This
problem is encouraged by the official promotion of multiculturalism which
threatens social cohesion.
The Solutions – Policy Recommendations
1. UKIP calls for an end to mass and uncontrolled immigration. Any future
immigration must be strictly controlled and limited, and only where it can be
clearly shown to be in the interests of the British people.
2. UKIP has already proposed an immediate five year freeze on immigration for
permanent settlement. There would be an exception for those with a parent
or grandparent born in the UK of British nationality. Entry by time-related
work permits would still be allowed (see item 4. below); and applications for
permanent leave to remain would also be considered, e.g. for those seeking
to marry a British citizen (see item 10 below). During the five year freeze the
government should (a) concentrate on removing illegal immigrants, and (b)
formulate a policy for an annual limit on permanent settlement not exceeding
an absolute maximum of 50,000 per annum, including dependents. This figure
should be reviewable downwards depending on population growth.
3. Britain can only regain control of her immigration and asylum policy by
reclaiming control of her borders and her judicial system. This can only be
done by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and leaving the
European Union. This has always been UKIP policy. UKIP would triple the
UK Border Agency personnel engaged in deportations.
4. Entry for work purposes will be by work permit visa only, issued for
designated periods of time. UKIP will retain and enhance the points based
system for work permits to ensure that British workers are offered the first
opportunities to work, and that employers are encouraged to provide training
for British workers rather than import skills from overseas. Work permits
Immigration: Action Overdue! 5
6 Immigration: Action Overdue!
should be issued by the Government only where there are proven skill shortages
in specific areas of the economy. Extensions to work periods could be
applied for on their expiry – provided that a genuine ongoing skill shortage can
still be demonstrated. Those granted work permits would be required to sign
an Undertaking of Residence (see item 10 below). Work permits should only
be granted to those applicants who have employment waiting for them, who
can financially support themselves, and who meet the qualifying criteria set
by the government.
5. Entry to Britain for non-work related purposes (e.g. holidays and study)
would be for maximum specified periods of time by means of visas: unless an
alternative mutual arrangement has been agreed with designated countries.
Overstaying a visa would be a criminal offence.
6. All EU citizens who came to Britain after 1st January 2004 would be
treated in the same way as citizens from other countries. They would
be required to apply for time-related work permits or permanent leave to
remain. These would only be granted where it was felt it would be in the
public interest. Mitigating circumstances would be taken into account, such
as: marriage to a British citizen; children who are British citizens; existing
employment or business interests; existing mortgage, lease or contractual
obligations etc. Those qualifying would be granted permanent leave to
remain. Those not qualifying would be required to leave.
7. After the five year freeze any future immigration for permanent
settlement, from anywhere in the World, would be on a strictly controlled
basis using a points system similar to those of Australia, Canada
and New Zealand. Apart from short term visas, no one would be admitted
unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational or professional
qualifications, are in good health, and can support themselves financially.
Neither they nor their dependants would be eligible for support by the
benefits system during a qualifying period of five years.
8. People found to be living illegally in the UK would be removed to their
country of origin. All illegal residents in the UK would be required to register
(not including those asylum applicants whose applications have already been
rejected). Failure to do so will be a criminal offence. Only those already in
employment and with proof of having paid tax would be considered eligible
for a time-related work permit. Only in exceptional circumstance would
illegal residents be granted leave to remain. All others will be required to leave.
Anyone who does not register but is subsequently identified would be
expelled to their country of origin automatically, along with any dependants,
and subject to a life-long ban on re-entry to the UK.
1
9. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. These
merely encourage further illegal immigration.
10. Permanent Leave to Remain (e.g. those in the process of seeking
citizenship or permission to live permanently in the UK) would only be granted
to non-citizens on the signing of a legally binding Undertaking of Residence.
The Undertaking would remain in force for a minimum of five years before
citizenship would be granted and would require the applicant to: obey the law
and not to engage in any criminal activities; not to engage in, or propagate,
political or religious extremism; to support themselves and their dependents
without recourse to the benefits system; and to retain their original citizenship
up to the point of obtaining British citizenship. Should they break any of these
undertakings then, by means of a formal process, their residency status would
be revoked and they, and their dependents, would be returned to their country
of origin without recourse to appeal in the courts of the United Kingdom. The
British Nationality Act 1981 will have to be revisited to take into account the
status of children born to those on Permanent Leave to Remain. It cannot
automatically follow that anyone born in the UK to a non-citizen resident has
an automatic right to citizenship.
11. Applicants for British citizenship would be required to have
completed a period of not less then five years as a resident on
Permanent Leave to Remain (see item 10 above). Citizenship would only
be granted on the successful completion of this period and the passing of a
Citizenship Test – based on a basic knowledge of British culture, customs,
law, constitution and history. The final stage would require the applicant to
sign a Declaration of British Citizenship, similar to the Oath, Affirmation and
Pledge currently used in the citizenship ceremony, and with a solemn oath to
uphold Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life.
12. The existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees regarding
the application for political asylum must be enforced until such time
as Britain withdraws (see item 13. below) from the Convention. Asylum
applicants must seek asylum in the first ‘designated safe country’ that they
enter.
13. Britain should withdraw from the 1951 Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees and replace it with an Act of Parliament specifying the
conditions for the granting of asylum in Britain to those genuinely fleeing
persecution, and to set limits on the numbers being accepted. There should
a ‘Refugee Sponsorship Scheme’ that allows British citizens who wish to
do so to assume legal and financial responsibility to assist individual asylum
applicants seeking refugee status.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 7
14. Applications for asylum in the UK will only be considered at a British
port or airport where the applicant has arrived directly from the
country from which asylum is sought; or at the British embassy or
consulate in a neighbouring country. Asylum decisions will be made at the
port of entry i.e. before leave to enter the UK can be given or refused. Anyone
who applies for asylum having come through a designated ‘safe country’
will be returned to that safe country by the carrier concerned. It will be the
responsibility of the carrier to inform the British authorities at the ports of
entry in advance of arrival in the UK if there are any nationals from non-safe
countries on its passenger list. Asylum decisions and conditions should not
be appealable in the UK courts or those of its dependent territories. These
conditions should be included in future UK Asylum legislation. UKIP is totally
opposed to any scheme of ‘sharing out’ asylum-seekers between countries
whether through the EU or the United Nations.
15. Except where visa waiver agreements have been concluded with
other countries, all travellers to the UK will be required to obtain a visa
from a British Embassy or High Commission. Non-UK citizens who enter the
UK will have their entry and exit recorded. Visa holders will be told at entry
that overstaying the visa is a criminal offence and will make them liable to
arrest, removal from the country and subject to a possible ban on their future
entry. Those seeking visas from countries considered to be a national security
risk will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and approval. All non-work
permit visa entrants to the UK (except where reciprocal arrangements exist)
will be required to have taken out adequate health insurance: those without
it will be refused entry.
16. Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, and withdraw from the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These have
hindered and prevented the UK dealing effectively with terrorists, criminals,
bogus asylum seekers and undesirable aliens.
17. In future the British courts would not be allowed to appeal to any
international treaty or convention to override or set aside the provisions
of any statue passed by Parliament.
18. Existing asylum seekers who have already had their applications refused
would be required to leave the country, along with any dependents. Those
remaining would have their application subjected to a fast-track processing
system. Those that fail should be required to leave the country and would be
deported with their dependants.
19. The ‘Primary Purpose Rule’ (abolished by the Labour Government) would
be reintroduced, whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen
8 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
would have to convince the admitting officer that this is their primary purpose
in seeking to enter the UK and not to obtain British residence. Anyone wishing
to marry a non-British citizen (from a country that requires a visa) will have
to register their intention to marry in the UK prior to the marriage. The non-
British spouse or intended spouse will only be granted right of entry to the UK,
if they can speak fluent English, and are at least 24 years of age. The spouse
or intended spouse will have to undergo identification, language proficiency,
and criminal record checks in their country of residence before qualifying
for entry to the UK. The non-British spouse or intended spouse would have
to demonstrate to the admitting officer in their country of origin that both
parties are marrying of their own free will, that there is an existing personal
relationship between them of not less than 12 months, and that he/she is
conversant with British rights and customs pertaining to marriage, e.g. the
equality of the sexes, the use of contraception, the right to initiate divorce etc.
Polygamous wives will not be recognised as legitimate spouses for any
legal purpose.
20. There would be an end to the active promotion and the support of
the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all
publicly funded bodies.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 9
10 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Those in favour of mass migration to Britain sometimes justify this with
statements such as, “Britain has always been a nation of migrants” 1 and
that, the British are “a mongrel nation”. 2 The first statement is simply untrue,
as will be explained in the next section. The second is meaningless since it
supposes that there are ‘pure races’, which there are not. Based on the study
of genetics, the human race is currently believed to have originated from
one location in Africa and all people are therefore related to each other and
everyone is ultimately the descendant of a migrant.
Those who describe the British as a ‘mongrel race’ would of course never
dream of describing any of the other ethnic groups that inhabit the UK in
this way, such as the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sikhs, for
fear of offending them – and possibly some more unpleasant consequences.
The predominant population of the UK is still the English and the pejorative
accusation of ‘mongrelisation’ is aimed at them. The assertions that England
is a nation of ‘migrants and mongrels’ are intended to cow the English
into submission and create a mindset in which there can be no legitimate
objection to continued mass immigration.
UK Immigration from the Roman invasion of 43AD to 1945.
The modern science of genetics, and ‘genetic archaeology’, which extracts
DNA from skeletal remains, has overturned some of the previously held views
on the supposed waves of immigration that Britain experienced in the distant
past. David Miles in his book, ‘The Tribes of Britain’ writes, “on present genetic
evidence it seems that the majority of the population in Britain…can trace its
ancestry back into Ice Age hunters…” 3 Bryan Sykes, Professor of genetics at
the University of Oxford in his book, ‘Blood of the Isles: Exploring the genetic
roots of our tribal history’, writes, “We are an ancient people, and though the
Isles have been the target of invasion ever since Julius Caesar first stepped
on the shingle shores of Kent, these have barely scratched the topsoil of our
deep-rooted ancestry”. 4
We are told by those with a vested interest in continuing immigration
that Britain has been a country of immigration throughout our history.
Immigration implies people coming to a live among settled population in a
country to which they have usually been invited. This does not describe much
of what has been called, by some at least, immigration in the past.
Roman Britain.
In 43 AD the Emperor Claudius invaded Britain and began a 367 year
occupation of what later became England and Wales. The existing
population were effectively enslaved. However it is estimated that during
the occupation only 4% to 8% of the population was made up of
Roman soldiers or administrators; and the ‘Roman’ occupying forces
3. Britain a Nation of Migrants?
1
were predominantly drawn from territories that made them closely related
racially and culturally to the British population. 5
The Anglo-Saxons.
After the withdrawal of the Romans in 410 AD the first Anglo Saxon settlers
came to Britain and settled in the area of modern day England. By assimilation
and conquest the Anglo-Saxons, as described by the Venerable Bede,
became the English people after whom England is named. It used to
be thought that they drove out the Celtic British into Wales, but now
there is debate about whether they displaced the existing population
or simply imposed themselves upon them as a warrior ruling class and
integrated with them over time. Future genetic research may resolve the
extent to which they were absorbed into and assimilated with the existing
Romano-British population. What the Anglo-Saxons indisputably did do was
to create the bedrock of the language, identity, society, laws and customs
of the English that have survived to the present day.
The Vikings.
The depredations of the Vikings can hardly be described as
‘immigration’ in any positive sense. They began their raids into English
territory in 793 AD, and carved out a large area of territory known as the
‘Danelaw’ under their rule. Although forced to acknowledge the authority of
the King of England during the reign of Alfred the Great and his immediate
successors, England was subject to rule by the Danish King Canute as part
of his Scandinavian Confederation in 1019. Again, there is no agreement on
the number of Vikings that settled in Britain and the extent to which they displaced,
subjugated, or were absorbed into the existing population in the areas
they controlled. English rule was re-established in 1042 under King Edward
the Confessor. The last Anglo-Saxon King, Harold II, was the product of a Saxon
father and a Danish mother.
The Normans.
The Norman invasion of 1066 was a catastrophic event for the indigenous
Anglo-Saxon population. William the Conqueror accomplished his subjugation
of a population of between two and three million with about 10,000 troops.
William had secured the support of the Pope to decree that King Harold
had forfeited his title to the English crown, and that all who supported
him were traitors. This enabled William to dispossess the existing ruling
class of their lands and wealth. By a policy of brutal repression and
selective genocide, William was able to impose the feudal system which
made the Anglo-Saxon population the serfs of a small Norman ruling elite.
The echoes of this ‘ruling elite’ can still be felt in the form of the English
‘class system’ down to the present day. The Doomsday Book (1086) shows
the extent to which William had transferred almost all land and property
Immigration: Action Overdue! 11
12 Immigration: Action Overdue!
to himself and his nobles within a few years of his reign.
None of these events can be viewed as ‘immigration’ in the modern sense and
debate still ensues about the extent to which they impacted on the make-up
of the existing population. David Conway writes, “The genetic similarity
between Saxons, Danes, and Normans makes it practically impossible on
the basis of genetic evidence alone to distinguish between their respective
descendants”. 7 By the 12th century the English were a completely defined
people living within national and county boundaries which have barely
changed from the 10th to the 21st centuries.
There were no more significant influxes of people until the arrival of the
Huguenots in the 17th century. These French Protestants were persecuted
for their beliefs and some took refuge in England, another Protestant state.
The overall number of Huguenots who settled in Britain is estimated at
between 40,000 to 50,000, or about one per cent of the then population 8 over
a period of years. There was no problem of ‘assimilation’ as they shared the
religion of the host nation – that was their reason for coming in the first place.
Irish immigration to Britain during the nineteenth century was mainly as
labour for the industrial revolution. Exact numbers are unknown but the
number of Irish-born people living in Britain in 1891 was 458,315, in 1901,
426,565, and in 1911, 373,325. Overall Irish immigration accounted for a small
percentage of the population.
The 19th century saw the arrival of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe
fleeing persecution. Jews living in Britain prior to this date numbered perhaps
20,000 to 30,000. It is estimated that between 1880 and 1914 about 150,000
came to Britain 9, the majority going to the United States of America. The Nazi
persecution of the Jews in the 1930s resulted in about 60,000 people fleeing
to Britain, with about another 10,000 following after the war.
David Conway comments: “None of these various pre-War immigration
streams to Britain, including from Ireland, had much impact on Britain’s overall
demographic composition because of the very substantial natural increase
it underwent during this period, especially after 1830 ”.10 And J.A Tannerhill
observed, “Britain is not by tradition a country of immigration. In fact between
1815 and 1914, she not only quadrupled her population without resorting
to large-scale foreign immigration, but also dispatched over 20 million people
to destinations beyond Europe”. 11
1
Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Britain
has an estimated population figure of about 61.4 million;12 the real figure,
including illegal immigrants, must be much higher. Of the World’s top ten
economies Britain is the third most densely populated.
The vast majority of people in Britain (83%) live in England, which also generates
the bulk of Britain’s wealth. Of the world’s top ten economies, England is the
most densely populated.
Table 1
The World’s top ten economies ranked by population density are
as follows. (The UK and England are shown separately).
Country Population Land Mass in Population per
in Millions Square Miles Square Mile
England 51,446 50,631 1016
Japan 126,804 145,870 869
United Kingdom 61,383 94,270 651
Germany 82,283 137,735 597
Italy 58,091 116,318 499
China 1,330,141 3,705,828 359
France 64,768 212,935 304
Spain 40,549 194,897 208
USA 310,233 3,679,185 84
Brazil 201,103 3,265,059 62
Russia 139,390 6,592,812 21
Source: Population figures for 2010 are taken from International Data Base, US Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php
The figures for England and the United Kingdom are taken from the Office of National Statistics for 2008.
England, which has 83% of the UK population and generates about 87%
of its GDP, is the most densely populated country of the world’s top
ten economies, and one of the most densely populated countries in the
world. And yet the British Government inexplicably believes that there
should be no limits to future immigration – at least from the European
Union and those countries that will eventually join. India has recently
moved down to eleventh place and does not appear on the above table.
It may surprise many to learn that England is more densely populated
than India, China and Japan.
The population figures from the Office of National Statistics taken from the
censuses 1901 to 2001 show that during that period (See Table 2 below) the
population grew by about 55%. The ONS predictions for population growth for
4. Overcrowded Britain
Immigration: Action Overdue! 13
2001 to 2081 show that it will grow by over 44%. On current trends, by 2051
the population will have increased to about.75 million, and by 2081 to over
85 million. Almost all of this increase will take place in England. These figures
do not take into account the EU candidate counties who may join and many of
whose citizens will come to the UK (see Table 6).
Table 2
UK population 1901-2008, and predicted population 2009-208
Source: Office of National Statistics.
13
Britain’s population growth is entirely fuelled by immigration (see Item 13,
Table 8), which is around five times the natural rate of population increase.
Figures issued by the Office of National Statistics in 2008 showed that one
in four babies born in the UK have a foreign father or mother. A spokesman
for the ONS is reported as saying, “That reflects the cumulative effect of
immigration over the last forty years”.14 The article went on to say that,
“Figures from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) earlier this year showed…the foreign-born population is growing while
the British-born population is declining”.
Massive immigration on this scale is putting increasing strains on housing,
road, public transport, the NHS, education, and all the public services.
Seven out of 10 people believe that Britain is overcrowded.15 London and
the South East of England are among the most densely populated areas
in the world. London’s population, which reached 7.6 million in 2007,16
is, according to the lowest predictions, to reach 8.7 million by 2026.17
14 Immigration: Action Overdue!
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 2071 2081
Population (figures in millions)
Year
1
A third of London’s population today were born abroad.18 Anyone living
in England, particularly in the South, will know first-hand the problems caused
by an ever-increasing population.
The Government says that three million new homes need to be built in
the South East of England by 2020.19 These homes need to be built to
accommodate the current and intended waves of immigrants. Government
concern for the environment does not extend to addressing the real cause of
congestion, which is overpopulation.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 15
Since the end of Word War II Britain has experienced immigration on a scale
never previously experienced. Between 1950 and 2008 there has been an
estimated population growth of over 21 per cent.
Table 3
UK population growth in the UK 1950 to 2008 by country in millions
Figures in millions.
Country 1950 2008 Percentage Change
England & Wales 44 54 23.64%
Scotland 5.2 5.16 -0.77%
Northern Ireland 1.4 1.78 27.14%
Totals 50.6 61.38 21.31%
Source: 1950 figures from A Nation of Immigrants? David Conway, Civitas, April 2007.
2008 figures from Office of National Statistics, 21st August 2009
20
Almost all this population growth has been in England and Wales, because
the overwhelming majority of the migrant population have chosen to settle in
England. The 2001 national census showed that three quarters of the ethnic
minority migrants are in London, the West Midlands, and in three other areas.21
While the population has grown by a larger percentage in Northern Ireland,
this is due predominantly to natural growth.
The post-War waves of immigration to Britain may be summarised as follows.
1945 to 1948. Sizable groups of displaced persons and refugees came to
Britain after World War II; approximately 130,000 Poles, and about 85,000
other nationalities, making a minimum of about 215,000 people.22
1948 to 1971. This wave of immigration was predominantly economically
inspired. Labour shortages in Britain caused mainly Commonwealth people
to seek work in the UK. These immigrants came predominantly from the
West Indies and the Indian sub-continent. The total numbers have been
estimated at over one million people.23 There was also immigration
from Hong Kong, Cyprus, Malta, and various other countries. This wave
of immigration was brought under some semblance of control by the
Conservative Government’s 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which
introduced A, B and C voucher schemes. This was followed by the Labour
Government’s 1968 Immigrant Act which distinguished those UK passport
holders with a ‘Right of Abode’ in the UK from those who did not.
16 Immigration: Action Overdue!
5. UK Post-War Immigration 1945 to 2008
Immigration: Action Overdue! 171
1971 to 1996. In the early 1970s about 30,000 Ugandan Asians were expelled
by Idi Amin, and although the Indian authorities made it clear that they would
admit them into India, the Heath government allowed them into the UK, the
1961 and 1968 Acts notwithstanding. Commonwealth immigration continued
at a rate of around 60,000 per annum until the mid 1990s. Immigration
accelerated after the Labour Government took office in 1997. If we look at the
figures just from 1981 onwards we see the following.
Table 4
Immigration into and Emigration from the UK 1981 to 1996
(Figures in thousands, totals in millions)
Year Inflow Outflow Balance
1981 153 233 -80
1982 202 259 -57
1983 202 185 17
1984 201 164 37
1985 232 174 58
1986 250 213 37
1987 212 210 2
1988 216 237 -21
1989 250 205 45
1990 267 231 36
1991 337 264 73
1992 287 252 35
1993 272 237 35
1994 321 213 108
1995 321 212 109
1996 331 238 93
Total (in millions) 4.054 3.527 527
Source: Do we need mass immigration? Anthony Brown, Civitas, November 2002, page 21.
These figures show that for this fifteen year period over half a million
people were added to the population by immigration. It was after 1997 that
net immigration to the UK soared.
Table 5
Immigration into and Emigration from the UK 1997 to 2008
(Figures in thousands, totals in millions)
Year Inflow Outflow Net immigration
1997 326.1 279.2 46.8
1998 391 251 140
1999 454 291 163
2000 479 321 158
2001 479 306 173
2002 513 358 154
2003 508 361 147
2004 586 342 244
2005 563 359 204
2006 591 400 191
2007 577 340 237
2008 Estimate 577 366 210
Total (in Millions) 6.044 3.974 2.067
Source: 1997 to 2007 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2008.
24
Note: Figures for 2008 estimated on average of preceding three years.
Figures are published by the Office of National Statistics two years in arrears.
To summarise the figures:
• From 1948 to 1980 at least 1 million immigrants entered the UK
• From 1981 to 1996 over 4 million immigrants entered the UK
• From 1997 to 2008 over 6 million immigrants entered the UK.
From 1981 to 2008 over 10 million people migrated to the UK; about 7.5
million people left the UK, leaving a net balance of least 2.5 million people.
These figures do not take account of illegal immigrants, who probably number
three quarters of a million to one million people. Therefore in a twenty-seven
year period legal and illegal immigration has amounted to a net population
gain of between 3.2 million and 3.5 million people. The actual figures will
be higher because they do not take into account the increase for 2009.
For the three year period 2005-2007 there was an average of 577,000
people per annum migrating to the UK. For the same three year period,
allowing for those who left the UK, the net population increase was an average
of 210,000 per annum. That is a net population increase of well over one million
every five years; or looked at another way, this equates to a new city the size
of Birmingham every five years.
18 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
The 2009 Spring edition of the Office of National Statistics Report, ‘Population
Trends’,25 states that the number of immigrants in the UK grew by 21% from
5.2 million to 6.3 million between 2004 to 2007. This shows an estimated
1.1 million increase in the non-UK born population from 2004 to 2007.
Therefore it is apparent that immigration is having a profound and continued
effect on the demographic make-up of Britain.
Some other key findings of the ONS Report on ‘Population Trends’ are:
• In 2007 an estimated 33% of London residents were born outside the UK.
• In 2007 10% of the residents of the South East of England were born
outside the UK.
• In 2007 9% of the residents in the East of England were born outside
the UK.
• In 2005 Westminster became the first local area in the UK to have a greater
number of non-UK born residents than UK born residents.
Although legitimate immigration into the UK from outside the European
Union was relatively controlled up to about 1997, the enormous expansion
in the number of migrants since then has been due to four main
factors: membership of the European Union; illegal immigration; asylum
applications; and the Labour Government’s commitment to mass-immigration
on the grounds that it is ‘economically necessary’, and the intention to create
a more ‘multicultural’ and ‘diverse’ society, which is not only seen by them as
being desirable but something that must be deliberately engineered.
The deliberate engineering of mass immigration and the multicultural
society was revealed in October 2009. Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party
adviser claimed that a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass
immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.26 Mr Neather
worked for Jack Straw when he was the Home Secretary, and as a speech
writer for Tony Blair. Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration
report was a speech writer to Gordon Brown. Mr Neather claimed that there
was a ‘driving political purpose’ behind Labour’s decision to allow in hundreds
of thousands migrants. He said, “I remember coming away from some
discussions with the clear sense that that policy was intended…to rub the
Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Mr Neather said that earlier unpublished versions of the report made
clear that one aim was to make Britain more multicultural for political
reasons. Opponents were to be branded as racists in order to deter
them from criticism. The report entitled, Research, Development and Statistics
Occasional Paper No 67 – Migration: An Economical and Social Analysis
was published in January 2001 by the Home Office. The report painted
a rosy picture of mass immigration showing that there ‘was little evidence
Immigration: Action Overdue! 19
that native workers were harmed by migration’. Home Office Minister
Barbara Roche pioneered the open-door immigration policy after being
attacked by left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as ‘vile’.
A Labour insider is reported as saying that “She was called a scumbag.
She wanted to show she was a genuine liberal”.
20 Immigration: Action Overdue!
By its very nature the true extent of illegal immigration to Britain is unknown.
There will always have been those who entered the UK and then stayed
illegally, but this has been made increasingly easier to do.
It is extremely easy to gain entry to Britain, and once inside there is almost
no prospect whatsoever of an illegal immigrant or visa over-stayer being
deported. In 2009 an interim report by the London School of Economics
commissioned by the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, gave the figures of illegal
immigrants in the UK in 2007 as between 524,000 to 947,000.27 However
a report by Migration Watch put the figure for 2008 at over one million
illegal immigrants.28
There is little reason to believe that this is an over-estimation. People
smuggling is now big business. Untold numbers of people pay to be smuggled
into Britain by organised criminal gangs from all over the world. The
notorious Red Cross camp at Sangatte in Calais was just such a stopping-off
point for illegal immigrants. Monsieur Patrick Espagnol, a former Calais
regional governor, estimated that at its peak over 200 illegal migrants
per day, or 73,000 per annum, were travelling from Calais to Dover alone.29
Illegal immigrants can enter Britain by hiding in cars or in the backs of
lorries, but passport holders can easily gain entry to Britain just by arriving for
a holiday or trip and never leaving. Immigration offices have customarily
made only the most cursory of checks on tourists from visa countries
often not requiring for instance to see a prepaid return ticket in the traveller’s
name as is required by the other English speaking countries.
In 2008, 12.7 million non-EU nationals, mostly bona fide tourists and
businessmen, arrived in the UK.30 How many left? No one knows because we
keep no embarkation records. Checks are rarely made on over-stayers and
no action is taken to locate and remove them. The number of people living
illegally in Britain is estimated to be between half a million and one million,
but may well exceed even the higher figure.
6. Illegal Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue! 21
An ‘asylum seeker’ is defined as someone who has applied for asylum under
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees on the grounds that
if he or she is returned to their country of origin they have a well founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or
membership of a particular social group. The person remains an asylum seeker
as long as his or her application, or appeal against refusal of their application,
is pending. ‘Refugee’ means an asylum seeker whose application has been
successful. In its broader context ‘refugee’ is someone fleeing civil war
or natural disaster but not necessarily fearing persecution as defined by the
1951 Convention.
Britain has always accepted refugees fleeing actual physical persecution, or
who had served the Crown. For example relatively small numbers of Huguenots
in the seventeenth century, Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
Jews, Poles and other nationalities following the Second World War, and
Eastern Europeans fleeing communist tyranny (Hungarians in 1956 and Czechs
in 1968). But over the last eighteen years or so the number of those seeking
asylum has increased dramatically. This has been due to two reasons:
relatively cheap international air travel and Britain’s implementation of Human
Rights legislation in 200031 which has made it increasingly difficult to deport
failed and bogus asylum seekers.
During the 1980s approximately 4,000 asylum seekers per year came to Britain.
After 1991 the numbers started to rise sharply. Under the 1951 Convention,
asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge in the first ‘safe country’ that they
come to. Since all EU countries, plus Switzerland, Norway and even Russia,
are designated ‘safe’ countries it follows that no asylum-seeker arriving
through such countries should be allowed entry on asylum grounds
nor should the courts uphold their claims. Yet as we know our nearest
European neighbour makes no attempt to disperse the camps of refugees
trying to reach England by illegal means nor seemingly to consider their
applications for asylum in France.
In June 2006 there was a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases of migrants
refused refugee status (plus their dependants) but who had not been expelled
from the country. According to newspaper reports, the Government intended
to offer them effective amnesty by granting ‘indefinite right to remain’
because of the time they have already spent living in the UK.32 A critical report
by the National Audit Office reported that this number was down to 245,000
by the summer of 2008, almost certainly meaning that around 200,000 have
been allowed to stay. These cases are thought to have cost the taxpayer
£600 million.33
This amounts to an open-door policy for bogus asylum seekers. Once they
22 Immigration: Action Overdue!
7. The Asylum System and its Abuses
1
have gained entry to the UK they have, as far as can be seen, about an 80%
chance of avoiding repatriation to their own country. Many asylum seekers
are in fact economic migrants who are, not unreasonably from their point of
view, trying to better their lives by coming to Britain. These are not necessarily
people who would fulfil legitimate immigration requirements, but by posing as
asylum seekers they can by-pass the system. The number of potentially bogus
asylum seekers in the world is effectively unlimited since so many people
live under undemocratic and tyrannical regimes. The entire 1.3 billion population
of China could legitimately claim asylum in Britain since they live under a
tyrannical communist regime and could possibly claim to be the victims
of political persecution.
Another factor in the abuse of the asylum system has been the Human Rights
legislation introduced by the Labour Government. Britain was one of the earliest
signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950 and it came
into force in the UK in 1953. The Human Rights Act came into force in the UK in
2000. The implementation of this legislation has made it increasingly difficult
to implement asylum and criminal law.
The most notorious example is that of the nine Afghan men who hijacked
a Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan and forced its crew to fly
to Stansted airport in February 2000. They were convicted of hijacking and
false imprisonment in 2001 but their convictions were quashed by the Court
of Appeal in 2003 because of a ‘mistake in directing the jury’ in the original
trial. In 2004 they were granted leave to remain in the UK when a panel of
asylum adjudicators ruled that returning them to Afghanistan would breach
their human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Even Prime
Minister Tony Blair, who introduced the Act, called it, “an abuse of common
sense”. The Home Secretary, John Reid, challenged the ruling in the Court of
Appeal, however the Court dismissed the appeal on 4th August 2006, and the
hijackers were allowed to remain in the UK. The message sent out to the world
could not be clearer: hijack a plane, come to Britain, claim asylum – and you
will be allowed to stay.
The European Union ultimately decides Britain’s asylum policy, and who we
can and cannot admit. In January 2005 the then leader of the Conservative
Party, Michael Howard, proposed policies for tougher immigration controls.
He proposed setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers
allowed into Britain. Within hours of announcing these proposals the European
Commission pointed out that no British government could implement
them. Friso Roscam Abbing, chief spokesman for the EU Justice
Commissioner, Franco Frattini, pointed out that the EU Qualifications
Directive34 established a binding definition of whoqualifies as a refugee.
It had been adopted by the British Government and was to come into
Immigration: Action Overdue! 23
force in 2006. Mr Abbing said, “There is nothing in these protocols that
allows a British government to opt back out again”. He added,
“Nor would a Conservative Government be able to set quotas for
the number of refugees accepted each year. Say they set a quota
of 10,000 a year, well the 10,001st case could say to a British judge,
‘Your Government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to
consider my claim’.35 If a British Government contravened these rules
the Commission would begin ‘infringement proceedings’, to be
followed, if infringement continued, by legal action in the European Court
of Justice, Luxembourg
24 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
i) How people have come. How many may yet come.
A large part of the massive immigration experienced since 1997 has been a
result of membership of the European Union. Under EU legislation EU citizens
have the right to move to any country in the European Union. The relevant
Directive36 brought together the existing piecemeal and complex legislation
and gives citizens of the EU and their families the right to reside anywhere
in the Union. The EU website37 summarises the purpose of the Directive as
‘to encourage Union citizens to move and reside freely within Member States,
to cut back administrative formalities to the bare essentials, to provide
a better definition of the status of family members and to limit the scope for
refusing entry or terminating the right of residence’.
The Government claims that restrictions are in place with its work permit system,
but the system does not take into account those who designate themselves
as self-employed and can work in industries such as the building or catering
trade quite freely, without the need to pay employees’ or employers’ National
Insurance contributions.
The level of migration greatly increased when eight new nations from
Eastern European joined the EU in 2004 with combined populations of
around 76 million and an average income of about one fifth of the UK. They
were joined by Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 representing about another
29.3 million very poor people with an average income about one twelfth
of Britain’s. They all had a right to come to and work in Britain if they wished. The
Government put limits on Bulgarians’ and Romanians’ working rights
after the debacle of 2004 when the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only
EU Member States not to make use of this provision, but these restrictions
did not apply to the self-employed and were therefore no more than a
cosmetic exercise.
In 2003 the British Government predicted that only about 13,000 people
would come in the first year after the Easter European countries joined the
EU, but no fewer than 600,000 Central and Eastern Europeans arrived in the
following two years.38 In January 2007 Bulgaria and Romania, two of the poorest
countries in European joined the EU. Another 29.3 million people were given
right of entry to Britain. Many more people followed.
How many migrants in total have come from the European Union since 2004?
That question cannot be answered with great accuracy because no one knows,
but the enormous numbers speak for themselves: an estimated almost
2.9 million immigrants and a net population growth of over one million
(see Table 5) just for the years 2004 to 2008.
The next question is how many migrants from the European Union will come
8. The European Union and Mass
Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue! 25
in the future. This can be intimated by looking at those countries that have
applied to join the EU and their population sizes, which are shown in Table 6
below.
Table 6
Countries seeking entry to the European Union
Candidate Application Timetable for Population in
Country Status EU Membership Millions
Croatia Candidate 2009-2011 4.4
Macedonia Candidate 2013 (possible) 2.05
Turkey Candidate No date given 72.5
Albania SAA No date given 3.5
Montenegro SAA No date given 0.6
Serbia SAA No date given 7.7
Bosnia &
Herzegovina SAA No date given 3.8
Kosovo No contractual
relations No date given 2.5
Ukraine PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 47.1
Belarus PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 9.8
Moldova PCA EU membership
not yet
official policy 3.3
Note: SAA = Stabilisation & Association Agreement
PCA = Partnership & Co-operation Agreement.
The combined population of these countries is 157.25 million. If and when they
join the EU all of their citizens will have an automatic right of entry to the UK.
These are the poorest countries in Europe (indeed Turkey is not even in Europe).
If they all join the EU and just one per cent of their combined populations
decide to migrate to Britain that amounts to 1.5 million people.
ii) EU Immigration Legislation
Key primary legislation is Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU)39 which states: “Every citizen of the Union
shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the
Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty
and by the measures adopted to give it effect.”
26 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
Other articles include:
• Free Movement of Workers (Art 45 TFEU)
• Free Movement of the Self-Employed
• Freedom of Establishment (Art 49 TFEU)
• Freedom to Provide Services (Art 56 and 57 TFEU)
• Free Movement of Citizens (Article 20 TFEU )
Key secondary legislation is:
Directive 2004/38/EC40 – Free Movement Rights of EU Citizens: implemented
in the UK by The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
Directive 2004/38 deals primarily with rights of entry and residence of the EU
citizen and family members. The Directive applies to all individuals holding
nationality of an EU Member State and covers workers rights as well. Article
5 outlines EU citizen’s rights of entry into other EU Member States. In theory
EU citizens only have to present a valid passport or ID card although their
rights of residency under Article 6 only extend to three months unless per
Article 7 they are employed or self-employed, have sufficient resources
for themselves and their family, are studying, or are family members
accompanying a Union citizen who satisfies these conditions.
Regulation 1612/6841 – on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community: confers rights of equal treatment, residence, and also specific
social rights (such as tax and social benefits, housing, and access to
education) that can be enjoyed by workers and their family members. For
example Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 provides that ‘workers’ are entitled
to the same ‘social and tax advantages’ as nationals of the Member State.
Restrictions on immigration: It should be noted that the UK restricted
Bulgarian and Romanian nationals from the UK labour market though The
Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006.42 This
was possible because such action was allowed under a derogation in the
EU’s Accession Treaties for the aforementioned countries. However this does
not apply to the ‘self-employed’ who may come and work without restriction.
Exception to Free Movement Rights – exclusion of EU citizens:
Art 39(3) EC: Allows for the exclusion of EU citizens under: Public Policy,
Public Security & Public Health.
Directive 2004/38 states that: ‘Public Policy and Security’ exclusion must
be ‘proportionate’ and can be based only on personal conduct (Art 27(2)).
Previous criminal convictions are not enough to justify exclusion
(Art 27(2). Certain diseases with epidemic potential justify exclusion on public
health grounds (Art 29(1). Procedural safeguards include detailed notification
Immigration: Action Overdue! 27
in writing (Art 30) and a right to appeal (Art 31) A person can be excluded
on public policy or security grounds only where his/her personal conduct
constitutes a ‘genuine, present & sufficiently serious threat affecting one of
the fundamental interests of society’ Art 27(2) Dir 2004/38.
The UK has now effectively abdicated control of its immigration policy to the
European Union as far as it applies to the citizens of other European Union
member states.
iii) EU Asylum Legislation
The Legal Foundations43 for the EU’s Asylum Policy are laid down in:
The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which provided for the establishment
of a common asylum system; the Tampere European Council (1999)
which laid down the major aims and principles as agreed by EU
Heads of State or Governments for the creation of a common asylum
system by 2004; and The Hague Programme for 2005-2010 which laid
out the second phase of the European Common Asylum System.
The EU’s four main legal instruments on asylum are:
• The Reception Conditions Directive which guarantees minimum
standards for the reception of asylum-seekers, including housing, education
and health. This Directive is implemented in the UK by the Asylum
Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 200544 and the Asylum Support
(Amendment) Regulations 2005.
• The Asylum Procedures Directive establishes throughout the EU that
all procedures at first instance are subject to the same minimum standards.
The Directive also introduces the obligation for all Member States to ensure
an ‘effective remedy before a court or tribunal’.
• The Qualification Directive contains a set of criteria for qualifying
either for refugee or subsidiary protection status and also dictates
what rights are attached to each status. The Directive also introduces
a harmonised regime for subsidiary protection in the EU for those
persons who fall outside the scope of the Geneva Convention
but who nevertheless still need international protection, such as
victim of generalised violence or civil war. This directive is in part
implemented in the UK by the Refugee or Person in Need of
International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006, together
with amendments to the Immigration Rules (HC 395). Many parts of
the Directive were deemed not to require implementation as
consistent provision was already made in existing domestic legislation.45
28 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
• The Dublin Regulation contains rules about the Member States’
responsibilities for assessing an application for asylum. It was designed
to identify which Member State was responsible and to prevent multiple
applications.
The above Directives and Regulation are stated as being designed to achieve
the general objective of levelling the asylum playing field and laying the
foundations for a Common European Asylum System, “on which could be
built further structures to safeguard the EU as a single asylum space and
ensure that our citizens could have confidence in a system that gave protection
to those who required it and dealt fairly and efficiently with those without
protection requirements.” 46
As was demonstrated as long ago as 2005 to Michael Howard, the then leader
of the Conservative Party (see under Item 6), it is the European Union and
the European Court of Justice that now controls Britain’s Asylum Policy and
not the British Government.
iv) The Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty (which is the European Constitution by another name),
came into force on 1st December 2009. Constitutionally, the Lisbon Treaty
empowers the EU to act as a state in its own right, with full legal
personality; the national constitutions of member states remain in place
but are subordinate to the new Lisbon Treaty which becomes the
de facto constitution of the European Union.47
Under Lisbon the national veto on immigration and asylum policy (as in
much else) has been replaced by Qualified Majority Voting. The UK retains
the power not to ‘opt in’ to some of the planned immigration and
asylum laws. However, if the British Government chooses to ‘opt in’
at the beginning of the legislative process it has no power to veto or ‘opt out’
from the legislation later.
The Lisbon Treaty also introduces full European Court of Justice jurisdiction
over immigration and asylum policy. While Britain theoretically has the power
not to opt in to future legislation all past experience shows that British
Government’s is unlikely to resist the pressure to opt in.
Immigration: Action Overdue! 29
Mass immigration over the last fifty years, accelerated under the Labour
Government since 1997, is increasingly turning Britain into a patchwork of
disparate ethnic groups. Large areas of Britain’s inner cities are now inhabited
by ethnic and religious groups that do not integrate or assimilate into the
host population, preferring to keep their own distinct identity by means of
language, dress, customs and religion.
The face of many parts of Britain has changed radically in recent years. A study
by Migration Watch showed that 41% of immigrants live in London, and
immigrants make up 40% of the population in Belgrave Leicestershire; 35% in
Sparkbrook Birmingham; 26% in Slough; and 25% in Luton and Oxford.48 One
in four babies born in the UK has a foreign-born mother or father. Figures from
the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed
in 2007 that about 6 million people in Britain, one in 10, were born overseas.49
By 2009 ONS figures show this had increased to 1 in 9 of the population, or
6.5 million people.50
These profound demographic changes are set to accelerate under the policies
of both the present Labour Government and those of the main opposition
parties (where they can be discerned).
Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Population Studies at the University of
Ulster, estimates that the non-European population of the UK increased
tenfold from 1961 to 2001, and about 4.5 fold for the period 1971 to 2001.
According to Professor Lynn, the combination of the present mass immigration
and the fertility rates of different ethnic groups mean that by about
2053, within the lifetime of anyone under the age of 34, the native British
people will have become an ethnic minority in their own country. Something
unprecedented in our history, and about which the British people have never
been consulted.
Professor Lynn gives the fertility rates of different ethnic groups as follows:
Table 7
2001 Number of children per couple
Chinese 1.3
Whites 1.6
Blacks 2.2
Indians 2.3
Pakistanis/Bangladeshis 5.0
Somalis 5.0
Professor Lynn estimates that on current fertility trends, by 2061 about two
thirds of the population of Britain will be of non-European origin, while one
30 Immigration: Action Overdue!
9. Demographic Changes Caused
by Mass Immigration
1
third will be White.51 These projections do not take into account that the
fertility rates of non-white migrants may decline as they integrate into Britain’s
culture and economy.
What is obvious is that the ethnic make-up of Britain has already changed
profoundly and will continue to change dramatically under the current
immigration trends. Demographers have already predicted that Leicester will
become the first British city in which White people are a minority by 2011.
Demographers at Manchester University have claimed that White people
in Birmingham will be overtaken by those of other ethnic origins by 2027.
Dr Ludi Simpson has predicted that,”Birmingham is likely to become a
minority white city by 2027”.52
An increasing number of indigenous British people are choosing to move
abroad. In 2006 approximately 400,00053 people moved abroad – an all time
record. Many of these will have taken advantage of the ease of relocating
within the European Union for the purposes of work or retirement, and many will
have pursued work opportunities abroad elsewhere; but personal experience
and anecdotal evidence tells us that many people are fed-up with the
ever increasing levels of immigration, crime and taxation in Britain, and indeed
see them as linked. An increasing number of those who are able to leave
Britain are doing so to seek better living conditions and opportunities for
themselves and their families elsewhere in the world.
The British people have never been asked if they are in favour of mass
immigration or in favour of the ethnic identity of Britain being profoundly
changed in a relatively short period of time. They might well ask if the purpose
of mass immigration is to change the ethnic make-up of Britain? According
to the revelations of Labour Government advisor, Andrew Neather (see under
section 5) the answer would seem to be ‘yes’.
The British people, and especially the English, are already being replaced
in their own cities, and on current demographic trends, will be replaced
as the majority ethnic group in their own country during the 21st
century. Were the ethnic make-up of Britain to change gradually over
many decades by means of moderate rates of immigration and racial
intermarriage, and where immigrants and their descendents adhered
to a British common culture, this would not be an issue since it would
be done with the consent of the indigenous population.
However, what we have is the arrival of millions of people over a short
time-scale by means of mass immigration and a forced experiment in
social engineering in order to deliberately and consciously create a
‘multicultural and diverse society’. The dramatic population growth
Immigration: Action Overdue! 31
among those groups which increasingly assert their own separate
identity and culture holds enormous potential for a breakdown in
social cohesion and conflict in the future.
32 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
In a speech to the TUC in 2006 Tony Blair said, “If migrant workers are
treated fairly and paid a decent wage, they represent no threat to the livelihood
of people who are already living and working in the UK.” However an alternative
view is expressed by US economist Professor George Borjas who wrote, “there
is no gain from immigration if the native wage is not reduced by immigration.”
In other words, if some workers are not harmed by immigration many of the
benefits typically attributed to immigration – higher profits for business, lower
prices for consumers – cease to exist.54
Any individual joining the workforce will increase the GDP by at least the
amount of their wages. However, the key issue is: does this amount, plus the
gross surpluses for the business they work for, exceed the average of the
economy as a whole? If it does then productivity is increased, if it does not,
then average productivity is decreased and the average standard of living
of the people as a whole is decreased by these additions to the workforce.
A Dutch Government study published in 2003 stated: “The Gross Domestic
Product will increase, but this increase will accrue largely to the immigrants
in the form of wages. The overall net gain in income of residents is likely
to be small and may even be negative”.55
For a range of reasons, immigrants are likely to be paid only about 70% of the
average wage of the industry sector in which they work. The sectors of the
economy in which immigrants mainly work (apart from construction) pay about
70% of the national average. The average added value per migrant worker
is likely therefore to be in the range of about 40% to 50% of the national average,
say 45%.
Every worker coming to the UK increases Gross Domestic Product by at least
the value of their pay. But if this pay is substantially below the average, as
it clearly is, then GDP per capita is reduced. Corrected for differing price
levels among industrial nations, GDP per capita is a measure of productivity in
the economy and probably the best available indicator of comparative wealth
generation.
Many of the immigrants who come are however attractive to some businesses
because they are a source of cheap labour. This drives wages down for those
at the bottom of the economic scale, but drives property and accommodation
prices up, again especially affecting those at the bottom of the economic
scale. All of this is of course the reverse of the stated government aim of
creating a “high value-added, knowledge based economy”.
The effect of the current form of immigration is to decrease average GDP per
head, and therefore the national wealth; to increase the burden on the average
taxpayer to maintain the current levels of public services; and to increase
10. The Economic Effects of
Mass Immigration on the UK
Immigration: Action Overdue! 33
the burdens on the nation’s infrastructure because of overcrowding and
increased demand on the transport system and on land for housing.
This bears out what many British workers already know and experience
first hand: they have been forced to accept actual pay reductions, or lose
their jobs, in the face of competition from immigrant workers; while
correspondingly, the costs of housing and accommodation in particular has
gone up as a result of increased demand. The indigenous population has
also had to face increased competition from immigrants for public services,
public housing, and social benefits. The national infrastructure of roads, schools,
hospitals etc has to being financed by a reduced GDP per head.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in its report,
The Economic Impact of Immigration, reached the following conclusion:
“Although possible in theory, we found no systematic, empirical
evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant
dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK.” 56
34 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
We have already seen that Britain, and England in particular, is one of the
most densely populated countries in the world; that immigration is, and is
continuing, at a rate that is simply unparalleled in our history; and, on current
demographic trends, the native English population will be an ethnic minority in
their own country within two to three generations. The detrimental effects of
uncontrolled, unlimited and indiscriminate immigration are already apparent.
One of the most sensitive issues is the relationship between immigrants and
crime. Organised crime in London is now almost exclusively the province
of foreign ethnic gangs. The Metropolitan Police have admitted that almost
all of the organised crime gangs in London are foreign. Turks, Albanians,
various assorted Eastern Europeans and Nigerians, etc, control peoplesmuggling,
prostitution, drugs, and some aspects of fraud. Each has their
speciality: apparently Romanians are cornering the market in hole-in-the-wall
fraud: according to a Cabinet Office memo they are reportedly responsible for
85% of all cashpoint crime in Britain.57 Many of these criminals come from
countries that are not even in the EU, but why we cannot identify them and
deport them remains a mystery.
There is also growing conflict between ethnic groups. As one contributor to
the Metropolitan Police’s Consultation on Policing Priorities for 2007/2008
commented, “Culture conflicts go beyond ‘black on black’ violence. Black
on black violence is not correct (as a title) as there are conflicts between
Black and Asians, Asians and Turkish, Black and Turkish, West Indians and
Somalis, etc.”58 There is also the growing threat of conflict between
some sections of the indigenous White population and some sections
of the immigrant population, most notably the riots in Burnley and
Bradford in 2001 between the White and Muslim populations. These are
a phenomenon of poor areas where an increasingly ghettoised Muslim
population are seen by their White neighbours as receiving preferential
treatment from local government in terms of housing and public services.
Large parts of Britain’s inner cities have now changed beyond recognition in
terms of their ethnic make-up. They are now more like enclaves of Pakistan,
Bengal or India than English cities. Instead of integrating into the native culture
many migrants prefer to live amongst people of their own ethnic origin and
religion and live in closed societies that duplicate where they emigrated from.
The phenomenon of ‘White flight’, is also having a marked effect on Britain’s
cities whereby many of the indigenous population who can afford to move out
are doing so, and in growing numbers are leaving Britain altogether.
Many of Britain’s immigrant population are choosing not to assimilate or
integrate into British society, or even learn English. This is supported by
central and local government through the policy of multiculturalism, for
11. The Cultural and Social Effects of
Mass Immigration on the UK
Immigration: Action Overdue! 35
example, whereby even rural authorities with less than 1% ethnic minorities
are compelled to provide translation services. Multiculturalism encourages
some immigrant groups to retain practices inimical to British culture, such as
arranged marriages, polygamy, the submission of women, and female genital
mutilation.
A multi-ethnic society can work where all its citizens share a common
cultural identity and belief in similar values. In Britain this should mean
belief in equality, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the national
institutions of law and government. Its citizens also need some knowledge
of the nation’s history that made it what it is, and above all
a common language – English. There also needs to be shared beliefs
in a common set of values such as, respect for freedom of speech,
and consensus that religious beliefs are kept overtly separate
from politics. Multicultural societies are a recipe for division
and conflict since a sense of common identity and loyalty is replaced
by contending interests that will inevitably seek to gain advantage over
each other.
36 Immigration: Action Overdue!
1
According to the 2001 census, out of a total UK population of 57.1 million,
almost 1.6 million, or 2.8%, were Muslims.59 The population of the UK is now
believed to be at least 61.4 million (not counting illegal immigrants); the Muslim
population in 2008 was just under 2.5 million, over 4% of the population60.
A dramatic growth in both instances.
Since the political emancipation of the Roman Catholics and the non-conformists
in the nineteenth century the settled British view of religion is that it is a
matter of private belief and conscience and should not intrude overtly into the
political sphere. We have admitted immigrants of many different religions to
Britain on the unspoken and assumed belief that they also will adhere to this
way of thinking. But this does not correspond to developments in the Islamic
world.
The growth of Islamic fundamentalism has been a phenomenon of the 20th
century that gathered force and momentum during the latter half of the century,
the worst excesses of which have been seen in the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. But the Taliban are just one strand of the worldwide
Islamic movement to return to a more fundamental and literalist Islam. The
evangelical manifestations of this, most notably in the West, have been fuelled
by funds derived from Middle Eastern oil revenues. Corrupt regimes in oil rich
countries have sought to placate their fundamentalists at home by giving
them funds to export radical Islam abroad.
Fundamentalist and literalist Muslims do not share Western values, and
indeed see them as corrupt. They do not believe in the democratic nation
state. They believe in the universal Islamic theocracy, the Umma, based
on political rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah (the teachings of
Mohammed). They do not believe in the equality of the sexes, intellectual or
religious freedom, tolerance of homosexuality, or tolerance of other peoples’
religious beliefs, to name just a few. Their views are simply incompatible with
western liberal democracy.
We are all familiar with how their teachings have influenced and inspired the
wave of terrorist attacks around the world, most notably in New York, London
and Madrid, as well as in many other places in the world. More moderate and
secular Muslim countries, such as Turkey and Egypt, face just the same threats
from fundamentalists as western nations and have themselves been under
terrorist attack for decades.
Muslims in Britain, as in many other western countries, are becoming
increasingly ghettoised and choosing not to assimilate and integrate, using
multiculturalism as their justification. They frequently have arranged or forced
marriages with spouses from their country of origin, who often do not speak
12. The Islamic Dimension
Immigration: Action Overdue! 37
38 Immigration: Action Overdue!
English, have little or no knowledge of British law, customs and culture, and
perpetuate the cycle of non-integration and non-assimilation. Indeed many
would be affronted that they should ‘assimilate’ to a culture that they have
little regard for.
A 2005 opinion poll showed that 6% of Muslims thought that the London bombings
of 7th July 2005 were justified. That is not a large proportion, but 6% of the
Muslim 2008 population figures (2.5 million) equates to 150,000 people. The
same percentage expressed no loyalty to Britain. Meanwhile the proportion
of those who, while not condoning the attacks, could understand why
some people behave in that way was 56%, which equates to an astounding
1.4 million people.61
As Muslim communities increase in numbers they see less and less reason to
integrate as their own identity is reinforced. The advocates of fundamentalist
and literalist Islam are allowed to freely come to Britain and propagate their
message. The fundamentalists’ long-term goal is to turn Britain into an Islamic
society. Given their beliefs this is not an unreasonable point of view for them to
have, and they surely cannot believe their luck in encountering such a week and
submissive society as Britain, and Europe generally. Time and demographics
are on their side.
The Deobandi sect, which totally rejects western values, is estimated to run
almost 600 of Britain’s 1,600 mosques.62 A group called Tablighi Jamaat were
behind plans to build the so-called ‘Mega-mosque’ in West Ham, East London.
This project now seems to have been successfully opposed by the local
community, but it was intended to be the biggest place of worship in Europe,
dwarfing St Paul’s cathedral in London and St Peter’s in Rome, and would have
cost an estimated £100 million. The source of funding was mysterious but
there can be little doubt that much of it would have come from Saudi Arabia,
where non-Muslim places of religious worship are not permitted to be built
under Islamic theological rules. Tolerance and multiculturalism is a one-way
street as far as Islam is concerned.
Tablighi Jamaat preaches an ascetic and literalist strand of Islam and the
French intelligence services have called it the ‘ante-chamber to terrorism’63,
estimating that perhaps 80% of Islamic extremists in France come from
Tablighi ranks. Tablighi Jamaat and other Islamic groups claim they do not
encourage or condone terrorism but they do inspire the fundamentalist
beliefs in which it grows.
The subject of Muslim immigration into Britain and the consequences of
extremism is too big to cover comprehensively in this paper, and needs to be
the subject of a separate study, and specific policy recommendations.
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Those in favour of mass immigration use recourse to a number of myths to
justify it. Space does not allow for all of these to be debunked but here a few
of the main ones.
i) ‘Britain has a declining population’.
This is simply not true. See Table 2 which gives population projections for
the UK from the Office of National Statistics (2008) The figures clearly show
that, on current trends, the UK population is set to grow to 70 million by 2031
and 80 million by 2061. These figures cannot take into account future illegal
immigration and the possible influx of migrants from new entry countries to
the EU over the same periods of time.
All of this population growth is down to immigration and births to migrants.
Table 8 below shows estimated population figures if there were zero net
immigration from 2000 to 2031
Table 8
UK Population Projection (in millions)64
Year 2000 2010 2020 2031
Population
with zero
net immigration. 59.8 60.1 60.3 59.6
The figures show that with zero net immigration (the same number coming in
as going out) over the next twenty years or so the population would fall back
to its year 2000 level. However, ‘net immigration’ would not be considered
desirable by many British people as it effectively means that, over time, the
indigenous population is replaced by migrants.
Britain doesn’t have a declining population but the question has to be asked:
what would actually be wrong with a managed decline in population to a
density level more in keeping with the available living space, resources and
infrastructure? There would be benefits of improved quality of life with a
population of less than 60 million. Politicians should now seriously consider
the benefits of a gradual managed population decline: and all that needs to be
done to achieve it is to stop mass immigration.
ii) ‘Britain has an ageing population’.
Yes, but so what? So does every other developed and developing
country. It is the natural consequence of improved nutrition and health
services, people are healthier and live longer. The Government Actuarial
Service predicts that the dependency ratio i.e. the number of children
and retired people per working 1,000 of the population will actually fall
13. Myths and Realities Concerning
Immigration
39
40 Immigration: Action Overdue!
from 620 in 2000 to 583 in 2020. Increasing the population by mass
immigration won’t supply younger workers to replace the old. It will just
increase the total population, all of whom are living longer.
The natural way to increase the population of younger workers is to
encourage indigenous families to have more children by reducing the financial
burdens on them and providing better child care facilities.
iii) ‘Britain suffers from labour shortages’.
There are currently approximately 5 million people of working age who do
not work and who are not engaged in looking after young children or in
full-time education. Of these 5 million there are now just fewer than 2.5 million
unemployed65 and about 2.5 million on long-term sick benefits – this figure
has risen four-fold over the last twenty-five years – which is remarkable given
that general health has improved. Of the unemployed there are those who
find they are better off on benefit payments than working, and many on sick
benefits who might be able to work but also find themselves better off on
benefits. A vast underclass of benefits claimants has been created while
immigrants are brought in to do the jobs they will not do for the wages on
offer. In time the immigrants will also realise they will be better off on
benefits, more immigrants will be required to fill the low paid jobs and the
whole process will be repeated. The solution is to make it harder for the
able bodied to claim benefits and require them to work.
iv) ‘Immigration is the only way to pay for our pensions’.
Taken to its logical conclusion this is an absurd argument. Immigrants grow
old and need pensions too. The population would have increased accordingly
and yet more immigrants would be needed to pay their pensions; the logical
consequence of this argument is that there must be an ever increasing
number of immigrants to pay pensions of the preceding waves of
immigrants. It has been calculated that to maintain the current ratio
of UK workers to those of pensionable age would require one million new
immigrants per year; leading to a population in excess of 120 million
by the middle of the century. The United Nations World Economic and
Social Report for 2004 put it so: ‘Immigration (to Europe) would have
to expand at virtually impossible rates to offset declining support ratios”.66
The solution to the pension deficit problem is structural reform of working
practices and the pension systems, not more mass immigration.
v) ‘We have a moral duty to allow immigration’.
This argument is based on the premise that Britain was an exploiter
of poorer nations in the past and so we should help their descendants
today. This is wrong on two counts. Firstly, it assumes that the British
were net exploiters of those countries they colonised. Britain in fact
Immigration: Action Overdue!
created a vast legacy of infrastructure, promoted education, improved
agriculture and laid the foundations of civil and democratic society,
and above all the left the inestimable benefit of the English language, in
all of the countries of the Empire. Secondly it is absurd to place a moral
burden on the descendants of long dead ‘sinners’. Present day Britons
are no more responsible for the benefits and the supposed sins of Empire
than the descendants of the Romans, Vikings and Normans are responsible
for the depredations of their ancestors. Any British citizen suffering from
a guilt complex is perfectly free to make personal reparations as they see
fit. The job of governments and politicians is to protect the interests of
their own country and those who elected them.
41
42 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Classic examples of how similarly socially and economically advanced
countries have tackled immigration are the USA, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. All of these countries are traditionally ‘countries of immigration’ since
in their modern form they were the result of colonisation and predominantly
Anglo-Saxon and European immigration. All of these countries were vastly
under-populated when they were discovered and during their subsequent
development had the need to bring in large numbers of immigrants. However
they now all strictly control immigration because they value their standard of
living and quality of life and wish to maintain it.
It is difficult to obtain a work permit to the USA and qualify for residence
let alone become a citizen. Canada operates a points system based on
educational qualifications, work experience, age, firm offer of a job, and
adaptability. Those applying, and any dependents, must undergo medical and
criminal record checks. Likewise Canada has strict criteria for those applying
for asylum.
Australia and New Zealand also operate points based systems using age,
language proficiency, educational and professional qualifications. Those
applying must have firm offers of work, and no-one over the age of 45 can
apply to Australia. Australia also operates a strict asylum system. They also
have a commendable refugee and humanitarian entrant system whereby
an Australian citizen or permanent resident, may sponsor a refugee or
humanitarian applicant provided that they undertake to provide a certain
level of support, e.g. in providing accommodation and practical assistance in
settling into the country.
Australia has also taken a firm stand against radical Islamists. The then Prime
Minister, John Howard, and Treasurer, Peter Costello, made it clear that
extremists were not welcome and faced a crackdown – Mr Costello said on
national television, ‘If you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic
state, then Australia is not for you…I think we have every right to say to people
who are coming to live in Australia, if you come to live in Australia you have
got to accept some fundamental principles.’67
Contrast this with Britain’s open borders policy and our politically correct,
multicultural state, where all cultures are of equal value, and where the
immigration and asylum policy can be summed up as ‘The more the merrier,
any Tom, Dick or Harry welcome, few or no questions asked’.
14. How Other Countries
Have Tackled Immigration
Immigration: Action Overdue!
The obvious beneficiaries from Britain’s uncontrolled, unlimited and
indiscriminate immigration system are the immigrants, and the huge immigration
industry which includes many charities, housing associations that provide
accommodation, and lawyers who live on Home Office grants paid for by
the taxpayer to defend asylum applicants. Although there are supposedly
strict controls on those applying legitimately as immigrants from outside
the European Union there is unlimited access for those coming from the
European Union, or those from outside the European Union who can obtain
false EU documentation.
As far as immigration from the EU is concerned no discrimination is, or could
legally be made, against those with criminal records, and the low-skilled or
no-skilled. Britain is legally required to accept any EU citizen who wishes to
come.68 The Government claims that it can control the numbers through the
work permit scheme; this is a typically dishonest position as the new points based
system only applies to those workers from outside the EU. The Government
did introduce stricter measures for Bulgarian and Romanian workers
after 2007 but, although workers from Eastern European countries were
required to register for workers registration certificates, this requirement only
applied once they had found work and it is not a means of controlling immigration.
Also, the workers registration certificate does not cover those from Eastern
Europe who describe themselves as self-employed. They are legally entitled
to work without any restrictions; and they do so, for example in the
construction, catering and service industries, possibly paying no income tax
and sending money home. They drive wages down and property prices up
for the indigenous population.
Who then gains from among the political classes that make uncontrolled
immigration possible? Conservative and Labour governments have made
mass immigration possible over the last fifty years or so, but immigration has
exploded under the Labour Government since 1997. This has been because
of Labour’s commitment to a borderless European supranational political
state, and their ideological belief that a ‘multicultural’ and ‘diverse’ society
had to replace the by and large common-cultural and cohesive society that
existed in Britain after the Second World War. The old political parties are
committed to unending immigration because they believe that immigrants
are more likely to vote for them if they are pro-immigration, and they
fear the loss of votes in constituencies dominated by first, second, and even
third generation immigrants.
In the winter of 2007 the Statistics Commission69 published figures that
indicates since 1997 81% of all new jobs created went to foreign nationals
or those born abroad, this includes those who were born abroad but
15. Who Benefits from Mass Immigration?
43
44 Immigration: Action Overdue!
subsequently gained British citizenship. Large sections of business are in
favour of mass-immigration because it provides a never ending supply of
cheap labour, most recently from Eastern Europe.
On the horizon there is the prospect of another 72.5 million people who will
have the right to come to Britain if Turkey joins the European Union in a few
years time, a position enthusiastically supported by the Labour, Conservative
and Liberal Democratic parties. The old-style politicians have their Utopian
ideals, and their narrow electoral interests, and business is only concerned
with making greater short-term profits not with the long term benefits of
country and livelihoods of native workers.
Immigration: Action Overdue!
Members of the Immigration Committee & Contributors
Chairman and Writer: Gerard Batten MEP
Professor Stephen Bush
John Harvey
Phillip Smith
Andrew Moncrieff
John Whiffen
Michael McManus
John Coleman
Research by Fiona Wise
Additional Research by Lynnda Robson
16. Appendix I
45
46 Immigration: Action Overdue!
Immigration: Action Overdue! 47
1 Barbara Roche MP, Labour Minister with special responsibility for immigration, speech at IPPR
(Institute for Public Policy Research) conference ‘UK migration in a global economy’, 11th September 2000.
2 Robert Wnder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain. Page 2.
3 David Miles, The Tribes of Britain, Weidenfield and Nicholson 2005, Page 66-88.
4 Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of Our Tribal History, Bantam Press, 2006, page 1
5 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007, pages 21 and 22.
6 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007, page 25.
7 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007
8 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civias, April 2007, page 50.
9 G. Black, Jewish London: An illustrated history. Breedon Books, 2003, page 78.
10 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants? Published by Civitas, April 2007.
11 J.A. Tannahill, European Voluntary Workers in Britain. Manchester University Press, 1958, page 1.
12 Office for National Statistics, 2009.
13 901 – 2031 from the Annual Abstract of Statistics 2008, Office of National Statistics;
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2008/AA2008.pdf
2081 Karen Dunnell, National Statistician: Official Report; 5 Nov 2008 : Column 504W
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081105/text/81105w0009..htm
14 The Daily Telegraph, One in four UK babies born to a foreign parent. By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor.
15 You Gov poll, April 2006.
16 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2009/AA09Webversion.pdf
17 http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/maps-diagrams/fig-1-01.jsp
18 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population_trends_135.pdf.
19 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/
20 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15106
21 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants. Published by Civitas, April 2007.
22 David Conway, A Nation of Immigrants, page 69. Published by Civitas April 2007.
23 C.Peach, Ethnicity in the 1991 Census, Vol 2: The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain, HMSO, 1991,
Table 5, page 9.
24 1998-2006 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2008, page 36. 2007, Office of National Statistics,
19th November 2008. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260.
25 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population_trends_135.pdf
26 The Daily Express 27th January 2010.
27 http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=21277 Interim report – ‘Economic impact
on London and the UK of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants in the UK’ Interim Report from
LSE London, by Ian Gordon, Kathleen Scanlon, Tony Travers and Christine Whitehead 16/02/09
28 ‘Illegal migrants total hits 1m as MPs call for curb’, by Tom Whitehead, Daily Express, 8th Sept 08.
29 Daily Express, page 7, ‘Queue here for Britain’ by Nick Fagge, Monday 13th August 2007.
30 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/immiq309.pdf
31 The Human Rights Act was adopted in 1998 by the majority of its provisions did not come into force
until 2000.
32 Daily Express, ‘Secret amnesty for 500,000 asylum cases, by Macer Hall, Political Editor,
Monday 6th August 2007.
33 BBC News Channel. ‘Backlog of asylum cases doubles’, by Dominic Casciani.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7846140.stm.
34 Council Directive 2004/83/EC April 2004.
35 Daily Telegraph, Brussels: We’ll halt Howard’s curb on migrants, by David Rennie and George Jones,
26th January 2005.
36 European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, 29th April 2004 on the right of citizens of the
Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Members States.
(amending various existing regulations).
37 http://www.europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/133152.htm
38 http://www.telepgraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm1?xml=news/2006/08/23/nmigrants223.xml
39 Formerly Article 18(1) TEC (Treaty Establishing the European Community).
40 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:229:0035:0048:EN:PDF
41 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31968R1612:EN:HTML
42 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20063317.htm
43 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/asylum/fsj_asylum_intro_en.htm
17 Notes
148 Immigration: AEnctoiuognh O ivse Erndouueg!h
44 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050007.htm
45 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062525.htm
46 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/asylum/fsj_asylum_intro_en.htm
47 Professor Anthony Coughlan, The Constitutional Implications of the Treaty of Lisbon, EU Watch,
Sept/Oct 2008.
49 The Daily Telegraph, One in four babies born to a foreign parent, by Philip Johnson, Home Affairs Editor,
23rd August 2007.
50 The Independent, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 article by Ben Russell, Home AffairsCorrespondent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-nine-people-who-live-in-uk-bornabroad-
1631348.html
51 The psychology of race differences, by Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor University of Ulster, 2006.
52 The Daily Telegraph, White people in Birmingham ‘a minority by 2027’, Friday 31st August 2007.
53 Annual Abstract of National Statistics 2009, Office of National Statistics.
54 Warning: Immigration Can Seriously Damage Your Wealth, by Anthony Scholefield
55 Migration Watch UK. Briefing paper 1.5
56 1st Report (2007-2008) published 1st April 2008
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf
57 The Sun, Warning over migrant crooks, 14th September 2007.
58 Metropolitan Police Authority Online Consultation on Policing Priorities for 2007/2008. Final Report
on Public Consultation, page 27.
59 Islam in the European Union: What’s at stake for the future? Directorate General for Internal Policies of
the Union, Culture and Eduction. May 2007.
60 Labour Force Survey, as cited by Karen Dunnell, National Statistician.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090707/
text/90707w0026.htm
61 YouGov Poll, ‘One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists’, Daily Telegraph,
Anthony King, 23rd July 2005.
62 Radical Islamic Sect ‘has half of Britain’s mosques in its grip’, by Amar Singh, London Evening Standard,
7th September 2007.
63 Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad’s Stealthy Legions, by Alex Alexiev.
64 Do We Need Mass-Immigration? By Anthony Browne, published by Civitas, page 14.
65 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=12
66 Quoted in Financial Times, 30th November 2004,
67 Peter Costello, 23rd August 2005
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=transcripts/2005/124.htm&min=phc
68 Except under the narrowly construed grounds of public health, public policy and public security.
69 http://www.statscom.org.uk/C_1237.aspx

Immigration: Action Overdue!
About the author
Gerard Batten was a founder
member of the UK Independence
Party in September 1993.
He was elected as a Member
of the European Parliament for
London in June 2004, and elected
for a second five year term in
June 2009.
From 2004 to 2009 he was a
member of the European Parliament’s
Security and Defence Committee,
and has written on how Britain’s
defences are being gradually
subsumed into a European defence
force – a European Army.
In 2007 he co-Chaired UKIP’s Defence Policy Committee with Rear
Admiral Richard Heaslip. The Committee’s recommendations were later
published as the Party’s Defence Policy.
He now sits on the European Parliament’s misnamed Civil Liberties Justice
and Home Affairs Committee. He campaigns against the European Arrest
Warrant and the development of the EU’s ‘common legal instruments’ that
are destroying our centuries old liberties and protections against unjust
arrest and imprisonment.
In 2007 he was the Chairman of UKIP’s Immigration Policy Committee
and authored the policy paper that was delivered to the Party later that
year. This document is the third revision, with some minor refinements
and additions.
In November 2009 he was a candidate in the UKIP’s leadership
election and achieved second place on 26% of the vote. UKIP’s new
leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, appointed him the Party spokesman
on Immigration and Islamism.
First published in Great Britain in March 2010.
Copyright © Gerard Batten 2010.
Published by Gerard Batten MEP, PO Box 51542, London, SE1 3XS.
Contact
Gerard Batten Member of the European parliament for London
020 7403 7174
gerard.batten@btinternet.com

#######################################

BATTEN, Gerard 18 – IMMIGRATION Action Overdue!

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 
Advertisements

Posted in Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Enoch POWELL’s Prescient ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech of 1968

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/04/1968

Enoch POWELL’s Prescient ‘Rivers of Blood‘ Speech of 1968.
.
English: Enoch Powell
English: Enoch Powell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

.

This is the full text of Enoch Powell‘s so-called ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.

10 years on
20 years on

30 years on
40 years on
45 years on
It is, it seems, as erudite, prescient & valid as it was when first presented:

The speech was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham 
April 20 1968.

 

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary.By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: ”

I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General‘s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population.

It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry.

In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected.

This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted.

I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.”

This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come.

The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so.

The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

.
It is interesting to note how the intellectually dishonest have selectively misquoted extracts from this speech to distort its meaning and intent and use it dishonestly to bully and browbeat those of little intellectual rigour, and those to lazy or too ‘challenged’ to read and understand the original speech, into the subsequent suppresion of discussion of the problems of unlicensed imigration for the last 45 years.

It will be noted that even intellectually lazy or challenged politicians have fallen for the dishonest spin which broadly falls into the catagory of ‘Political Correctness’ as do so many evils that are presented to distort morality, honesty and society at large.
.

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” 
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
 

Regards,
Greg L-W.  
For all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE

SOME QUICK BLOG CONTACTS:

Greg Lance-Watkins: CLICK HERE

Greg L-W.: CLICK HERE

UKIP-vs-EUkip: CLICK HERE

TheMidnightGroup: CLICK HERE

INDEPENDENT Leave-The-EU Alliance: CLICK HERE
 

‘The arrogance and hubris of corrupt politicians will be responsible for every drop of blood spilt in the Wars of Disassociation, if Britain does not leave the EU.

The ugly, centralised, undemocratic supra national policies being imposed by the centralised and largely unelected decisionmakers of The EU for alien aims, ailien values and to suit alien needs stand every possibility of creating 200,000,000 deaths across EUrope as a result of the blind arrogance and hubris of the idiologues in the central dictatorship, and their economic illiteracy marching hand in glove with the idiocy of The CAP & The CFP – both policies which deliver bills, destroy lives and denude food stocks.

The EU, due to the political idiocy and corruption of its undemocratic leaders, is now a net importer of food, no longer able to feed itself and with a decreasing range of over priced goods, of little use to the rest of the world, to sell with which to counter the net financial drain of endless imports.  
 

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.
 

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

Until we gain our liberty, restore our sovereignty, repatriate our democracy and reinstate our Justice system and our borders – defended by our Police and Military armed with sustainable and obtainable weaponry: Treat every election as a referendum.

Don’t spoil your Ballot Paper by wasting it on a self serving Politician in ANY election until we are liberated from the EU and are a Free Sovereign peoples, with independent control of our own borders, making and managing Law & Justice for our own benefit, in our own elected Westminster Parliament where we can fire our politicians at the ballot box, if they fail to represent OUR best interests and de-centralise their powers.

.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side BarPAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Enoch Powell, Immigration, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Blood speech | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: