Migration Watch UK: News

A lesson in spin from the Migration Matters Trust

2013-06-13T09:06:18+01:00

This week we were treated to the news that ‘opposition to immigration drops when people are told about the economic benefits of net migration’.

Former Labour Immigration Minister Barbara Roche – who presided over much of Labour’s immigration shambles – claimed that ‘when the full facts of migration are presented to the British people, they begin to recognise that simple truth’.

She went on ‘Those opposed to immigration ignore what for them is an inconvenient truth. It's not that we cannot afford more immigration, rather that we cannot afford not to have immigration’, as reported by The Observer.

The problem for Barbara Roche and her new immigration think tank Migration Matters, is that the opinion poll says nothing of the sort.

There are two problems with this poll and The Observer’s report of it. First, the claim that respondents were told the ‘truth’ about immigration in this poll. Secondly, the opinion poll actually finds that people continue to oppose the current level of net migration even when fed a one sided account of the economic benefits of immigration; indeed, only 10 % supported the current level.

Let us first take in turn the claims incorporated in the opinion poll questions.

The poll is based on selected quotes from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) which, rather bizarrely, is introduced with a question asking the public whether, in principle, it was a good idea to set it up. In case they are in any doubt they are told in the question that “It is headed by Robert Chote, who used to run a widely-respected think tank specialising in tax issues.”

Respondents are then asked four questions based on selected extracts from a recent report on the government’s fiscal position This is described as a “detailed analysis of immigration”.

The first poll “question” states that ‘immigration boosts growth’. This is incredibly simplistic. Immigration does not boost GDP per head to any significant extent because it is offset by the increase in population. As the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs said: “We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration – immigration minus emigration – generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”.

The same “question” claims that ‘migration increases tax revenues and does not add much to age-related spending pressures as migrants tend to be of working age and use services like the NHS less.’ While in the immediate and short term this may be true. What it fails to mention is that the ageing process applies to immigrants as well, and therefore immigration can only ever be a means of buying time. Indeed, the OBR themselves stated ‘This effect would reverse over a longer time horizon, when those immigrants who remain in the UK reach old age’.

Not only are the questions slanted but they are also highly selective. Another poll “question” states ‘The OBR goes on to say that without continuing immigration, Government debt would be far higher than it is.’ What it fails to mention is that to keep government debt at 40% of GDP requires a level of net migration that will increase our population to 88 million by 2060. Yes - an increase in population of 25 million people!

The second major issue with this article and Roche’s claims is that the poll in fact shows a very healthy degree of scepticism towards the economic claims of the OBR reflected in the questions. Indeed one “question” goes so far as to say “You say you don't believe the analysis. But if you were convinced that it is valid and had to make the choice, which would you prefer?” It rather looks as though this question was added later when they found that 39% didn’t believe the analysis and another 27% didn’t know. The public were right to be sceptical because the OBR estimate quoted was based on reducing net migration to zero whereas the government’s policy is to reduce it to “tens of thousands”

Despite the way in which these questions were posed and the selective use of a report prepared for other purposes by a body with no particular expertise on immigration they could only find 10% of the respondents to agree “that it would be best for Britain to continue to admit broadly the same number of immigrants as we do today”.

We advise that readers have a look at the full results of the poll which can be found here.

London’s ‘Demographic Explosion’

2013-06-11T15:59:30+01:00

Today, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson made a speech about investment in the future of London. He pointed to the ‘demographic explosion’ now occurring and the resulting huge shortage of both homes and school places but he made no reference to the impact of immigration. He seemed to regard the population increase as entirely welcome, something that many Londoner’s would question. A few weeks back, in the Evening Standard, he referred to the capital’s population rise but said it was not “principally a function of immigration, as it happens, but of the simple rate of live births against deaths.” This is absolutely false.

Between 2001 and 2011, the UK-born population in London actually declined by about 50,000, while theforeign born population of London increased by over one million. The entire growth of the London population over that decade can be accounted for the by increase in the number of residents born outside the UK. In addition, only one third of children born in London in 2011 were to parents who were both British born, while 44% were to parents who were both foreign born (the other 23% had one foreign born parent).

Of course, London is a global city and migrants are bound to be a part of its growth. But it is not a case of unlimited immigration or none at all, the scale and pace of immigration are the keys as to whether the city’s expansion can be managed successfully

The Mayor’s attitude seems to that the city just has to cope with whoever turns up. That is clearly absurd when the city’s housing transport and education services are already struggling and when the public are very strongly opposed to the mass immigration that was allowed to occur under Labour. The government has a very sensible policy of bringing net migration down from more than a quarter of a million a year to the tens of thousands. It would be nice to hear some common sense from the Mayor on this issue and some recognition for the strength of public concern about massive levels of immigration.

Instead, the Mayor brushes all this aside and proposes to deal with mass migration by simply building more schools and houses, putting more buses on the roads, extending the Tube and training more teachers (who's going to pay for all this?). This is completely inadequate for the head of the world's greatest city.

Students and Net Migration

2013-06-07T15:57:19+01:00

On Thursday 6 June both Houses of Parliament debated the demand by five chairmen of Parliamentary Committees that the government remove students from their net migration target. The government have flatly refused to the fury of these eminent Parliamentarians. They point out that the Universities Lobby have got their facts completely wrong. Contrary to their claims, our main competitor countries certainly do include students in their net migration figures.

The reason this matters is that the universities are trying to duck and weave to prevent the government’s determination to reduce immigration from impinging on their ability to recruit as many foreign students as they wish from outside the EU.

Underlying this row is the fact that there has been scandalous abuse of the student route since the introduction of Labour’s Points Based System which proved wide open to fraud. At one point they even had to suspend it in a number of countries and the National Audit Office subsequently reported that “in the first year of the scheme, 40,000 to 50,000 “students” came to work rather than to study”.

More evidence of abuse is on its way.

The first ray of light will come in August from improvements to the International Passenger Survey which will provide an estimate of the number of students who have stayed on illegally. Eventually, the electronic border system will tell us who they are (but not, of course, where they may have disappeared to).

Foreign students fall into three different categories. The first is those who are genuine and who either leave at the end of their studies or stay on legally to work or to marry. They present no problems and are an obvious benefit to our economy and our society.

The second category are those who are genuine but decide to stay on, becoming illegal immigrants. The third category are bogus from the start and come here to work on the black market.

These last two groups are distinctively harmful. They undercut the wages of British workers, they enable unscrupulous employers to undercut those who offer salary and conditions and, of course, they add to our population and to the pressure on our public services.

Home Office research has found that only 20% are still here legally after five years but there is at present no way of knowing how many of the rest have actually left the UK.

Not many people know that, for the last ten years, 300,000 non EU migrants have arrived every year but only 100,000 have left. Some have, of course, stayed on legally but large numbers have done so illegally. Given that 60% of the inflow are students, they must be a major contributor to net migration.

The government are trying to tackle this with a major programme of 100,000 interviews a year designed to cut out bogus students before they can get here. A pilot scheme found that, in some countries, 60% of applicants would have failed a credibility test. Indeed, the first results from the last academic year show a sharp fall in visa applications accepted in the Indian Sub-Continent, mainly for colleges. In fact, applications for British universities were up, yes up, by 5%.
Applications from China were also up.

The University Lobby argue that they must be allowed to maintain their share of the market for international students. Let s suppose that it will grow at five per cent a year. We already accept about 200,000 non EU students every year. At this rate of growth the student inflow in ten years time would total 325,000 year. Given the weaknesses of the present system, any such development would put any net migration target in real difficulty.

The universities have a genuine problem in that the funding system imposed by the government makes them heavily reliant on foreign students. The only way to tackle the tension between immigration control and the benefits of genuine students is a much more intelligent and, indeed, discriminating system.

We need to know from which countries the overstayers have come and to which institutions they have applied. Those who fall into either of these categories must be very carefully checked. Why, for example, would Indian students pay what to them are huge sums of money for a one –year master’s degree in Britain when such degrees are not accepted in India as a basis for a PhD or even for government employment?

Given the numbers involved, the eventual outcome on the admission of students will be absolutely critical for effective immigration control. Judging by Thursday’s debate, Labour have no constructive proposals. Their spokesman opposed interviews on the grounds that they were “heavy handed” yet both the US and Australia require interviews. Meanwhile, Vince Cable spoke recently of public “panic” about immigration. He and the Liberal Democrats are completely out of touch. The public are alarmed, and rightly so. The recent census revealed that four million immigrants arrived in the last ten years, that 600,000 white British have left London where they are now in a minority. These are massive social changes taking place without a vestige of public consent. Continued failure to get immigration under control would seriously undermine public confidence in the whole political process.

Students and the Net Migration Target

2013-06-05T01:30:00+01:00

On the eve of debates in both Houses of Parliament, Migration Watch UK has issued Briefing Paper No 2.24 underlining the need to continue including students in the calculation of net migration.

Key points as follows:

 Our major competitors do include them (as Universities UK now apparently accept). To remove them would destroy the credibility of the government’s immigration policy.

 20% of foreign students stay on legally but there is still no way of knowing that the other 80% have actually left.

 There is extensive evidence of abuse, especially from the Indian Sub-Continent. Students who overstay are harmful to our economy and society.

 A major effort is needed to cut out bogus students with a programme of interviews, as well as measures to persuade genuine students to leave at the end of their courses.

 The UK already receives 200,000 non EU students every year. Annual growth of 5% would increase the annual intake in ten years time to over 325,000. The system must be tightened before this number is allowed to increase any further.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said “Our major competitors, the US and Australia, both include students in net migration. The difference is that they do not have a target for net migration – perhaps because they are continents rather than small islands. The university lobby would be foolish to dismiss the strong public concern about present massive levels of immigration.”

Notes to Editors:

On Thursday 6 June 2013 there will be a Backbench Business Debate in the House of Commons on Student Visas. The motion is ‘That this House notes the recommendations of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Committee of Public Accounts, together with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, for the removal of students from net migration targets; and invites the Home Office to further consider the conclusions of these Committees in developing its immigration policy.’

In the House of Lords there will be a debate. The motion is that ‘this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (8th Report, Session 2012–13, HL Paper 91).’

EU Migrant Access to the British Welfare State

2013-05-30T13:54:28+01:00

1. The government should strongly resist efforts by the EU to further weaken British control over access tour welfare system.

The Habitual Residence Test

2. It was announced today that the UK is to be taken to the European Court of Justice over its rules regarding access to welfare for EU immigrants (See here).

3. The UK welfare system is already uniquely open to EU migrants as most benefits in the UK are based on residence and ‘need’. Most other member states have a largely contributions based system.

4. The criteria for access to benefits are met automatically in the case of workers or self-employed persons. Other applicants such as job-seekers may have to pass the Habitual Residence Test (See here). This test has two elements:

• Is the UK now your place of residence based on a demonstration of intention to stay (also, confusingly, known as habitual residence)

• Are you exercising a specific treaty right as an EU citizen, such as worker, job-seeker or student (technically known as the “right to reside”).

The European Commission objects to the right to reside part of this test.

5. The removal of this part of the test would make it even easier to turn up in the UK and gain full access to the welfare state, without even the need demonstrate that you are looking for work.

Recommendations

6. We recommend that the government moves in the opposite direction and makes it much harder for EU nationals to access the welfare state. A significant part of the economic incentive to migrate from Eastern Europe to the UK is the availability of tax credits and other in-work benefits for low paid workers (See here). This has created a situation in which the UK taxpayer is subsidising low paid immigration from the EU.

7. It must, therefore, be a key objective of the Government’s renegotiation of our arrangements with the European Union that no worker should receive benefits (in-work or out of work) until he or she has worked for five years in this country. That would bring EU citizens more closely into line with migrants from the rest of the world. It would also both reduce the current massive financial advantage to move to the UK and make the system much fairer to British tax payers who have contributed all their working lives. Such arrangements would not interfere with the free movement of workers which is, of course, fundamental to the EU but the free and immediate access to all benefits is quite another matter.

Migration Watch UK Media Comment on Vince Cable’s Remarks

2013-05-29T16:43:09+01:00

Commenting on Vince Cable's remarks, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: "Vince Cable is not only completely out of touch with public opinion but also completely wrong on his facts. University applications went up by 5% last year. The fall in students was almost entirely amongst college applicants from the Indian Subcontinent where there has been extensive evidence of a large number of bogus student applications. Vince Cable might not want to control immigration but the public overwhelmingly do."

Note to Editors

* University applications were up by 5% in the year ending March 2013.

• See Migration Watch UK Briefing Paper Number 2.23 'Indian Students in the UK - Some Essential Context', February 2013 for more on Indian Students in the UK over time.

• See Migration Watch UK Briefing Paper Number 2.19 'Students: Genuine or Bogus?', July 2012 for more on abuse of the student route.

Visit our website at www.migrationwatchuk.org

Immigration and Visa Statistics

2013-05-23T15:55:30+01:00

Commenting on the latest immigration and visa statistics released this morning, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said:

“The latest immigration figures are very good news. Net migration is down by 89,000 on the previous year and the government have achieved this without harming the business or university sectors.

University applicants are up by 5% on the previous year and skilled visas applicants by 7%.

The key now is outflows. Non-EU outflows have been largely unchanged for ten years. A major effort is needed to ensure that people leave when they should. This could bring the government close to its immigration target.”

Notes to Editors:

* ONS Migration Statistics Quaterly Report, May, 2013 URL:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_309123.pdf

* In the year ending March 2013, there were 42,112 Tier 2 visa applications, an increase of 7% on the previous year when there were 39,501.

* University visa applications increased from 150,136 in the year ending March 2012 to 157,241 in the year ending March 2012.

* Net migration in the year ending September 2012 was 153,000, down from 242,000 in the year ending September 2011.

* 'Non-EU outflow in the year ending September 2012 was 111,000. Annual non-EU outflow has remained between 101,000 (YE end December 2007) and 126,000 (YE December 2006) over the last ten years.'

New Report shows Britain is ‘Open for Business’

2013-05-16T07:30:00+01:00

Britain’s immigration system is remarkably business friendly, contrary to the stories put out by some of the financial press, says a new report by Migration Watch UK published today.

In fact thousands of skilled worker (Tier 2), Exceptional Talent, and Graduate Entrepreneurs visas remained unfilled, despite cries that talented people are being denied access to the UK to work.

‘Instead of thousands of bogus students streaming in to work in low paid job and keeping wages down, as happened under the last government, our report shows that we now have a genuinely business friendly regime with thousands of places available for those skilled workers who are really needed,’ said Migration Watch UK chairman, Sir Andrew Green.

The report examines the seven kinds of visas available, several designed specifically for global business leaders, investors and world-class scientists. The aim is clearly to ensure that Britain remains one of the top business destinations in the world (The World Bank found that in 2012 the UK was the 7^th best place for business friendly regulations, the third highest European country, behind Denmark and Norway).

6.2 million people visited the UK in 2011, of which 1.67 million came as business visitors. There is no limit to the number of Entrepreneurs, Investors, Students and Intra Company Transferees that can come to the UK.

Sir Andrew said: ‘There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that a better service is needed in individual cases but it is time that the financial press examined the facts more carefully before presenting an entirely false picture.

‘The government are, rightly, responding to overwhelming public pressure to get mass immigration under control. Exaggerated cries of alarm from parts of the business community send out an unnecessarily negative message which damages their own cause internationally.’

Family Permits for EU Citizens in Britain

2013-05-13T08:24:13+01:00

A paper issued today by Migration Watch UK reveals that 100,000 dependants of EU nationals resident in Britain entered the UK in the last five years with no conditions attached but with full and immediate access to benefits.

The government’s reform of the Immigration Rules require British citizens to be earning £18,600 before they can bring in a spouse from outside the EU so as to avoid any cost to the taxpayer. However, under EU law, they are obliged to provide favourable treatment to EU citizens including those who may never have been resident here prior to moving with their non-EU family.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said “This is a loophole that must be closed and soon. It is absurd that EU citizens should be in a more favourable position than our own citizens. Furthermore, 20,000 per year is a very large number to admit unconditionally, especially compared to the government’s target of tens of thousands for annual net migration.

Notes to Editors:

1 More precisely, this applies to EEA nationals.

2 Example: French or Polish citizens living in the UK can marry someone from anywhere in the world and can bring him or her to the UK even if they do not have a job and cannot support their spouse whereas a British citizen must now be earning £18,600 a year.

3 Examples of Abuse – An Indian national from Goa can obtain Portuguese citizenship if their parents were Portuguese citizens prior to 1961. They can then move straight to the UK with their family using an EEA family permit. On arrival they can avail themselves, immediately, of all the benefits available to UK citizens. There is anecdotal evidence that this has been happening quite extensively. Many settle in Swindon, where around 9,000 Goans now live.

Please visit our website atwww.migrationwatchuk.org   

Changing Minds – The Financing of the Pro-Mass Immigration Lobby

2013-05-07T10:32:38+01:00

The Daily Mail recently reported on the Diana Memorial Fund’s financing of a pro mass immigration campaign. The article highlighted the role of the Migration Observatory in this campaign, called “Changing Minds”. The Migration Observatory has not responded to our questions seeking clarification of their position. However, we have now looked further into this issue ourselves and have found a systematic attempt by a small group of charities to influence public opinion on immigration. These charities are, of course, free to undertake such a campaign but it seems that the Migration Observatory which claims to be impartial is a key vehicle in their campaign. Their website declares their funders but makes no mention of their connection with this campaign. There must be some question as to whether such activity is appropriate to a major university.

To read the full Briefing Paper No 10.27 click here.