Frequently Asked Questions

Do Migrationwatch exaggerate?

No. We obliged the Home Office, under the government's freedom of information rules, to release their information on Migrationwatch. Here is the text of an email from one Home Office official to another sent on 29 July 2003:

I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that MW migration forecasts are wrong. I have pointed out before that MW assumptions are often below the government actuary's department's high migration scenario.

And here is a quote from an editorial in The Times of 23 August 2004:

Once an electorate loses faith in the reliability of evidence on which decisions are made, no amount of persuasion can restore faith in the system. This would be the real damage of any Home Office revision of the Office for National Statistics. And this is why Migrationwatch is right to raise the alarm.

Surely the recession will reduce immigration?

Yes, but only temporarily (Briefing Paper 1.21).

Are economic migrants taking British jobs?

There is some anecdotal evidence of foreign workers being preferred. However, the UK labour market is large and complex with nearly 30 million in the work force and, of course, the total number of jobs is not fixed. The statistics are not unambiguous but there are some worrying signs (Briefing Paper 1.22 and Briefing Paper 3.7).

What is the point of immigration control if EU citizens are free to come and go?

Immigration from Eastern Europe is expected to decline. There are already signs of this. Meanwhile, some of those already here will decide to go home. As a result, net immigration will fall sharply (Briefing Paper 4.8). This is what happened when Spain, Portugal and Greece joined what was then the EC. The real long-term problem is in the developing world where populations are growing very rapidly but jobs are not.

Why hasn't Balanced Migration been proposed before?

For a generation people have avoided tackling the subject for fear of being thought to be racist. Now we are having a proper debate, we can address the issues sensibly. The Government are putting in place a whole range of measures to try to get our borders back under control but they have, so far, resolutely avoided any commitment to limit numbers, despite extremely strong public opinion.

Is "Balanced Migration" really feasible?

Certainly - over a period of time. It would also provide a focus for policy formation as the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has suggested. At present, the Government has literally no idea what size of population they wish to see in the UK.

How can you know what will happen to emigration?

The Government have no control over emigration which is a result of the free decisions of British citizens. However, the broad trend rate of emigration could most certainly be used as an aiming mark for immigration policy if the Government had the political will to control the numbers.

Surely immigrants benefit our economy?

Some do, but their performance is very mixed. The Government claim that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they do not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

Surely London would collapse without immigrants?

This debate is not about existing immigrant communities. Nobody is remotely suggesting that they should leave. The issue is how many more people our island can sustain.

Do we need immigration to fill 600,000 vacancies?

No. The Government first made this claim in 2002. Since then the number of foreign born workers aged over 16 has increased by 1.1 million yet in October 2008 there were still 610,000 vacancies. The reason is that immigrants also create demand which in turn creates new jobs, so the argument from labour shortages leads to an endless cycle of immigration.

Surely we need the skills that foreigners can bring?

Yes, there are skills gaps which foreigners could fill but they should do so only temporarily. We propose that they should be admitted only for period of four years while British workers are trained. The CBI themselves admit that immigration is not a long term solution to skills shortages.

Don't we need foreigners to do to the jobs that British people are unwilling to do?

No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled (Briefing Paper 1.22). At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. That partly explains why we have 2 million unemployed and a further 2.6 million on incapacity benefit, of whom the Government wishes to move 1 million from welfare to work. These figures include just over one million young people who are not in education, employment or training.

Who will pick strawberries?

There is a need for seasonal unskilled labour, especially in agriculture and horticulture. This is now being met largely by workers from East European members of the EU. If this proves insufficient, a strictly policed system of temporary migration could be considered.

Surely there is no harm in migrants who work and pay taxes?

There is a developing view, supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, that the effect of immigration on the budget is broadly neutral in the long term. However, large numbers add substantially to the pressure on housing and public services which take a long time to adjust. They also add, of course, to pressures on our environment.

Don't we need migrants to help pay for our pensions?

This is false. Immigrants themselves grow older so the only effect, even of very large scale immigration, is to postpone by a few years the impact of an ageing population. The real answer is that, as people now live longer, they should work longer. The Turner Commission on pensions dismissed the argument that immigration would help with pensions saying that only high immigration can produce more than a trivial reduction in the projected dependency ratio over the next 50 years...and this would be only a temporary affect unless still higher levels of immigration continued in later years... This view was endorsed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in their report published in April 2008.

Won't EU migrants be so numerous as to exclude all others?

It will take some years to achieve Balanced Migration and there will have to be some flexibility on the way; the management of the inflation target could provide a pattern. Over the past ten years net immigration from the EU15 has averaged only 19,000 per year and we expect immigration from Eastern Europe to decline over the coming years. This makes it unlikely that EU migration will squeeze out all others.

Is it "racist" to apply limits only to non-EU citizens?

No. The basis for this is not race. It you are a French or German citizen of whatever race, you have free access to Britain. Equally, if you are a non-EU citizen you do not have free access, whether or not you are white.

Revised April 2009