Immigration Watch International

The population increase is down – entirely – to immigration. On Question Time last month Jack Straw answered a question on this subject by pointing out that the Government could hardly control people’s fertility or stop them having children (oh, but I bet they wish they could). He was either being dishonest or stupid– Britain’s fertility rate is around 1.7 children per women, way, way below replacement rate, so that in a migration-free world the population would soon start to tumble once the first of the baby boomers started booking their one-way tickets to Switzerland.

On their website the Balanced Migration group refer to Britain facing a population increase equal to seven Birminghams, the city that is usually used as a unit of population increase these days (the equivalent to the “Wales”, which is a measurement of land space). However, no new Birminghams will be needed for the migrants themselves, of course, but for the natives of that city and other big urban areas who leave as they become increasingly foreign to them – indeed, Birmingham will become the second British city to have a non-white majority way before the UK hits 70 million.

Seven Birminghams also equals one London, a city once seen as a sink that sucked in people from around the country, but which now spits them out at a far greater rate. Over the last four years, on average 70,000 more people have left London for the rest of Britain than have entered, a vote of no confidence in the multi-cultural society if ever there was one. Because however much middle class parents and journalists like to dress this issue up simply as a matter of better schools, safety and space, every single problem ex-Londoners identify with living in the metropolis is heavily aggravated by immigration, and the problems with living in what sociologist Robert Putnam identified as low-trust, socially isolated, multi-ethnic areas.

It is not just about numbers, although south-east England’s high density is certainly one reason why our attempt to mimic America’s melting pot has failed. Were Britain’s population increase down entirely to a high birth rate, it would not have the same effect on people’s quality of life – in fact, it would arguably have less of a social cost than if 400,000 Brits left every year and 400,000 people entered, as the Balanced Migration group advocate. That policy of “one in, one out” will not solve the problems of segregation, inequality, alienation and unhappiness that results from too much diversity (I’m not against cultural diversity, just too much of it, like I’m against too much of anything). Indeed, the most likely flashpoints of the future are among the least crowded areas in England, the former industrial towns of Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands. It is demography rather than density that threatens social stability.

Certainly the Balanced Migration group are right to point to the dangers of over-population, and runaway immigration, but it is not the full story, and we should be honest about it. This morning the pressure group Sense About Science were on Radio 4 arguing – rightly, in my opinion – that in Britain scientific study and debate is hampered by our strict libel laws, and that we should be free to search for the truth, whether we find it comfortable or not. The same could be said about sociology and demography, except it is an unwritten code of politeness, embarrassment and social stigma, rather than libel law, that stops us being honest about how we run our small island.

Switzerland made a “mistake” by not imposing temporary limits on European job seekers during the economic crisis, Swiss Economics Minister Doris Leuthard said in remarks published Sunday. The government will re-examine in the coming year whether it should activate the safeguard clause built into a deal with the European Union that allows Europeans to work in Switzerland, she added.

“The cantons and social partners were skeptical. They were undecided on the effect (of the safeguard clause) and did not want to spark a new conflict with the EU,” said Leuthard in an interview with NZZ am Sonntag. “In hindsight, that was a mistake. With the safeguard clause, we could have kept thousands of people away from the Swiss job market,” she said.

Under an accord between Switzerland and the EU, European workers can take up jobs in Switzerland without being subject to a work permit quota system. To protect the Swiss job market from over-saturation, the deal also includes a clause allowing Bern to impose temporary restrictions in specific circumstances. It can be activated if immigration grows by more than 10 percent in a year compared with the average rate in the previous three years.

Leuthard said the government will reopen the issue again in the coming year. “We will relook this in hindsight in 2010 and 2011, because the unemployment rate is expected to rise further. We must also look at whether there are other control mechanisms,” she said.

Even though unemployment in Switzerland hit a four-year-high in October, reaching 4.0 percent, net inward migration is expected to reach 70,000 for 2009. In 2008, the country registered its biggest rise in permanent resident population in 40 years amid record immigration.

Leuthard said the government had expected more foreigners to head home amid the toughening job market in Switzerland, but she noted that “we were wrong.” With unemployment rates in the eurozone higher than in Switzerland, Europeans have decided that it was better to remain here, she added.

Leuthard said that the government would look into the impact on the social security system. “We need to analyse the situation, to examine for instance, whether we need changes made to claims on unemployment benefits,” she added.

Immigration was already shaping up to be a hot button issue in 2010. Health coverage for illegal immigrants has become a focal point of criticism in the health care debate. And Rep. Lamar Smith recently fired a salvo Obama’s way over the issue. But Republicans have to be careful around this topic or risk losing minority voters. That could be significant in the contested 2010 races here in Travis County. To wit:

* HD 48 is 12% Hispanic and 18.7% of voters speak a language other than English in the home

* HD 47 is 19.2% Hispanic and 17.8% say they speak a language other than English at home

* CD 10 is 18.7% Hispanic

Although Latinos do not make up a majority in any of those districts, the elections last time around were all close. The two state legislature races in particular were razor thin, and a difference of a few thousand or a few hundred votes in 2010 could potentially carry great significance. Conservative commentators have already begun pontificating how Republicans can best handle this issue and turn it around to their advantage. If they can do that, perhaps one of the oldest tricks in the liberal playbook will finally be put to rest.

Today The Times reported: “A UKIP source said that if Lord Pearson or Mr Batten were elected “You are going to see quite a lot stronger position from us. Nigel has always been afraid of the Islam thing backfiring. But the BNP are taking ownership of issues that have not been addressed by Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems and they need addressing.”

So I imagine UKIP will now probably make immigration and radical Islam as much their thing as Europe, and move closer to the Dutch Freedom Party, whose leader Geert Wilders is an ally of Pearson. It might not make them the darlings of White City, but it will play well to the public, many of whom are horrified about the direction the country is taking, and who want to physically puke every time they see a Westminster MP on television, but who are not prepared for the mental leap of voting for the BNP.

TONNES of bottled water, costing thousands of dollars, are being airlifted to Christmas Island for dehydrated asylum seekers as they step on to the arrivals wharf – despite a tap being just metres away. And the Federal Government will not splash out a couple of thousand dollars to bring a new tap closer for the thirsty arrivals, preferring to jet in the expensive bottles.

Problems arise when refugees first land on the island. Initial screening takes place at the wharf with the tap about 20m away. The asylum seekers are then moved to a construction camp – formerly used by workers who built the detention centre and now housing refugees – where the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said there were “limited options for tap water”.

The latest shipment of water, about 2.5 tonnes, was flown to the island on Monday on a department charter flight. The department would not reveal how much it cost, but a four-tonne delivery earlier this year is understood to have cost $6 a kilogram – or $24,000.

One long-standing islander, who did not want to be named said: “It’s bloody ridiculous. There’s plenty of water to drink on the island, there are taps near the wharf, but the Government won’t fix it up. “I could do it for a couple of thousand dollars. No worries.”

Flying water to the island also angered local businesses but it is understood that when the Government invited them to tender for the supply their prices were higher than the cost of air-freighting.

A department spokesman said this week’s delivery was part of a freight consignment on a charter flight. The spokeswoman said the department and its detention centre service provider Serco, had a duty of care to people in detention. “The provision of bottled water occurs when new arrivals to Christmas Island undertake their initial screening procedures and induction to immigration facilities,” she said. “The initial processing is carried out on arrival at the wharf and subsequently at the construction camp. There are limited options for tap water to be provided at both these sites. “Those people are often dehydrated from an extended period at sea and sometimes nauseous.

“The department is aware that the water supply on Christmas Island is classed as potable and fit to drink and encourages all people to drink it as a matter of course.” She said the department was “sensitive to the needs” of local traders and endeavoured to deal with them equitably. “However, on occasions it is necessary to freight large amounts independently to meet demands imposed by a sudden surge in the numbers of arrivals,” she said.

Christmas Island Shire President Gordon Thomson said it was not the council’s responsibility to put taps on property “whether government or privately owned”.

The jetty and the construction camp are operated by the Commonwealth Government but a spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Department, that has responsibility for the island, said: “There are taps with potable water in the picnic sites in the Flying Fish Cove area which are directly adjacent to the wharf. “As it is a working cargo wharf there is no intention to place a drinking water facility there. There is potable water available at the construction camp site, as there is with any other residential location on the island.”

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders found that taxpayers spend:

* $ 1.1 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants.

* $ 167 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.

* $ 29 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.

* The total represents an annual cost to each of Maryland’s native-born headed households of $ 625.

The cost study is based on an estimate that the illegal alien population in Maryland is now 250,000 persons. The illegal alien population of Maryland has grown exponentially during this decade, nearly quadrupling since 2000.

In a separate report, English Learners and Immigration: A Case Study in Prince George’s County, Maryland, FAIR examines the impact of mass immigration in local schools in Prince George’s County. Because of large-scale legal and illegal immigration, the county has seen its non-English proficient student population grow from 7,064 in 2004 to 13,825 today. Programs to teach immigrant students English cost the county more than $66 million a year.

The Pulse Opinion Research poll found that:

* 73% of Maryland voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact on the state. Only 20% believe it has a positive impact on Maryland.

* 77% of Maryland voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact on the state budget, versus only 15% who believe their impact is positive.

* 65% of Maryland voters believe that illegal immigration harms the state’s schools. Only 18% believe illegal immigration has had a beneficial effect on education.

* 55% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Maryland voters favor amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.

“Voters in Maryland, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Annapolis to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration,” said Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “The failure of government at all levels to institute and enforce sensible immigration policies is costing Marylanders jobs, billions in tax dollars, and their children the opportunity to get the quality education they need and deserve. At a time when state lawmakers are slashing budgets, spending on illegal immigrants in Maryland continues to rise over the strong objection of voters.”

“The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders, English Learners and Immigration: A Case Study in Prince George’s County, Maryland” and a summary of the Pulse Opinion Research results are available at www.fairus.org.

Countless red dots scattered across the world map on the wall of a NHS hospital reveal the story of the changing face of Britain. Each dot denotes the background of a mother with a baby in the neonatal ward of London’s Chelsea and Westminster hospital. The map was put up by hospital administrators to ‘celebrate the ethnic diversity’ of the sick children treated there, each at a cost of £1,400 a day. It shows dramatically how the NHS now treats patients from every corner of the globe.

The 243 mothers are from 72 different nations. They include Mongolia, the remotest regions of Russia, Japan, Africa, South America, swathes of Asia, Australasia and even Papua New Guinea. Only 18 mothers said they were from Britain.

The women were invited to put a dot on the map to ‘represent’ their home country. One, a London-born mother of a baby treated there earlier this summer, sent the Mail a photograph of the result. She said: ‘Almost every cot and incubator at this wonderful unit was occupied by a baby with a foreign mother. Interpreters were on hand to make sure the mothers understood the doctors. ‘Babies’ lives are being saved and that is a good thing. Yet this seemed like a free-for-all.’

It is impossible to say how long each of the mothers has been in this country. But the fact is only a fraction of them declared themselves as having a British background. In theory, only a woman who has lived here legally for a year or has a student visa lasting more than six months is entitled to free NHS care when giving birth. Yet few hospitals are prepared to turn away a pregnant patient in the late stages of labour. Indeed, the Government recently issued an instruction telling them to admit such women without question.

Health Minister Ann Keen pronounced in July: ‘We remain firmly committed to the requirement that immediately necessary or urgent treatment should never be denied or delayed from those that require it.’

Many nurses and doctors on the NHS frontline believe her words were dangerously naive, even an explicit invitation to heavily pregnant women to fly to Britain to have babies. Some have arrived at Chelsea and Westminster – and other London hospitals – straight from the airport with the ticket tags still on their suitcases.

Mothers-to-be target this country as ‘health tourists’ for a variety of reasons. Some do so because they face a difficult birth and want expert care unavailable in their home countries. Others have been told by doctors abroad that their baby will be born with a profound illness, needing a lifetime of treatment and medicines. They know the NHS will provide this with few questions asked even if the bill reaches millions of pounds.

The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s neonatal ward treats 500 newborns each year from London and the south east. Many of the babies have been born prematurely or have inherited illnesses. They include those with ailments such as sickle cell anaemia (which is prevalent in African and Mediterranean communities, while almost unknown among those of northern European heritage), the HIV virus passed on from the mother, as well as deafness, blindness and devastating neurological problems common among ethnic communities in which marriages between cousins are the norm.

Today nearly 25 percent of babies in Britain have mothers who were born abroad. In London the figure is 50 percent. The boroughs of Newham and Brent have the highest percentage, 75 percent and 73 percent respectively. Even in Chelsea (an area less associated with immigration) the figure is 67 percent, according to a recent Government report.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61 million to 74 million over the next 20 years, the Office for National Statistics said last week. The estimate is based on both the continuing high birthrate of migrant mothers and levels of immigration as well as the longer life expectancy of the entire population.

Meanwhile, at least three million foreigners have settled here legally since 1997 – a rate of 700 a day. Nearly a million more are living here illegally, the Home Office has admitted.

Bliss, a campaigning charity supporting families with premature and sick babies, recently said that the NHS needs 2,700 more neonatal nurses to cope with growing numbers of baby births. They now total 791,000 a year, up 33,000 from 2007.

Back at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, the colourful world baby map, proudly displayed on the wall for three months, was recently removed during construction work. Last night, a spokesperson for Chelsea and Westminster said that the hospital cared for patients from many different backgrounds, reflecting London’s population. The map was intended to illustrate the diversity of the families of babies on the ward.

The hospital also issued the following statement: ‘Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is a specialist referral centre and cares for patients of many different backgrounds, reflecting London’s very diverse population. ‘Of the 550 babies admitted to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) every year, a very small number of these are overseas patients. In 2009, there have been just two overseas admissions.

‘The map was placed in the NICU nearly four years ago to provide the families of the babies we care for, as well as staff, with an opportunity to indicate their background if they wished. It is not an indication of country of residence or citizenship. ‘It was intended to illustrate the diversity of staff working on the unit and the families of the babies we care for, to encourage everyone to reflect on different cultures, in a fun and informal way.

‘Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s NICU provides intensive care, high dependency and special care facilities for babies and is a specialist referral centre for neonatal surgery.’

Research company Angus Reid Public Opinion carried out the poll which once again shows that immigration will be a key issue in next year’s general election. The poll also revealed widespread scepticism over all of the main political parties’ immigration policies.

Labour was backed by just 12 percent of voters as the best political party to control British borders as opposed to the Tories which gathered 30 percent of the voting support. The Liberal Democrats were supported by just 8 percent.

The poll data comes just two weeks after Prime Minister Gordon Brown made his first major speech about the topic of immigration policy. In that speech Brown said the issue of immigration was not one for fringe parties and nor was it a taboo subject.

A spokesman for Angus Reid said the survey clearly shows how important the issue of immigration is right now within the UK, with numerous recent rule changes and open debates keeping the topic firmly in the limelight.

Over 2,000 people were quizzed in the survey, with 57 percent saying that deportation should be mandatory for all illegal newcomers. A further 56 percent were convinced that British workers were suffering from job losses to illegal immigrants. Only 23 percent of Britons said that illegal immigrants should be allowed temporary work in the UK and just 13 percent were in favour of them eventually having the opportunity to become citizens.

A record number of people left the UK last year amid the recession – but the arrival of almost 700 foreign migrants a day meant the population still increased, according to new figures.

Eastern European workers returning home was behind the sharp rise in emigration but hundreds of thousands of new migrants continued to flock to the country. It meant, on balance, more people still arrived than left during 2008 and critics said the population remained on course to pass 70 million within two decades. Foreign migrants now account for a third of the population of London, the Office for National Statistics revealed.

The figures show that while the recession is having an impact the UK continues to be a major attraction for foreign workers and migrants, pushing the population up yet further. It will pile further pressure on local authorities and communities already facing a heavy strain on resources by large and sudden influxes of people.

And it came as a poll showed three quarters of the public are concerned about the impact immigration is having on Britain and a similar proportion do not believe the Government is open and honest about the scale.

A record 427,000 people left the country during 2008, around two thirds of whom had not been born in the UK, which was a 25 per cent increase on the 341,000 who left the previous year. However, at the same time, some 590,000 came to live in the UK in 2008, a rise of 16,000 on the previous year and just short of the record 596,000 arrivals in 2006. It meant a net immigration to the UK of 163,000, which was down by almost half on the previous year but still well above the 50,000 figure needed if the population is not to reach 70 million by 2029. Once Britons are removed from the figures, there was a net inflow of non-UK born migrants of 251,000 during the year – the equivalent of 688 foreign arrivals adding to the population every day.

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: “Ministers should apologise for the years in which they have given us a chaotic immigration system with numbers coming in at levels which put unacceptable pressure on public services. “To make the Points Based System effective in cutting immigration to sensible levels, we need to have an annual limit on the numbers coming here, as well as much more effective measures against those who abuse the loopholes in, for example, the student visa system.”

The rise in emigration was mainly driven by Eastern Europeans, 69,000 of who left last year compared to just 25,000 in 2007 but the former Eastern Bloc citizens, such as Poles and Slovaks, continue to arrive as well and there was a net inflow of 20,000 over the year. As for those leaving the UK, Poland was the most popular country of residence for foreign departees while Australia was top for British emigrants.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the think-tank Migrationwatch, said the fact it was EU citizens, who have free movement, who were the main drivers in the departures made a mockery of the Government’s claims of controlling immigration. A YouGov poll for his organisation found 72 per cent of people want net migration cut to 50,000 a year. Sir Andrew said: “Today’s immigration figures confirm that unless we change direction, immigration will add another seven million to our population in the next 25 years – that’s equivalent to seven cities the size of Birmingham.”

MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, who chair the cross party balanced migration group in Parliament said Government policies were having “little or no effect” on immigration. They said the 30% fall in net immigration was “almost entirely” due to Eastern European migrants. “These migrants are not affected by government immigration policies which appear to have had little or no effect on the overall scale of immigration,” they said. “The time has come for all parties to stop ducking the issue and develop serious measures to reduce immigration to acceptable levels, not dish out yet more spoonfuls of spin.”

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “Our new flexible, points-based system gives us greater control over those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.”

Separate Home Office statistics showed the number of people removed from the UK between July and September this year fell six per cent to 17,055.

Rich tells a great story about the brief period years ago when he toyed with the idea of running for mayor:

Shortly after the mayoral speculation began, a woman stopped me in my apartment building to ask if I were going to run. It turned out that she was that rarity, a right-wing Manhattanite. But soon enough she was asking me what I thought of rent control. I tried to dodge, saying I needed to study the issue further. She pressed me, then said she’d never vote for me if I wanted to end rent control since she lived in a rent-controlled apartment. Watching perhaps my only vote in Manhattan disappear, I immediately told her that any solution would have to grandfather in current residents of rent-controlled apartments. So there I was, about 48 hours into my mayoral flirtation, already selling out. The temptation to tell people what they want to hear is just extremely powerful, especially if you want their support.

Apropos of that, the Wall Street Journal reports today on Lou Dobbs’s nascent campaign for Senate (or president):

In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair “amnesty.” . . .

Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that “we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions.”

Mr. Dobbs couldn’t be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are “living upright, positive and constructive lives” who should be “integrated” into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is “smoothing the water and clearing the air.”

Now, this isn’t quite as surprising as it may seem. Dobbs has always been a supporter of mass immigration, it’s just illegal immigration that he used to complain about — that was better than anyone else in the MSM, for sure, but if you keep following the string you’ll end up supporting either mass immigration, regardless of status, or low immigration, likewise regardless of status. Dobbs’s (and many others’) approach to immigration of “legal, good/illegal, bad” is logically untenable.

The amusing thing is that his “growth” isn’t going to help him in any case — the open-borders crowd won’t believe him and immigration hawks will dismiss him as just another McCain-style phony maverick.