Posted on December 13, 2011

Migrant Boom over Last 14 Years ‘Was Driven by Open Borders and Not Jobs’

Steve Doughty, Daily Mail (London), December 13, 2011

Labour’s open-door policies–and not the promise of prosperity–were the main reason why immigration soared over the past 14 years, an academic inquiry found yesterday.

The report said ‘the increase in net immigration to the UK was not driven primarily by the economic performance of the UK or other countries’.

Instead, it pointed to immigration policies.

Changes introduced after Labour took power in 1997 included liberal approaches towards economic migrants claiming to be asylum seekers, the acceptance of migrants considered to have worthwhile skills, and the opening of the British jobs market to workers from Poland and Eastern Europe.

The report by academics from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the University of Leicester was based on the findings of large-scale official surveys of immigration. It was published by the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society.

It said three-quarters of net immigration to Britain since the mid-1990s was a result of ‘structural change’ associated with government policies. The other quarter was driven by friends and families coming to join migrants already in Britain.

The study undermines the idea that the rosy-looking economy before the crash of 2007 and 2008 was the magnet that drew about 3million immigrants into the country over a decade.

This in turn means that, although thousands of businesses have benefited from hard-working and highly qualified migrants, it was not the needs of the economy that brought them into Britain.

10 responses to “Migrant Boom over Last 14 Years ‘Was Driven by Open Borders and Not Jobs’”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Note how they try to put the blame on Poland and eastern Europe. With the exception of the Gypsy Roma, these people are not a problem for the U.K. It is the tsunami of black and brown people from the third world who are the trouble.

  2. GM (Australia) says:

    Is the above article some sort of spin to say that mass 3rd world immigration has been good for Britain? My understanding is that it has been a net drain on the British economy not to mention the total social disruption in poor old England. Everything from Somali rape gangs, welfare fraud, home grown terrorism, Pakistani child brides and a mosque in every high street. Did the report mention that welfare payments, free medicals, free education and government provided housing is also an attraction for Britain’s 3rd world invasion.These goodies would just be fantasy dreams in the corrupt overpoulated hell holes that most of these invaders come from. In fact it has often been said that life in a UK prison would be better than life in some of these invader’s homelands.

    Now for another spin on this story: We have many Britons here in Australia on short term working visas, as they are white and English speaking they fit into our society and way of life very well and many would like to stay here. But no, they have to join the immigration queue behind all the bogus assylum seekers from Somalia, Sri lanka and the Middle East etc.

    Is there some sort of conspirisy out there which is trying to destroy western civilization? I am almost begining to believe that there is.(The 3rd world dominated UN???)

  3. Jason Robertson says:

    The answer to the Australian enquirer is: Yes, no other explanation fully explains all full facts.

    In Britain, the main “conspiracy” was called by its original participants “nationwide agenda-working”. It started with left-wing radicals in London and other local governments, the National Union of Journalists and the National Union of Teachers, the Institute of Race Relations (taken over in a Marxist coup) and official tax-funded community relations organisations; there is reason to think the key sections of the Home Office long infiltrated. Many chief players are known by name. Documents are available, including paperbacks with titles like “Here to Stay – Here to Fight”. The policies moved upward step-by-step and rachet-wise through the official Commission for Racial Equality (1976), academic “deconstruction” literature (Routledge still a good example here, among scores more), university sociology departments, the government-appointed National Curriculum Council, and a host of quangoes or charities all sharing a similar outlook: globalism not nationalism, maximum immigration, maximum suppression of resistance. Official “equality and diversity” legislation has been incrementally and universally enforced by government throughout society, especially for obvious reasons in the police and armed forces.

    The above is only a bald summary of the main process, but the evidence is formidable. On the other side, we have MugrationWatch, and “extremist” political groups that fight one another for the same limited number of members.

    But the malign effects of the conspiracy are being recognised and resented by the victimised and deceived “aborigines”, and a patriotic revolution is beginning to simmer.

  4. Periapsis says:

    The ruling elites are always trying to tar and feather Slavs, who suffered and died at their hands more than any other group of whites while giveing these darkies a free pass. Massacring and dispossessing entire populations then blaming them for every ill under the Sun is how they defelect attention from the blood and guts that drip from their hands, literally. But the truth is Slavs while not perfect as people contribute much more than they take from white nations they immigrate to. After all, the modern helicopter as we all know them was developed by a Russian, who fled to America to escape the Bolshevik murder gangs. Now the company he founded still is a world leader in helicopter technology and manufacturing. They would rather smear my fellow Slavs instead of putting the blame for the chaos, crime, violence and terrorism on the darkie hordes the perfidious and hostile alien ruling elite intentionally allowed to invade Britain for the purpiose of elimininate the white native British population. If there was any time in the past 2,000 years where the British desperately need a queen Boudica, it’s now. She fought back against hostile alien oppressors, modern Britons have to do the same or die. The same will also be true of white populations globally. It’s really going to be that simple in my lifetime.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Emma West was right, but she was imprisoned in the UK for saying so.

    If i were to visit the UK, I think I would refrain from drinking the water, as the only explanation I have for the native born not throwing into the ocaen their elected weasels that have ensured massive cultural conflict from immigration for geneartions hence,is that there must be something in the drinking water.

  6. Pat says:

    No. 1 – re Poles and East Europeans – ‘not a problem for the U.K.’ – I have to disagree. Tony Blair when he permitted this entry estimated that 30,000 would come here – we have a million now. They do not come only for the work but for the very generous benefits system that they would not have at home and which the E.U. says they must get. They, like other immigrants, put enormous strain on the health services, education and housing. Their children whether here or in Poland qualify for Child Benefit – why should we have to pay for children who have never set foot in this country? It runs into millions.

    Regarding work – it is known they will work for the minimum wage as due to exchange rates the British salary is worth quite a bit back home. Whole factories now have shifts which are entirely Polish, there is one near me making potato crisps (chips), they advertise in Polish in the local paper (racism?). Another T.V. manufacturer found this so attractive that the whole plant was shifted to Poland from a poor working class area here.

    In time they will assimilate I suppose but on top of all the others that are pouring in it really is too much for this quite small country to take in. We have had immigration in our history but never in these numbers. It is time to call a halt.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Pat:

    I do GET what you are saying, but I would take POLES and other eastern Europeans – NATIVE EUROPEANS, not the Gypsy Roma – over Jamaicans or Pakistanis, or any other non-whites, any day of the week. A few generations down the road, these people are a solid long-term investment in the future of the white community in Great Britain, or any other white country. Let’s suppose between 1948-68, a million of these people had entered Britain, instead of the same one million non-whites who actually did come. Today they would all be absorbed and Britain would have had no racial issues.

  8. Pat says:

    No. 7 Anonymous – I still think we have too many new people. I take your point in your last sentence, especially as I believe the non white immigrants number way above one million. I did read somewhere that if America had the same population density that we have their population would be in the billions.

    At the end of the second world war we were about 40 million and could just about feed ourselves through the wartime blockades. Today it is 62 million+. Indigenous families are not having as many children as previously and even allowing for the fact that people live longer you have to wonder how many more we can take.

  9. Steven says:

    I am a Briton and I agree with Pat. Poles and other Eastern Europeans can fit into our society far better any non-Europeans simply because (apart from their Roman Catholic beliefs) they are more like native Britons but too many of any foreign nationality is likely to lead to social cohesion breaking-down and our national identity being eroded. Poles and other Slavs are helping to lower wages and create unemployment amongst Britons so they are problem in that respect. So yes, I would rather have Poles here but I think Britain has too many immigrants full stop.

  10. Anonymous says:

    To Pat and Steven: (I am #7).

    I get what you are saying. Essentially there are TWO issues here. Population control (overcrowding) and racial disharmony.

    I was referring to the second matter. That IF the U.K. needed or wanted immigrants it would be far better off, especially in the long term, with Poles over blacks or brown Asians. Of course, all this is posited on the belief that the U.K. even needs any immigrants at all, which gets us back to (yours) point #1 that the U.K. is a small island with a high density level. In other words conditions that are inimical to immigration.