Immigration Boom Under Labour Changed Face of Britain Faster than Any Major Country Except Italy, Oxford Experts Reveal

Julian Gavaghan, Daily Mail (London), April 19, 2012

The immigration boom under Labour led to the face of Britain changing faster than any major nation except Italy, a study by an Oxford University think tank revealed.

During the five-year peak of the influx, the UK’s migrant population soared by 22 per cent – double the average of G8 countries, figures from the Migration Observatory show.

Over the past two decades, Britain’s foreign-born population has increased from 3.8million – or 7 per cent of the total population – in 1993 to almost 7 million, or 12 per cent per cent in 2010.

During the same period, the number of foreign-born residents without British citizenship doubled from just under two million (4 per cent of the population) to over four million (7 per cent).

Net-migration – the number arrivals minus those leaving – increased from 564,000 during the five years from 1996-2000, to 923,000 in 2001-2005 and 1,044,000 during 2006-2010.

In 2010, net-migration reached 252,000, its highest level for a single calendar year on record.

But it is the period between 2000 and 2005 – a period of an open border policy during and rapid  expansion of the EU – that immigration really spiked.

Only Italy, which experienced a 44.6 per cent rise in immigration, saw a higher rate in the developed world.

But, after more restrictions were introduced in 2005, the growth rate of the migrant population in the UK was just over 10 per cent.

It was still higher than the G8 average – but somewhat lower than 14 per cent rate of the 15 EU countries that existed prior to 2004.

This group – with 21.4 per cent rise – had only a slightly lower level of immigration growth that the UK between 2000 and 2005.

Although, experts believe Italy’s enormous spike has skewed these figures.

For example, France saw only a 3.4 per cent rise in immigration during the period, according to data obtained by the United Nations.

Russia’s immigration growth rose only by 1.6 per cent.

Figures also show that as the global population has increased considerably in the last two decades, so too has the number of international migrants.

The number has increased from 156million in 1990 to 214million in 2010.

The comparison with G8 countries compares other high-income nations this group, which also includes Russia, Italy, France, Canada, the U.S. Germany and Japan.

For all the G8 countries, with the exception of Japan, migrants are defined as foreign-born residents in the data.

In the data for Japan, migrants are defined as foreign citizens.

Alp Mehmet, of pressure group Migration Watch, told Mail Online: ‘This underlines what we have been saying about Labour’s mass immigration policy.

‘It also shows why it will be so difficult to get immigration back down to sensible levels.’

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Rocky Bass

    Well to elect a new people, one must change the “face of the country”a bit.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of the previous Labour government to “rub the rights nose in diversity..”; and believe me, our noses have been thoroughly rubbed in it. In fact, my nose has been rubbed in diversity to such an extent that, through the process of osmosis, I suspect that the very pores of my own skin have begun to exude its noxious odour.
     I stink, positively stink, of multiculturalism. I’ve caught the Black Death. I’ve been forced to snort diversity, and it reeks of faeces.

    • Impertinent

      Come home friend…to the colonies. We’ll save a place for you in Vermont.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        Thank you for the kind invitation, brother, it is much appreciated.

        However, there is a race & culture war looming here in the UK. As an Anglo-Celt, a true child of these British Isles, with a deep and abiding love of the history, traditions, and culture of my land and peoples, I fully intend to participate in the coming revolutionary war, and I am fully prepared to do whatever is necessary (and yes, I am prepared to be martyred) to return these Isles to the native Anglo-Celtic peoples.
        And the way things are going, I fully expect this conflict to happen within my lifetime.

        • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

           Okay, but let me remind you of the words of General George Patton regarding battle;  “I don’t want to hear of your being ready to die for your country.  Make the other Bast  ard die for HIS country!!

        • Impertinent

          After you get through there…you might still come back and help us clean up the mess that our Brit ancestors ( unintended consequences of course ) dumped on us with the importing of africans to our shore….when  settling the colonies, while still under British rule?

          All those exports of cotton and tobacco weren’t worth the price we’re paying today.

          • loyalwhitebriton

            I agree. Cotton and tobacco exports are not worth the price that you’re paying today. If only our forefathers knew then what we know today.
             

        • Didn’t English fight a war with the Irish for a few hundred years, Occupy their homes, starve a few million of them and generally denigrate them. Now you think they’re going to forget about that and fight a revolutionary war for the inner citites. All the Irish Catholics with a sense of history and identity are going to side with the Polish. The Scots are rumoured to be wanting to break off from the U.K. Maybe its because we spunked their oil money on immigrants and wars they wanted nothing to do with. Anglo-Celts need to forget their past if they are going to work together.

          While you are at it try not to collapse the economy of the U.K. I don’t think the financial services sector that is all powerful right now is going to appreciate a race war right on its door-step.Tower Hamlets is right next to Canary Wharf. Good luck with the home counties exporting Morris Dancing and agricultural produce to make up our energy deficit when all the rich blacks as muslims don’t want to hide their billions here anymore.

          You want to get rid of the ethnics you’r going to have to think of something far smarter than “Rivers of Blood” and “Turner Diaries”. Copeland’s bombings in the late 90s proved starting a race war and a revolution is alot harder than it sounds in books or white Nationalist gatherings. I’ll give you a hint if you wanna try, look at Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Your going to need to change the culture of the U.K and bring back some of that lost tribalism. look at your family structure keep your sons at home under the same roof and create an economic incentive for tribalism, crony politics or something. Ironically your going to have to go third world for this revolution to materialize. EIther way its not something any of us really want to see unless were sick in the head.

          I’d say the best thing you could do right now is just keep up the recession while training the blacks to head home and do something. Oil in Ghana, Hotels in Barbados do it like when the poor were shipped of to Australia.  As for the muslims your screwed they far too ambitious to just “Go Home” and will soon be filling up the civil service and government. 

          But what do i know……………….

  • holyflower

    “Over the past two decades, Britain’s foreign-born population has increased from 3.8million – or 7 per cent of the total population – in 1993 to almost 7 million, or 12 per cent per cent in 2010.”

    ====

    Adrian Davis, a British lawyer known for is defense of free speech against politically-inspired prosecutions, addressed the 2011 American Renaissance Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. 

    Here is an excerpt of Davies’ speech describing the development of parallel commnities in Britain as a result of immigration:

    …the bombings which took place in London a few years ago [July 7, 2005] — our very own version of 9/11 — have shaken . . . confidence in the stability of our . . . multi-cultural society to such an extent that it [the government] was actually beginning to wonder we can just carry on allowing people to live parallel lives in . . . self-segregated communities the way we have done in England for 30 or 40 years . . .

    . . . In the 1960s the official mantra of British liberalism was that minority groups would integrate into British society and become just like us. That did not happen. Instead they ghettoized and formed enclaves in which they lived their own lives.

    A particularly extreme example can be found in the North of England . . . Blackburn, which has been described as the most segregated city in England . . . This is a town which is probably 60-65 percent white, 35-40 percent largely people of Pakistani extraction. I have visited that town a number of times . . . The two communities [white and Pakistani] live in a measure of segregation that would not have been out of place in Mississippi in the 1940s . . .

    . . . they don’t even share a common language. In those parts of town which are now almost entirely and homogenously inhabited by people of Pakistani descent, Urdu is the normal language of day-to-day discourse — in the streets, in the shops, in the broadcast media. These people have local radio stations, even local cable television . . . and they live a life essentially similar to the life they lived in Pakistan [but] in an English town with almost no interaction with their neighbors.

    You could go a couple of miles down the street from the kind of region and come to a part of Blackburn where most of the people are of Irish Roman Catholic descent where, instead of a mosque, you have a Catholic church and a school playground where all of the children are white. There is no multi-racialism. There is no multi-culturalism. There is self-segregation between the two communities. And the idea that these two groups are ever going to integrate to create a harmonious whole is laughable. In fact, studies undertaken by social scientists show that the degree of interaction is now significantly less than it was in the 1970s because there is now less economic interaction between the two communities who tend to avoid even one another’s shops and businesses and essentially live . . . parallel lives.

    It is an extraordinary achievement in a country where this would have been quite inconceivable two generations ago — to have created a society that replicates South Africa under apartheid, the American South before [de]segregation — albeit on an entirely voluntary basis . . . Now . . . [Blackburn] is an extreme example. That is not typical of the situation in English towns and cities, but it is a trend which is developing as the alienation between the different communities grows . . .
    . . . In the 1960s the official mantra of British liberalism was that minority groups would integrate into British society and become just like us. That did not happen. Instead they ghettoized and formed enclaves in which they lived their own lives.

    A particularly extreme example can be found in the North of England . . . Blackburn, which has been described as the most segregated city in England . . . This is a town which is probably 60-65 percent white, 35-40 percent largely people of Pakistani extraction. I have visited that town a number of times . . . The two communities [white and Pakistani] live in a measure of segregation that would not have been out of place in Mississippi in the 1940s . . .

    . . . they don’t even share a common language. In those parts of town which are now almost entirely and homogenously inhabited by people of Pakistani descent, Urdu is the normal language of day-to-day discourse — in the streets, in the shops, in the broadcast media. These people have local radio stations, even local cable television . . . and they live a life essentially similar to the life they lived in Pakistan [but] in an English town with almost no interaction with their neighbors.

    You could go a couple of miles down the street from the kind of region and come to a part of Blackburn where most of the people are of Irish Roman Catholic descent where, instead of a mosque, you have a Catholic church and a school playground where all of the children are white. There is no multi-racialism. There is no multi-culturalism. There is self-segregation between the two communities. And the idea that these two groups are ever going to integrate to create a harmonious whole is laughable. In fact, studies undertaken by social scientists show that the degree of interaction is now significantly less than it was in the 1970s because there is now less economic interaction between the two communities who tend to avoid even one another’s shops and businesses and essentially live . . . parallel lives.

    It is an extraordinary achievement in a country where this would have been quite inconceivable two generations ago — to have created a society that replicates South Africa under apartheid, the American South before [de]segregation — albeit on an entirely voluntary basis . . . Now . . . [Blackburn] is an extreme example. That is not typical of the situation in English towns and cities, but it is a trend which is developing as the alienation between the different communities grows . . .
    A particularly extreme example can be found in the North of England . . . Blackburn, which has been described as the most segregated city in England . . . This is a town which is probably 60-65 percent white, 35-40 percent largely people of Pakistani extraction. I have visited that town a number of times . . . The two communities [white and Pakistani] live in a measure of segregation that would not have been out of place in Mississippi in the 1940s . . .

    . . . they don’t even share a common language. In those parts of town which are now almost entirely and homogenously inhabited by people of Pakistani descent, Urdu is the normal language of day-to-day discourse — in the streets, in the shops, in the broadcast media. These people have local radio stations, even local cable television . . . and they live a life essentially similar to the life they lived in Pakistan [but] in an English town with almost no interaction with their neighbors.

    You could go a couple of miles down the street from the kind of region and come to a part of Blackburn where most of the people are of Irish Roman Catholic descent where, instead of a mosque, you have a Catholic church and a school playground where all of the children are white. There is no multi-racialism. There is no multi-culturalism. There is self-segregation between the two communities. And the idea that these two groups are ever going to integrate to create a harmonious whole is laughable. In fact, studies undertaken by social scientists show that the degree of interaction is now significantly less than it was in the 1970s because there is now less economic interaction between the two communities who tend to avoid even one another’s shops and businesses and essentially live . . . parallel lives.

    It is an extraordinary achievement in a country where this would have been quite inconceivable two generations ago — to have created a society that replicates South Africa under apartheid, the American South before [de]segregation — albeit on an entirely voluntary basis . . . Now . . . [Blackburn] is an extreme example. That is not typical of the situation in English towns and cities, but it is a trend which is developing as the alienation between the different communities grows . . .

    It is an extraordinary achievement in a country where this would have been quite inconceivable two generations ago — to have created a society that replicates South Africa under apartheid, the American South before [de]segregation — albeit on an entirely voluntary basis . . . Now . . . [Blackburn] is an extreme example. That is not typical of the situation in English towns and cities, but it is a trend which is developing as the alienation between the different communities grows . . .

  • This is what Labour wanted. They wanted to “rub the Right’s nose” in non-White “immigrants.”

    They couldn’t get elected fair and square so they elected a new electorate.

     

  • Mahound

    Labour’s policies amount to treason and should be prosecuted as such.

  • Robb Moffett

    How do the people and parties responsible for ethnically cleansing western countries of their own people via massive immigration keep getting re elected? It is a serious question. Is there something in the drinking water? What other explanation can account for the citizens not opting for their own survival?

    • Rocky Bass

       They have re-couched self preservation (for whites) as the most racist thing one could advocate for.

    • KenelmDigby

      The Labour Party never actually mentioned that they would abolish immigration controls in the party manifesto in the landslide election year of 1997.
       In fact they never publically spoke about increasing immigration until the early 2000s – a time when they were safely esconced in power with a huge parliamentary majority and they they thought they were unassailable and cocky – then their real character came out – research the ‘Andrew Neather’ scandal.
       The upshot is that they never publicized the policy because they knew full well that the British electorate would never but never support such a policy.
       That is the character of Britain’s Labour Party.

  • holyflower

    “The long term plan was to make these territories as self sufficient as the neighbouring independent states of Lesotho and Swaziland. The homelands had been conquered by the British and incorporated into the Union in 1910 thus creating an African Yugoslavia. It was National Party policy to restore independence and sovereignty to these territories.”

    ===

    If I understand your post properly, Laager, the Afrikaners (Boer) were moving towards independence for the black territories/tribal groups.  It was the British, who defeated the Boer  population in 1902 who consolidated the lands into one large white-ruled union which wouold later make South Africa a tempting target for a western crusade against apartheid?

    Or maybe I read too much into your post.
     

  •  I don’t know much about celebs, but I think Halle Berry has had rhinoplasty (nose job). Without it, she would have been just another light Black with easily recognizable negroid features.

  • Impertinent

    I’d think they’d well remember being invaded, conquered and occupied by the Moores some time ago. They’d be looking at their blood relatives I’d think.

    • Blood relatives my foot. Moors were Arabs & Berbers (like St. Augustine), not Blacks.

      • Modern Arabs are half-Black. But in any case, the Saracen invasion of Italy only lasted a few decades and was not a true conquest (they only truly held a few cities on the coast). The illustrious Pope John X personally took to the field to drive them away… A hero to me who I know is a saint.

  • holyflower

    “The South did not have a monopoly on segregation.”

    ===

    Jim Crow was a Southern institution.  It was de jure segregation versus de facto segregation.

    In the first half of the 20th century in the North you can find restrictive leases, realtors helping to maintain residential segregation, and other similar practies but nothing like the scope of Jim Crow with separate drinking fountains, back-of-the-bus ordinances and such.  

    Yes, de facto segregation is alive and well.

  • Hirene

    That has to be causing psychological stress to the native English population.  The elites and those with government jobs do not care as long as their money keeps rolling in.  Some day, diversity will reach them, too.

    •  Helps support the psychiatric industry, does it not? Create problems and then create the remedy… That is what is proposed. They are able to successfully convince the losers that they are alright after all.