Stop Ignoring Immigration, Soames Urges MP Colleagues

BBC, September 6, 2012

MPs must take their heads “out of the sand” on immigration, senior Conservative Nicholas Soames has said.

Mr Soames opened a Commons debate prompted by an online petition urging the government to ensure that the UK’s population remained below 70 million.

More than 100,000 people signed the petition in less than a week, he said.

But Labour’s Chris Bryant warned ministers that their planned curbs on immigration would be very unlikely to achieve the petitioners’ aim.

The government has pledged to cut net migration – the difference between the number of people leaving the UK and those moving to the UK – down to the “tens of thousands” by 2015.

But Mr Bryant told MPs: “The fact is that that if net migration were zero in every category for the next 25 years, the population would grow to 66 million.

“And if it were tens of thousands… the population would be 70 million just after 2035.”

Projected UK population 2010-35

Graph showing population rise 2010-35

Mr Soames had blamed the previous Labour administration for its “chaotic, ill-thought out and deeply irresponsible approach to immigration”.

Under its watch, he said, the UK had witnessed “the greatest wave of immigration… in nearly 1,000 years”.

The popularity of the petition, which calls for “all necessary measures” to be taken to ensure the population stays “well below” 70 million and has been signed by more than 143,000 people, had provided a “clear indicator of the very grave public concern about the scale of immigration to this country”, Mr Soames added.

Although immigration was a “natural and essential part of an open economy” with some benefits, there were pragmatic causes for concern, he said.

He told MPs: “In the coming 15 years we will have to build, just for new immigrants and their families, the equivalent of eight of the largest cities outside London… together with all their associated social infrastructure, of schools, roads, hospitals, railways, and all the rest.”

Mr Soames was backed by Labour MP Frank Field, who said that the government’s bid to reduce net migration rates had garnered cross-party support.

The two MPs, along with eight parliamentary colleagues, tabled a Commons motion for debate, based on the online petition.

But SNP MP Pete Wishart warned that their adoption of the phrase “all necessary steps” in their “nasty little motion” sounded worryingly authoritarian.

‘Terrible thoughts’

Mr Field contrasted the attitude to the UK of Olympians like Mo Farah with the terrorists responsible for the 2005 London bombings.

He asked why “we have so many people who come here and are so committed [to the UK], and yet at the same time there are some… second generation [immigrants] who harbour such terrible thoughts in their hearts about us that they actually want to take terrible action against us”.

His Labour colleague Diane Abbott was prompted by this comment to intervene.

“What possible evidence does [he] have that more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of second generation migrants harbour terrible thoughts?” she asked.

Mr Field said he accepted there was “no evidence” to contradict her proposition.

But Lib Dem MP Martin Horwood said he was “concerned about the tone” of Mr Soames and Mr Field’s speeches.

“Would he agree that actually immigrants can make a very positive contribution to our economy, and to our culture, and we need to take a balanced, evidence-based approach to this whole debate, and not use language that will inflame fears amongst minority ethnic communities in this country?” he asked Mr Field.

The Labour MP responded: “There is not the case that unlimited migration of the scale that we’ve seen is such an economic advantage to this country as some of those proponents of open doors would wish us to believe.”

Net migration by citizenship 1991 – 2011

Graph showing increase in migration

Migration Watch, a think tank which campaigns for tighter immigration controls, is concerned at the effect the UK’s rising population would have on the country’s infrastructure and quality of life, and so organised the petition.

It argues that net migration needs to be limited to 40,000 to keep the UK population permanently below 70 million.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the UK population would rise from 62.3 million in 2010 to 67.2 million by 2020 and 73.2 million by 2035 if net migration stays at about current levels.

ONS figures released last month say estimated net migration in the year to December 2011 was 216,000 – down from 252,000 the previous year.

It said the fall was not statistically significant, but ministers argue separate figures show they are on course to reach their target of reducing net migration to under 100,000 people a year by 2015.

Ahead of the Commons debate, Martin Ruhs, director of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, urged MPs to “move beyond rhetoric and into substance” and consider the “trade-offs associated with the deep cuts to net migration that the 70 million limit would require”.

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.
  • It the population of Britain stays steady at 50 million, but most of those people are foreigners, would they call this a victory? The important thing is that Britons remain a majority in their own lands.

    http://www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

    • IstvanIN

       You gotta start somewhere.  Preventing new immigrants is the first step.

  • mobocrat

    This is a perfect example of how the “elite”-[no matter what they call themselves politically] – are waging war on the White race-particularly the proletarian Whites. Make no mistake- it is working class whites who have been targeted for obliteration first. The regeneration of the White middle class has traditionally come from the White working class. By destroying the White working class, the Hostile Elite [do I really need to crayon color who?] destroy the large pool of potential talent that the Targeted Population produce…
    The White population in North America needs to pay ATTENTION to what is going on in the U.K. This country has an indigenous population that predates the first pyramids. The genetic continuity of this people can be demonstrated scientifically. The programme for their elimination as a cultural/ethnic and racial entity is well underway.
     
     
    Mr. Soames had blamed the previous Labour administration for its “chaotic, ill-thought out and deeply irresponsible approach to immigration”.
    “Under its watch, he said, the UK had witnessed “the greatest wave of immigration… in nearly “1,000 years”.
    “He told MPs: “In the coming 15 years we will have to build, just for new immigrants and their families, natural and essential part of an open economy” with some benefits, there were pragmatic causes for concern, he said.
    “The natural and essential part of an open economy” with some benefits, there were pragmatic causes for concern, he said.
                    Equivalent of eight of the largest cities outside London…

  • KenelmDigby

    The MPs couldn’t give a damn.
    Most of them didn’t even bother turning up.

  • Frank Field is one of the only politicians I have ever had time for in a mainstream party. He is a conviction politician and a bit of a statesman and rebel, unlike the rest of the bleating herd that bangs out the same drivel time and time again.

    But that being said, I do not know whether these groups like ‘Migration Watch’ and ‘Balanced Immigration’ are genuine but stupid, or fake and a safety valve.

    MigrationWatch seems to believe that the government etc and the world stage is simply beset with “incompetency” and “lack of concern” etc. This is not the case. They need to wake up and smell the coffee about what has been going on and why. Unless it is a cover.

    Balanced Migration of messrs Field and Soames, from it’s inception, has only concerned itself with “net” immigration and “balance” to avoid strains on infrastructure and population numbers. In theory, to them, if 300,000 Nigerians arrived and 300,000 indigenous Britons left, that would be okay and nothing would be really different. They too need to wake up and smell the coffee. Unless it is a cover.

    When it comes to the British population and immigration……I have not seen much in the way of evidence that the average and ordinary British person has ever wanted immigration. I see no pushing for the Nationalities Act in 1948, no pushing for the arrival of the Windrush ship, no desire to import hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis to the (already failing) mills in the 1960’s, no desire to house ‘boat people’ in the 80’s, and no desire for Labour to import around 5 Million people since 1997, three quarters of which is supposed to be non-European.

    It is good that they are having this debate, but I am extremely cynical about what is going to the result of it, as the “will” is simply not there in the state apparatus to change things. This can be seen from the absurd statements by the black racist Dianne Abbott and other mealy mouthed toss-pots crowing about the “kinds of language” Mr Field is using, whilst trying to hook him as some sort of “fringe” lunatic striking fear into the poor ethnic minorities.

    As for Dianne Abbott’s idiotic injection about “evidence” (relating to Frank’s suggestions about some elements of the second/third generations here) – the evidence does exist. I have seen it before. It was talking about how a particular percentage of Muslims were staunchly against this country and seeking to impose Islamic rule – and how another percentage of this group had inclinations for terror training or moral support for such acts being carried out. The number, from this percentage, would span to a few hundred thousand citizens. I would have to try and find it before I can say with 100 percent certainty.

    Frank should not have brought this into it if he did not have the back up he would need to quash the anti-white racists like Dianne Abbott. Besides, the Muslims are an easy target and always get brought up-  what about the rest of them? Somalians, Nigerians, Nepalese, Turks, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysians, and on and on and on, that arrive here every day of the week?

    The Islamic issue is a real problem, but it is not the only problem.

  • I am not doubting Andrew Green’s concerns or his beliefs as he seems for things to be, but neither is it true to say he is some sort of nationalist to the degree many of us may be, or particularly bold. But of course, I can appreciate why this may not be the case and why it is better in the current climate that it is not the case.

    In fact, I have much respect for Andrew sticking up and tackling these matters. I have written a couple of things in some of my own articles which suggests we make much more use of (and lending much more support to) such organisations than we may do now.

    It is just a shame that we usually only seem to get responses how news of higher immigration etc is, in Andrew’s words, “disappointing”, and as you say, for whatever reasons, nothing ever seems to end up any different.

    It therefore risks becoming jaded and people (especially many nationalists) do come to get cynical about whether it is really just a front or not  in order to massage the population into believing things are being done by these spikes of activity. 

    There is talk, and talk, and talk. Andrew has been reeled out for the best part of a decade and we are still hearing the same issues and dealing with the same problems. In that time, things have got immeasurably worse.

    I am not suggesting it is Andrews fault, just that some degree of media spiking about immigration and “clampdowns” etc is there to fool the public that “a corner is being turned” and that “it is going to be dealt with this time”…….

    These kinds of peaks are often around the months before election times, which may heighten the cynicism further, but that is part of the media more than it is Migration Watch.

    From a Nationalist perspective, it does get hard to know whether the Frank Fields, Nick Soames, and Andrew Green’s are really in tune to what is being done or not. They often act and sound like they are not aware of why a lot of this has been going on and why it is not likely to be stopped – short of some sort of uprising or major political shock to the system. But of course, I do not know their minds.

    If they are unaware of some of the plots and schemes and vested interests, then they might not be able to understand why things are not ever done about it, and continue on forever saying things are “disappointing” and making out there is only incompetency and bad planning to blame.

    • godzillabloggs

      Migration watch’s does good work in countering government misinformation about immigration and its effects.

    • KenelmDigby

      The MigrationWatch people are probably fully aware of the point you make.
      But if they ever dared to raise it, they know full well that they will be ostracised and effectively shut-out of the debate, so their strategy is to play it cool and to play it ‘respectably’, and by doing so have a voice and leverage in the debate – their core belief being to get immigration down. They are making quite a ‘position’ for themselves now (to use the language of huckster) and are oft quoted as being reliable, authoritative and unbiased with their predictions about ‘numbers’ (not ethnic composition, mind you) being spot on.
      They are a thorn in the immigrationists’ side precisely because of their authority and ‘respectability’. It would be a shame to lose this valuable ally ny giving the immigrationists ammo to attack them.
       IMHO as long as they keep doing what they are doing. the immigrationists are put on the defensive.

      • I agree. I wish I had not put what I wrote earlier in the way it seems to come across. People seem to be picking up on it and it was only intended to be a small point.

        It was just that I have come across people in various quarters who have become cynical or suspicious, but as I also said earlier, I have personally previously suggested we lend a little bit more ‘neutral’ (ie, distant) support to organisations like Migration Watch – and that I do recognise that dividing line which is important for them to keep and nor do I think it wise for that to be breached.

        I am not hostile to Migrationwatch, I am quite the opposite! I think I need to make this clear before anybody perpetuates this!

  • Ulick

    I have this fanciful dream (which I know will never happen but wish it would) that either Prince William or Prince Harry schedules a news conference for a live speech on an undisclosed yet important topic.    During the speech the prince, Harry or William, says that he is from the English royal family, not the multicultural British royal family.  And as a member of the English royal family it is his duty to look out for the interests of the English people.  The prince would then proceed to tear apart the myth that multiculturalism is in the English people’s best interests, and he would demand that England be returned to the English.

    The backlash against multiculturalism in England would be instant and widespread.   The average Englishman would be fired up by such a titanic speech from a royal.  Englishmen would suddenly feel more comfortable airing their similar sentiment.  It would have tsunami-like effect.

    Alas, I know that this is just a dream, and that neither William or Harry would ever have enough stones or be willing enough to jeopardize their reputation to do something so profound for the English.

  • If you want to get lefties to back off of the immigration bandwagon just bring up overpopulation and the environment.  Use their own talking points against them.

  • David Ashton

      Described as a last-chance demographic wake-up call, from the people to their “parliament”, this Report has so far had the ephemeral impact of a damp squib at Westminster.  Readers wondering why public opposition to foreign immigration, persisting over six decades, has had little success with elected representatives could start with their current “responses”.
       Messrs Field and Soames carefully avoided specific ethnic issues to focus almost entirely on socio-economic costs.  One these grounds alone, however, they make an unanswerable case.  For on-line corroboration from ideologically independent sources, compare Population Matters (July 16, 2012) and Maid of Kent (Sept. 6, 2012).
       The UK Home Secretary in a by no means atypical dereliction of duty has already explicitly rejected the common-sense proposal at least to keep our already excessive population below 70 million, but when we turn to those who defend or advocate further massive multi-cultural immigration, their rhetoric is becoming as blatantly hollow as it is platitudinously robotic.  This is actually a sign of weakness.
       Despite their circumspection, the two MPs have encountered a few “racism accusations”, but these are beginning to be as ineffective as they are dishonest.  Their more shrewd opponents realise that silent suppression is more useful, but the popular press has let the cat, albeit temporarily, out of the bag, and it is up to others than Green, Field and Soames to use their material for greater effect in pestering their own MPs, and passing the facts on to others and internet readers.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Pete Wishart opined that their phrase “all necessary steps” in their “nasty little motion” was “worryingly authoritarian”.

    Sounds about right for the SNP; they have pledged that, upon attaining “independence”, they will import even more Third Worlders for “humanitarian” reasons.
    So, the SNP want independence (which in reality means separation from England), but they also want to fill Scotland with Third World flotsam-and-jetsam.

    This just confirms what I’ve always suspected about the SNP; that they are naught but a vicious bunch of culturally marxist, anti-white, traitorous trotskyshites!.

    • IstvanIN

      They hate the English and the Windsors BUT love Africans and Muslims and would rather be ruled by third-worlders than be a part of Britain.  How sick.  The Scots were among the worlds’ most inventive people during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.  The list of Scottish inventors is nearly endless. That inventiveness sprang forth after the English civilized the Scottish tribes.  And not just the Scots of Great Britain but also Scots in Canada and the US. Tremendously bright people. It seems like the Scots now want to devolve. Is their a lot of lead paint in Scotland?

      • loyalwhitebriton

        There is no lead paint anywhere in the UK. The EU deemed putting lead in paint as too dangerous, so they banned it.
        Just like mercury thermometers. About 3 years ago the EU said that mercury was too dangerous a substance to put in thermometers, so they (the EU) banned mercury thermometers too.
        I could go on and on, but you get the picture – regulation for the sake of regulation, and it’s all done, of course, for the “public good”[sic]; whereas in reality, it’s all part of the ongoing ‘centralization’ process.
        And the SNP actually want more of this!

        • blindsticks

          Yes, loyalwhite, like they’re now busily campaigning for Britain to be the first  country to ban smoking outright. Now before  anyone says anything about smoking being a disgusting habit etc..  I’m not here to debate on that, but only to say look at  the bigger picture .

          UK
          Could Be A ‘No Smoking Nation’ By 2032 – Yahoo!
          News UK
          ‘UK Could Be A ‘No Smoking Nation’
          By 2032′ on Yahoo! News UK. Senior doctors and
          anti-smoking campaigners have … U.N. chief defends Iran visit,
          says pushed … U.N …uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-could-no-smoking-nation-2032…
          – CachedMore
          results from uk.news.yahoo.com »

        • IstvanIN

           You missed my point about lead paint: lead paint being the cause of mental retardation and insanity and thus the reason for SNP craziness.

          • loyalwhitebriton

            You didn’t actually make a point about lead paint, you simply ended your comment with “Is there a lot of lead paint in Scotland?”
            Well, there isn’t, for the reasons I’ve stated.
            And neither does lead paint cause retardation and/or  insanity.
            The reason for SNP craziness is Socialism. Nuff said.

    • RisingReich

       If that is true then they don’t deserve to label themselves Nationalist.

  • JohnEngelman

    More people means less of everything good to go around. The relationship between population and standard of living can be expressed with an equation:
                                 
    (natural resources x level of technology) / population = standard of living
                                        
    In the past advances in technology countered the effect of population growth. Now computer technology reduces the economic value of skills most people are able to learn. 

    • The__Bobster

      Instead of posting this same message over and over, why not just say that people get poorer if their population growth exceeds their economic growth?

      • JohnEngelman

        My message includes the truth that computer technology increases the relationship between income and IQ. Computer technology reduces the economic value of skills most people can learn, while it enables geniuses to become rich. 

  • Too little, too late. Enoch Powell sounded the alarm, and no one listened… what’s that phrase?
    “Not with a bang, but a whimper?” Nothing short of a mass deportation, or a forced annihilation of the non-Anglos will solve the Shari’a-ing Dhimmitude of the British Lawmakers… along with the ineptitude of “Elizabeth the Useless.”

    • loyalwhitebriton

      I’m a monarchist, but I agree with your description of Elizabeth II.
      QEII doesn’t have a fraction of the spirit of QEI, who ordered the deportation of several thousand Africans and Arabs from England.
      I think they were called “the good old days” for a reason.

      • IstvanIN

         She has no real power, regardless of what reserve powers she has in theory.  If she spoke out she would be denounced for interfering in political affairs, laws would be passed restricting her freedom of speech, she might be forced to abdicate or just replaced with a republic. 

        • loyalwhitebriton

          You sum up the situation correctly. There is also the added very real danger that if the monarch, or her immediate progeny, spoke out against the mass immigration which is catastrophically transforming this nation, there could be very serious civil disturbances by our resident blacks and Asians.
          And whilst our politicians are technically not constrained from speaking out, the vast majority of them are too cowardly to do so.
          Which is why I think a people led revolution is the only way forward.

          • IstvanIN

             One positive aspect of the US constitution is the difficulty in amending it.  Britain has no written constitution, thus the Monarch and the House of Lords really exist at the pleasure of the Commons politicians.  If Britain had a a written constitution, with well defined, though limited, powers assigned to the sovereign, that could only be modified by public referendum, and not the politicians, the Monarch could protect her subjects from the more egregious acts of political class.  Shouldn’t the Monarch have the power to protect the nation as a whole?  I would love to hear Elizabeth II instruct Parliament to give her people “freedom of speech”, something you guys do not have.

            I truly believe most, if not all, European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries would be better off with hereditary heads of state as part of a “balance of powers” system of government.

            I believe I read this on a Jamaican forum discussing the future of the monarchy there: “The politicians are in favor of a republic for one reason, the Monarch holds the highest office in the land and it is the only one they can not steal”.  A lot of truth there.

          • loyalwhitebriton

            And which way would the military go?

            Good question. Between ’91-’94 I served in the Terrortorial Army – Royal Army Medical Corps (Reserve).

            Army people are, by and large, patriotic. I suspect that if our Monarch actually gave the order to “purge the nation of unwanted souls”, our military (regular and reserve) would be 100% behind her. Only a small percentage of UK military personnel are non-white, so that wouldn’t really be a block.

            It’s not going to happen, though. Monarch, politicians, media, academics, trades unions, the man on the street – just a buch of cowards.  

      • The__Bobster
  • Third world immigration is a planned thing and will in due time bring down all white countries. The UK governement acts in a treasenous manner and should be held responsible.

  • blindsticks

    Nicolas Soames
    is a grandson of ‘Keep Britain White’ Winston Churchill. A bit of an odd
    ball as he has been known to attack the BNP on a number of occasions for using
    his grandfather as an inspiration.

    Yet, as far as I know, nearly  all  of the Churchill children have attacked  immigration  at one time or another.  Still, better to be  a sexist pig than a racial bigot.  Eh Nic?
     According to the book Women in Parliament published in 2005, Soames has been named as the ‘most sexist’ MP, with several female MPs stating that he has made vulgar comments to them.[8] In other accusations of sexual harassment it has been alleged that Soames makes repeated cupping gestures with his hands, suggestive of female breasts, when women are trying to speak in parliament, in order to distract them.[9] He allegedly harassed Alastair Campbell by telephoning him and saying “you sex god, you Adonis, you the greatest of all great men”. Unknown to Soames, he was actually speaking to Campbell’s young son.[10]In November 2010, Soames told the Mail on Sunday newspaper that remarks about a royal wedding made by the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, were “extremely rude, not what one expects from a bishop.”[11]On 13 July 2011, Soames was sworn of the Privy Council.[12]
    According to the book Women in Parliament published in 2005, Soames has been named as the ‘most sexist’ MP, with several female MPs stating that he has made vulgar comments to them.[8] In other accusations of sexual harassment it has been alleged that Soames makes repeated cupping gestures with his hands, suggestive of female breasts, when women are trying to speak in parliament, in order to distract them.[9] He allegedly harassed Alastair Campbell by telephoning him and saying “you sex god, you Adonis, you the greatest of all great men”. Unknown to Soames, he was actually speaking to Campbell’s young son.[10]

    In November 2010, Soames told the Mail on Sunday newspaper that remarks about a royal wedding made by the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, were “extremely rude, not what one expects from a bishop.”[11]
    On 13 July 2011, Soames was sworn of the Privy Council.[12]

  • newscomments70

    That was a great speech, although it has already been censored by youtube once. If Prince Harry made this speech, which he would not, it would quickly be dismissed as his typical shenanigans. If Prince William made this speech, he would be promptly disowned by the monarchy. The liberal elite would be momentarily terrified, but he would quickly be silenced and blacked out by the media. They would make him look “gay” or give him a drug problem, etc. The liberal media is an expert at assisinating someone’s character. William, Harry, and Charles are big lefties and pro-African. They will never face reality. They are quite comforatable in their castle and can easily afford their own private apartheid. They don’t need to face reality.

  • The__Bobster

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-2005-sierra-series-by-brenda-walker-1

    As we learned in the recent Sierra Club funding scandal, Pope has a lot on the line, namely his access to the fabulous wealth of open-borders zealot and Wall Street investor David Gelbaum.

    Gelbaum has already donated over $100 million to the Sierra Club with the stipulation: “I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

    And as darkness follows sunset, two years later the Sierra Club reversed its long-standing policy that America’s exploding domestic population should be curbed first before the club tackled global overpopulation challenges.

  • The__Bobster

    “What possible evidence does [he] have that more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of second generation migrants harbour terrible thoughts?” she asked.

    Mr Field said he accepted there was “no evidence” to contradict her proposition.
    _______________

    You mean this clown did even read the poll where a large number of  UK muzzies wanted Sharia law?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html

    The latest WikiLeaks revelation: 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia lawRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html#ixzz265jn91B3

  • Calamity

    Tougher action is needed in this folly of allowing muslims to bring over up to 4 wives, who then get funded by the state as single mothers, and probably end up having at least 3 children each. That is potentially 12 or more children for each of these men. This has to stop. If they were told, 1 man, one wife, and no benefits if you bring in more, that would cut some of this down. I might also go as far as to say that you can only get child allowance and benefits for up to 3 children for each couple. That is enough for anybody, and is overgenerous in my estimation. I would also say that if people from the 3rd world want to bring in cousins or other people as spouses, that they both have to be at least 24 years old and that the incoming spouse speaks English. There should also be a citizenship test and an oath of allegiance to Britain. I had to speak that oath on joining the British Army as a native Briton, so they shoud too, as they are getting a privilege in being allowed to come and live here.