For Years I Was Accused of Being Racist–Just for Warning About Immigration. Now I’m Being Made a Lord

Andrew Green, Daily Mail, October 25, 2014

It is remarkable that I, a campaigner against mass immigration, should this week have been granted a life peerage. A decade ago that would have been unthinkable, but the fact that it is now happening is a measure of how much attitudes have changed.

It has certainly taken a while. When I co-founded MigrationWatch with Professor David Coleman in 2001, nobody wanted to touch the subject. There was a widespread fear of being accused of racism that the Left were only too willing to exploit, and still are.

You might call it the ‘Rotherham syndrome’: if the matter touches on race, don’t touch it.

Now things are rather different. Immigration is right up there as an issue. The public are demanding action and they will not be fobbed off. I have long felt that this was a hugely important issue for our country and one that really needed to be addressed. The people who suffered the effects of mass immigration were not the chattering classes who mainly benefit from it but working class people who had no voice, especially as the trades unions were struck dumb.

So, when I retired as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, I set about establishing a small think-tank, mainly of volunteers, to make the facts better known and the impacts on ordinary people better understood.

We make it our business to examine official figures as impartially as we can, and then publish our findings.

Sure enough, in those early years I was immensely encouraged when ordinary people, who must have seen me on television, stopped me in the street to thank me for what I was doing. These were the real people. Elsewhere, however, the so-called sensitivity was such that the BBC would not even use the word immigration. They called it ‘in-migration’. And for years any BBC interview on the subject began with the question: ‘Is it racist to discuss immigration?’ with the clear implication that the questioner thought that it was.

This went on long after the Prime Minister at the time, the Home Secretary, and even Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission on Racial Equality, declared that it was not. This was not enough to stop some newspapers accusing us of racism.

When an article in the Left-leaning Daily Mirror implied I was in some way associated with the Ku Klux Klan, I’d had enough. I instructed my lawyers, and the paper settled out of court for several thousand pounds of damages. Following two similar episodes with the Independent, the Left-wing press became rather more careful.

Our first real breakthrough came in August 2002 when we published our estimate that immigration in the following decade would reach two million. That got them going.

The Independent described us as ‘a nasty little group that deserves to fail’. The Guardian described our report as ‘a swamp of muddled thinking’. Ten years later, when the census was published, it turned out that our prediction was actually an underestimate.

Something similar happened in 2003 when the Government commissioned an academic report that claimed migration from Eastern Europe would be no more than 13,000 a year. We said at the time that this report was ‘almost worthless’ and that a more realistic calculation suggested 40,000 a year.

We didn’t know how right we were. It turned out to be about twice that.

Believe it or not, but the same thing happened again last year. We published an estimate that Romanians and Bulgarians would add 50,000 a year to our population. Yet again we were rubbished, yet again the numbers are pointing in that direction.

To come to the present, we find that the figures from the Office for National Statistics show that net migration has been running at an average of nearly a quarter of a million a year for ten years.

If this is allowed to continue it will have a huge impact on our population and, indeed, on the whole nature of our society. Taking also into account the growth of our existing population, it will add 12 million in the next 20 years. That is huge. It is one and a half times the population of London and 12 times the population of our second city, Birmingham.

The consequences are already being felt. Maternity services are coming under increasing pressure. Primary schools are having to put up Portakabins to handle the extra children and, in some schools, classes are above their legal limit.

Housing is another massive issue. Not many people realise that one third of the demand for new housing is as a result of immigration. Indeed, we will need to build a house every seven minutes for the next 20 years or so just to accommodate new immigrants and their families.

As a result, finding an affordable home in many parts of the country is a real problem. Nothing has been done to provide the housing that our rapidly expanding population needs.

The problem is at its most acute in London but, of course, there is an overflow to the regions around London. The city’s population has grown by more than one million since 2000 and it continues to grow rapidly. That growth is entirely down to immigration and it has put huge pressure on the city’s housing. Waiting lists for social housing have doubled since 2000, property prices have soared and over-crowding has increased. Many people looking for somewhere suitable to live have to leave the city.

Since 2000, a period in which London has been portrayed as ‘booming’, there has actually been a net loss of three quarters of a million original Londoners to the rest of the country. A curious sort of boom.

The impact on social housing has also been severe. The statistics are, perhaps deliberately, very difficult to unravel. For years priority was given to those considered most in need, while people who had grown up in the area went to the back of the list. That is now changing but the impact is unmistakable. Half of all tenancies in inner London are now held by foreign-born tenants. The impact on Londoners has been staggering.

How on earth did it come to this? I cannot avoid the conclusion that it was no accident. Shortly after Labour took over in 1997, net migration quadrupled and remained very high thereafter. The Left like to talk about ‘globalisation’ but it is absurd to suggest it began with a bang in 1998. As it happens, there is clear evidence that Labour’s expansion of immigration was deliberate policy.

One of their party officials, Andrew Neather, who had been a speech writer to Tony Blair and later an aide to the Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche, let the cat out of the bag in an article in the Evening Standard in 2009.

It bears repeating because he was not just speculating; he was at the heart of the whole operation and subsequently came clean. Here is what he said: ‘It didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until at least February 2008 was to open up the UK to mass migration.’

He even admitted that earlier drafts of the keynote speech had included ‘a driving political purpose’–that mass immigration was the way that the Labour government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural.

He even pointed to reluctance in the Government at the time to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white, working-class vote. We now know the answer to that. Former Labour voters in the recent Manchester by-election deserted their party in droves. What an irony!

So what can now be done to get immigration under control? It is true that the present Government has made very substantial efforts to reduce immigration from outside the European Union. The numbers have come down by about a quarter since the peak in 2004 but there is still a long way to go.

We believe that the gaping hole in the system is the huge number of foreign students who come to Britain and the much smaller number who, it seems, actually go home. That is where future efforts need to be concentrated. Welcome though genuine students are, the number of those who stay on illegally is something that really must be tackled.

But the issue that has finally thrown the Government off course is the rapid increase in migration from the European Union. It has almost doubled in two years.

This is partly because East Europeans are continuing to come and join more than a million who are now working here.

In addition to that, quite large numbers are coming from southern Europe where the economies have been hit by the eurozone crisis.

Youth unemployment in some of those countries is amazingly high. In Spain it has reached 55 per cent and in Italy 42 per cent. It should be no surprise that some of them make their way here to work in coffee bars and restaurants.

The combination of public unease about immigration and growing scepticism about our membership of the EU has provided a golden opportunity for Nigel Farage and Ukip. There is no denying that he comes across extraordinarily well. People believe that what they see is what they get.

Furthermore, they like what he says. Many people think he is saying things that ought to have been said a long time ago.

But that is a long way from providing a practical solution.

It is quite clear that Labour will do nothing significant. They have ‘apologised’ for their mistakes, which led to the arrival of so many migrants from Eastern Europe but they have said nothing about twice that number who they admitted from the rest of the world.

Sure enough, Ed Miliband’s speech in Rochester on Thursday was no more than a rehash of sensible but minor steps that will make virtually no difference to the numbers.

That brings us to Conservative policy. The Prime Minister has clearly grasped the problem. He has promised that the issue of EU migration will be at the heart of his renegotiation with our partners. And he has also promised a referendum on the outcome.

He has said that he will not take no for an answer but, so far, he has been careful to avoid being too specific about the question, perhaps wisely. It is going to be a tough call.

The EU Commission and several member states are lining up to say that any kind of change to free movement is out of the question. Of course, they would say that. They are probably hoping that the Conservatives will not be elected, and that the problem will go away.

It follows that there will be no serious progress until such time as the EU is confronted with a British government committed to both a referendum and to measures on EU immigration. This will only happen if the Conservatives are elected with a working majority.

It is not as if Britain needs to seek a permanent change in the immigration regime. We have supported the principle and the practice of free movement for more than 40 years. But we need a solution until the pressures on our borders subside.

So our EU partners could well face a clear choice. Will they help us out for a period, or do they want to see the departure of a major European country with all the economic, political and psychological consequences that would follow?

If the answer from the EU is no–then so be it.

In my view, continuing mass immigration would have an unacceptable impact on our country.

It would place huge strains on our housing, our transport, and our environment. It would also change the whole nature of our country against the expressed wishes of a large majority of the population.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

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.
  • All of the economic arguments presented by lefties to justify immigration to Britain (and the US) are bunkum.

    The leftist conspiracy (it’s admitted by a lefty to be a conspiracy in the article) to open the floodgates to immigration is intended to break the bonds that hold the traditional Euro population together. In other words, the motivation for mass immigration is to murder the culture and the genes of the original, indigenous white population.

    The globalists, power elites, banksters and others are motivated by their hatred of the white man’s independence, his Christianity, his stubborn demands for personal freedom and a piece of the economic pie.

    There really is a conspiracy. There really is an enemy. There really is a war. There will be no stalemate in that war. Either the white race will regain its freedom and autonomy or it will be destroyed.

    In a war, you either surrender or fight to the death. I know my choice. “Nuts,” as that American commander said in WW II when the Germans called for his surrender in the Battle of the Bulge.

    • dd121

      I never thought it was about Republicans wanting cheap labor, either. That’s just the glib reply that lefties use to smear republicans.

      • JohnEngelman

        If country club Republicans do not want cheap labor, why do they favor more immigration?

        • none of your business

          Go away. Why have not the moderators banned him. Liberals love cheap labor because they are paid so low they need food stamps to feed their kids, section 8 and even cash benefits to pay their bus fare and buy clothes for work.

          • Because he is incredibly adept at “toeing the line” carefully, making sure not to say anything to get himself banned, merely egging the rest of us on, distracting, making idiotic statements and quoting other, better men, since he has nothing of worth to say himself.

            The best course of action is to simply ignore him, I think. Like most trolls, he thrives on attention, it gives him an inflated sense of self worth, which, being a worthless liberal drone, means quite a bit to him. He’s accomplished nothing in his real life, but if he can get you riled up here, he’s affecting the world, hes significant, fir a few brief moments.

            Dont give him that brief moment of feeling like he has some kind of value. Just ignore him.

            Or as they say on the internets, “don’t feed the troll.”

          • Who Me?

            Boo hoo. If they had to rely on their wages, they couldn’t, and they would be obliged to go back to their country of origin. Problem solved.
            Giving them handouts to supplement their meager wages just keeps everybody poor. From those who pay taxes to subsidize them to the recipients who remain at the lower fringes forever. The last thing White countries need is this huge influx of peasants from third-world countries to swell the permanent underclass.

          • none of your business

            I don’t approve of their welfare. I meant that the more poor people there are the more jobs there are for liberals handing out the benefits and herding the poor immigrants around and of course a huge number of liberal voters. Sometimes I think that the main product of liberalism is poor, crazy, criminal useless people just as cars are the product of auto factories.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Very good point. Libtards are, however, quite capable of wanting two opposing things at the same time. This is in fact a defining characteristic, I think. Not that they have a monopoly.

            On the surface – the conscious mind – the lib wants everybody to be happy and how better than to make everybody negro rich? Like the Nazi, poverty upsets the lib, offends his desire to sanitize his world and eschew any sign of the ugliness of existential angst.

            Now for the casual, non-sociopath liberal – the libvoter – the subconscious keeps telling them what you said. That sans poverty how can libs promise to fix all the problems and pay everybody’s bills?

            Like with so many issues (all?), the libtard’s mind is a constant battlefield between subconscious apprehension of reality verses conscious mental scaffolding designed to transform ugly or base (natural) motives into messianic shibboleths.

          • none of your business

            You explained it better than I.
            Q. What is liberalism?
            A. Create a problem, propose a solution, get a federal grant to pay for the solution. Create more problems.

        • dd121

          Because they’re liberals too. They’re not our friends and not our political salvation.

          • LHathaway

            I disagree. As the white portion of the population declines lower and lower we’ll need more and more of the white vote.

          • JohnEngelman

            Country club Republicans are usually liberal on issues like gay rights and abortion rights. Few of them are avid church goers. For them the Kingdom of Heaven is what they experience in this life.

            Nevertheless, they are conservative when it comes to economic issues that benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. This includes low taxes for themselves, weak labor unions, and minimum wages and unemployment compensation that lose ground to inflation.

            It also includes immigration. Immigration deflates wages and inflates prices. Consequently, it raises profits.

          • none of your business

            How do you know country club members don’t go to church? I bet you have never met a country club member in your life. You just make these sweeping statements based on nothing.

          • adplatt126

            What’s the difference if supposed Country Club Republicans differ from regular Republicans? The categories are themselves vague. What is not in doubt is that the Republican leadership, i.e. the establishment, is as committed if not more committed than the left, in actual policy, to mass immigration from the third world. It isn’t mere cowtowing. The Republican power class is as terrified as the left of being labeled racist. It’s also equally connected, if not more connected to the business power players that benefit from third world immigration, which drive down wages and weaken democracy. Moreover, nothing has aided the government expansion of power more than third world immigration, which gives a greedy, power-crazed oligarchy a good excuse to steal constitutional rights, and gives ordinary citizens good reason to be afraid and let them. Bush’s policies were not at all conservative when it came to immigration. He basically did nothing to stem the assault on our southern border, over the course of nearly a decade in office. Nothing. He also expanded and endorsed the self-same Marxist egalitarian propaganda the left peddles. 8 years and he did nothing for the white middle class. Nothing, except start wars that got ordinary white middle Americans killed. Republicans are not better than Democrats. On the surface they’re better, but in actual policy, there’s little difference. On many issues they’re actually worse for average whites.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Republican Party exists to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the American population. If you keep that in mind you will never be surprised by what Republican politicians do after they are elected. I hope you will be angered. You will never be surprised.

            In “What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank pointed out that Republicans love to lose on social issues. These are the issues that anger lower income whites and keep them voting against their economic interests by voting Republican.

        • LHathaway

          They don’t. Can’t you read? Yesterdays article showed whites of all incomes favor much less immigration.

          • JohnEngelman

            Which article was that. I could not find it. Post a link to it.

    • propagandaoftruth

      The euro-left mainly represents, ironically enough, the most class conscious, bubble world living, self loathing parasite imaginable.

      “Labour” loathes the working class.

    • Lots of those were parachute infantry, and they are used to being surrounded.

    • jane johnson

      The python and the gator: a great allegory for what alien invaders do to native populations.

    • newscomments70

      Weren’t you an educator at one time? I love to hear former teachers bash the liberal mainstream.

  • Oil Can Harry

    So the Labor Party apologized- not for the Third World invasion- but for allowing Eastern Europeans to immigrate to the UK?!?

    After this and Rotherham how can any white person cast a vote for these lowlifes?

    • none of your business

      Right. They don’t like E Europeans because they are White. Also, generally speaking E Europeans, especially Poles and Czechs are extremely good looking, far better than the best looking White British, Germans, French, Italians or Spanish. They also tend to be blonder than the British. Horrors, not just White but Whiter than the British.

      • ncpride

        I’ve always thought Eastern Europeans are very attractive people as well, although we have beautiful, stunning people in all our native countries.

      • Kenner

        I’ve wondered if Czechs are good looking because a generation was spared the mass slaughter of WW2, and their best were able to pass on their genes.

        • LHathaway

          I think they were almost all drafted for war. The Swiss and the Swedes maintained neutrality but almost everyone else was pressed in to service?

        • none of your business

          They are beautiful because their ancestors were beautiful.

      • Kenner

        Many of the Polish women on my mother’s side were stunning blondes.

        • none of your business

          My son used to call Polish women Polish goddesses.

  • Cecil Henry

    Has he addressed White GEnocide specifically.? NO.

    Then there’s work to do.

    • none of your business

      Read his website. I used to read it a lot. He is excellent.

  • dd121

    These lefties don’t care that you were right, they want to bring in even more than what you predict.

  • none of your business

    He called the Daily Mail a lefty publication. The English elite consider it dreadfully right wing.
    It is a well known fact that Indian immigrants are picked up at Heathrow by their relatives in the morning and actually dropped off at London welfare offices as soon as they reach London. They are not even taken to the relatives homes first, but just dropped off at the welfare office. Although they have a place to stay with relatives they claim to be homeless and are given council housing within days because they are “homeless” Meanwhile, more and more White English are homeless in London.

  • DonReynolds

    Excellent article.

  • “It is not as if Britain needs to seek a permanent change in the immigration regime. We have supported the principle and the practice of free movement for more than 40 years. But we need a solution until the pressures on our borders subside.”

    2014, when even the relatively sane became insane. Even if the borders of the UK are slammed shut tomorrow, wildly disproportionate birthrates will turn the UK into a majority Muslim nation with a Muslim government. What will THEIR immigration policies be like? Who cares?

    • JP Rushton

      That’s what I was thinking. The far left parties, by the way he was speaking, seem to be talking about curbing immigration as well.

      This is because they have already won. Like you said, even if immigration were stopped tomorrow, their country would be majority nonwhite in the next few decades.

      They really need to make it so all of the immigrants from the last 20 years from outside the EU need to go home. Any less isn’t going to solve anything.

      • Well said. I think some people who call for an immigration moratorium know the birthrate problem, but are afraid to mention repatriation. And yet, ironically, it does them no good. The same people who hate us, hate them just as much. As long as migration critics are willing to utter a truth that will get them hated, they might as well state the whole truth–or we are all lost.

  • rightrightright

    Third worlders get themselves into EU nations and then move on to England where the pickings and handouts are better. These aliens are still classified as Europeans for statistical purposes. Look at the situation in Calais where Africans and central Asians are parked up, waiting to achieve an illegal crossing to England. Look at the huge numbers of Africans who purposely set off across the Med in unsafe boats, forcing the Italians to rescue them and take them onwards to Italy. They then get themselves some EU paperwork and head north for England.

    Andrew Green has kind words to say about Cameron’s government for some reason. The gross immigration figure last year was 500,000, on Cameron’s watch. Yet the media and politicians only quote the net figure of about 250,000. We are losing are high achieving, brightest and best to elsewhere in the Anglosphere while accepting the dreadful burden of illiterate and often ineducable third world ‘economic’ (benefit scrounging) migrants in their place.

    No wonder UKIP is on a roll. The situation here is now desperate.

  • bubo

    Whites aren’t in control of our countries. Isn’t that evident by now?

  • KenelmDigby

    Sir Andrew Green is, perhaps, the best advocate of immigration control in the UK.
    Sir Andrew earned his reputation the hard way, by patient, consistent and truthful factual based analysis and argument. Sir Andrew is also the model of the successful immigration control advocate – he is always reasonable, well mannered, well spoken, with a gentle, academic, persuasive style of reasoning – there is a big message here for all advocates of immigration control, in particular those of the aggressive and strident type who continuously fail to make any impact.
    The lefties hate Sir Andrew because he is a winner, he is believable and he tells the unvarnished truth.

  • superlloyd

    This guy has been bought by the conservatives with his peerage. I very much doubt his analyses will be as trenchant from now on. Anyone that believes the conservatives will tackle the problem is damaged goods. He should have stayed out of party politics and focussed solely on the abuses of the immigration ‘system’.

  • Itooktheredpill

    As a Polish American I am curious, do most of the English people who are against immigration see and understand the difference between eastern europeans and 3rd worlders?

    • none of your business

      They do. The English cannot blame the high cost of housing, overcrowding, the overwhelmed health service high unemployment and other problems caused by third world immigration on third worlders because it would be racist. Now that there are a few thousand E. Europeans in England the English feel free to point out the problems of immigration because they can blame the problems on Whites.

      • Itooktheredpill

        I figured that was part of it. Thanks. I think if the time ever comes when the English decide to take back their island the Poles will likely march with them….but maybe thats just my bias speaking.

        • Tim

          “And finally, the Radio/Telephone is not to be used by 303 Squadron for idle Polish Chit-Chat…” -Battle of Britain movie

          • Itooktheredpill

            Ive seen that movie. Have always loved history especially military history.

  • He speaks only of economic and the working class. I look forward to the day when it will be allowed to address the more serious problem of the destruction of Britain’s indigenous peoples. None of the economic issues amount to a heap of beans compared to genocide.

  • Bill_der_Berg

    “Following two similar episodes with the Independent”.

    That probably happened under a previous editor. Under the current regime, Nigel Farage writes a weekly column. Not that they approve of his views, but they may have an old fashioned liberal belief in freedom of speech, or perhaps it’s just that controversial columnists sell newspapers.

  • none of your business

    Sorry, I didn’t pay attention.

  • Well put. Yes, Cameron keeps the EU vote a safe distance away. “Yes, Mrs. Jones, your house could quite possibly be on fire, which is why we have decided to call for a referendum in 2017 as to whether it is advisable to race a firetruck, yes, right to your door! And given this upcoming vote, it is silly for UKIP and other hatemongers to criticize our fire-suppression policies.”

  • Itooktheredpill

    I absolutely understand. The english have reasons to be upset. Not to mention you have every right to do what you please , it is your island. I was just curious as to whether the english who are are anti immigration distinguished between eastern europeans and say Pakistanis and blacks.

  • Itooktheredpill

    Crazy world we live in these days.

  • JohnEngelman

    If you do a survey of whites in the upper 10 percent of the population, I am sure you will find that most favor easing restrictions. The article you mention said this, “Upscale whites, even if they tilt towards immigration control, might want to hire cheap Mexicans, whereas working-class whites have both racial and economic reasons to keep Mexicans out.”

    The Wall Street Journal has for a long time advocated easing restrictions on immigration.