Not only has the number of immigrants and asylum seekers fallen massively over the last few years, Conservative party policy is highly disingenuous on the issue.

How to put this politely? That’s not true. Not remotely true. The opposite of true. Using the long-term international migration estimates, immigration into this country has risen from approximately 350,000 a year in 2000 to approximately 500,000 last year – the last for which authoritative figures are available.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0210.pdf

…the relatively insignificant number of non-EU people coming into the UK…

The figure for non-British immigration is 431,000. Of these 431,000 how many are from the A8 accession countries? 68,000. 85% of UK immigration was from non A8 accession countries.

And you use this to attack flaky Conservative figures?

“The typical Tory dog-whistle has come out again.”

Umm, how is this a dog whistle? It is a pretty clear and audible whistle against large-scale immigration full stop.

Confusing. It didn’t work in 2005 – we weren’t thinking what they were thinking after all – why do they assume it’ll work this time round? They really are clutching at straws now…

I’m almost embarrassed for them at how little they’ve capitalised on Labour’s dismal performance and all-round disarray. Almost.

That report you cite says:

Long-term immigration of citizens of the A8 Accession countries (those countries of central and eastern Europe that joined the European Union in 2004) declined in the year to June 2009 (68,000 in the year to June 2009 compared with 100,000 in the year to June 2008, a fall of 32 per cent)

• There was little change in long-term emigration from the UK in the year to June 2009 (371,000 in the year to June 2009 compared with 363,000 in the year to June 2008)

TimJ – but even if only 68k came from the A8 countries, that still leaves out those who come from the old 15. Certainly where I live (Brighton) there are a lot of Poles, but more French, Spanish and Italians.

Sunny’s argument, which is right, is that a lot of immigration is EU-permitted immigration, and so not controllable without withdrawing from the EU and bringing home a million Brits who live abroad.

To say that immigration is a particular problem caused by Government policy (as opposed to background social change) you would also need to show that the rise in immigration is out of line with other European countries – I don’t have the figures to hand, but I seem to remember the last time I looked at the statistics that the increase in immigration into the UK is a general result of increased mobility of people rather than a specific opening of the doors here.

Long-term immigration of citizens of the A8 Accession countries (those countries of central and eastern Europe that joined the European Union in 2004) declined in the year to June 2009 (68,000 in the year to June 2009 compared with 100,000 in the year to June 2008, a fall of 32 per cent)

Well read. But so what? If, last year, A8 immigration was 100,000 and overall ‘foreign’ immigration was 454,000 does that make non-EU immigration ‘relatively insignificant’? Does it fuck.

There was little change in long-term emigration from the UK in the year to June 2009 (371,000 in the year to June 2009 compared with 363,000 in the year to June 2008)

Uh-huh. And if you’d been making a point about net migration, then emigration figures would be relevant. You weren’t. You were making a point about immigration.

but even if only 68k came from the A8 countries, that still leaves out those who come from the old 15. Certainly where I live (Brighton) there are a lot of Poles, but more French, Spanish and Italians.

This is true. Sadly there are no figures on non A8 EU migration. However, a quick squiz at the countries of origin of UK resident non-nationals suggests that the only EU nations in the top five are Poland (top) and Ireland. The others are India, Pakistan and the USA. For UK nationals with non-UK places of birth the top three are India, Poland and Pakistan, with Ireland and Germany coming 4th and 5th.

In any event, the argument that immigration has ‘fallen massively’ over the last few years, which is what Sunny claimed, is simply not true.

If publicly worrying about immigration is the “typical Tory dog-whistle”, why has the Labour party spent so much of the last five years blowing it?

Tim J, why don’t you bog off back to where you (“the Anglo-Saxons”) originally came from? You ruined the life and culture of the indigenous population.

@Kentron Duh, because they want Tory voters to support them! It doesn’t work out like that, though, the rhetoric only helps the Tories and the BNP because it’s not credible coming from the Labour

Roberto,

“Tim J, why don’t you bog off back to where you (”the Anglo-Saxons”) originally came from? You ruined the life and culture of the indigenous population.”

Just as a matter of interest, where would that be? As a ‘culture’, Anglo-Saxons have only ever been found in England (and south-east Scotland). Like most people they have origin myths (in this case from Germany) but to trust these would be a bit like believing Gordon Brown never shouts at anyone – taking credibility a bit too far…

Oh, and just in case anyone wants to accuse me of racism for stating a historical interpretation, I believe being British is about being part of a culture that welcomes and absorbs new cultures.

why has the Labour party spent so much of the last five years blowing it?

good question – and a lot of it is down to reacting to Tories and MigrationWatch et al blowing that whistle.

Just as a matter of interest, where would that be? As a ‘culture’, Anglo-Saxons have only ever been found in England (and south-east Scotland).

Say what? There is extensive archaeological, genetic, historical, and linguistic evidence for a fairly significant population movement from mainland Europe in the immediate post-Roman period, associated with the appearance of “Anglo-Saxon” culture in Britain. That’s why we speak a Germanic language rather than a Celtic one. The material cultures are identical, and quite distinct from either Romano-British or Insular Celtic material cultures. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is generally regarded as a more-or-less accurate (if highly partial) historical document, and can be successfully cross-referenced with a number of other independent contemporary sources. Whilst the old-fashioned “Invasion Hypothesis” is clearly no longer tenable, to assert that “Anglo-Saxon culture” did not originate in mainland Europe or that there was no movement of “Anglo-Saxon” people is even more absurd.

“good question – and a lot of it is down to reacting to Tories and MigrationWatch et al blowing that whistle.£

I know have an image of the House of Commons as a Tin-Whistle band. With David Cameron and Gordon Brown competing to see who has the biggest whistle at Prime-Minister’s question time each week.

Tim J, why don’t you bog off back to where you (”the Anglo-Saxons”) originally came from? You ruined the life and culture of the indigenous population.

Have a look for the bit where I said immigration was a bad thing. No? Ah.

2 words.
Phil Woolas.
While the dog-whistle is a traditional Tory instrument, that man is a virtuoso. Shame the tune is so bloody awful.

Dunc,

Where to start?

“There is extensive archaeological, genetic, historical, and linguistic evidence for a fairly significant population movement from mainland Europe in the immediate post-Roman period, associated with the appearance of “Anglo-Saxon” culture in Britain.”

The genetic etc evidence is wierd – one early Anglo-Saxon site in East Yorkshire appears to have gained its male population from Cumbria (not totally inplausible, just odd). What the genetic evidence does show in general though is that there is a genetic link between peoples on both sides of the North Sea. It cannot show how old this is – DNA does not survive in graves – merely that it exists now. Now consider that for most of history it would be a lot quicker and easier (if you have access to a boat) to sail across the North Sea than it would to walk across Britain, and you have an easy explanation as to why genetic similiarities occur across seas rather than across landmasses.

The archaeology is not actually consistent – Anglo-Saxon culture shows similarities not only with Saxony, Jutland and southern Scandinavia, but also the Channel literol, France and even what is now Constantinople. This is because objects are portable and fashion-related. And no place on the continent actually displays the same material culture as any place on Britain, which makes any direct association more difficult.

“That’s why we speak a Germanic language rather than a Celtic one.”

There is a good case that much of what is now England spoke Latin rather than Celtic by AD 400. But putting that aside, by AD 400 the Roman army was certainly Germanic speaking in the main, and with the power vacumn after the withdrawal of government c. AD 410 then the army were one of the major players. It is complicated, but there is plentiful evidence for an ‘ethnic’ minority in the army becoming the ‘ethnic’ identity of the army and then the state (see Syria for a modern example). And we speak a unique Germanic language (almost – something very similiar was spoken around Dunkirk and the southern Belgian coast), not one developed from the same immediate root as any continental example.

“The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is generally regarded as a more-or-less accurate (if highly partial) historical document, and can be successfully cross-referenced with a number of other independent contemporary sources.”

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written c. 890, so is not a first hand account. It’s stories of the origins of kingdoms (by founders in three ships, a common folkloric typos) use possibly historical characters alongside fictional ones (my favourite is Porta, who landed as Portsmouth; wonder what inspired his name then?). It also draws on Bede’s account of the coming of the English, which is one and a half centuries earlier but still almost three hundred years later than the events supposedly described. Fifth-century contemporary sources record Saxons in Britain, but do not say where they came from (the assumption they imply they are from Germany because they are Saxons is modern).

The problem here is the narrative – the very racist (men of their time) and nationalistic nineteenth century authors (particularly the still great E.A. Freeman) wanted to find links to Germany and not to the Welsh and Scots, and were also inspired by the historians of Germany at that time. So they built a narrative, and then found the evidence to support it. But the evidence is not that strong, and certainly not that clear (does your choice of cooking pot reveal where your grandfather was born?), but because it did not disprove the narrative the narrative continued, being adapted to suit each generation (so the great immigration developed around 1900 – before that it was aristocratic invasion a la Norman Conquest). But the point is it is the reconstructed historical narrative that makes the idea of no (or technically, only personal – not tribal) immigration sound odd.

Yeah, the dog whistle to attract back the Tebbitites who are straying towards UKIP and the BNP. The current meme is that immigration is one huge Labour conspiracy to import labour voters. I think a tinfoil hat should go with that dog whistle.

Just glad that when I come back to Blighty, I’ll be bringing my my SE Asian wife and our mongrel kids – hey, I’m English, and we define the damn word. Especially those of us with links to the East End, the landing point for so many migrations. The only bits we’ve been able to identify are Huguenot and East Riding, so a bit of Java certainly isn’t going harm anything ;o)

…and back on planet earth most immigrants whom really are just other human beings born in a different country, quietly get on with their lives in this country doing nobody any harm whatsoever.

The Right’s rabid lying on immigration is a lazy, immoral slur against thousands of innocent people whom under normal circumstances ought to be applauded for showing the gumption to up sticks and emigrate to a wholly new country to improve their lives (the Right’s hypocrisy on the free movement of labour vis a vis their attachment to free market economics is startling – but then the all out lust for power trumps principle, hence the right’s habit of attempting to drive voters to vote for them through stoking a ridiculous fear of foreigners).

If I want to work in any other country I’m not going to worry two hoots about bitter natives like TimJ seething about my presence there. I’ll do it to further my experience, to see a bit of the world and in all probability return to Blighty a few years later.

And that is the motivation of most migrants entering the UK.

If I want to work in any other country I’m not going to worry two hoots about bitter natives like TimJ seething about my presence there. I’ll do it to further my experience, to see a bit of the world and in all probability return to Blighty a few years later.

Picking the wrong fight there chief. My wife is Australian/Portuguese-Macanese/White Russian. I have no objection to immigration at all. Only to people lying about it.

The benefits of immigration are pretty clear. Parties ought to be able to make a strong case for it. It is, however, not a popular policy. As a result, instead of defending it, Labour are trying to downplay the extent to which it has happened. Hence we get Sunny claiming that “immigration has fallen massively over the last few years”, when it hasn’t.

Hands-up: I’m an immigrant. I’m taking a job from a local (actually I’m not), I’m using resources (& paying for them), I’m using publicly provisioned services without paying for them (I pay taxes as well).

In what way am I different from someone coming to the UK with aspirations to work and build a life? Or all the Aussies, Kiwis and Zud Afrikans that were so populous in SW London when I last lived there 6 years ago?

Is it cos I is white?

Let’s call the dog whistle what it is – it’s racism: “You’re not white, or English isn’t your first language, therefore we don’t want you.”

So far, I’d have to say that Tim J is being the most objective here. And for this he’s getting a few caustic comments.
I think we should think about this for a moment, as this seems to happen all the time.
Tim J raises some reasonable sounding points and figures that seem pretty sound, and some people say ”why don’t you bog off” (maybe just a joke though) and that he’s a ”bitter native”.

If that’s how the debate goes, no wonder people start voting for the BNP.
As they’ve probably got totally P’d off with the left for being such smarmy buggers.

And maybe it is a Tory dog whistle …… but Damian Green is the shadow immigration minister. That’s his job. Of course he’s going to speak on the subject.

Same with Phil Woolas. He’s responsible for the huge task of managing who comes in and out of the country. Alisdair Cameron @16, what’s he meant to do. Say nothing? If you listen to this podcast of him on Nick Ferrari’s radio programme on the 23rd you can hear that people are always asking questions of him – and so he is obliged to answer.
http://lbc.audioagain.com/

@ damon (23) Woolas is not obliged to play dog-whistle politics, but does so of his own volition. Anyone principled (so that rules out both Woolas and Green in this regard) would rightly lay out their arguments on immigration, and not use it as a proxy issue to garner votes from those whose concern is actually to push a racist agenda. Immigration and racism are not the same issue, (albeit with some cross-over) but become one through the way these politicians are deliberately framing the narrative. The whole point about dog-whistle politics is to ostensibly be talking about one issue, but to send out signals to voters on other issues, never making that covert message explicit.What we need from an immigration minister is not someone who offers a sly wink to prejudice, but someone who is going to go out and explain that we do need to import labour from time to time

So this policy would keep letting Eastern Europeans in but would, in your own words, limit “the relatively insignificant number of non-EU people coming into the UK? Most of them aren’t even workers.” Not that the number of non-EU nationals is actually insignificant either.

So those evil tories plan to make sure that hard working Eastern Europeans can come while limiting those that “aren’t even workers”. More grafters, less spongers. No, nobody is going to find that policy attractive.

Hmmm, here’s Polly in today’s Guardian:

“How did it happen that the last decade saw the greatest inward migration the country has ever known – whichever estimates you choose? Unplanned, unwilled and only slightly controlled, “it just happened” is all you can get from experts and officials…

“Has immigration been good for Britain? That depends on who you are. Brown’s Treasury boasted that migrants boosted GDP – without counting whether they boosted GDP per capita. Nor does rising GDP show who wins and who loses in so unequal a country. It’s wonderful for employers and the affluent wanting cheap nannies, cleaners and plumbers – bad for the unemployed, many of whom would have been skilled-up for the jobs otherwise.”

Yes, damn that Tory dog whistle!

@26

Polly barked. What’s new?

I’ve just read that Tim “Racist Fathead” Montgomerie wants the Tories to put immigration front and centre.

Are you thinking what we’re thinking?

Yeah filthy Tory dog whistles….

Not like Labour candidates like that cunt Liam Byrne. At least he just comes out and says what a massive prick he’s been to foreigners. Don’t vote for this man. (via Shiraz Socialist)

A New Points System Like Australia’s: Lots of people said to me – why can’t we have a tough system like the Australians? So I studied how it works Down Under – and stole their idea. The new points system started in November, on time, as promised. I’ll reduce the number of economic migrants – and ban low skilled migration from outside the EU altogether. Only those with the skills we need can now come – and no more.

Compulsory ID Cards for Foreign Nationals: ID cards for foreign nationals is an obvious idea. So I changed the law to make them compulsory for all foreign nationals. The Government started issuing them last month on time and on budget. Now, everyone will know who has the right to be here – and who doesn’t.

Huge Fines For Employing Illegal Immigrants: Hodge Hill was united that we need to hit dodgy businesses hard if they undercut British wages and employ illegal immigrants. So I introduced £10,000 on the stop fines. The results? We’ve hit 20 times as many businesses as last year – and raised £7 million which will be going back to fund public services. And for visitors I proposed a £5,ooo fine if a sponsor breaks the rules and doesn’t make sure their family member goes home.

Earn Your Stay: I think British people admire hard work and people who play by the rules. So when I was Immigration Minister I drew up plans to change the law so if a newcomer wants to become a British citizen, they’ve got to earn their way. That means proving they speak English, work hard and pay tax and obay the law, and make an effort to integrate. All acceess to benefits – especially housing – should be BANNED until this is proved. The law goes to Parliament in 2009 – I’d like your views on it before it does.

Too Late? Lots of people say to me, ‘but isn’t it all a bit late?’ I’ll be frank. We should have acted sooner – so when I was immigration minister I delivered the biggest shake-up of the system for 45 years. Now * we’ve the lowest number of asylum claims for 15 years * we deport an illegal immigrant every eight minutes * abroad, we check everyone’s fingerprint against crime databases before we issue a visa.

Action, as they say, speaks louder than words.

I know this is a fairly partisan site but can we get Liam Byrne’s disgraceful leaflet more widely publicised? This guy really is a shit.

Dammit, most of that is meant to be in blockquotes, para 3-9.

Oh and by the way,. Liam is of Irish ancestry. They must be so proud Liam is able to crush the life chances of people just like his grandparents and great-grandparents for electoral advantage.

@Left Outside.

All fair points. Labour have been completely racist on the issue of immigration for the whole time they’ve been in office. Sure they let lots of people in – only so those could go on to get shitty jobs and get crap thrown at them by the press and (literally) by skinheads.

I might still vote Labour – my MP is one of the non-racist Labour ones, and whilst I am ashamed that he hasn’t spoken out more against his own government, I reckon one day we might have politicians that aren’t afraid to tell the Murdoch press to get the fuck away from their racist shit against foreigners. One day.

Left Outside on Liam Byrne

At least he just comes out and says what a massive prick he’s been to foreigners.

Immigration control is an unpleasant business – but someone’s got to do it. Unless you (one) is into open borders – which I think Left Outside has advocated – fair enough.

I’m a little off the pace of the most radical of these liberal/left ideas, as I don’t like to get too much in front of wider society.
A bit sure – but being radical on things like this means that you are just that.

@27

Polly barked. What’s new?

It’s new to me. I thought she had impeccable liberal credentials.
Don’t tell me she’s in the process of doing a Melanie Phillips.

Maybe ”Strangers into Citizens” is the way to go – but that does not mean that we should overlook what is going on under our noses.

I never saw ”Border Force” on TV, but have been looking at some of it on youtube.
Whatever your political opinion on illegal migration, you have to admit the problem is huge and is a real headache for western governments.

In one of them it was said that the British High Commission in Nigeria receives ten thousand forged documents a year supporting visa applications to go to the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF5El8RSaTk&NR=1

Britain is then criticised for making it difficult for West African people to come to Britain as tourists or for family visits. Is that fair?

I think ”dog whistles” and what’s implied by saying things like that is not really the way to discuss an issue like this.
And also suggesting that I’m a Guido Fawkes type Tory (like someone did on here) also doesn’t really help me respect some people’s point of view.

In this episode of that programme, this couple had assumed the identity of a couple in America (who had complained to British immigration that they thought their identities had been stolen) and lived here for 14 years using someone else’s name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYCtcEeZ30&NR=1

One thing about these programmes though is, I don’t know if people’s faces should be shown on the screen like that. That seems wrong, and I sympathise with the people getting found out and arrested.

Immigration is a problem that can never be solved in a modern world of sophisticated transport methods.
Where right of centre posters are wrong is that they can not understand that any government which follows democratic principles (Labour or Tory) will find it difficult to solve.
Also politics is about timing. These comments were timed to play a race card
because Damon’s and Tim J’s party is doing badly in the polls.
Immigration will not get worst or better with the next government. As for the figures , I think it is more cock up than conspiracy. I doubt the Tories will be able to give the correct figures when they come to power

Golden Gordon, you are such a card.
And your insistence that the things I say make me a tory or right wing or something is more telling for me than comment on any particular issue, as it shows me how detached the liberal left can become from normal discourse.

And that saddens me as it means that there really is a flaw with the liberal left point of view. Just because you say something btw, doesn’t mean it’s so (another unappealing left/liberal habit).

I might agree that borders are porous etc, and there’s nothing really to stop it all.
But you can have a beefed up Border Agency like seems to have happened, and you can have ”fast track” deportation processes, have more draconian visa rules ….. and all sorts of stuff.

Golden Gordon, Sally and Bernard. I don’t think I have given my own personal view on any of these things …. apart from suggesting they are legitimate areas to be discussed by governments and politicians.

If you think I am wrong to say that, and that you think these issues should not be discussed in public, then fair enough: you think I am wrong there, (big deal).

But what I really hate about some lefties is their dishonesty and underhand tactics when people have a different view in areas like this, and when they personalise things and distort what a person is actually saying.

It’s been not too bad on Liberal Conspiracy, but I can see unhealthy signs of it.
To me, this brings left liberalism into disrepute more than anything else.

And GG, as an example: The fact that I think that UAF are a bit crap, doesn’t mean that I’m ”soft on fascists”. It’s not always so black and white as that.