History
MigrationWatch UK was founded in December 2001 [21] by Sir Andrew Green, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia. In an article in The Independent , Deborah Orr writes that the organisation came into being when, "after reading some of his anti-immigration letters in The Times ", the then Sir Andrew approached David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, and they subsequently set up MigrationWatch. [22]
The group first came to public attention in 2002 when it stated that immigration, including an estimate of illegal immigrants, was running at two million per decade "and probably more". [23] [24] This claim was challenged at the time by a number of public commentators, [25] [26] [27] [28] with an editorial in The Independent at the time criticising what it called "tendentious projections and the deliberate citing of the vast populations of countries such as India to frighten people and wreck any rational debate". Two years later, Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph would argue that Government Actuary's Department forecasts that the UK population would increase by six million people due to immigration over three decades "appear to confirm claims made by Migrationwatch two years ago, when the group first sprang to prominence". [24] A later Telegraph editorial following the 2011 Census would call the group's initial claims "overly cautious". [29]
The group quickly attracted the attention of Home Secretary David Blunkett, who in 2002 set up a unit intended to monitor and rebut the organisation and sought to control the timing of statistical releases to avoid pressure from it. [30]
The organisation has an advisory council, which is chaired by Baron Green and whose members include David Coleman, Caroline Cox and Alp Mehmet, former ambassador to Iceland. [31]
Policy stances
Immigration flows
MigrationWatch argues that the growth of the population of the United Kingdom through international migration is a key "factor driving problems around pressure on school places, the NHS, housing and the transport infrastructure". [13] The group in 2018 argued that migration was linked to 82% of population growth between 2001 and 2016, when combining both net migration and children born to immigrant parents. [40] In the same year it predicted that the population of the United Kingdom would exceed 70 million by 2026. [41]
A 2019 report by MigrationWatch condemned the Conservative government's approach to immigration, stating that its policies could increase immigrant numbers by 100,000. [42] It has called Britain's port security "resourced to fail" in stopping illegal immigration, [43] and has opposed the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants in Britain, after it was postulated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. [44] The group criticised the same government for extending the period in which overseas students can stay in the UK from four months to two years, arguing that it would "likely lead to foreign graduates staying on to stack shelves". [45] It was also critical of proposals by Boris Johnson to scrap the £30,000 salary cap on migrants, warning that abolishing the cap could lead to further rises in migration. [46]
The group has expressed opposition to sham marriages, and in August 2019 called for nationality profiling in an attempt to crack down on the practice. [47]
Asylum seekers
MigrationWatch supports the principle of political asylum, [48] but argues that many asylum seekers do not have a genuine case for qualifying for refugee status and are instead using the asylum system to gain entry to the UK for economic reasons. [49] The group has also been strongly critical of what it sees as the government's failure to remove many of those whose claims are rejected. [50] In a briefing paper published in January 2009, the group's Honorary Legal Adviser Harry Mitchell, QC stated that while the group supported "asylum for genuine claimants", the "overwhelming majority of asylum seekers" were in fact economic migrants and did not have a "well-founded fear of persecution". [49]
In July 2010, MigrationWatch highlighted what it saw as the potential consequences of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom's unanimous ruling in favour of two homosexual asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon, allowing them to stay in the UK. The group argued that the decision would "increase by many thousands the numbers of persons who may be eligible for asylum", as well as "generate a large number of claims that will be difficult to determine", such as instances where people smugglers "tell their clients who come from countries where homosexual acts are illegal to claim that they are homosexual". It argued that assessing such claims "can often take many months during which applicants are supported by public funds". [51] [52]
In August 2016, in response to Home Office data showing that over a third of asylum applications were made by migrants who entered the UK illegally or overstayed their visas, MigrationWatch suggested that the data showed that "many of those claiming asylum were in fact economic migrants". [53]
The group has defended the use of the term "illegal immigrant" to describe those who enter a country for the purpose of claiming asylum, against those who associate the term with criminality. The group argues that the term is appropriate, as those who come into a country without permission and outside the law are doing so illegally. [54]
Economic impact of immigration
MigrationWatch has argued that, while limited skilled migration (in both directions) is a natural and beneficial feature of an open economy, [55] very large scale immigration is of little benefit to the indigenous population. MigrationWatch has said that migration into the UK has and will tend to hold down the real wages of British citizens. [56] In 2006 it expressed concern that immigration from Eastern Europe was depressing wages. [57]
In December 2008, a MigrationWatch report stated that while some immigration results in an increase in the number of people in employment, "it seems an inescapable conclusion that the sudden arrival of a very large number of very capable workers willing to work for low pay has had a negative impact on the employment of British-born workers at the bottom of the pay scale". [58] Will Somerville and Madeleine Sumption of the Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute state in an Equality and Human Rights Commission report that: "Few serious international or UK economists would agree with this conclusion". [59] Their report did, however, note that "the recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers". [60]
MigrationWatch has criticised sectors that lobby for a permissive immigration policy, accusing them of offering "low paying jobs with poor conditions and little flexibility for workers". [61]
In 2014, the group published a report on population growth in London, in which it said that immigration trends had put "massive pressure on schools and hospitals and especially housing". [62] It has expressed concerns about the effects of migration rates on the national housing market as a whole, pointing to the discrepancy between migration rates and the number of new houses being built to accommodate a growing population. [63] [64] In 2017 the group said that the impact of immigration on future demand for homes in England had been "seriously understated" by the British government. [65]
In 2016, MigrationWatch issued a paper estimating the fiscal impact of immigration for the year 2014/15, which found an overall fiscal cost from immigration with a positive contribution only from migrants of pre-2004 EU states. [66] [67] This was in line with a 2014 study from University College London. [66] [68]
Human rights legislation
MigrationWatch UK in 2003 advocated that the UK government should "'cut loose from the straitjacket' imposed by its obligations under various conventions that made it impossible to operate the system in the country's best interests". [69] In 2007 it called for the British government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and write its own Human Rights Act. [70]
EU membership
The group has been critical of large-scale migration from the European Union, having in 2013 predicted combined migration inflows from Romania and Bulgaria of approximately 50,000 per annum when free movement restrictions would be lifted the following year. [71]
In January 2016, the group published a report claiming that the UK leaving the European Union could result in a reduction of annual net migration from 180,000 to around 65,000, although added that such a number should not be taken as a "precise estimate" but was "intended to illustrate the scale of the potential reduction under the policy outlined". [72] MigrationWatch stated that they would not take a position on the UK's EU membership referendum held in June 2016. [73] In 2017 the group backed the idea of visa-free travel between the UK and EU after Brexit, adding that EU citizens who would want to work in the UK should need a work permit. [74]
Hong Kong
After the British government reacted to the Hong Kong national security law, announcing that British National (Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong would be given the right to live, study and work in the UK and would be offered a route to route to citizenship, MigrationWatch published a paper stating that "a Home Office factsheet confirmed that the number who might eventually be able to come is up to 2.9 million – the current number of BNOs residing in Hong Kong". The paper argued that the government had "cast the proposed offer of a pathway to citizenship as part and parcel with the UK honouring its 'historical responsibilities'", suggesting that this set a dangerous precedent. Chris Whitehouse, responding to the MigrationWatch paper in an article for CapX , argued that "the UK's historic duty towards Hong Kong is very different to other former colonies; and the future of Hongkongers is based on China keeping its word, which it is brazenly failing to do". He concluded that "Lord Andrew Green and Migration Watch are out of step with the nation on this one, and they should urgently consult Lord Patten on their route ahead if they are not to lose their way". [75]
Reaction to the group
Praise
Conservative politician Jonathan Aitken has credited MigrationWatch with improving the quality of the British debate on immigration. He argues that "Migrationwatch has changed the administrative practices of the civil service and the policies of the major political parties on asylum seekers, work permit criteria and numerical totals. It has introduced integrity and accuracy into the previously misleading government statistics on immigration. The level of understanding of the subject in all serious newspapers and broadcasting organizations has been improved. Britain may or may not have the right answers to immigration questions, but we certainly now have a far more informed debate on them". [15]
Similarly, an article by Dean Godson of the centre-right think tank [76] Policy Exchange published in The Times in June 2006 states: "The dramatic change in the terms of the immigration debate over recent months is largely down to the determination and courage of a single individual – Sir Andrew Green, the founder and chairman of MigrationWatch UK. Almost single-handedly, he has rescued the national discourse from the twin inanities of saloon-bar bigotry on the Right and politically correct McCarthyism on the Left". [16]
Jay Rayner, writing in The Observer quotes one senior BBC News executive, who stated: "We probably were reluctant and slow to take him seriously to begin with. We probably didn't like what he had to say. But then we were also slow to pick up on immigration as a story, not least because we are a very middle-class organisation and the impact of mass immigration was being felt more in working-class communities. If he's proved himself, it's because he hasn't put a foot wrong on the information he's published". [77]
Peter Oborne, writing as chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph , has also praised MigrationWatch and the efforts of Lord Green. In 2014 Oborne called Green "one of the most morally courageous people in British public life", and has said that the "liberal media establishment" owe Green "a huge apology" for mocking his predictions about future immigration numbers. [17]
Criticism
While the group describes itself as independent and non-political, [78] [79] it has been characterised as a right-wing lobby or pressure group by some commentators [19] [20] [80] and academics. [81] [82] [83] [84]
It has been argued that MigrationWatch's messages "can be taken advantage of by people with Islamophobia and prejudice". [85] The accuracy of the group's research has also been questioned. David Robinson, Professor of Housing and Public Policy at Sheffield Hallam University, argues that the group's assertion that immigrants are placing strain on social housing lacks evidence. [86] Economist Philippe Legrain has claimed that "MigrationWatch's xenophobic prejudice is causing it to twist the truth" about the impact of immigration on the employment prospects of British people. [87]
In February 2013, Migration Matters, an organisation chaired by former Labour MP Barbara Roche and co-chaired by then-Conservative MP Gavin Barwell, criticised the BBC for treating MigrationWatch's analysis as politically neutral. [88]
In 2014, Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research complained to the Press Complaints Commission that articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph about the net amount of tax paid by Eastern European migrants, which were based on MigrationWatch statistics, were inaccurate. The two newspapers amended the articles in response. [89] [90]
Some other commentators have criticised what they see as the media uncritically reproducing the findings of MigrationWatch in their own reporting. Academics Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson in 2009 stated that while they believed the evidence used by MigrationWatch to be questionable, it received prominence in migration debates and had assumed an authority which they considered to be "dangerous if there is no similar authority presenting counterarguments". [91] Bernhard Gross, Kerry Moore and Terry Threadgold of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University have criticised the broadcast media's use of MigrationWatch to 'balance' reports on immigration, arguing that the "whole idea of 'balance' in these contexts needs to be re-thought" and that "there are never just two sides to any story". [92]
Defamation
In 2007, the Daily Mirror paid damages to Andrew Green after columnist Brian Reade likened him and the group to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party, which the paper admitted was "untrue". [93] [94]
In August 2010, Sally Bercow, a Labour Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and wife of Conservative MP John Bercow, argued on a Sky News newspaper review that a Daily Express article based on MigrationWatch research was "oversimplifying" and constituted "dangerous propaganda". As a result, MigrationWatch and Andrew Green threatened to take libel action against Bercow. [95] After she instructed the lawyer David Allen Green to defend the threatened action, MigrationWatch dropped its threat. [96] According to a MigrationWatch press release, in the light of an assurance by her lawyer that Mrs Bercow "did not intend to (and did not) allege that Migrationwatch is a fascist or racist organisation", the organisation decided not to take the matter further. [97]
John Simon Bercow is a British former politician who served as Speaker of the House of Commons from 2009 to 2019, and Member of Parliament (MP) for Buckingham between 1997 and 2019. A member of the Conservative Party prior to becoming Speaker, he was the first MP since Selwyn Lloyd in 1971 to be elected Speaker without having been a Deputy Speaker. After resigning as Speaker in 2019 and opting not to seek re-election as MP for Buckingham in the 2019 general election, Bercow left Parliament. In 2021, he joined the Labour Party but was suspended in 2022.
Since 1945, immigration to the United Kingdom, controlled by British immigration law and to an extent by British nationality law, has been significant, in particular from the Republic of Ireland and from the former British Empire, especially India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Caribbean, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Hong Kong. Since the accession of the UK to the European Communities in the 1970s and the creation of the EU in the early 1990s, immigrants relocated from member states of the European Union, exercising one of the European Union's Four Freedoms. In 2021, since Brexit came into effect, previous EU citizenship's right to newly move to and reside in the UK on a permanent basis does not apply anymore. A smaller number have come as asylum seekers seeking protection as refugees under the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
African immigrants in Europe are individuals residing in Europe who were born in Africa. This includes both individuals born in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Illegal immigration is the migration of people into a country in violation of that country's immigration laws, or the continuous residence in a country without the legal right to do so. Illegal immigration tends to be financially upward, from poorer to richer countries. Illegal residence in another country creates the risk of detention, deportation, and other imposed sanctions.
Immigration to Europe has a long history, but increased substantially after World War II. Western European countries, especially, saw high growth in immigration post 1945, and many European nations today have sizeable immigrant populations, both of European and non-European origin. In contemporary globalization, migrations to Europe have accelerated in speed and scale. Over the last decades, there has been an increase in negative attitudes towards immigration, and many studies have emphasized marked differences in the strength of anti-immigrant attitudes among European countries.
In 2021, Istat estimated that 5,171,894 foreign citizens lived in Italy, representing about 8.7% of the total population. 98 to 99 percent more of Italy's full population is (caucasioid) as 2024. These figures include naturalized foreign-born residents as well as illegal immigrants, the so-called clandestini, whose numbers, difficult to determine, are thought to be at least 670,000.
It is difficult to measure how many people reside in the UK without authorisation, although a Home Office study based on Census 2001 data released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000. The methods used to arrive at a figure are also much debated. Problems arise in particular from the very nature of the target population, which is hidden and mostly wants to remain so. The different definitions of 'illegality' adopted in the studies also pose a significant challenge to the comparability of the data. However, despite the methodological difficulties of estimating the number of people living in the UK without authorisation, the residual method has been widely adopted. This method subtracts the known number of authorised migrants from the total migrant population to arrive at a residual number which represents the de facto number of illegal migrants.
Albanians in the United Kingdom include immigrants from Albania and ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. According to estimates from the Office for National Statistics, there were 47,000 Albanian-born residents of the United Kingdom in 2019.
United Kingdom immigration law is the law that relates to who may enter, work in and remain in the United Kingdom. There are many reasons as to why people may migrate; the three main reasons being seeking asylum, because their home countries have become dangerous, people migrating for economic reasons and people migrating to be reunited with family members.
The 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, commonly referred to as the EU referendum or the Brexit referendum, was a referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom (UK) and Gibraltar under the provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 to ask the electorate whether the country should continue to remain a member of, or leave, the European Union (EU). The result was a vote in favour of leaving the EU, triggering calls to begin the process of the country's withdrawal from the EU commonly termed "Brexit".
Robert Edward Jenrick is a British politician who served in the Cabinet as Minister of State for Immigration from 2022 to 2023 and as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government from 2019 to 2021. He also served in the government as Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury from 2018 to 2019 and as Minister of State for Health from September to October 2022. A member of the Conservative Party, Jenrick has been Member of Parliament for Newark since the 2014 by-election.
This article delineates the issue of immigration in different countries.
During 2015, there was a period of significantly increased movement of refugees and migrants into Europe. 1.3 million people came to the continent to request asylum, the most in a single year since World War II. They were mostly Syrians, but also included significant numbers from Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Eritrea, and the Balkans. The increase in asylum seekers has been attributed to factors such as the escalation of various wars in the Middle East and ISIL's territorial and military dominance in the region due to the Arab Winter, as well as Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt ceasing to accept Syrian asylum seekers.
This is a timeline of the European migrant crisis of 2015 and 2016.
Issues in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum are the economic, human and political issues that were discussed during the campaign about the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, during the period leading up to the Brexit referendum of 23 June 2016. [Issues that have arisen since then are outside the scope of this article].
The result in favour of Brexit of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum is one of the most significant political events for Britain during the 21st century. The debate provoked major consideration to an array of topics, argued up-to, and beyond, the referendum on 23 June 2016. The referendum was originally conceived by David Cameron as a means to defeat the anti-EU faction within his own party by having it fail, but he misjudged the level of public support for leaving, particularly amongst Labour Party voters. Factors included sovereignty, immigration, the economy and anti-establishment politics, amongst various other influences. The result of the referendum was that 51.8% of the votes were in favour of leaving the European Union. The formal withdrawal from the EU took place at 23:00 on 31 January 2020, almost three years after Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on 29 March 2017. This page provides an overarching analysis of the different arguments which were presented by both the Leave and Remain campaigns.
In 2016, the impact of Brexit on the European Union (EU) was expected to result in social and economic changes to the Union, but also longer term political and institutional shifts. The extent of these effects remain somewhat speculative until the precise terms of the United Kingdom's post-Brexit relationship with the EU becomes clear. With an end to British participation in the EU's policies on freedom of movement of goods, persons, services, and capital, and the European Union Customs Union, as well as sharing criminal intelligence and other matters, there is a clear impact with consequences for both institutions.
An increasing number of refugees and migrants have been entering the United Kingdom illegally by crossing the English Channel in the last decades. The Strait of Dover section between Dover in England and Calais in France represents the shortest sea crossing, and is a long-established shipping route. The shortest distance across the strait, at approximately 20 miles, is from the South Foreland, northeast of Dover in the English county of Kent, to Cap Gris Nez, a cape near to Calais in the French département of Pas-de-Calais.
55 Tufton Street is a four-storey Georgian-era townhouse on historic Tufton Street, in Westminster, London, owned by businessman Richard Smith. Since the 2010s the building has hosted a network of libertarian lobby groups and think tanks related to pro-Brexit, climate science denial and other fossil-fuel lobby groups. Some of the organisations it houses have close connections with those at 57 Tufton Street next door, including the Centre for Policy Studies and CapX.
The UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership was an immigration policy proposed by the governments of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak whereby people whom the United Kingdom identified as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers would have been relocated to Rwanda for processing, asylum and resettlement. Those who were successful in claiming asylum would have remained in Rwanda, and they would not have been permitted to return to the United Kingdom. The UK would invest in a development fund for Rwanda and financially support migrant's relocation and accommodation costs to move to Rwanda.
