Extracts from correspondence received
The views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Migration Watch UK.
The names of firms mentioned by the writer have been removed by Migrationwatch
I watched on television the proceedings of the House of Lords Economics Committee at which your Chairman, Sir Andrew Green, gave evidence.
I have rarely seen such a devastatingly logical presentation – Sir Andrew had all the facts at his fingertips and presented them in a way which was a joy to watch. The question, as always, is whether the Government will take any notice and retreat from its “open door” policy which is inspired by the race relations industry, but if anyone can bludgeon them into a change of course through sheer relentless logic, it’s Sir Andrew.
Thanks for representing the majority of people in this country (including most immigrants) who want the sensible reforms Sir Andrew is proposing but are being ignored - for the moment, anyway!
January 2008
I have just been introduced to your website by an English friend. I am visiting London from Ghana as a guest lecturer and am privileged to be working for six months in one of the top British universities. I have always admired and respected the British sense of fair play and support for people who are less well off, especially in places like Africa where I have seen at first hand many examples of British generosity.
After a few months in the UK I must say I am appalled at the effect that uncontrolled immigration has had on the country and its unique culture. What started as the usual native British generosity towards needy immigrants has deteriorated into a free for all which has damaged this country enormously.
My English friend directed me to your website, and I congratulate you on your balanced, methodical and unhysterical approach to research and analysis, which has brought out in the open the debate about immigration and its consequences. Long may you and your advisers prosper and succeed in your mission.
July 2007
"…As you know, the issue of mass immigration has generated intense spin by HM Government and various Agencies. Those who seek to raise bona fide concerns are almost invariably branded as racists. Anyone who gets over that hurdle, is perceived to be ignorant of the history of this Country ("a nation of immigrants") and our economic dependence upon the financial contribution of mass immigration.
It is a depressing state of affairs. Certainly, I have the utmost respect for all of those who have come to this Country in the past and embraced our way of life. However, living in West Yorkshire, I continue to witness a massive influx of immigrants and it is evident to me that we are one of the Counties designated to receive the new arrivals. In consequence, I no longer recognise this as my Country.
In the circumstances, may I say how very much I have appreciated your stand in this matter."
April 2007
“In my view current immigration policy is immoral and not so very far removed from a toleration of slavery. We allow people to come and work for us for low wages and to live in squalid conditions, often abandoning children in their own country because we think low wages benefit our economy. They don’t. Tax payers make up the difference in housing and healthcare and education benefits. As immigrants age so they too will demand better standards for themselves and their children. What then? Another wave of immigration to support them too? This is complete madness. The answer is to allow single people only to come here to work, provided they return home in five years, I would suggest tax free but with essential healthcare available only.
Employers should be obliged to fund all other costs including their housing. That way the worker gains a language, skills and cash to enrich them and their families on their return. We gain the labour we apparently need. The present system is crass, impoverishes people and the environment and reduces the need for technical innovation. The tragedy of the debate is that any anti-immigration views are deemed racist whilst the pro-immigration is often simply reverse-racist. Race should have no place in the debate save that immigrants should embrace our culture and values if they choose it as their home.”
March 2007
“May I firstly state, that I am not a racist and abhor the policies of organisations like the BNP but fear that the main political parties are failing to deal with the problem of unregulated immigration into this country.
The problem has become a political hot potato and all the main parties are more interested in their image and placating a vociferous and unrepresentative minority who use political correctness to distract them from making rational decisions on the practical issues that immigration impact on, namely what is a sustainable population for these Islands, taking into account the needs for energy, housing, transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.
As someone who was born during WW2 I know well the dangers of extremist regimes but I also know that Hitler was elected by the German people and he like the BNP was initially a figure of ridicule. I fear that if the main parties do not take ownership of this problem sooner rather than later then the voters might turn to the BNP or a similar organisation.
There is by my personal experience a growing unease amongst people of all ethnic backgrounds at the seemingly unregulated growth in immigration in all its forms. People have been denied the right to debate this problem in an open and honest way as our leaders pay homage to the new religion "political correctness". I and many others like me are worried about the future of this country. Our values of decency and honesty are being discarded as are our rights to have a say in the future direction of our country and our society.
I have watched and listened to your spokesman on immigration and applaud his sensible and honest approach to this problem I fully support your organisation and hope that our leaders start responding to your advice in a positive and proactive manner the rights, freedoms and safety of the people of this country must always come before the rights of any individual.”
March 2007
“I was relieved to hear of the existence of your organisation on the
Today Programme this morning.
I have no qualms with the country admitting well motivated skilled
individuals of whatever culture as long as they are happy to respect
indigenous values and do not expect the British culture to change to
accommodate them (beyond normal common courtesies).
I have in the past been incredulous at reading the Country requires
immigrants to pay for our pensions. This seems akin to the economics of
borrowing more to make debt repayments.
I am a medical practitioner …. In my professional role I have performed
medicals on Britons seeking residency in Saudi Arabia. HIV tests were
required by the Saudis as long as 12 years ago. It would not be racist
for us to require the same of our immigrants and I am astonished that
some Health Professionals have been recruited who, only once British
residents, were found to have blood borne diseases. Some I believe then
invoked human rights acts to remain in the country for NHS treatment…”
January 2007
“Like many other people, I have been concerned for some years about the continuing effects of an ever increasing population in the UK, and in particular in England. There are several aspects of this concern, but until recently, my main worries were that the quality of life in this country is deteriorating, as a result of the continuous and increasing demands on land for housing and other developments, on transportation, and local services. I believe that statistically, this is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and evidence of the detrimental effects of this can be found on our roads, public transport, size and juxtaposition of housing provision, and scarcity of recreational space.
I think we have long passed the point where we should be posing the fundamental question of what kind of a country do we want this to be - but it is better to pose that question late, than not at all.
I am aware of the argument for a continued flow of economic immigrants, to fill skilled jobs that apparently cannot be filled from the existing population, and how vital that is to ensure continued growth and to meet the needs of an ageing population, but will we still be using that argument when the population reaches 75, 80 or 90 million? In my view, to go down that route is the politics of despair, and I would have thought that a more beneficial approach would be to encourage people to extend their working lives, and to develop an economic climate that ensures as far as possible that unemployed people (including those categorised as having disabilities) are able to be trained and to have the opportunity for work. There is also a case for directing some educational resources to meet existing and future skills deficiencies.
There is also in my view, an issue relating to the desirability of continuous economic growth, but perhaps that is a separate debate.
Up to this point, I have not mentioned racial or ethnic issues, because my main concern is, or was, with overall population size, not its composition. However, events over the last couple of years, suggest that there is a minority of our population, of indeterminate size, who for whatever reasons do not accept western standards of life, who bear little or no loyalty to this country, and who wish to damage it. Whereas the motivations for such actions are debatable, I think it is reasonable to assume that a sense of alienation from this country and its values is a factor. The growth of racial and ethnic 'ghettos', which tend to concentrate in poorer urban areas of our cities, and in which new immigrants would tend to live initially, cannot be helpful in that context.
If we then add to this mix, the acknowledgements by the current Home Secretary, that we have not managed the issue of asylum seekers, or illegal immigration, and that our border controls need strengthening, it can reasonably be concluded that we do not know how many people are living here, legally or otherwise, and that consequently the government is not in control of the situation.
The old adage that when you realise that you are in hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging, seems appropriate here. There is a real risk to the safety and security of this country, and evidence of severe social strains within it. Would it not make sense therefore, for the government to put a complete halt on all immigration, including that from potential new EU member countries, until such time as we have established much better immigration controls, and have a better understanding of the size of the internal threat to our security? This would also allow time for us to develop a better understanding that we appear to have, of the degree to which different communities have or have not integrated, and the strains on the social fabric of the country to which rapid immigration from diverse ethnic backgrounds has contributed, and to hold the serious debate on immigration for which the Home Secretary recently called?”
November 2006
I do not know what I would do without your common-sense media presence in a country that is increasingly losing its senses and its way. I was particularly disgusted by today's cover article in the Independent: 'Let Them All In'. It is obvious that big-business wants cheap labour, without really bearing the collateral costs. In my opinion, mass immigration is very anti-working class and anti-environmental. There is a very high price to pay for it, which we and future generations will regret.
It is also shocking to me that the trade unions are - through their internationalism - working against the people whom they purport to represent. If things get any worse, there will be very little left for the UK-born working class. Native graduates will also suffer very badly too; I have already seen anti-British recruitment policies in the UK scientific sector, of which I am part. Professional people are increasingly
affected too.
Furthermore, I have long been concerned by the brainwashing of the UK population into accepting the exaggerations and subterfuge of the pro-immigration lobby. From my experiences, that process is working all too well, with many UK citizens reciting the 'government line' on immigration without really using their own judgement. In particular, there is a pernicious misconception that only ignorant, stupid and racist people oppose current immigration policies (or lack of them). That whole situation is very frightening to me, and not too far removed from what has happened in totalitarian states. Already people like you and me are becoming more and more like dissidents in a totalitarian regime. We are often smeared, marginalised and drowned-out.
I would like to end on a light note, but the current state of Britain makes that
very difficult.
Best wishes in your campaigns, and thank you for your honesty and courage. I am inspired by it.
Sept 2006
I am a barrister, a former London police officer and a British citizen of Anglo-Caribbean mixed-race descent. I have perused your website and I overwhelmingly agree with the bulk of what is published there.
However, there is one issue which currently prevents my sponsoring your initiative. It is the tenor of your supporters' published letters.
Some of the letters MW has received, reviewed and elected to post on its website do have the flavour of anti-non-white and Little Englander racism about them. That could easily discourage support from people in the British Caribbean community and indeed in other British non-white communities.
Given the enormity of the problems facing all Britons vis-a-vis relentless mass immigration, I might suggest that some of the more overtly prejudicial letters be removed in order to attract as much support as is possible and help trigger a national, informed and rational debate.
I think it wholly beneficial to the British Caribbean community that the fragile hold they have managed to secure after many years of hostility towards them and hardship be protected against the implications of continued mass immigration. Many British Caribbeans are Christian by religion and conservative in their outlook, as most Anglophone migrants tend to be, but they are also highly suspicious of supporting what might be perceived as a front for extreme right-wing policies and interests.
From recollection, the two letters which were personally the most difficult to digest were those from a person in south-west England who travels frequently across Britain and another who rabidly attacked multiculturalism. These express a political bent which run against the grain of the apolitical stance that MW says it wishes to promote.
I am no great fan of multiculturalism, or even of stifling difficult topics in a debate, but nor am I a fan of right-wing extremism against which many of my (ancestral) relatives have fought in two world wars. The tenor of the letters, I feel, tends towards right-wing extremism.
In fairness, your website does state your organization's opposition to the political far-right but perhaps that point is not made sufficiently prominent to do both it and your efforts justice.
If this is remedied then you shall have my annual subscription. Finally, it would be immensely helpful to your initiative if you were able to enlist the support of a noted black British Caribbean barrister or other high-profile black professional.
June 2006
“Your web site clearly states the facts on immigration, which is laudable. I note the careful way that you steer clear of unverifiable controversy and stick with the objective and quantifiable. Absolutely understandable for a pressure group wishing to avoid the usual spurious accusations of racism and bias.
However, it really is hard to believe that our government is allowing so much immigration simply because it is incompetent. Yes, there are serious problems at the Home Office and have been since well before David Blunkett's famous admissions of ignorance on the subject. But such problems could be solved in a few months given the political will. We do have able people in this country!
So what is going on?
I discount pressure from employers or the Treasury for low cost labour. It is clearly convenient but New Labour's supporters would hardly go along with that as a policy.
I also discount 'ex-colonial guilt', an interesting concept but not a sufficient reason radically to change a country.
It seems rather unlikely that Mr Blair is worried about the relative population weight of the UK within the EU, or for that matter England should Wales and Scotland decide to go their own ways.
The Human Rights issue is a nice smoke screen but in the end the rights of immigrants must be balanced with those of the indigenous population. Others take this line (eg France) and so could we.
You yourselves have disposed of various tendentious arguments around pension provision, GDP (per capita) growth, requirements for low cost labour for the NHS, services in London and so on. There are grains of truth in some of them, but the underlying assumptions tend to be economically faulty. If there are 1.5 million unemployed - at least, given the disability situation - some would work for wages better than benefits.
I don't believe that our Civil Service is fundamentally incompetent or that the judiciary are especially biased in favour of the underdog.
So what's left?
Could it be that New Labour wants to change to demographic profile of the UK permanently to entrench its position? It is often stated that immigrants typically vote Labour in gratitude for their admission.
If so, what can be done? Your lucid lobbying is very helpful and informative but why can't the opposition parties get to grips with this situation and make plain what is happening before our country is both overcrowded and permanently changed in culture?
I see your efforts as a tasty carrot being dangled before donkeys with no appetite for controversy, or perhaps no skills in dealing with the inevitable barrage of demeaning comments from New Labour. The British can see through such things and a proper, moderate policy on immigration control is well overdue and would be highly popular.
It must be very frustrating to raise awareness in such a convincing way and then have no one take any notice.”
June 2006
For the last forty years, the major political parties have suppressed all public and political debate in Britain concerning legal and illegal immigration and have never sought a mandate from the British people as to whether they want a `multicultural' society. Such a society has been thrust upon them without their consent and in complete disregard for their wishes and views. Anyone who has raised even minor concerns regarding immigration has immediately been vilified and labelled `racist' by the extremist liberal supporters of `multiculturalism'. Your website is the first occasion when a discussion of the issues has been enabled.
No political party has ever had a coherent and cogent policy on immigration except to permit unlimited and unrestricted legal and illegal immigration whatever the consequences and accordingly they have provided no protection for the British people from those consequences.
There has been no political concerns over these years regarding the impact of unlimited and unrestricted immigration on Health, Education, Welfare, Housing, and Social Security provisions and now all of these services are overwhelmed and are failing to meet the needs of the population.
Nor has there been any political concern regarding whether the immigrants posed any health risks from serious contagious diseases, were criminals or drug dealers in their own countries, had terrorist connections, or were otherwise security risks and a danger to the general population.
`Multiculturalism' has been an abject failure and Britain is now a country of ethnic enclaves where large parts of cities and in some cases whole cities are now populated by specific ethnic groups with little effort having been made at assimilation or integration. The `multiculturalists' have conveniently ignored the lessons from history and the present, that such societies inevitably dissolve into conflict and violence - Yugoslavia, Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Biafra, Darfur, are but a few examples.
The United Nations Conventions on refugees and asylum seeking have been abused on a grand scale by economic vagrants who have rendered themselves purposely homeless and stateless in order to seek qualification as `asylum seekers'.
Successive British governments have palpably ignored the entire issue for too many years and Britain is now set on a course of ultimate and inevitable disaster. The economic boom of the last decade has been in favour of the government as people have grown comfortable and wealthier and not therefore too concerned at the situation, but history has shown that whenever there is a downturn in the economy, then civil unrest is an indirect consequence. When this occurs the government of the day will have no one to blame but themselves for permitting the unrestricted and unlimited immigration and for the complete dereliction of its duty to provide protection in all its forms for the British people.
May 2006
Previous Page Next Page