"No to 70 million" E-Petition debate in Commons 6th September

27th August 2012

The 'Migration Watch UK' website http://www.migrationwatchuk.com states that the E-Petition entitled "No to 70 million" gathered over 100,000 signatures in under 7 days and that as it exceeds the threshold for possible debate it has been afforded parliamentary time.

There will be a debate in the House of Commons on 6th September 2012.

The British public doesn't like immigration because it's bad for Britain, so Migration Watch UK has been instrumental in bringing this E-Petition to life.

Strange then that their website provides the information to show that their argument for economic migration can't stand up to the facts.


In a section entitled 'Key Facts' there is the line...

"68% believe that immigration has a negative effect on Britain, YouGov for The Sunday Times, January 2012"

But is their view justified? Well, according to other sections of the Migration Watch UK site it most certainly is not...


Under the FAQ section we read...

"Surely immigrants benefit our economy?

Some do, but their performance is very mixed. The previous Government claimed that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they did not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The previous Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

The conclusion of the House of Lords study was unambiguous:

We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration (immigration minus emigration) generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population. (Abstract)"

But neither does it bring negative implications.

So, 62p per head of population per week. That's around £2 billion pounds per year benefit from immigration. Now to be fair this was in 2008, but the White paper referred to Cm 7414 is very interesting reading nonetheless. Basically the Government of the day was putting it's case that migration considerably benefits the UK. Students alone bring in £8.6 billion in tuition fees and living costs.

If you want to read the document it's available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm74/7414/7414.pdf

We are now in 2012 so maybe the recent economic downturn changes the outlook. Well maybe it does, but should we really care?

We are not concerned with the broader category of 'Economic Migrants' although the above document actually supported their numbers remaining uncapped.

We are concerned with Family Migration. Is there a difference? You bet there is. Download the document and read on pages 3 to 4 - and remember this was 'written' by the then Home Secretary.


1.3. Britain’s immigration system is, of course, not exclusively designed for economic migration. Indeed, its objectives are threefold: -

(1) To offer humanitarian protection to people requiring sanctuary and fleeing persecution.

(2) To welcome the loved ones of UK citizens and those with permission to be in the UK who want to be re-united with their families.

(3) To attract those with the skills who can make a positive contribution to the UK, through work and study.


1.4. These objectives reflect underlying values of which Britain can be proud....


Welcoming loved ones is NOT economic migration. It is singled out here as an entirely different category. If immigration overall has a positive net benefit on the economy how can Theresa May claim that allowing partners to settle in the UK damages the UK economy and that to bring a partner puts a burden on the UK Taxpayer.

We must aim to remove the FM rules because they are nothing to do with Economic Migration.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the update. Is this debate good for our cause or bad for it?

Is there anything we can do prior to this debate to help our cause?

Thanks again!

Hi Toni,

There's a debate about not getting to 70 million population in the next 20 years.

It's around 62 million now and the e-petition states that if it gets to 70 million 66% of that will be down to immigration.

It's very important to focus on Family Migration in this campaign. Migration via the family route was around 30,000 pa (53,000 including dependents such as children) before the new rules. Without changes this would mean an additional 1 million due to this route over that period.

We should focus on the 30,000 - we/they are the ones being denied access to our chosen partner. The rules are designed to bring this number down by around 50%, so 15,000 denied the visa each year. That's 300,000 over 20 years.

Our focus should be to make the Government remove the FM aspect of the rules.

The main contribution to 70 million would be from economic migration -jobs via international companies, students staying after graduation for work, and of course anyone from the EU wishing to settle here.

The misery caused to the 15,000 each year denied access to their loved ones because they are "too poor" is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy.

We MUST separate Family migration from Economic migration in the minds of those with power.

What can we do? As Chistopher said in his action list, there are many things, but for this matter in addition we could contact Frank Field MP and Nicholas Soames MP who are speaking in favour of the motion and ask for their support in removing the FM rules. I'm sure they can increase the Economic migration provisions to maintain the balance to achieve their aim.

Alan

HI Alan,

Thanks for the explaination. Greatly appreciated.

I totally agree the government must and should control immigration but not family migration.... 3.33%

I will send my family's story off to those MP's you and Chris mentioned tonight.

Thank you again, keep strong!

Has anyone thought of contacting the Prince of Wales, from what I've read, he is very much involved in politics when it comes down to the big decisions.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/contactus/