The results of Labour's immigration policy exposed

Thanks to Andrew Neather we know that the massive rise in immigration under the last Labour government was not a mistake but because the Labour government wanted to deliberately open "up the UK to mass migration". Thanks to Andrew Neather's revelations we know that this was at least in part due to a politically motivated attempt by Labour ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Labour sold us on the the benefits of immigration: filling jobs that Britons were unwilling or unable to do, adding to the vibrancy of the UK, culturally enriching the Nation. They were less willing to discuss the associated downside of overstretched public services such as the NHS & schools, let alone the problems that importing people some with very different ideas about tolerance and human rights into this Country.

Now thanks to The Telegraph Labour tried to hide the truth about immigration from us:

'Reports kept under wraps by Labour showing that immigrants who came to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim out-of-work benefits are to be released for the first time by ministers.

The figures are contained in five separate controversial studies commissioned by the last Labour government but never published - amid claims the party wanted to avoid a damaging row about its record before last year’s general election.

Ministers accused Labour of a “disturbing cover up” and promised to publish the reports - which cost the taxpayer a total of £165,000 and have now been seen by The Sunday Telegraph - in full within days.

The documents also contain revelations that immigrants from all countries into Britain are more likely to be out of work than the native population - and are less likely to engage in any form of “civic participation.” '

Do you remember the Labour assurances that immigration form Eastern Europe would be small (was less than 10,000 the figure suggested) and that the vast majority of those immigrants would be single men who would stay for a relatively short period before returning home? You will not be surprised to learn that those were lies as well:

'particular controversy surrounded the rules governing immigration from countries which joined the EU during the first decade of this century - which included Bulgaria and Romania (which joined in 2007) and Poland (2004).

Labour ministers repeatedly promised that restrictions would be placed on those coming in from Eastern Europe in order to “manage” numbers and protect jobs for British workers.

However, the secret reports show that 27 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania had “low education levels” while as of 2009 more than 15 per cent of them were claiming out-of-work benefits.

The documents, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) reveal that immigrants from the two countries are more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than either non-immigrants or other migrant groups in Britain.

A report said that despite the implementation of a “cap” on numbers, the migration rate into Britain from Romania and Bulgaria increased significantly after the countries joined the EU in 2007.

Meanwhile, migrants from the two countries were shown to be more likely to have four children or more than people coming to Britain from elsewhere - placing a significant strain on the education system, particularly in London where over half the Bulgarians and Romanians who came settled.

More than three in every 100 migrants from Bulgaria and Romania had five children or more. '

There's more though and it is the sheer scale of the immigration that Labour encouraged; the figures are truly shocking:

'At the start of the 1980s the key annual “net immigration” figure for the UK was minus 42,000 - meaning tens of thousands more people left Britain every year than came here.

By 1992-95 this figure had gone up to plus 9,200 - while by the period between 2004 and 2007 it had mushroomed to plus 178,000 a year.

Britain’s population was slated to increase by more than four million to 65.6 million between 2008 and 2018, while by 2008 over one third of London’s population (34 per cent) was born outside Britain.'

That's almost a twenty-fold increase in the annual immigration rate between 1995 and 2007.


So on immigration we have had a Labour government that deliberately engineered a rise in immigration for their own ends, lied to the British public about how large immigration would be, tarred anyone who pointed out the massive increase in immigration (let alone opposed it) with the label 'racist' and then connived to hide the results of investigations into immigration in case it adversely affected their vote at last year's general election.

Is there really no action that the British public can take against the former Labour ministers who perpetrated this fraud and attack on British culture and the employment prospects for over a million British people who are unemployed because of Labour's immigrants?

Yvette Cooper recently admitted that:

"We did get things wrong on immigration... We should have had the transitional controls on migration from Eastern Europe. We should have introduced the points-based system much earlier."

Fine but where's the penalty for the people who get it wrong? More importantly where's the penalty for deliberately increasing immigration?

There is another aspect to this story and that is the part played by the BBC. Throughout the period of Labour's misrule they jumped on any opposition to, or even questioning of the benefits of, immigration. I remember BBC interviews with Migration Watch's Andrew Green where he was questioned skeptically and aggressively even as the truth of his points was becoming clear.  The BBC's support for Labour and its fanatical support for multiculturalism is something that deserves investigation, prosecution and punishment but will result in none of the above.