Net migration to Britain rose in Coalition's first year despite pledge to cut it
Official figures show that the number of people coming to live in Britain for more than a year, minus those who moved abroad, stood at 250,000 in the year to June 2011. This represents a rise on the figure of 235,000 for the year to June 2010, just after the Coalition came to power.
Fewer people are emigrating while increasing numbers continue to settle here, in particular students from Commonwealth countries in Africa and on the Indian subcontinent.
The number of National Insurance numbers given to foreign-born workers rose by 11 per cent, which is likely to fuel fears that immigration is worsening unemployment figures.
Meanwhile the number of asylum seekers from troubled countries including Libya and Iran rose by 11 per cent and the number of people being deported fell sharply.
It also provides more evidence that ministers will struggle to fulfil their pledge to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” by 2015.
Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, insisted: “Our reforms are starting to take effect.
“Home Office figures from the second half of last year show a significant decrease in the number of student and work visas issued, an early indicator for the long-term direction of net migration. “Net migration remains too high but, as the ONS states, it is now steady, having fallen from a recent peak in the year to September 2010.
“This Government remains committed to bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands over the course of this Parliament.”
What should the government be doing about immigration?
Nothing, the reforms are starting to take effectThe number of migrants allowed into Britain should be capped furtherThere should be a one-in-one-out immgration policy
But Chris Bryant, his Labour shadow, said: “We need honesty and competence from this government on immigration, instead we get tough rhetoric not matched by the reality on the ground. The country deserves better than that.”
Matt Cavanagh, Associate Director at the IPPR think-tank, agreed that the Government has made “no progress” on its pledge of cutting net migration.
“Reducing immigration is a legitimate goal – but politicians should be wary of promising what they can’t deliver. There is also a risk that ministers will be tempted to take more extreme measures in pursuit of their elusive target, including on those areas of immigration which are most important to our economy, and which surveys show the public are less bothered about, including skilled workers and overseas students.”
The Office for National Statistics data show long-term immigration – people who move abroad for at least 12 months – in the year to June 2011 was 593,000, up slightly from 582,000 a year before.
At the same time, long-term emigration fell marginally to 343,000.
Immigration from “New Commonwealth” countries in Asia and Africa reached a record 170,000, with two-thirds of them coming to Britain to study.
In addition, 690,000 National Insurance numbers were given to non-British nationals who wanted to work in the country, an 11 per cent rise on the previous year. About a third went to Eastern Europeans.
Asylum applications were 13 per cent higher at the end of 2011 than a year before, reaching 5,261.
Separate Home Office figures showed a 9 per cent fall in non-asylum passengers being refused entry at ports in 2011 (to 17,173) and a 13 per cent drop, to 52,526, in the number of people being deported or leaving the country voluntarily in 2011.
SOURCE
Obama promises second term action
President Barack Obama, expressing confidence he will win re-election in November, told a Hispanic audience he would use a second term to seek comprehensive immigration reform.
'My presidency is not over,' Obama said in an interview with Univision Radio when asked about his failure so far to push through an immigration bill. 'I've got another five years coming up. We're going to get this done.'
Obama is seeking to shore up support among Hispanic voters, whose strong backing helped him win the White House in 2008. But some in the Latino community are disappointed over the lack of progress toward overhauling the immigration system.
Obama - in an interview broadcast the day before his Thursday trip to Florida, an election battleground state with a large Hispanic population - sought to reassure Latinos he was committed to trying to pass broad immigration reform.
He rejected suggestions that he had broken a campaign promise and put the blame on Republicans in Congress who he said were 'unwilling to talk at all about any sensible solutions to this issue.' 'So far, we haven't seen any of the Republican candidates even support immigration reform,' Obama said, taking aim at his potential opponents in the November 6 election.
Manufacturing growth: Obama spokes at the Industrial Assessment Center at the University of Miami in Miami, Florida, after learning about how the center is teaching students about energy-efficient materials and processes
The White House hopes that hard-line positions taken by Republican presidential contenders on illegal immigration and border control will help Obama with Hispanic voters in vital swing states like Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment