Immigration and Benefits

On 26 March, 2010, the BBC Radio4 Today programme was in Newham and Tower Hamlets in East Central London and in Glasgow specifically to enquire about the effects of mass immigration.  Immigration is one of the two subjects which the establishment parties – the LibDems, Labour and Conservatives have been determined not to talk about – the other being Europe and their joint renaging on their undertakings to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty.

The United Kingdom Independence Party is however determined to discuss these two issues of over-riding importance to the future of our country.  Its policy of a five year total freeze on immigration for settlement, followed by a referendum of the British people on future levels, if any, is self-evidently like the asked-for referendum on EU membership, a matter of democratic principle above all.

Repeated polling has shown the public’s 80-90% opposition to mass immigration, which is assumed by the National Statistical Office as likely to continue at a rate of 250,000 net (about the size of a city like Derby every year) indefinitely under the the present lack of adequate controls.

When during the programme Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch observed that London was subject to huge numbers of immigrants flooding in, he was asked by the BBC reporter, “Is there a problem with that?”  As Sir Andrew said, “Only the BBC would ask that.”  The claims of economic benefit from immigration are analysed on this website at the “Immigration and Population” page.  The question asked of Sir Andrew Green is all too typical of the talking classes in general.  Among the well-to-do talking classes there is a bone-headed incomprehension, a determination not to know the truth of the enormous distress which the conversion of many parts of our cities to what are in essence foreign enclaves has caused the people who used to live there, or who did business there, or went to school there.  Visitors to London, the capital of England for a thousand years, remark on the fact that so few of the people they meet speak English as their mother tongue, or barely at all.

Many people will be surprised to know that the vast majority of social security benefits are non-contributory.  This means, incredibly, fantastically as many will think, that all these hugely costly benefits, including housing benefit, from the very moment they set foot here – as was decided recently in the High Court in a case involving a Somali woman arriving from Denmark with seven children – and income support, are claimable by EU citizens temporarily resident in Britain. 

Furthermore the High Court, with the insouciance about British taxpayers we have come to expect from judges, has ruled that unemployed EU immigrants in Britain can claim job seekers’ allowance here and child benefit for children living in their home country. Earlier judgements have meant that immigrants returning to their own countries can continue to receive unemployment benefits (job-seekers’ non-contributory allowance, for instance) for 75 days.  UK Job seekers’ allowance exceeds the 2007 average annual wage in the following EU countries: Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, and with child tax credits easily exceeds that of Poland, Lithuania and Estonia as well.  It is clear that with these incentives and the lure of the English language, the immigrant flow into England in particular will never stop of its own accord.

The number of people recruited to Britain because of their special skills is very small – a fraction of the professional and managerial class – itself only in the low tens of thousands, compared with a total of 300,000 others.

The question Britain Watch poses for the three establishment parties, as do millions of our fellow countrymen is why do they want to continue to impose these burdens on their own people, 2.5 million of whom are out of work?


Top| Home

Leave a Reply

Top| Home