Moxon

Claims of widespread failure within the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate1 (1)
claims that “Britain is currently sustaining uncontrolled mass net immigration”2 (2)
“honesty about immigration looks like the thin end of a highly interesting wedge that could benefit us all.”3 (3)
affirms that the problem with migration is that those coming are unskilled and unsocialised in Western ways.4 (4-5)
“It is undeniable that these communities are necessarily divisive in their very presence within the cities where they are located.”5 (6)
note the use of a military analogy, in which immigration officers are presented as the “front line” protecting the country from attack.6 (7)

affirms that there is a lack of numbers and resources to support the work of immigration officers.7 (9)
denies that there is economic benefit from migration.8 (44-58) (1) no imminent decline in native population9 (45) (2) pension crises easily resolved by simple reforms such as ending compulsory retirement and raising retirement age.10 (45-47) (3) loss of jobs by native workers, and fall in wages11 (47) (4) cost in providing social services for migrants12 (48)
blames the importing of unskilled migrant workers for the industrial decline of Northern cities at a time when technological investment was required.13 (49)
claims that migration increases inequality in UK (a) employers benefit more than workers (b) inequality amongst migrants.14
counters Home Office claims that UK is 2-3 billion p/a better off with immigration claiming that it does not include many neglected costs.15
seems to suggest that migration is to blame for many men becoming unattractive to women because they cannot support themselves.16
points to abuse in the Work Permit system17
“problem of the free rider invading a host society from outside”18
claims the victim of migration is the “work ing class male”19
negative focus on Asian enclaves, especially those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin.20
defends Ron Atkinsons use of “nigger” to refer to Desailly, and other expressions such as “Paki” and “Wog.” In part based upon the use of derogatory terms for whites by other ethnic groups.21
complains about anti-white racism, especially “mugging” which he presents as a black hate crime against whites.22
denies that there was any significant immigrant component to the British population prior to the post WWII period.23
denies any significant link between immigration and colonialism24 (argues that British wealth came from Industrial revolution not empire; but does not deal with impact of Empire on former colonies)
points to the lack of investigation in the case of student visas, suggests this is a form of coming in as an economic migrant.25
criticism of the impact of immigrants, on the NHS, especially those who come specifically for treatment.26
“poor whites at all levels strongly dislike immigration...there is another section of the population that consistently feels most antagonized of all... 'Middle Englanders' who are neither poor nor well-off”27
hostility of ME-s to immigrants who have no cultural background in the country yet benefit from the welfare system.28
“Mori found that satisfaction with local government had a very strong inverse relation to the proportion of ethnic minorities in an area.”29




1S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 1.
2S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 2.
3S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 3.
4S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 4–5.
5S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 6.
6S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 7.
7S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 9.
8S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 44–58.
9S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 45.
10S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 45-47.
11S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 47.
12S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 48.
13S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 49.
14S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 50.
15S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 51.
16S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 53.
17S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 56–57.
18S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 73.
19S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 74.
20S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 97–113.
21S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 114–128.
22S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 128–132.
23S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 135.
24S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 135–137.
25S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 140–145.
26S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 175–187.
27S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 199.
28S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 200–201.
29S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 202.

migration watch

“he years 1991 – 2006 there was a net movement of some 2.3 million people to the UK - only 8% of which came from the new East European members of the EU”1
(SEE PRINTED GRAPH)
Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf
claims that immigration is now 15 times the scale of asylum and that 76% of the population favour caps on immigration.2 states that this is an “unprecedented scale” and that the net migration for 2005 was “292,000”.3
claims that 50,000 illegal immigrants are detected every year but no one knows how many will come in.4 claims to England being twice as crowded as Germany and four times as crowded as Paris.5 points to a 33% increase in the demand for visas, reaching 2.5 million a year.6
Against claims that immigrants bring economic growth affirms (1) that the benefit they bring is basically proportional to the increase in population they provoke. (2) They will not solve the pensions problem, as they themselves will become old (3) drive wages down and encourage British citizens to remain on benefits.7
Problems: (1) resentment amongst native population, shared by majority in ethnic minorities (2) fear that Britain is losing its distinct culture (3) formation of parallel communities with little loyalty to Britain, often at odds with one another, influenced by overseas satellite television (4) Pressure on housing and services (5) changing in the configuration of cities, especially London, claims that in the last decade 600,000 Londoners have left to be replaced by 700,000 immigrants (6) problem of immigration.8
Defends (1) limit on immigration so that those coming in balance those leaving (2) “explicit nation building” to integrate minorities. 9
Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008]
claims that until the 1950s there had been no major immigration into the UK, except from Ireland.10
1996 settlement figure 61,000 2005 figure 179,000.11
claims that the work permit system has become a major avenue for immigration.12
on illegal immigration 2001 Government estimate of between 310,000-570,000 centred on 430,000 with MWUK updating this to 515,000-870,000 centred on 670,000 estimating for asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.13
“Net migration reached a record high of 222,000 in 2004 before falling slightly to 185,000 in 2005. During the 60’s and 70’s emigration generally exceeded immigration and in the 80’s and early 90’s net immigration was generally below 50,000 people a year. Such very high migration into Britain is therefore a new phenomenon. Net non-EU migration to the UK has been rapidly increasing from 44,000 in 1992. In 2004 it reached a new record high level of 268,000. In 2005 it fell to 203,000 reflecting the fact that ten new countries had acceded to the EU in May 2004. There has been a steady net outflow of British citizens during this period - reaching a record high of 120,000 in 2004 before falling slightly to 107,000 in 2005. Net flows of EU citizens into the UK have been modest until recently. The maximum net inflow of citizens of the 15 continental European countries which were EU members before May 2004, in the period 1995 –2004, was 24,000 in 1998 and the maximum net outflow was 35,000 in 2002. This changed with the accession of the 10 countries to the EU in May 2004. The international migration statistics show that a net 49,000 and 65,000 people migrated from the accession countries in 2004 and 2005 respectively bringing total net migration from the EU up to 74,000 and 89,000 in these years. However, net migration from the accession countries only accounts for about 1 in 5 of net foreign immigration in total.”14
claims that the argument that immigrants do the jobs Brits do not want results in the creation of an underclass.15
denies, compared to other countries in Europe, that Britain has a demographic problem.16
“Over half of migrants live in London and the South East and more than 75% of new
migrants are settling there.”17
29% of the population of London consists of ethnic minorities.18
Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008)
Deny that the influx of immigrants is due to globalization but attribute it to government policies.19

1Migrationwatch UK, “2.3 million immigrants come to UK in 16 years” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pressreleases/pressreleases.asp?dt=02-June-2008 [Accessed 3 October 2008]
2Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
3Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
4Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
5Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 1.
6Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
7Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
8Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 2.
9Migrationwatch UK, “Outline of the Problem”MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/0utline_of_the_Problem_010107.pdf, 3.
10Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
11Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
12Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 1.
13Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 3.
14Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 3.
15Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
16Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
17Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 4.
18Migrationwatch UK, “An Overview of UK Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Overview.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2008] 5.

Migration Watch UK

“Balanced Migration... is based on a simple principle: that the number of immigrants who are given permission to settle permanently in this country should be kept to approximately the same level as the number of British citizens who are emigrating. We are not seeking to reduce the number of people who come to work here for a few years and return home.”20
“until 1982 there was a net outflow of migrants from Britain. Between 1982 and 1997 average net immigration was about 50,000 a year. It has climbed rapidly since 1997 to reach a peak of 244,000 in 2004. This has now fallen to about 190,000 a year.”21
“Net foreign immigration is officially defined as the number of foreigners arriving in the UK intending to stay for more than a year, minus the number who leave intending to be away for more than a year. In 2006 arrivals reached 510,000 (about one per minute) and 194,000 left; so the net figure was 316,000. This amounts to 0.5% of our population every year, and is 25 times higher than any previous wave of immigration”22
“The following are the main government policies which have contributed to this massive increase in immigration:
• Removal of embarkation controls for EU destinations in 1994 and for the rest of the world in 1998.
• Allowing marriage to be used as a means of immigration from 1997.
• Doubling the number of work permits issued in 2002.2
• Opening the labour market to new EU members without restriction in 2004.
• Opening new immigration routes to the UK through the highly-skilled migrants programme and the graduate work scheme.”23
2006 68% of immigration came from countries outside the EU24
3 sources of illegal immigration (1) failed asylum seekers (2) illegal entry (3) overstayers25
Arguments against amnesty for illegal immigrants (1) would be an incentive (2) expensive to administer (3) would allow them to bring in family (4) unfair to reward illegal behaviour with access to welfare state.26
regarding education, problems of schools with many students who do not have English as a first language.27
NHS: problems (1) immigration outstrips growth of NHS (2) costs with maternity, interpretation and translation (3) tendency to go to A&E where questions about entitlement are not usually asked (4) importing of diseases such as TB and Hepatitis B28
Recognises that immigrants have contributed extensively to the NHS (1/3 of doctors and nurses) but claims that this is no longer necessary, especially with the increase of domesticall trained staff.29
strain upon police, especially through the criminality of immigrants, costs with translation and the issue of traffiking.30
claims that migrants cause problems for community cohesion, and that these concerns are shared by Black and Asian minorities in the UK (quotes statistics to this effect).31
refers to research by a House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs which denied that net immigration resulted in economic benefit for the United Kingdom.32 (1) per capita impact of immigration is small, with the cost of population increase33 (2) reduces the training and apprenticeship amongst native population34 (3) increasing retirement age is the only solution for the pension time-bomb, immigration has little impact.35
points to support from business leaders for controls on migration (but are questions to wishy-washy?)36
claim that immigrants and their descendants will account for 70% of the increase in British population growth.37
claims that by 2009 England will become more crowded than Holland, losing only to Malta.38
points to research that c.40% of the demand for new housing will come from immigration.39

20F Fields & N Soames “Preface” in Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 2–3, 3.
21Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 6.
22Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 7.
23Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 9.
24Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 10.
25Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 15.
26Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 16
27Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 17.
28Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 18.
29Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 18.
30Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 19.
31Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 21.
32Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 23.
33Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 24.
34Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 24.
35Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 25.
36Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 27.
37Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 28.
38Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 30.
39Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 31–32.

Migration Watch

denies that the population of Scotland is declining and in need of immigrants.40
re: Government point based system: “A potentially valuable reform is the introduction of “sponsorship” whereby the employer (or educational institution) will be responsible for ensuring the departure of a work permit holder or student when their visas expire. The introduction of electronic checks on arriving and departing foreigners, when implemented, will further strengthen the system.”41 criticisms (1) Wage increases rather than immigrants more effective means to do with skills shortage.42 (2) no limit on numbers43 (3) reduces incentive to train British workers and subjects British graduates to competition from foreign graduates.44 (4) is a route to settlement.45 (5) possibility for abuse46 (6) difficulty of control, and to effect removal, and the sheer scope of the project may lead to collapse.47 elsewhere also claims that it will encourage migration through publicity and for employers bringing in workers for a short period and then claiming they are intra-company transfers.48
Balanced Migration proposals would not affect (1) EU nationals (2) genuine asylum seekers (3) foreign students who do not change their visa status whilst in the country (4) genuine marriages49 would retain points system but without the possibility of settlement and only granting permits for four years; after this a further system capped and controlled by a quota.50
claims a sustainable population growth would emerge in England reaching 56 million in 2056.51 reduction of strain on household growth52
note assumption that EU migration, including Eastern Europe will fall.53 arguments (1) no evidence most intend to settle permanently54 (2) economic growth in these countries as they integrate in the EU55 (3) decline in unemployment in these countries.56 (4) demographic changes with population reduction57 (5) other countries for them to go to in EU as transition period ends58 (6) exchange rate changes.59

40Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 33.
41Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 34.
42Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 34.
43Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 35.
44Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 35.
45Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 35.
46Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 36.
47Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 36.
48Migrationwatch UK, “Assessment of the Points Based System” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Employment/3_3_PointsBasedSystem.pdf [Accesses October 7 2008] 2.
49Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 37.
50Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 38.
51Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 40.
52Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 42.
53Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 46.
54Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 48.
55Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 48.
56Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 49.
57Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 49.
58Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 49.
59Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 49.

Migration Watch

points to the different policies of the political parties on immigration.60
main issue is whether contributing to society as a worker for 3-4 years should automatically have a path leading to settlement.61
economic migration (note admittance that most do not migrate for work purposes) may benefit employers, but costly for taxpayers and sectors of the indigenous population.62
contra claims of contribution in taxes claims (1) year used 1999/2000 atypical in terms of overall government surplus (2) ignores costs of immigrants (3) unfair in that it compares young immigrants to an, in average, older indigenous population.63
remittances have a negative effect on foreign exchange.64
claims of immigrant contribution have underestimated their impact on population growth, especially children born in the UK.65 in another paper this is amended, Government treats UK born children of mixed marriages as UK children, MWUK would rather they were treated as half/half.66 Still maintain there is no net benefit when compared to existing population.67
Quotes M Wolffe “The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.”68
note fear of a “Back door” route into the UK, especially through (1) amnesty to illegals in other countries (2) fast access to citizenship/settlement, would prefer 10 years of residence.69
points to London receiving 65% of immigrants.70
complains about the excessive extensions granted to student visas, which it sees as another “back door” into the UK.71
Statistics on Brazilian students (new visas/extensions) 2001: 10700/3395 ....2002: 9700/4635....2003: 8840/753072
claims that with zero net migration only 30% of the current projected homes built on greenfield sites would need to be built.73
Disputes claims by IPPR that granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants would bring in £1 billion a year to the treasury claiming that the cost would actually be of £0.8-1.8 billion a year. Main arguments: 1) IPPR calculations do not include the various public funds that immigrants would have access to 2) IPPR calculations underestimated the number of immigrants but overestimated the number in employment and how much they are earning.74 [note however that MWUK do not factor in the cost of deporting the illegal immigrants]
Outlines the UK Borders Act of 2007, significant for 1) the power of deportation at ports 2) biometric ID for immigrants 3) automatic deportation of foreign criminals.75
suggests that confusion may arise because of changes in terminology.76 Because Home Office is not always able to send Presenting Officers to Immigration Appeals, proposes that judges be allowed a more inquisitorial role.77
“The internationally accepted United Nations definition of a migrant is someone who changes his or
her country of usual residence for a period of at least a year”78

60Migrationwatch UK, Balanced Migration, (Deddington: Migrationwatch UK, 2008) 51–54.
61Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
62Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
63Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
64Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
65Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
66Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
67Migrationwatch UK, “The fiscal contribution of migrants (revised)” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_10_Fiscal_contribution_of_migrants_190806.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
68Migrationwatch UK, “Migrants-Do they Bring Economic Benefit” MWUK Homepage available online at http://migrationwatch.co.uk/pdfs/economic/1_1_Migrants_Do_they_bring_economic_benefit.pdf, [Accessed October 7 2008] 9.
69A Green, “Evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) – INQUIRY INTO ECONOMIC MIGRATION TO THE EU” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_8_inquiry_into_economic_migration_to_the_eu.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
70Migrationwatch UK, “Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs on ‘The Economic Impact of Immigration’” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/economic/1_18_Submission_to_Hof.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
71Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 1.
72Migrationwatch UK, “Student 'Scams' provide yet another back door into Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Education/2_2_student_visa_extension.pdf [Accessed October 8 2008] 2.
73Migrationwatch UK, “The impact of immigration on housing in England” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Housing/7_9_Impact_of_Immigration_on_housing.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
74Migrationwatch UK, “THE TRUE COST OF AN AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_19_True_cost_of_Amnesty.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008].
75H Mitchell, “UK Borders Act 2007” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/8_21_UK_Borders_Act_07.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008]
76H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 2.
77H Mitchell, “Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Legal/BP8_28.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
78Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.

Migration Watch

First source of data is the Office of National Statistics International Migration Estimates. This is based on the International Passenger Survey which is a small voluntary sample of migration. Main weaknesses, (1) does not include land entry and smaller airports (2) does not include asylum seekers (3) is based on the declared intention of passengers which is not a clear guide. ONS seeks to correct some of these limitations. 2005 Estimate, net international migration of 185,000.79
Second source is the Settlement Data enumerating those granted indefinite leave to remain.80 Third source of data is the census.81
international migration to places where there are already existing ethnic minorities.82 London preferred area with 750,000 coming between 1993-2002.83 Balanced by the departure of white residents, especially young couples with children; increase in commuting.84 Higher the presence of ethnic minorities, higher the departure of white population.85 Brent white population declined from 136,600 in 1991 to 122,400 in 2001.86 Claims that this process leads to the separation of the white population from the ethnic minorities, and makes the integration of immigrants more difficult.87
2003 18.6% of births to mothers not from UK compared to 12.1% in 1993.88 (reached near 20% in 2004)89Outer London 41%; Brent 65% Greater London 47%90 2004: Births to foreign-born mothers are concentrated in particular areas. In Greater London as a whole the percentage is 49% (Inner London 57%, Outer London 43%) and the following London boroughs have 60% or more of births to foreign-born mothers:
Brent 68%
Camden 61%
Haringey 60%
Kensington and Chelsea 67%
Newham 71%
Tower Hamlets 69%91
MWUK claim that their stance is that immigration policy should reflect UK needs contra IPPR “apparent stance” that social policy should adapt to immigration trends.92
proposes tighter rules to discourage intercontinental marriage.93
“It is relevant to the UK that those granted amnesty in the EU will eventually obtain
documents that will permit them to travel to Britain. In Spain, anyone who has held a
resident permit for ten years can apply for Spanish nationality; for nationals of Latin
American countries and the Philippines, the qualifying period is only two years.”94

“It was also claimed that £4.7 billion would be “saved” by not undertaking their
forced removal. Nobody is suggesting such a course. One might just as well suggest
that we can “save” £100 billion by not sending a man to the moon!”95


Rather than removal suggest (1) stricter control on entry (2) stricter control on labour market (3) use of ID cards to deter from use of NHS and granting children access to school. (does not deal with human rights issue...nor the costs of these stricter controls.)96

79Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1–3.
80Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3–4.
81Migrationwatch UK, “The Measurement of Migration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_1_Measuring_immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
82Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
83Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
84Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
85Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
86Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
87Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Regions” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_10_Internal_migration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 7.
88Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
89Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 1.
90Migrationwatch UK, “The Social Impact of Immigration” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_11_Social_Impact_of_Immigration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
91Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
92Migrationwatch UK, “IPPR Report- Beyond Black and White” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_18_IPPR_report.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 3.
93Migrationwatch UK, “The Effect of Immigration on the Integration of Communities in Britain” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MigrationTrends/9_19_effect_of_immigration_on_integration.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
94Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 4.
95Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 5.
96Migrationwatch UK, “An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?” MWUK Homepage available online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/Other/10_15_Amnestyforillegals.pdf [Accessed October 7 2008] 6.

Woodfield

“The strategic management of UK border control lies with the Home Office, which is responsible for protecting the public by reducing the harm from illegal immigration, organised immigration crime (such as drug and people smuggling), passport and identity fraud and terrorism.”1


“Upon arrival at UK ports, all non-EEA passengers are subject to examination at immigration. Ios interview passengers about various issues, including their reasons for seeking entry to the UK and
their personal circumstances. The duration of questioning varies: some passengers are granted leave to enter after a brief desk interview, others are delayed for further questioning and then granted or refused leave to enter.”2
Immigration Officers are able to grant leave to remain and establish restrictions/conditions, but any refusal of leave to remain requires a Chief Immigration Officer.3
first stage 1) checking documents(both for genuine nature, and adverse history)4 “Passengers with visas are now considered to have been given pre-entry clearance and a
visa can only be revoked if the IO is able to demonstrate that it is not genuine, it was obtained
through deception, the circumstances of the passenger no longer apply, or the purpose for which
the visa was granted has changed.”5
variation in the style of questioning between officers.6 further enquiries, officially logged by an IS81 form, occur when there are problems with documentation or credibility of story.7 Immigration history linked to need for further questioning.8
Further questioning may arise if a passenger's behaviour deviates from what the IO would expect in a certain situation.9 financial and domestic circumstances used to measure the “returnability” of visitors.10
nature of sponsor, their relationship, and whether stories match also used.11
although some IO use personal appearance to form initial impressions, not approved by CIOs.12
nationality, national and individual economic circumstances taken into consideration.13
Judgement according to credibility. Admission of an IO that a Brazilian couple, whose story eventually did not match, were under greater scrutiny than other South American couple's because of history of Brazilian breaches.14
key issues 1) economic circumstances 2) returnability 3) honesty.15
“In one example a Brazilian passenger had not brought enough money to
pay for accommodation or cover any outings, nor did he claim to have a sponsor in the UK who
would support him. In addition to this, the IO had doubts about why the passenger would spend so
much money coming to the UK, disbelieving the passenger’s claim that, as a school bus driver, he
earned $600 per week. The officer did not think a two-week holiday was credible given the
passenger’s limited funds and the economic conditions of his country.”16
greater uncertainty amongst IOS and CIOs about landings than refusals.17
varied attitutude towards intelligence reports.18
issue of targets, but which are often not followed.19
1K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 1.
2K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 1.
3K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 7.
4K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 8.
5K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 8.
6K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 9.
7K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 10.
8K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 11–12.
9K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 12–13.
10K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 13–14.
11K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 15.
12K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 15–16.
13K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 16.
14K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 18–19.
15K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 19.
16K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 19.
17K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 22,
18K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 23–24.
19K Woodfield et al , Exploring the Decision Making of Immigration Officers: A Research Study Examining non-EEA Passenger Stops and Refusals at UK Ports, Home Office Online Report 01/07 available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0107.pdf [Accessed October 15 2008] 27.

Willis

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000016476 StartFragment:0000000804 EndFragment:0000016459
“migrant workers are caught in the crossfire of contemporary capitalism”1
“On the one hand, advanced capitalist economies can’t live without devouring the rich resources of
cheap labour located in, and coming from, the poorer parts of the world. On the other, (so called) advanced capitalist polities find it hard to deal with the consequences of living with strangers.”2
“immigrant workers are essential for prosperity by providing knowledge, skills, an anti-inflationary
labour supply and new job creation, but such people also have needs, they acquire rights and they can upset the sense of entitlement and belonging of those who already reside. As a result, immigration – and low waged non-European immigration in particular – can all too easily become a moral panic”3
claims that current government policy is to exclude the Non-European, non-white, (often undocumented) immigrants, and replace them with white Eastern Europeans.4
“In brief, these measures are designed to institute a hierarchy of immigrant labour, easing access for the highly skilled while closing national borders to those classed as ‘unskilled’ from outside the EU. In addition, the armoury of the state is now focused on increasing control and surveillance over those who are already in the country, and there are new measures to limit access to humanitarian assistance and prevent those without papers from accessing welfare and work.”5
claim that in London employers can exercise considerable choice over whom they seek to employ.6
point to a “hiring queue” in which decisions are made according to national and racial stereotypes.7
“Emboldened by new biometric technologies, Governments are engaging in an international ‘war for talent’ at the same time as implementing an increasingly draconian ‘war on the poor.’ States are seeking to develop semi-permeable borders that will draw in the talented and wealthy and exclude most of the poor”8
claim that the UK is becoming more “illiberal” as regards both humanitarian aid and immigration.9
table with outline of points system.10
argue that “the non-white migrants who have kept London working for the past 20 years are likely to be displaced by those from much closer to home”11
over representation of migrants from wealthier countries in the top end of the employment market, over representation of those from poorer countries in the bottom end.12
migrant workers willingness to work for low wages (i) “dual frame of reference” can earn more than they would at home (ii) are not able to fall back on the benefit system.13
claim from a respondent from the Brazilian community that they were tolerated whilst performing a useful service, but now that an alternative, E. European, supply is available, and the government wishes to seem tough on immigration, they are suffering.14
1J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 1.
2J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 1.
3J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 2.
4J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 2.
5J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 3.
6 Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 10–11.
7J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 11.
8J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 12.
9J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 12.
10J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 14.
11J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 15.
12J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 16.
13J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 29.
14J Wills, J May,K Datta, Y Evans, J Herbert & C McIlwaine, London’s changing migrant division of labour, (London: Queen Mary, University of London, 2008) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf, 31–32.

May

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000019710 StartFragment:0000000803 EndFragment:0000019693
Claims that since the 1990s a “migrant division of labour” has emerged in the UK.1
“Far from acting to protect workers from the worst excesses of low-paid work, we show how policies of labour market de-regulation, welfare ‘reform’ and of ‘managed migration’ have helped create a new ‘reserve army of labour’ in London consisting mainly of low-paid migrant workers”2
Sassen: Global city hypothesis: certain cities become key sites in the global economy, in this cities there is income and occupational polarisation with a growth of jobs at the top and the bottom and a decrease in the middle. Increase in migration to fill the gaps at the bottom so that “a significant proportion of low-wage jobs in the global city are filled by foreign-born migrant workers; with the worst jobs falling to the most recent arrivals or those whose immigration status renders them ineligible for state welfare and who, especially if working illegally, have little choice but to accept the poorest quality jobs”3
Hamnett: whilst accepting that Stassen's theory applied in a city like New York, where there was a large supply of cheap migrant labour and lack of welfare provision, claimed this did not apply in London, where such migrant labour was not in such large demand and where there was a wider welfare system in place.4
Contra Hamnett authors argue that such polarisation is now emerging in London, but contra Stassen also argue that this cannot be attributed solely to economic changes but also to the policies of the British state.5
“how cleaners, domestics and retail workers have all recently taken their place amongst management consultants, computer engineers, and lawyers as Britain’s fastest growing occupations. More importantly, when Goos and Manning’s analysis is repeated for London rather than for the UK as a whole, very similar trends emerge: with a very large increase in the number of top paying jobs alongside a smaller but still significant rise in the number of very low paying jobs, and a ‘falling out’ of the middle”6
37% of children living in poverty in London in households where at least one person works.7
1990s dramatic increase in migration of workers from poorer countries, coming to occupy low skilled jobs.8
critiques Conservative and New Labour economic and employment policy see 1) a restriction of benefits, seeking to force people into low-skilled jobs, but which has had little impact on unemployment levels 2) the stimulation of demand for low-skilled jobs, resulting in a skill shortage, which has increased the demand for foreign migrant labour.9
“an expanding army of actively recruited migrant labour … [alongside] an underground population of both rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants existing with minimal rights in the interstices of the … economy”10

last fifteen years a greater diversity in the countries from which migrants come to the UK.11
Significance of Latin Americans working in office cleaning.12
Women tend to concentrate in “semi-private” spaces such as hotels and clients homes, and men in “semi-public” spaces such as the Underground, or office cleaning.13
average wage of £ 10,200 a year.14
only 16% receive state benefits.15
“On the demand side, labour market de-regulation has provided the conditions in which the demand for low-paid employment has grown. On the supply side, a restructuring of state welfare has provided an impetus for workers to move off benefits and in to (low-paid) employment, whilst changes to state immigration policies have facilitated an increased flow of foreign-born migrants in to those jobs that still remain unattractive to native workers.”16
“Most obviously, given the recent direction of British immigration policy - in which migrant workers are treated less as potential citizens than units of labour, the supply of which can (in theory at least) be turned on and off as the needs of the British economy dictate - it is difficult to escape the conclusion that what we are witnessing is the most explicit attempt yet by the British state to create a new ‘reserve army of labour”17
Flynn: under managed migration migrant needs first to be useful to businesses, and then to himself and his family.18
See managed migration as a New Labour attempt to conciliate contradictory pressures, from business and the wider public.19 hence a way for the state to safeguard its own legitimacy.20
1J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 2–3.
2J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 3.
3J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 3–4, quote from page 4.
4J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 4–5.
5J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 5–6.
6J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 7.
7J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 9.
8J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 9–10.
9J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 11–14.
10Morris quoted in J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 14.
11J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 17.
12J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 18.
13J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 18.
14J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 20.
15J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 21,
16J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 25.
17J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 25.
18J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 26.
19J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 26.
20J May, J Willis, K Datta,, Y Evans, J Herbert & C Mcllwaine The British State and London's Migrant Division of Labour, (London: Queen Mary University of London, 2006) available online at www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/working_paper_2.pdf , 27.

King

“As the oppressed of the East...the impoverished in the South...so the political rhetoric takes on a military tone: 'fortress Europe' under siege from the invasion of an army of migrants.”1

ius soli--> birthplace governs citizenship ius sanguinis; blood ties govern.2

difficulty of imposing very strict controls and maintaining the freedom of movement upon which Common Market was based.3


1R King and S Öberg, “Introduction: Europe and the future of mass migration” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 1–6, 1.

2R King and S Öberg, “Introduction: Europe and the future of mass migration” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 1–6, 1.

3R King and S Öberg, “Introduction: Europe and the future of mass migration” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 1–6, 3.

Humphries

Claims that when the Tories where in power it was possible for pro-immigrant groups to access funding from Labour councils, but this has become almost impossible with the coming of New Labour to power.1

differentiates between external controls in defining those who may enter the UK and internal controls in the “policing of welfare”.2


“In defending what is 'ours' we deny the human situations of the 'other'.”3

“immigration rules, laws and practices are formed around the notion that Britain has a certain way of life.”4

1B Humphries, “The Construction and Reconstruction of Social Work” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 29–41, 38.

2B Humphries, “The Construction and Reconstruction of Social Work” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 29–41, 39.

3 J Collett “Immigration is a Social Work Issue” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 77–93, 77.

4 J Collett “Immigration is a Social Work Issue” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 77–93, 89.

Hayes

Migration is courageous, yet stories of migrants are often ignored to justify restrictive controls.1

“Those 'outsiders' we currently wish to control continue to be presented as a drain on the resources of the nation, despite their economic contribution... Those citizen 'insiders' are then encouraged to see themselves as part of and benefiting from the nation, and as fundamentally different and superior to the 'outsider', who should not enjoy the same rights. Who those 'outsiders' are remains the product of racism....encompasses new layers of the world's poor and dispossessed.” 2

“New Labour are all too aware of the support which can be gained by breeding popular nationalism based on fears of immigration.”3

claims that citizenship tests and oaths involve a “narrow view of nation.”4

critiques an “idea of nation which makes it appear natural for us to restrict our resources to our own.”5

emergence of the welfare state linked with improving national stock, therefore benefits were not to be accessible to aliens.6

“Here we see the centrality of the question of welfare in immigration control. At the heart of machinery is the need to let in only those who will be economically useful to the British nation and not likely to require welfare.”7 actually describing early 20th century.

1967 differential fees for international students; 1982 NHS charges for overseas visitors imposed.8

“anyone who is not a citizen with the right of abode is subject to the immigration rules which control who can come and stay before, during and after entry.”9

care in the community functions exclude those subject to immigration control.10


1D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 12.

2D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 13.

3D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 14.

4D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 15.

5D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 16.

6D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 16–18.

7D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 17–18.

8D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 19.

9D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 20.

10D Hayes, “History and Context: The Impact of Immigration Control on Welfare Delivery” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 11–28, 22.

Fielding

Points to neo-liberal (ie free market) arguments against migration policies and libertarian arguments which see it as a breach of human rights.1
arguments for controls (1) danger of one country being colonized by immigrants of another (2) borders need to be controlled to make liberal democracies manageable.2
“This conflict of interests and policy in industrialised societies...between maximising labour supply...and protecting a nation's cultural integrity...is a dilemma which admits few easy solutions.”3
experience with the apparatus of the nation state the most significant in the immigrant experience.4
increase in economic inequality between Europe and the rest of the world, leads to an increase in immigration controls and in illegal immigration.5
greater difficulty in the UK of reducing overstayers, whereas illegal entry less common than in other European countries.6
“It is difficult to withhold permanently the rights of citizenship from those who are required to fulfil the responsibilities of citizenship such as payment of taxes.”7
“The main problem, however, facing many immigrants and their family members is the legality of their status within the West European city.”8
London, concentration of ethnic minorities in inner suburbs, especially those north of the river.9
1A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 41.
2A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 41–42.
3A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 42.
4A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 42.
5A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 43.
6A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 49.
7A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 53.
8A Fielding, “Migrations, Institutions and Politics: The Evolution of European Migration Policies,” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 40–62, 56.
9P White, “Immigrants and the Social Geography of European Cities” in R King (ed), Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1993) 65–82, 74–75.

Farrant et al

“Public concern about immigration in general is at unprecedented levels (MORI 2005), with a significant proportion of people polled recently feeling that the Government does not have immigration under control (MORI 2003).
Irregular migration is seen as an important public issue in several ways:

• as evidence that the immigration system is failing or being abused

• as a challenge to national sovereignty (that is, the UK may not have total control over who comes and goes from the country)

• as potentially compromising the security of the UK (especially in light of growing fears about international terrorism)

• as exposing some vulnerable migrants to exploitation, in transit or when they get to the UK. “1


define irregular migrants as those “liable to be deported for issues related to immigration status.”2 reasons 1) entry by avoiding controls 2) false documents 3) overstay 4) unreturned asylum seekers 5) lack of papers 6) failure in applying for asylum elsewhere.3
preference for term irregular as it captures complexity of issue and avoids connotation with criminality; irregulars have committed administrative offences and not serious crimes.4
compares use of “Irregular” “Illegal” “Undocumented” and “Unauthorised.”5
points out that the reasons for irregular migration are basically the same as those for regular migration; “it is the policies of receiving countries that create irregularity”6;
preference for the residual method of determining # of irregular migrants (subtracting from the total number of foreign born residents those entitled to be here legally) range of 310,000-570,000 with a median estimate of 430,000. Limitations 1) does not include all those liable to deportation (e..g. Over-working students) 2) census data out of date.7
points to the many dangerous routes of entry into the UK.8
irregular migrants concentrated in those jobs which are “difficult, dirty and dangerous” (and low-paid)9
“There are several different estimates regarding the scale of the informal economy in the UK. One average ‘guesstimate’ of its size is 6.8 per cent of GDP or £75 billion (Small Business Council 2005). While there may be short‐term fiscal advantages for both the individual and the employer in the informal economy, the broader social and economic costs are significant, ranging from a loss of social protection and rights, to increased taxpayers’ burden and limited business expansion”10 nonetheless irregulars may ensure that some jobs are done; or do not have prices pushed up dramatically.11
regularisation would involve a contribution of £485 million to over £1 billion a year to the exchequer.12
cost of deportation averages at £ 11,000 a case.13
more restrictive controls in which migrants find it more difficult to travel to and from between home country and host country may encourage permanence.14
“Immigration to the UK has been less permanent than is commonly thought: almost half (46 per cent) of all overseas‐born immigrants left the UK within five years of arrival between 1981 and 2002 (Office for National Statistics 2004).”15
Difficulty in defending human rights of irregulars as 1) Britain has no written constitution 2) irregulars excluded from many international conventions 3) Bringing a case to court involves exposure and the risk of deportation.16
compares the effect of different policies towards irregular migration.17
UK Policy: 1) historically a reliance on external border control, including carrier liability 2) a trend towards the use of internal controls e.g. Ids 3) reduce the demand for irregular labour through employer sanctions (on the whole ineffective so far) 4) increase the scope for regular migration [but is current points system a form of reversing this for low skilled labour] 5) long residence concession (discretionary for adults with 14 consecutive years and children with seven) 18 No current plans for a major regularisation programme.19
1M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 4.
2M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 5.
3M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 5.
4M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 5.
5M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 6.
6M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 8.
7M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 9.
8M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 10.
9M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 11.
10M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 12.
11M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 12.
12M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 12.
13M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 12.
14M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 13.
15M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 13.
16M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 14.
17M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 15.
18M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 17.
19M Farrant, C Grieve & D Sriskandarajah, Irregular Migration in the UK: An IPPR Fact File, (London: IPPR, 2006) 17.

Dench

Makes the point that a worker in a low-skilled job is not necessarily low skilled themselves.1 Points system to simplify the 50 ways one can enter the UK to work and study into one manageable system.2
explanation of current work permit scheme.3
EU enlargement seen to reduce the need for non-EEA migration of low skilled workers.4
students the largest category of people entering the UK eligible to work.5
reasons for hiring migrants 1) fill vacancies 2) willingness to work outside of regular hours 3) reputation for being hard working and efficient (esp. illegals)6
concentration of migrants in low-skilled jobs linked to the likelihood that they would stay.7
despite (or maybe because of?) tensions, migrant workers help to increase productivity of other workers.8
“Other respondents had experience of Brazilians masquerading as Portuguese, who were also exposed by fellow workers. It was commented that Portuguese can tell the difference between fellow expatriates and Brazilians, and that they resent these impostors.”9
exploitation of illegal migrants 1) lower pay 2) same pay but larger deductions (e.g. Accomodation costs) 3) long hours.10
difficulty for migrant workers to open accounts, many are charged by third-parties to allow access to accounts.11
1S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 2.
2S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 2.
3S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 4.
4S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 5.
5S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 14.
6S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 16–17.
7S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 25.
8S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 35.
9S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 62.
10S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 63.
11S Dench, J Hurtsfield, D Hill & K Akroyd, Employers' Use of Migrant Labour: Main Report, Home Office Online Report 04/06, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf [Accessed October 16 2008] 64.s

Colley et al

Built upon a year long research by Gott and Johnston (Home Office) but increase it to cover a 5 year period. Also rather than comment on the net value of immigrants, compare relative contribution of migrants and non-migrants. Re typical objections 1) It is wrong to assign cost of immigration services to immigrants themselves as much of the rational of the Immigration system is to benefit UK population not immigrants...

“A simple example illustrates the problems inherent in apportioning the entire cost of the immigration system to immigrants themselves: if the government were to operate a ‘closed-door’ policy towards immigration (that is to say, not allow anyone enter the country on a permanent basis) then the costs of policing such a system would be enormous, but there would be no immigrants to assign this cost to. Conversely, if the government were to operate an ‘open-door’policy, then the costs are likely to fall while immigration may increase. Some of the costs of administering the immigration system (such as the employment of immigration officials at ports and airports) are unlikely to fall significantly even with reductions of immigration levels. On the other hand, some of the variable costs of the system are increasingly being recovered through user-charging of migrants and their prospective employers (through fees for work permits). This means that second-guessing which portion of the immigration system is for the benefit of the UK-born and which part is for immigrants is a difficult and potentially futile exercise.”1

Re issue of pension costs of migrants, this ignores that much contemporary migration is temporary in nature.2 3) re: issue of pressure on public services, reminder that migrants are disproportionately represented in the provision of public services.3

NAFI (net annual fiscal contribution, i.e. What is paid in taxes- what is received from government)
Immigrants>UK population. Hence, when there is a budget surplus, immigrants contribute more than UK population, when there is a budget deficit, immigrants receive less.4 (not commented in the paper, but this would be even more accentuated in those groups where there are little if no asylum seekers, thus Brazilians, for asylum seekers are not allowed to work, and thus pay tax, yet receive limited benefits)
1D Sriskandarajah, L Cooley & H Reed, Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contributions of Immigrants in the UK, (London: IPPR, 2008) 6.
2D Sriskandarajah, L Cooley & H Reed, Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contributions of Immigrants in the UK, (London: IPPR, 2008) 7.
3D Sriskandarajah, L Cooley & H Reed, Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contributions of Immigrants in the UK, (London: IPPR, 2008) 7.
4D Sriskandarajah, L Cooley & H Reed, Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contributions of Immigrants in the UK, (London: IPPR, 2008) 12.
c

Coheb

“controls can never be 'fair' to those subject to them. Nor can they ever be 'humane', in that the inevitable end game of all immigration control is forced, compulsory removal accompanied by the threat or actuality of legally sanctioned violence.”1
talks of a general system of immigration control in which workers in the medical and social sectors are conscripted to participate in.2
“immigration control can never have a benevolent face.”3
defends the “full restoration of all benefits and the end of all controls.” (Note this is in the context of asylum seeking)4
1S Cohen, “Breaking the Links and Pulling the Plug” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 7–10, 8.
2S Cohen, “Breaking the Links and Pulling the Plug” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 7–10, 8.
3S Cohen, “Breaking the Links and Pulling the Plug” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 7–10, 9.
4S Cohen, “Breaking the Links and Pulling the Plug” in D Hayes and B Humphries (eds) , Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004) 7–10, 10.

Moxon

claims of widespread failure within the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate¹ (1)

claims that “Britain is currently sustaining uncontrolled mass net immigration”² (2)

“honesty about immigration looks like the thin end of a highly interesting wedge that could benefit us all.”³ (3)

affirms that the problem with migration is that those coming are unskilled and unsocialised in Western ways.⁴ (4-5)

“It is undeniable that these communities are necessarily divisive in their very presence within the cities where they are located.”⁵ (6)

note the use of a military analogy, in which immigration officers are presented as the “front line” protecting the country from attack.⁶ (7)

affirms that there is a lack of numbers and resources to support the work of immigration officers.⁷ (9)

denies that there is economic benefit from migration.⁸ (44-58) (1) no imminent decline in native population⁹ (45) (2) pension crises easily resolved by simple reforms such as ending compulsory retirement and raising retirement age.¹⁰ (45-47) (3) loss of jobs by native workers, and fall in wages¹¹ (47) (4) cost in providing social services for migrants¹² (48)

blames the importing of unskilled migrant workers for the industrial decline of Northern cities at a time when technological investment was required.¹³ (49)

claims that migration increases inequality in UK (a) employers benefit more than workers (b) inequality amongst migrants.¹⁴

counters Home Office claims that UK is 2-3 billion p/a better off with immigration claiming that it does not include many neglected costs.¹⁵

seems to suggest that migration is to blame for many men becoming unattractive to women because they cannot support themselves.¹⁶

points to abuse in the Work Permit system¹⁷

“problem of the free rider invading a host society from outside”¹⁸

claims the victim of migration is the “work ing class male”¹⁹

1S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 1.

2S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 2.

3S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 3.

4S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 4–5.

5S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 6.

6S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 7.

7S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 9.

8S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 44–58.

9S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 45.

10S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 45-47.

11S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 47.

12S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 48.

13S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 49.

14S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 50.

15S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 51.

16S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 53.

17S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 56–57.

18S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 73.

19S Moxon, The Great Immigration Scandal, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004) 74.

Solomos

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000010769 StartFragment:0000000804 EndFragment:0000010752

Significant episodes 1) victory of an anti-Immigration Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths, in Smethwick in 1964.¹ 2) the arrival of East African Asians from Kenya and Uganda and the Labour 1968 Act deliberately target at them.² Powell –significant for the defence of compulsory repatriation and construction of the image of “white Britains becoming 'strangers' in their 'own country'³

“In summary the decade 1961–1971 saw the introduction of three major pieces of legislation aimed largely at excluding black immigrants.”⁴

“Conservative Party [inc. Thatcher] chose to emphasise the supposed dangers posed to British social and cultural values by the black and ethnic minority people already settled in Britain.”⁵

Three main areas of Conservative action in government 1979–1997: 1) tightening of immigration controls 2) British nationality act 3) dealing with the issue of asylum seekers and refugees.⁶

1981 Nationality Act: created three kinds of ctizenship (British Citizen British Dependent Territories Citizen and British Overseas Citizen) effectively “enshrining racially discriminatory provisions [MacDonald and Blake]”⁷

black communities identified as the source of community problems.⁸

lack of concrete evidence in this period to substantiate claims of the nation being swamped.⁹

“In summary the Thatcher and Major eras can be seen as a time in which concerns about immigration, asylum seekers and refugees became entangled with wider preoccupations about the social and cultural impact of migrant communities, leading to the institutionalisation of an exclusionary framework that sought to restrict immigration.”¹⁰

Whilst in opposition discourse of Labour party developed to regard immigration laws as racist, and the need for firm laws which were “both non-racist and non-sexist.”¹¹

“illustrate New Labour's concern with being tough, and being seen to be tough, on immigration.”¹²

Describes the provisions of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum act as “draconion” particularly 1) the voucher scheme2) enforced dispersal 3) detention scheme 4) carrier's liability¹³

2000 Race Relations Act “exempted from its remit immigration and nationality decisions provided for in statutes or expressly required or authorised by ministers” ministers not allowed to discriminate based on race or colour but allowed based on ethnic and national origin.¹⁴

extension of detention facilities for families.¹⁵

concerning Hattersly's formula affirmed that “ the rationale behind this argument was never articulated clearly, but it was at least partly based on the idea that the fewer immigrants....there were, the easier it would be to integrate them into the English way of life and its social and cultural values.”¹⁶

1J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 59–60.

2J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 60–61.

3J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 61.

4J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 64.

5J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 64.

6J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 64.

7J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 65.

8J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 66.

9J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 66–67.

10J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 68.

11J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 69.

12J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 71.

13J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 72–73.

14J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 74.

15J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 75.

16J Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, Third Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan 2003, 81.