Last Wednesday I went to a very useful presentation by the Samphire Project, a charity based in Dover. Samphire do no promote a policy agenda but communicate accurate information about immigration, detention, asylum and refugees in the UK.
They covered some popular beliefs about migration and compared these to reality. It was hughly educational. I am far from a believer in tabloid panic about migration but I did not know that the number of asylum applications in the UK was only 31,000 last year.
This helpful factual graphic was available to share:
* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
Matt Wardman
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
43 Comments
Britain won’t accept mass immigration for much longer. We risk losing the EU referendum over it.
I’m usually pro helping refugees but David Miliband came out with a barmy plan yesterday about accepting around 100,000 into Britain and then more funding for elsewhere too. We already fund a lot.
The realistic option is to end long term stay in camps and make sure health care and basic education is provided. I think.
PS, maybe 100,000 is possible to take in as a one off, but David Miliband is talking about ending the concept of the refugee camp. What’s wrong with well equipped camps for 12 months stay?
Mass immigration from Eastern Europe was essentially just class warfare waged against the working class.
EU immigration works great for you if you’re a landlord and need tennants, or if you’re upper middle class and want to hire a cash in hand cleaner or gardener or if you own a business and need staff. But if you’re at the bottom in society mass immigration drives down your wages and makes access to housing more difficult.
Every is single mainstream party is in favour of the EU because every single party supports the haves over the have nots.
@Eddie – the problem is the Camps are badly provided for, neglected, and tend to be anything but temporary.
What we’ll get with your suggestion is fewer spaces in camps with residents being dispersed after 12 months to make room for the new official refugees. Meanwhile the others are moved on or fall out of the system entirely – usually the most vulnerable.
I don’t have a solution myself sadly… I’ve deleted 5 paragraphs worth of my attempts already…
@Rightsaidfredfan there are many other reasons to support the EU which transcend migration. Perhaps consider those too before reducing all EU support down to one (incorrect) statement.
————
Though I do favour wage and job protection to prevent employers taking unfair advantage of cheap labour…
I’ve always found the drive for increased wages somewhat odd. One of the biggest contributors to the cost of living in the UK is the cost of labour – in everything.
Perhaps an economist can explain to me why tinkering with basic wage increases (i.e. living wage) *doesn’t* mean less foreign investment in the UK and also increases in costs to counterbalance the wagebill.
Seems to me that something like a reduction in VAT would be a more significant contributor to reducing the cost of living without driving prices up.
Personally, I’m in favour of Britain taking more refugees and I am not bothered by immigration, but ultimately I’ve come to accept that my views are a minority opinion and that maybe if democracy was actually working the balance would be more tipped a little more to a majority view.
Meanwhile Lebanon, a country approximately the size of Cornwall, has taken in 1,500,000 refugees. So the UK stepping up to the plate and taking 100,000 refugees would still be a tiny fraction of the number that a much smaller country is being left to deal with.
@AM
I don’t believe my statement is incorrect at all. The mass immigration from poorer Eastern European countries has lead to a huge decrease in wages and access to housing for those at the bottom of the economic pile while the top have benefited from it. That statement seems factually accurate to me. Vote Brexit.
We have to get immigration under control and that means we have to leave the EU.
I do not buy in to the myth that Migrants contribute more into the economy than they take out. The figures only stand up because we do not put in the infrastructure that is required to meet the needs of all these extra people.
If the government was building the extra Hospitals, Schools, Housing, roads etc
And employing the extra Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, police, social services etc
on a like for like basis, based on the amount of new migrants coming into the country each year. Then the figures would show that migrants take out more than they put in.
It’s only because the Government is not increasing the infrastructure, that they are able to get away with the claims that migrants put in more than they take out.
Its not racist or isolationist to want British born citizens to be able to afford to get on to the property ladder, attend a good school without overcrowding classes.
Or to have real democracy where we can kick a party out of power if we do not agree with their policies. We are not able to do that with MEP’s & Parties from other countries who get a say on how we are governed here in the UK.
I don’t care about the EU getting rid of mobile phone roaming charges etc. If you go on holiday in the EU, turn your phone off, your on holiday for Christ sake, share your photo’s online when you get home lol.
Let us decide what to do with the £350 Million a week it costs to stay in the EU. Yes Yes we know about the rebate and under half of it comes back into the UK, but we have no say in how that money is spent.
We can subsidise the farmers, Fisherman etc ourselves, if that’s what is needed for our economy and we can decide where the rest of the money is spent as well, schools, Hospitals, Housing, Teachers, Doctors etc..
Rightsaidfredfan
The economic recession following the 2008 financial crisis had something to do with the falling real value of wages.
matt
Migration happens in many parts of the world and it is a sign of economic health.
It didn’t happen much in the GDR (East Germany) but if that is the sort of country you want then you are welcome to it.
@manfarang
Immigration always happens from the poorer countries to the wealthier ones. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s in all the citizens of the wealthier countries interests to take them. Nor does it mean it’s good for the poorer countries to lose their able bodied citizens of working age. Your side are clearly losing this debate.
@Manfarang
“Migration happens in many parts of the world and it is a sign of economic health.
It didn’t happen much in the GDR (East Germany) but if that is the sort of country you want then you are welcome to it.”
That really is a poor argument. Who ever said anything about not wanting any Migrants?
It’s about controlling the flow of migrants, being able to chose on the basis of skills and needs. Just the same as other countries like Australia.
The argument that Britain needs to remain in the EU because we need low skilled migrants to work in factories and on farms is also a false argument.
If we left the EU we would be able to issue 12 month working Visa’s for people under the age of 25 for people who want to visit and work in the UK temporarily, filling the vacancies in factories and fruit pickers, just like many back packing Brits do in Australia.
People on 12 month Working Visas would not be eligible for working benefits or social housing therefore freeing up resources for British Citizens.
As I said that is not racist or Isolationist, It is a sensible policy when resources are already scarce for British Citizens.
@Rightsaidfredfan
Do you have any facts or data to support your claim that those at the bottom of the pile have suffered “a huge decrease in wages”?
I don’t believe that’s true. Immigration has probably suppressed wage increases, but with the floor for wages set by the minimum / living wage, I don’t see how huge decreases can be possible.
Lower wage increases are a long way from huge decreases…….
If you bring in labour from poor countries you will increase competition for employment, social housing is also far harder to get as a result. The wealthy have benefitted while the poor have suffered therefore all the mainstream parties are in favour of this continuing.
I’m not that bothered by EU migrants. They come, they fill a gap, some go home, some stay. I can go and live and work or retire anywhere in the EU I want so it’s a mutual arrangement. Fields get harvested, dentists fill our teeth, drains get unblocked. I’m not bothered by refugees; we have a moral duty to help who we can until their homeland is safe again, and we help them return and rebuild.
I do have a problem with economic migrants who break the rules, and the barriers to legal non-EU migration need to be a lot tougher – skills we can’t get here or in Europe, not can’t get at a low enough price, a commitment to integration, fluent language skills, must be self-supporting inc health and education for the first two years, and so on. Never thought I would say that but immigration cannot be unlimited as there is inadequate infrastructure and I would not want to restrict the basic principle of freedom to move across the EU.
@ STeven – “I do have a problem with economic migrants who break the rules, and the barriers to legal non-EU migration need to be a lot tougher… Never thought I would say that but immigration cannot be unlimited”
Why should we further discriminate against against non-EU migrants?
What makes an EU migrant so desirable that their free-pass is worth lockdown for anyone else?
EU immigration in the UK is a problem. Immigrants from the EU are likely to be the more independent and go getting section of their native populations. There can be a negative effect on these countries with their best people leaving their country and this can have an economic drag on these countries.
In the UK these people do affect the UK population, those UK people who employers are less keen to employ are more unlikely to be employed because the employer can employ a better employee from another EU country.
According to the 2011 census 3.8 million people arrived in England and Wales in the last ten years. That the population of England and Wales has increased by 3.7 million in this period. Therefore most of the increase in population is being generated by immigration. This increase is the largest increase in population in any 10-year period since 1801. The number of new homes built in the same period is less than half of this. This has put pressure on house prices and rents.
There has been an increase in the number of children who have foreign born parents. It is likely that the number of children in the UK has increased and local authorities have provided these additional places. With the reduction in income for local authorities there has been further pressure on other services provided by local authorities.
The increase in population increases the demand for NHS services such as GP’s and dentists. GPs are supposed to see their patient from time to time as a preventive measure and my dentist wants its patients to have check up every six months. My dentist’s waiting time is about 3 months and the last time I tried to make an appointment with my GP there were none available for the next 12 days and it would be days before more appointments would be available after these 12 days.
We need to accept the truth of these pressures and not dismiss the concerns of people who only see the down side of immigration. We need to come up with solutions for these pressures. We need to have policies to ensure that employers will employ UK people even if they would prefer to employ someone from another country. We need to have a policy of how 6 million houses will be built in the next 10 years. We need to have policy to provide enough GPs so everyone can make an appointment to see a GP with a week or less. We need to have a policy to provide enough NHS dentists to reduce waiting times to something closer to 3 or 4 weeks. We need to have a policy to restore local authority services. We need to apologise for supporting Conservative spending plans in 2010 and supporting deficit reduction by reducing services. We need to ensure that our policies and solutions are seen as workable and they will convince people that there is no need for us to restrict immigration into the UK further.
Immigration from outside the EU is heavily restricted. No unskilled worker can come from Africa, Asia, or the Americas.
With free movement of labour thosands of Britons live and work in other EU countries. An exit from the EU will mean these people will have to apply for visas and work permit as Britons have to do in non-EU countries.
Retirement visas are not given out automatically. In Thailand there have been a number of cases of British pensioners who have not paid their hospital bills.
Thailand has millions of migrants from neighbouring countries. Tight restrictions didn’t stop them.
Years ago Burma threw out all foreigners. It went on to become one of the poorest countries on earth.
@michael
Great post, you’ve basically just laid the whole thing out as clear as day and then said we need to be honest about this and find solutions.
The problem is the mainstream parties in the uk (of which the lib dems are one) will not be honest about this nor have they any will to negate the negative effects of mass immigration. Why? Because only the bottom part of society are negatively effected, the buy to letters and business owners do quite well out of it. The political establishment have no will to actually do anything and will continue to brand those who speak up as racist in order to silence debate. Their refusal to address legitimate concerns leaves only one option, Brexit. They have brought this on themselves.
Michael BG
We need to fully understand globalisation and how to compete as a country in a quickly changing world. There is no going back to the past.
“Why should we further discriminate against against non-EU migrants?
What makes an EU migrant so desirable that their free-pass is worth lockdown for anyone else?”
An EU/EEA citizen has the absolute right to live and work anywhere in the EU/EEA. That gives me the same right to move to Poland and Spain as a Pole or Spaniard has to move here. It is no more migration than a Texan moving to New York, or a Scotsman moving to Wales. In one word, mutuality.
You haven’t answered my questions.
@ Rightsaidfredfan
The Liberal Democrats should not be seen as a party that supports landowners (renting out houses) or business owners against those who rent or those who are employed (or would like to be employed). Historically the Liberal party reformed society to reduce and control the power of landowners. In the future it needs to reform society so what you call ‘the bottom part of society’ are not disadvantaged by our membership of the EU if we continue to be a member. The Liberal Democrats need to make Britain into a force in the EU that discourages economic migration within the EU because the economic advantages that were once seen in only a few EU countries are spread across the whole EU and an EU citizen can be just as happy and rewarded in one EU country as in another.
@ Manfarang
Your post that you address as a response to mine, is a post of despair and despondency. Are you really saying that as a party we should not address the concerns of people who only see the down side of our huge increase in population over the last 15 years or so? Are you really saying that as a party we have nothing to offer these people; that we cannot offer hope of making the UK a more liberal country, where everyone who wishes to work, can work; where everyone who wants their own place to live, has one; where everyone who wants to make an appointment to see a GP within 7 days, can; where everyone who wants to make an appointment to see a NHS dentist within 4 weeks, can; and where the services provided by local authorities meet the needs of their population and are not cut year in, year out?
Unfortunately I believe that the Bremain campaign’s argument on immigration does not resonate with a large part of the population, and it is a section of the electorate that Lib Dems apparently struggle to reach and to understand.
The freedom to work or buy property abroad is a benefit for the same, relatively prosperous group that can take advantage of labour and tenants migrating to this country. Less fortunate people do feel threatened by competition from elsewhere. The Bremain campaign needs concrete examples of how these people do benefit from the freedoms and evidence that there are measures to protect them or improve their prospects.
Michael BG
Having been to cities such as Hong Kong, Shanghai and Dhaka I don’t get the impression that the UK is overpopulated.The UK population is heavily urbanised.
The trend for the future throuhout the world is building upwards
GPs sometimes have people at their surgeries with trivial problems that don’t really require a doctor. In South Africa such people are told to clear off. I am not suggesting that but there is room for better management in the NHS.
I believe in retraining and continuing skills upgrade. Now and in the future Britain needs a highly qualified workforce.
Good welfare services are not available with weak economies.
@ Manfarang
“I believe in retraining and continuing skills upgrade. Now and in the future Britain needs a highly qualified workforce.”
I also think continuous training and keeping up to-date is important and I wouldn’t like to see a Britain with a workforce without any qualifications. I think my GP surgery could be better managed. But again you have not recognised that having the largest increase in population since 1801 has put pressure on housing, employment, and the NHS and you are not putting forward any policies to address these problems, you sound like we should continue with the same old platitudes that have failed to address these issues over the last 15 years.
@Anthony, I agree the Samphire information is an interesting and useful addition to the debate; even though it is obvious Samphire do have a political agenda that I think isn’t actually going to be helpful…
The real problems we now have is that the world has become much smaller and more crowded. So when a ‘crisis’ occurs, such as the civil war in Syria, the numbers of people impacted is that much greater, our awareness of their plight is much greater and their ability to move in large numbers over larger distances is much greater, which in turn brings with it further problems as they overwhelm the societies they descend upon – something we are seeing in Lebanon, Turkey, Greece etc. …
So what the Samphire Project probably need to focus on, isn’t so much the current group of migrants, but how as a society we should be building capacity to assist when for example civil war etc. breaks out and 20+ million people find themselves living in a war zone. Yes I agree with others here that providing ‘homes’ for 3,000, 20,000, 100,000 or even 1M isn’t going to deliver any useful capability to handle the next crisis…
Michael BG
I am aware of the ideas of Parson Malthus. An increase in population will not bring about poverty. As in the past, science and technological advance will offset the effects of increases in numbers.
Throwing people out of a country does not make it richer. Burma which did just that in 1962 has become one of the most backward places on earth.
Of course there is the need to create a stronger economy which will generate jobs and funding for social housing and the NHS. Britain needs to harness innovation once again.
@ Manfarang
I did not suggest throwing anyone out of the country. I suggested that the huge increase in population that the UK has experienced (largest since 1801) in the last 15 years has increased the supply of labour while not providing employment for everyone and increased the demand for housing, and the NHS, while not meeting all of this demand. This is simple demand and supply. I don’t see any scientific or technological advances over the last 15 years that has increased the supply of houses or NHS services or provided work for those less employable than migrants. We need to do more than just suggest that innovation will fix these demand and supply issues – we need to get involved in managing the demand and supply.
Michael BG
The UK population has increased in the last few years but some of this increase can be explained by a reduction of emigration. Some in the UK have no hope (and this is not new) so they emigrate. In the past they went to parts of the British Empire. Today it is not so easy to relocate, only skilled people can get emigration visas.
I live in Bangkok, a city that has more then doubled in population in the last thirty years but it is not a problem as economic growth means new housing, transport systems and hospitals have been built. In west Bangkok I sometimes see signs in Burmese. There is a large Burmese (and others) migrant population working here.
Increase in population is not a problem when economic growth is created.
The UK has very restrictive immigration rules for those from non-EU countries.
Thank you for stating you live in Bangkok as this explains why you are much less concerned with the problems that the largest increase in England and Wales’ population since 1801 has caused in the UK than me as the problems of Bangkok are greater than in the UK.
I am not sure how many of those with no skills or few skills emigrated from the UK in the 1960’s and 70’s as I remember countries that wanted people only wanted those with skills.
You have pointed out your belief that in Bangkok, housing, transport and hospitals have been built to meet the increased needs of its increased population, but it still has an inadequate road system with a high accident rate and had a huge pollution problem that it is addressing.
Having looked on the internet Bangkok has the following problems – overcrowded schools, education being poorer for the poor, large numbers do not have access to safe drinking water (about 40%), child prostitution and a high crime rate.
I couldn’t find the figures for Bangkok but for Thailand over 60% of the population are “informally employed” and over half are in “vulnerable employment”. Also about 40% of economic activity takes place in what Friedrich Schneider calls the “shadow economy” i.e. concealed from the public authorities but not including illegal activities.
My understanding is that there are 2 million Brits living in other EU countries and 2.1 million (non British) EU nationals in this country. To a significant degree we are exporting retirees who use more health services and public services and getting younger people who are net contributors to public services.
The most recent wave of immigrants have always been the scapegoats – Irish, Commonwealth citizens, refugees, now eastern Europeans. Most of the difference between immigration and emigration is accounted for by students – essentially an economic export. Many have lambasted in previous years the brain drain of labour from this country to other countries (America, other European countries) as bad for this country and good for other countries – now we are saying that the opposite is bad! People have complained about the exporting of jobs to other countries (IT and call centres to India for example). Now we complain about people coming here to do jobs! If people come here and are economically active, remember they are contributing more than they take out making the NHS more sustainable.
A large amount of the problem with housing is smaller households living in bigger properties – where once 3 generations may have lived together today now barely 1 does. People want to live outside the inner cities in the country and smaller towns. And obviously replacing council and social housing has been a fiasco – but that is the fault of all governments over the past 40 years not immigrants.
There is a lot of muddled thinking on all sides on immigration.
@ Michael
Only 1.2 million UK citizens live in the rest of the EU, while about 3 million EU citizens live here, plus there are UK citizens that were born in EU countries ( https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-migration-and-uk/). I am not sure you read my first post where I stated, “According to the 2011 census 3.8 million people arrived in England and Wales in the last ten years. That the population of England and Wales has increased by 3.7 million in this period. Therefore most of the increase in population is being generated by immigration. This increase is the largest increase in population in any 10-year period since 1801.”
It is very clear than the UK has not provided the houses or increased NHS services to meet the extra demand that this huge increase has generated. Yes there are other causes of increased demand but the 3.8 million are a major factor. My point is we need to address the problems not just say that immigrants are economically active or they contribute to society. It is only by addressing these problems that everyone will see the benefits of immigration and not see them as just causing them or people they know problems.
Michael BG
The tap water in Bangkok is drinkable, in fact it is safer than some bottled water. The problems you refer to are those of the country generally. Bangkok is and has always been a modern city, more developed than the provinces.
Thailand’s developing economy has drawn workers from neighboring countries in recent years. In the past there were a lot of Chinese immigrants (and some from India)who came to Thailand. The Thai-Chinese have made a vast contribution to the country.
In anti-foreigner Burma it has been a different story.
Britain has long had its Alf Garnets . Keynes General Theory is a difficult book to understand. The answer to the problems can be complex, the Lump of labour theory is a fallacy however.
@Michael BG
On the facts:
The FT reports that Brits in other EU countries roughly balances EU nationals in the UK
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#ixzz49CPp2AnR
“The number of European migrants in the UK is almost exactly balanced by the number of Britons living elsewhere in the EU, according to official figures.
About 1.8m Britons live in Europe, with Spain boasting an expat population of just over 1m UK citizens, according to government estimates. Of the Britons living in Europe, 400,000 are claiming a state pension from the UK. That compares with an estimate of 2.34m EU citizens living in the UK, according to the latest official figures from Nomis – the National Online Manpower Information System, a service provided by the Office for National Statistics – based on passport records.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#axzz49CO1krM5
The average annual change in population due to immigration is about 60% of what you quote
Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom based on UK census figures gives the annual change in population in the UK between 2001 and 2011 as 324,000 – this was lower than between 1901 and 1911. 134k a year of this was accounted for by natural change – i.e. fewer deaths (people living longer and a reduced death rate) over more births. 191k per year or 1.9 million was accounted for by immigration – 1.6 million less than you quote
In the past ten years – health spending has gone up by a third in REAL TERMS PER HEAD OF POPULATION (i.e. taking into account the increase in population)
According to ukpublicspending.co.uk at http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2004_2016UKd_15c1li111mcn_10t
Health spending in 2006 per capita (in 2005 pounds): £1552.93
In 2015 on the same basis: £2002.75p
People forget that under the Tories patients were getting turfed out of their beds at 3am to make way for new arrivals.
We rightly argued for 1p on income tax to pay for increased NHS spending and the Labour party finally implemented through national insurance (which um… workers including those from abroad pay).
Frankly – and I hope this doesn’t sound too brutal if we are getting rid of some older people who are on average massive users of the NHS to sunnier parts of the EU and getting young, active workers in return then that is of net benefit to this country.
@Michael
“On the facts: The FT reports that Brits in other EU countries roughly balances EU nationals in the UK”
I can’t see over the FT’s paywall but I’m assuming the article you link to is pretty old, since the government’s claim that the numbers “balance” has been comprehensively rubbished by subsequent census data. Apologies for linking to my own posts but I’ve covered this in some detail before :-
https://www.libdemvoice.org/remain-and-immigration-49613.html#comment-396065
https://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-nick-clegg-the-five-big-fat-lies-being-perpetuated-by-brexits-project-fib-49978.html#comment-399027
The most recent “definitive” data we have (according to the University of Oxford Migration Observatory) show that there are 1.6 million more EU-born people living here than vice versa.
Stuart
Brits have a lot of second homes in Europe.
@Michael BG
NHS – see above.
Firstly, It is highly unlikely that we would get any sort of free trade agreement with the EU if we exited without free movement and without paying into the budget. (See Norway – even it wasn’t exactly like Norway).
The effect on employment is complex. If it is a job that can be done anywhere in the world then it is better that it is done here as it in turn provides greater employment (money in turn is spent in our economy and you get the multiplier effect of those companies and workers in turn spending money) and at a UK minimum wage. The minimum wage ensures that it is done at that level. There may be some jobs where a greater supply of labour drives the price down but expect equalisation and greater prosperity across the whole of the EU and in turn for the UK as happened with Ireland.
The key point is that you go back to any era and people will be scapegoating the newest wave of immigrants for society’s and Government’s problem. That people did not have decent health care and good living conditions in the 30s but did post-war was nothing to do with immigration but that we created the NHS and built council houses.
Housing is not that most people do not have reasonable, and more spacious housing than in other decades but that Government policies have destroyed council housing and made housing in “desirable” areas of high economic growth expensive – through policies such as the green belt and restrictive planning laws (may be correctly!). The market should move economic activity into less expensive areas.
There was vast antagonism in the 60s – warnings of rivers of blood – to immigrants especially from the Caribbean, Africa and the Indian sub-continent – yet is looked back on as one of increasing prosperity. In the 70s and 80s people came from the then poorer parts of Southern Europe – Spain, Greece, Italy and from Ireland and we went there in increasing numbers on holiday and made them richer as a result of both.
That there are problems with immigration is the case – there are problems with anything. I suspect that “immigration” within the UK puts a greater pressure on public services and infrastructure than from other EU countries. People will haggle over the slices of the cake – Labour v Capital, “us” v “them” but we ALL benefit if the cake is bigger.
@ Michael
Like Stuart I couldn’t get past the FT pay wall. Did you look at the fullfact.org link? They say their 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU is based on UN figures. The UN seems to only have 300,000 UK citizens living in Spain.
My 2011 census figures are found here – http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/11/census-2011-religion-race-education
The Guardian stated that the 7.1% – “was the largest growth in the population in England and Wales in any 10-year period since the census taking began, in 1801.”
However you are using UK figures which are greater for the periods before 1911 and Wikipedia gives 7.9% as the UK figure for 2001 to 2011. I couldn’t see any 10 year births and deaths figures for 2001 to 2011.
The ONS figures are in fact:
“In 2011 the population of England and Wales was 56.1 million3, an increase of 4.04 million (7.8 per cent) from 2001. The non-UK born population in 2011 was 7.5 million, an increase of 2.9 million (62 per cent) from 4.6 million in 2001. This means that 71 per cent of the overall population growth in the last decade is accounted for by the non-UK born resident population5.”
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/internationalmigrantsinenglandandwales/2012-12-11#country-of-birth
Your health spending figures shows a small decrease between 2010 and 2014. The NHS problems that I wrote about are recent. I do not recall having these problems in 2010. Also I don’t know how much of the increase from 2004 was a result of the new GP contracts and the resulting poorer GP service. Some of this increased spending is because of the aging population and more procedures being available and more costly medication.
From your last post I am not sure that you have read my second post of Monday – 16th May ’16 – 1:15am – “We need to accept the truth of these pressures and not dismiss the concerns of people who only see the down side of immigration. We need to come up with solutions for these pressures. …”
Antony Hook: Did they give you figures on the number of cases granted or allowed at appeal compared with the number who applied? These would not be the same cases because of delays in the process. The subject is not well understood, for instance I met a vicar in Maidstone who wanted us to give asylum to Christians from Iraq. Well yes if they are in UK jurisdiction, persecuted in Iraq, etcetera, but he was horrified that we would grant asylum to members of other religions. Others call for sanctuary which is not part of the refugee convention nor UK law.
Regrettably some Immigration Officers talk about political asylum as if claiming on religious, ethnic, etc grounds was a ground for refusal.
An important basis of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol that they have been signed by so many countries, many more than the statelessness convention.