They were allowed to come as they were cheap votes and cheap labour.
The articles below expose the truth.
Dont say we didnt warn you.
Only fools trust their governments.
How Labour threw open doors to mass migration in secret plot to make a multicultural UK
By James Slack
Last updated at 8:09 AM on 10th February 2010
* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories
Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.
A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.
The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.
Melting pot: Labour's diversity drive is exposed in secret papers
Melting pot: Labour's diversity drive is exposed in secret papers
Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.
But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
Mr Neather said he helped to write the 2000 report which outlined a strategy to ‘open up the UK to mass migration’.
The document was not published in its original format over fears of an adverse public reaction. Instead it was released a year later as a research document on the economic benefits of migration.
Mr Neather’s claims last October were denied by ministers, including Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who said they were nonsense.
A draft of the original Cabinet Office report has now been published following a freedom of information request by Migrationwatch.
It contains six references to social policy, all of which were removed from the later, published version.
* SIR ANDREW GREEN: Paying the price for a decade of deception
* Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rejects burka ban for Muslim women
One deleted paragraph said a framework was needed to ‘maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s social and economic objectives’.
Another says that migration pressures will intensify because of demographic changes across Europe but that this ‘should not be viewed as a negative’.
It states: ‘The entry control system is not closely related to the stated policy objectives.
'This is particularly true in the social area, where in the past the implicit assumption has largely been that keeping people out promotes stability.’
Also cut out was a statement that ‘in practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion’.
Damian Green, Tory immigration spokesman, said: ‘This is a very significant finding because it would mean that Labour’s biggest long term effect on British society was
based on a completely secret policy.
‘This shows Labour’s open-door immigration policy was deliberate and ministers should apologise.’
Mr Neather’s claims were made in a column for the London Evening Standard. He said Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate attempt to engineer a ‘truly multicultural’ country and plug gaps in the jobs market.
He remembered ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.
Whitehall research shows that the number of foreigners arriving in the UK rose from 370,000 in 2001 to 510,000 in 2006.
The figures for net foreign immigration– the number of non-British citizens arriving, less the number leaving – are even more dramatic.
In 2001, this figure stood at 221,000 but by 2007 it had risen as high as 333,000 – up 50 per cent.
The number fell to 250,000 in 2008 mainly because of a decline in arrivals from Eastern Europe.
It had already emerged that the Cabinet Office report was censored to remove details of possible links between immigration and organised crime, street fights and begging.
One of the sections missing from the final report said: ‘There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.’
A second section warned: ‘Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.’
Last night, immigration minister Phil Woolas said there was ‘no open door policy on migration’.
He said the draft report made clear that migration was ‘not a substitute for Government policies on skills, education and training of British citizens – which the Government has invested in over the past decade’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html#ixzz0f7X7jUTE
Paying the price for a decade of deception
By Sir Andrew Green
Last updated at 1:46 AM on 10th February 2010
* Comments (16)
* Add to My Stories
So there was indeed a Labour conspiracy to change the nature of our society by mass immigration.
New evidence confirms claims made by a Labour political adviser last October which
he subsequently tried to recant.
In an article for the Evening Standard, Andrew Neather revealed that ‘it didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year ...was to open up the UK to mass migration’.
Today's Britain is multicultural
Community spirit: Today's Britain is multicultural
He went on to describe a Government policy document which he had helped to write in 2000.
He said that ‘drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was paranoia about it reaching the media’.
The paper eventually surfaced as a purely technical product of the research department of the Home Office but earlier drafts that he saw ‘included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.
We in Migrationwatch have now obtained an earlier draft of that policy paper, circulated in October 2000.
It had already been censored but it was to be neutered still further. In the executive summary, six of eight references to ‘social’ objectives were cut from the version later published.
What could have been meant by social policy in the context of immigration, especially as it was dressed up as combating social exclusion?
This must surely have been code for increasing the numbers substantially, as Mr Neather revealed. If not, why all the secrecy?
* DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Migration and a legacy of deceit
* Exposed: Labour's secret plot to make a multicultural UK
Why the censorship that has now been laid bare? Reading between the lines of these
documents it is clear that political advisers in Number 10, its joint authors, were preparing a blueprint for mass immigration with both economic and social objectives.
None of this was in the Labour manifesto of 1997 or 2001. One passage in the report that the political censors failed to cut was a prediction about foreign immigration from outside the European Union.
This had it climbing from 142,000 in1998 to nearly 180,000 in 2005 (in fact, it reached nearly 200,000 by that date).
But what this shows is that ministers were clearly warned about a continuing rise in immigration which, even leaving aside the East Europeans, has been even greater than expected.
Tony Blair: Labour wanted to use immigration to make the UK multicultural
So what can we deduce from all this? Mr Neather later withdrew some of his remarks but examination of the texts shows that he had, in fact, blurted out the truth.
It seems there was a project led by Downing Street political advisers to introduce
a secret policy of mass immigration.
Their economic arguments surfaced in an obscure research document but the social objective of greatly increased diversity was entirely suppressed for fear of public reaction – especially from the white working class.
These are the very people who are now paying the price for a decade of Labour deception. What the Government now fears is that they will take their revenge on election day.
Why on earth should they have taken such a risk with their traditional supporters? Was it pure ideology or were there other factors at play?
One point to consider is the impact on the electorate. It is not generally realised that
Commonwealth citizens legally in Britain acquire the right to vote in general elections
as soon as they put their names on the electoral register.
In Labour years we have now seen an additional 300,000 from the Old Commonwealth and about one million from the New Commonwealth.
They may well have been conscious that they have much stronger support among the ethnic communities than their Conservative rivals.
Given that mass immigration is heavily in Labour’s electoral interest, they may have thought that they could get away with it.
The trades unions have been silent despite the concerns of their members. And they
may have calculated that anyone who opposed it could be silenced by accusations of racism.
They have not succeeded but we are left with a tale of betrayal which has generated a very dangerous current of extremism which could yet come to haunt us.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1249823/SIR-ANDREW-GREEN-Paying-price-decade-deception-Migrationwatch.html#ixzz0f7WTns2D
MORE than 1.3 million immigrants have been given the right to work and claim benefits in Britain since Gordon Brown promised “British jobs for British workers”.
Damning Whitehall figures revealed last night prove a shattering new blow to Labour’s open-door border policies.
Official statistics show that a total of 1,370,820 foreigners have been granted National Insurance numbers over the last two years. And the influx has continued despite hundreds of thousands of British-born workers losing their jobs in the recession and unemployment rising to 2.46 million.
Latest evidence of the collapse of Britain’s border controls will be a huge embarrassment to the Prime Minister following his now discredited vow to put British-born workers first.
And it raises fresh questions about Britain being a target for “benefits tourism”, with concerns that immigrants are using National Insurance numbers to get state pensions and other welfare handouts.
It is bound to intensify fury over continuing levels of mass immigration, which is tipped to send Britain’s population surging to more than 70 million within 20 years.
Last night, critics seized on the Department for Work and Pensions figures as confirmation of the “Britons first” sham. Shadow Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi said: “This is yet another example of the chaos within the immigration system. These figures show that all the tough talk about protecting British jobs was just hot air. Clearly, judging from the Government’s own figures, Gordon Brown is delivering anything but.”
She added: “We can’t go on like this. We must bring immigration under control and improve the education and training of British workers.” National Insurance numbers are required by anyone wanting to work legally in Britain. They are also necessary for claiming welfare benefits and tax credits.
SEARCH UK NEWS for:
The Department of Work and Pensions figures – obtained by the Tories – confirm that over half a million newcomers every year are joining Britain’s employment and welfare system.
Nearly half of the overseas workers getting National Insurance numbers come from east European countries such as Poland and Lithuania. But the figures also show that more than 400,000 migrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East came to Britain between July 2007 and June last year.
Overall, a total of 4.1 million National Insurance numbers have been handed out to foreign workers since 2002, the figures reveal. Total net immigration to the UK increased from 51,000 a year between 1993 and 1997 to an average of 209,000 a year from 2004 to 2008.
Separate figures show that one in 13 workers in jobs in Britain are non-UK citizens, a total of around 2.2 million. And evidence suggests that growing numbers are settling in Britain for the long term and not returning home. Employment-related grants of settlement rose by 63 per cent to 60,770 in 2008 compared with 2007.
And the influx has continued apace despite Mr Brown vowing to finally get control of Britain’s borders after a decade of Labour failure. In his first party conference speech as Prime Minister in 2007, he vowed: “This is our vision: Britain leading the global economy, drawing on the talents of all to create British jobs for British workers.”
Last night Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said: “We recognise the benefit to our economy and culture from immigration. We’re also very clear that it needs to be controlled.”
A Daily Express investigation recently uncovered dozens of web sites run by firms, based in eastern Europe, giving advice on the range of benefits on offer in Britain.
The firms, which have branches in Britain, even advertise that they can help negotiate bureaucratic red tape.
New Labour pursues Old Labour's proven strategy to gain votes
The Labour party is having problems with arithmetic. It initially assumed that less than 20,000 people would migrate from Central Europe to seek work in the United Kingdom following the EU enlargement before last, when in fact the true figure is closer to 1 million. It is now putting out arguments on the economic benefits arising from the contributions of economic migrants without stating the real costs nor economic impacts on the British labour market and GNP/capita.
How Labour power has relied on immigration
But there are sound reasons why a leader of the Labour Party would not wish to disturb this trend which is causing considerable upset in many English communities because of the overwhelming influx of economic migrants. Historically, the Labour Party has sustained its position in England largely on the basis of the vote of immigrants. This included, initially, a significant support from the Irish from the Irish Republic who can vote in the United Kingdom. Indeed, many such Irish were important supporters of the creation of the Labour Party in Scotland in the Red Clyde. These have since included the Commonwealth immigrants arriving after the second world war and who on the basis of some investment on the part of Labour party activists became Labour voters. The Labour party continues to sustain it image as a party which welcomes immigrants arising from the now uncontrolled influx from EU member states.
It is the easiest game in the world to "support immigrants" who are benefiting from an improvement in their standard of living without in fact doing much to assist them. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable to being influenced in favour of those political parties who do not create problems for them and there is a natural gravitation towards those political parties who are neutral or understanding of their circumstances and thereby bolster their confidence and presence within society. Labour, contrary to the Conservatives, has always been a deft operator in this field in England.
Low cost housing and the property ladder
The Labour Party's concern with "low cost housing" is geared not only to the British and mainly English population but also to new immigrants. By way of example, people from Poland working in the United Kingdom and who have come here in the last 3 years now exceed 1 million. This figure is based on industry estimates in the construction and packing sectors and their accompanying family members. Increasing numbers, with their children enjoying a British education, are considering remaining and settling in the United Kingdom. This suggests that something like 50% of the current Government new housing commitments of some 210,000 units within the next few years could be taken up by Polish immigrants alone.
Incompetence or dishonesty?
The issue of immigration problems is not as Government ministers wish to emphasise, something which can be managed through stronger immigration controls or Blue Cards for skilled workers. The majority of immigration to the UK is and will come to an increasing degree from Central and Eastern Europe. This is because British governments have signed up to various European treaties and regulations, without involving the British public in such decisions. As a result both the Conservative and the Labour parties have contributed to a situation over which British Governments have no control because of poor decision making based upon a theoretical concept of the free flow of labour which in practice is upsetting communities. All political parties have on this aspect of a closer union in Europe failed to give adequate thought to the subsequent government responsibilities and in particular upholding the rights of the current population.
Immigrant right to vote
Something which is becoming an explosive topic and therefore it is not even whispered in party conferences is that under existing European Law, which takes precedence over British Law, any citizen of the European member state may vote and stand as candidates in municipal elections where they are resident and of which they are not nationals (Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994). These include those who:
* are European Union citizens, i.e. persons with the nationality of a Member State of the European Union (EU);
* are resident in the Member State where they would like to vote or stand as a candidate;
* comply with the conditions imposed by the national legislation of the Member State of residence on its nationals concerning the right to vote and stand in municipal elections.
The principle of equality and non-discrimination between national and Community voters and candidates must be observed (European citizens to satisfy the same conditions as nationals of the Member State of residence). In order to take part in elections, citizens must apply to be entered in the electoral roll of the Member State of residence as an expression of their interest in voting. The Member States must make the necessary arrangements to enable them to be entered on the electoral roll in due time before polling day.
Labour preparing the way
CybaCity has noted that some members of the Labour Party are recommending a change to European Law, and therefore British Law, so as to enable citizens of European Member States to also participate in general elections in the United Kingdom. So far this interest has not received much publicity in the British media. This right to vote issue, amongst others, is one of the a reasons the Labour Party does not wish to encourage public questions, especially in England, on the considerable disruption of social comity caused by the current intensity of immigration and, in particular, involving citizens of the European Union. There is a subtle and intentional confusion created by the mixing of discussions on immigrants from non-EU member states and those from EU member states. The big issue in fact is immigrants from member states who have recently joined the EU.
There have been suggestions that Gordon Brown's "commitment" to low cost housing is also with an eye on the European Union immigrants and workers; the location of such housing projects would be of critical importance to the success of Labour Party strategic plans to convert marginal Labour constituencies in England into "safe" seats over the medium term. Immigrants of voting age, including those from the EU, now total around 2.75 million and this is equivalent to some 40 English constituencies. In terms of the conversion of marginal seats into safer Labour seats this vote, if distributed tactically, could perhaps swing 60 constituencies towards Labour (10% of the total in England). Thus, with the West Lothian effect on the one hand (see "What was the West Lothian Question, and why is it important?")and the immigration vote impact on the other, the Labour Party can consolidate its decision-making power in Parliament to impose legislation on the English population without increasing its electoral support amongst the English electorate.
This links in with the other Labour Party strategy related to their support of the European Union's "regionalization" which was sold as devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and as "regionalization" in England and concentrated on those areas where the Labour Party was well represented (see "You can't fool all of the English all of the time")
The recent report written by Lord Goldsmith was very much concerned about the possibility of accelerating the status of citizenship for many immigrants into a status which allows them to vote. The very confused nature of the Goldsmith report makes a lot of sense if one views it from the standpoint of a Labour party agenda as opposed to a government agenda. The report seems to constitute a specific Labour party strategy to undertake a major electoral engineering exercise to benefit the Labour party. It is more than evident that the Irish have served their purpose for the Labour party and, indeed, an increasing proportion not being Labour supporters. Now the Labour Party is set to abandon the Irish on the basis of the fact that the Good Friday Agreement exists. The thin edge of the wedge, in less than subtle terms can be seen in Gordon Brown references to the United Kingdom being limited to England, Wales and Scotland and in Lord Goldsmith's low profile proposal, taking up just a few lines in his report, that the Irish in the United Kingdom should lose their right to vote.
The marginalization of the population
Political parties marginalise the populations through misrepresentation and refusal to permit effective participatory governance.
The politically correct argument is all about the "economic contribution" of immigration but the main public complaint is that the too-fast pace of change is resulting social disruption; this does not interest the politicians. The other politically correct but amazingly a misrepresentation of the facts is that the United Kingdom has always advanced and been strengthened through immigration. This is basically not true and there is little economic evidence to support this contention.
Indeed, the gaping hole in the Labour Party's approach is constitutional. This government increasingly fails to address the issue of the participation of the people of Britain in deciding on such commitments, and others, related to the European Union. This was brought up as a stark reality in their handling of the issue of the European Treaty recently. In previous interviews on this question, and specifically that of the referendum on the Amending Treaty (re-named constitution), Gordon Brown has never been at all convincing. Others such can David Milliband have tried to argue the case that there is no constitution. This is a disingenuous and slightly absurd position for a British minister to take since amongst all of the countries in Europe, Britain's approach to constitution has been a tradition that our constitution is made up of many separate written documents, court decisions and previous European treaties, none of which is "called" a constitution. To the codified and blinkered view of continental law where there is no role for the community conscience, a legal document is a constitution only if it is called a constitution; most people in Britain know that this is nonsense because the effects are all constitutional.
Another recent document, "The Governance of Britain", an effort by Jack Straw, is another third rate product of the Labour Party, where vital issues which can bring about a democracy based upon a broader participation of the people of Britain in decisions which affect them, are, largely ignored. In the particular instance of the status of one of the most important British constitutional instruments in preventing arbitrary legislative impact, the jury, the "The Governance of Britain" remains silent. This is to be expected on the part of a party whose track record has shown a hostility to juries and the ability of a free people to defend the freedom of another against arbitrary decisions. The Labour Party shows a worrying tendency towards institutionalization of the law and thereby using of law to rule as opposed to upholding the rule of law.
British political party business as usual
No one can blame the Labour Party for seeing immigrants as a potential source of votes and their maintenance of a hands off approach to the whole issue suggests they have this in the back of their minds. But then what can one expect of any of these parties who for too long, without exception, have placed their own interests over those of the people?