UK IMMIGRATION 2010 - MORE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

98.5% OF 1.67 MILLION JOBS CREATED SINCE 1997 HAVE GONE TO A FOREIGNER

In an article due to appear in the Spectator magazine the emotive subject of migration has leapt to the top of the political agenda. Information from the Office for National Statistics reveals that of the 1,670,000 "jobs" created since Labour came to power, a staggering 1,645,000 (98.5%) have been taken by immigrants.

The Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

Shadow immigration minister Damian Green revealed unpublished figures showing there are almost 730,000 fewer British-born workers in the private sector than in 1997. But Mr Green said the official figures were 'the final proof that Gordon Brown was misleading the public when he promised British jobs for British workers'. He added: 'Instead he has presided over boom and bust and left British workers in a worse position than when he took office 13 years ago'.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch pressure group, said: 'The government's economic case for mass immigration is finally blown out of the water.'

See the media articles here, here and here.

To see our report : "UK Immigration 2010 - The Uncomfortable Truth" click here

To see: "Disgraceful Truth Of The Labour immigration Strategy" click here

In these reports we compiled the most recent statistics and revelations about how, since 1997, Labour have invoked a deliberate strategy to sling open the UK borders to foreign nationals on the basis that it would be good for the country.

CITIZENSHIP

Handing out passports to foreign nationals is how the Labour Government changed the make-up of society for ever. In 1997 just 37,010 people were given citizenship.

Last year the Home Office approved an all-time record 203,865 applications, an increase of 58 per cent in a year.

In total, Labour has now created 1.5million new British citizens - all with full voting rights.

It doesn't take rocket science to see that Labours motive was votes.

ASYLUM REMOVALS

Labour has never got to grips with the record number of asylum seekers pouring into the UK. Even on conservative estimates, it has left around 285,000 failed claimants living in Britain - but the number being removed is falling.

In 2009, there were 10,815 removals or voluntary departures, down 16 per cent on 2008.

Of those who went, 2,985 benefited from the Assisted Voluntary Return scheme - worth £3,000 each.

The Government's target of concluding 90 per cent of asylum cases within six months by December 2011 has been dismissed as 'unachievable' by Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine.

Only a third of failed asylum seekers - 7,850 out of the 26,832 served with deportation notices - were actually removed in 2008. Inspectors have recently identified a new backlog of 40,000 cases massing in the asylum system.

THE DOCUMENT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE:

“We know they’re going to move asylum seekers in there. All the flats have been done up, central heating, the works. And they’ve put up brand new net curtains. That’s a sure sign.”


This is the kind of message voiced by angry locals all over Britain for the last couple of years. Many of the details change, but the total renovations and the highly visible net curtains crop up time and time again.


So too do the denials by local councils that the premises concerned are going to house asylum seekers. And almost as regular is the spectacle of those same councils being forced to eat their words within weeks as local residents wake up to find that new neighbours from Albania and Somalia have been moved in overnight.

The repetition of this pattern over the entire country has been something of a mystery up until now. Strangest of all has been the sight of so many councils telling lies to local residents and newspapers alike, even though the bureaucrats and local councillors telling the lies must know that they will be exposed and discredited.

Secret Tenancy Agreement
 
The answers to this puzzle lies in a secret 26-page document – the Revised Tenancy Agreement April 2001 – produced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, acting through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Its very existence is supposed to be secret and has this warning for people or companies thinking of making money out of housing asylum seekers:

“The Landlord’s attention is drawn to the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all individuals engaged on any work in connection with this Agreement have notice that these statutory provisions apply to them and shall continue to apply after the expiry or termination of the Term.”

Detailed list of items for asylum seekers :-

So what doesn’t the Home Office want you to know?
 This list of requirements for any property being used to house asylum seekers begins, reasonably enough, by insisting that it shall be fit for human habitation, and have adequate light. Let us ignore the fact that many hundreds of thousands of our own people are either homeless or live in houses which are “unfit for human habitation” because, according to central government and local councils, there “isn’t enough money to deal with all the problems.”
 The agreement begins to lay out requirements which are beyond the reach not just of a relatively small number of the homeless or desperately poor:
 “… all meters shall be of the quarterly type, the use of card or key meters shall not be allowed.”
 Isn’t that nice? If you and your family fall into arrears on your utility bills, particularly electricity, you have to agree to the installation of a card meter set at such a rate that it gobbles up money. British families with children can’t be officially cut off – but if they run out of meter credit, their lights and heating go off anyway and they have to go to bed at dusk in the winter to try to keep warm. Such hardships are unacceptable, however, when it comes to asylum seekers.
 It continues... “The Property shall have a full and safe central heating system installed. Paraffin or bottled gas fed heating systems shall not be used.” Perish the thought! Such devices are fine for British pensioners and young families shivering on the poverty line, but far too smelly, inconvenient and dangerous for the liberal elite’s favourites.
 New electrical goods
 After laying down requirements on issues such as fire safety, the document states: “All electrical appliances in the Property shall be either new or, if second hand, shall be supplied complete with a twelve month guarantee.” Well, I don’t know about you, but many couples setting up home have to rely on hand-me-down electric cookers and heaters without any guarantee at all. And, of course, ordinary British youngsters moving into places of their own still face the same choice between paying through the nose for new equipment or going without guarantees.

The document goes on to provide a long list of the things needed in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms and bathroom of each asylum property. As you’re probably expecting by now, this features everything from chip pans to teaspoons, from an easy chair for each bed space to a Boots first aid kit.
 The long ‘General’ list in Section 1.13 of the document even proves that the popular observation about new net curtains showing that asylum seekers are moving in is true, since landlords are ordered to provide “net & drawable curtains to all living rooms and bedrooms.” They get everything, in fact, including the kitchen sink.


• Free colour TV and licence paid!


One item does, however, stand out:
 • “For Each Living/Dining Room 1 new twenty inch screen colour television complete with licence which shall be renewed at each annual anniversary of the Start Date throughout the Term.”

UK citizens have to wait until they are 75 to get a free TV licence, and non-payment of this iniquitous tax is the biggest single ‘crime’ that puts British women in prison.
 Many of those women can’t afford a TV licence because they are struggling to bring up young families on pitifully low incomes. As a result, they are also often unable to afford proper child safety equipment. No wonder, then, that the Home Office bureaucrats being so generous with our tax money wanted to keep this section secret:

“Where there are to be children living in the Property, the Property shall include:

• Adequate cot and highchair facilities;

• Appropriate sterilisation equipment;

• Child safety gates on all stairways;

• Childproof resistant devices or casement stays on all windows;

• Appropriate play areas both inside and outside the Property.”

Another thing that ordinary families on average incomes find a big problem is the occasional cost of major repairs. Asylum seekers have no such worries. Under this Agreement, the Landlord is bound to do all repairs within seven days, and to provide an emergency repair service “where a threat to health and safety is apparent.” The rest of us have to turn to Yellow Pages or pay for call out insurance, but it would be unfair to expect asylum seekers to do the same, wouldn’t it?

Similarly favourable treatment is also specified in the Letting Provisions, the appropriate section of which commits the Landlord “to redecorate all parts of the Property in the third year of the Term.” The rest of us may have to fork out down at “Do It All”, but not our special guests.

Perhaps most ludicrous of all, however, is the next section whereby the Landlord agrees: “To have the exterior of all windows of the Property cleaned once every twelve weeks.” I kid you not, it’s there.

Who pays?

So what do all these modcons and services cost the lucky occupants of such premises?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When various bleeding heart liberals tell us how asylum seekers only get basic income support payments, they don’t tell us about the Letting Provisions on page 4 of the Home Office’s Revised Tenancy Agreement, do they? Yet these show that not only do asylum seekers get their TV licences paid for them, we, the tax payer also pick up the tab for their rent, water rates, gas, and electricity bills.

Surely, you must think, these people must want to spend night after night on the phone to all their friends and family back home, telling them all about the wonders of Soft Touch Britain? A lot of their pocket money must go on paying the phone bill? No, as you probably guessed, they don’t have to pay a penny. Section 1 ((b) of the Letting Provisions sets out the fact that the Tenant Company (funded by the taxpayer) agrees to pick up the phone bill for every single property provided by the Landlord in question to asylum seekers.
 Don’t forget that every single council or housing association in this land which is housing asylum seekers has signed this document. Thousands of councillors in the ruling party in these councils have either read this document or studiously avoided seeing it so they didn’t have to.

A REMINDER OF THE COST OF IMMIGRATION IN THE UK

Influx of immigrants 'costs every UK household £350 a year'

Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, claims David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, who puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years.
 Professor Coleman, an internationally respected population expert, said the costs of immigration are likely to increase if, as according to Government figures, immigration continues to swell the population at its present rate.
 
'The absent-minded commitment into which we have drifted, to house a further 15million people - one million every five years - must be the biggest unintended consequence of government policy-of almost any century,' he said.

'There are no merits in the promotion of population growth itself and many reasons to regret it, especially in a country as crowded as the United Kingdom.'


Professor Coleman said the costs to the public sector include £1.5billion to run the asylum system, £280million to teach English to migrants and at least £330million to treat illnesses such as HIV.

Immigrant communities are over-represented in the criminal justice system, he added. Mass immigration also imposes 'congestion costs, diverts investment to new infrastructure and housing, impinges on space and amenity and accelerates the output of waste and greenhouse gas emissions.'

THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Crime related costs, at £4Billion is by far the largest cost attributable to immigration.

In recent years the British people have been increasingly denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by politically correct elite with its own agenda. All this in a country that invented modern Parliamentary democracy.

For all the reasons we have detailed on these pages, surely the time is long overdue for urgent steps to halt the damaging effects of immigration in the UK.

The problem of immigration has nothing to do with race, creed or culture.

It has everything to do with overcrowding and a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. The Government immigration strategy of ethnic cleansing was devised and implemented with the deliberate intention to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place for devisive political gain. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

For years we have watched as our country's landscape has been transformed out of all recognition - and politicians from have told us that it isn't happening and that we are racist bigots to object even if it is.

A measure of immigration and cultural diversity is indeed good for a country. Sadly, the immigration strategy of the Labour Government had nothing to do with enhancing British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was implemented for perverse political reasons that risk the destruction of its defining character altogether.

Other countries would not tolerate millions of immigrants taking over their society and miminising the value of its tradition, heritage and culture. Japan would not do it; China would not do it; India would not do it; Pakistan would not do it – so why should Britain?

Whichever party wins the election on May 6th, they must do something urgently and stop pretending this isn't now a major problem that will have catastrophic consequences for the nation if left unchecked.