MigrationWatch’s e-petition calling for a 70 million person cap on population sets a dangerous precedent, is damaging for our economy and unrealisable.
Ruth Grove-White is a policy officer at the Migrants’ Rights Network
The new e-petition masterminded by MigrationWatch and reported on across today’s newspapers may be in-step with a proportion of public opinion, but will provoke heated debate.
The petition argues that ‘mass immigration’ has been permitted, contributing to the Office of National Statistics’s predictions that the UK population will hit 70 million within 20 years.
It calls for the government to:
“Take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilize our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.”
The intention is that 100,000 signatures will be gathered, potentially provoking a debate in parliament on the issue in the near future.
Here are three reasons why we disagree with the assertions made in the MigrationWatch petition:
1) The UK should avoid introducing a population policy by stealth
Historic and contemporary attempts to control population size in countries across the world, from mandatory birth control to experimental eugenics, have been highly controversial.
One lesson that most politicians have learned is that attempting to control population levels is often asking for trouble. The UK currently does not have a policy on what a desirable, or undesirable, population level should be – and rightly so, because history has taught us that this can be dangerous ground indeed.
So calls for a UK population ceiling of 70 million are extremely problematic. Basic economics tells us that there is simply no inherent reason why having a population of 70 million would be any better, or worse, for the UK than the current population of 62 million.
The test of a population size is in how resources are distributed across the population – and with a growing gap between rich and poor in the UK there are quite some issues to address already here. Calls to slash immigration should not be a way of side-stepping bigger questions about the well-being of our society, whatever size the population is.
2) Immigration cannot be switched on and off at the push of a button
Although it has not advocated a population limit of 70 million, the coalition government has had the explicit aim of reducing net migration to the UK since May 2010. One year and a half on, despite a host of restrictive measures including the cap on economic migration, net immigration levels have risen by 21% in 2009 to hit 239,000 in 2010.
The MigrationWatch e-petition calls for ‘all necessary steps’ to reduce immigration levels, towards a drop in population growth – but what would this actually mean in practice? In fact, there aren’t many tools left in the policy box that are not already being employed towards the goal of cutting net migration levels.
The latest batch of ONS immigration statistics showed that net immigration levels in 2010 were largely a story of declining emigration, rather than a surge in immigration. The UK also saw an increase in net migration from Eastern Europe – again largely due to a drop in European nationals leaving the UK. Due to freedom of movement, migration within the EU cannot be curbed without effectively rewriting the UK’s relationship with the European Union.
The message is that immigration levels are subject to huge fluctuation, and policy-makers are simply limited in what they can do to control them.
3) Immigration will continue to be a necessary part of the UK’s future
The MigrationWatch petition paints a bleak picture of recent immigration, as compromising “our quality of life” and putting pressure “on our public services”. But immigration to the UK over past decades has played a significant role in stimulating economic growth, generating tax revenue and powering the development of our public services.
Evidence indicates that the fiscal impact of immigration has been positive, with East European immigration in particular making a positive contribution to the public purse despite an overall budget deficit in the UK.
More than this, looking into the future there is no way around it: immigration will continue to be critical. Universities, businesses and public service providers have been vocally protesting against ongoing cuts to immigration levels, which they argue will have devastating economic impacts on them and, more widely, to economic recovery in the UK.
With immigration worth billions to the UK, policies which enable migrant workers, students, families, and others to come here must continue to play a key role into the future.
Ultimately, there is every reason why immigration policies should be carefully reviewed in terms of their impact on communities and migrants themselves in the UK. But the messages coming from MigrationWatch seem more likely to whip up fears about immigration and population levels than to really move towards an immigration policy fit for the future.
See also:
• How to create a Telegraph migration scare story – Matt Cavanagh, September 9th 2011
• Express and Mail fail the migration stats test – Sunder Katwala, August 26th 2011
• New Migration Watch report misses opportunity for balanced debate on migration – Ruth Grove-White, February 22nd 2011
• More misleading Mail migration claims – Sarah Mulley, October 29th 2010
• More misleading claims about migration – Sarah Mulley, June 3rd 2010
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
35 Responses to “Migrationwatch’s 70 million cap proposal is dangerous and unfeasible”
RabCM
Too late to stop uncontrolled mass immigration because of the numbers already here and the high breeding rate. I suggest a “window” of 6 months during which anyone who is uncertain that they have adaquate immigration status documents can apply to be investigated. Then, using troops fresh from Afghanistan (rested and retrained) sweeps through our towns and cities can establish the true number of illegals- who, with family- can be put straight on the plane home. No “human rights” delays and no further aid for uncooperative returnee States. For the remaining population- if at least one grandparent was not born here, the automatic continued right of residency is withdrawn. That does not mean immediate expulsion (subject to good behaviour) but would allow a humane and civilised 20 year repatriation plan to commence, without massive disruption. Anything is achievable in a democracy. No new houses needed, if we just stop voting like turkeys for Christmas
Northern Worker
Why do the left always defend allowing uninhibited immigrations? Don’t they realise it’s a guaranteed vote loser? It’s driving traditional Labour supporters into the arms of the BNP and EDL. Traditional Labour supporters are traditional. They see immigrants as stealing their jobs; they see them as the cause of the housing shortage; and they lap up stories about asylum seekers on benefits. Whether right or wrong, these are Labour voters.
ian cudahy
yes we are full to bursting ,schools with to many in the classroom ,waiting lists at our hospitals getting longer ,unemployment riseing,and no housing for people who have lived here for generations,it is time we stoped all eu spongers and assilam seekers reeping the benifits the british tax payer has worked so hard for.
thank you
ian cudahy
Dave Citizen
Yet another article presenting a totally skewed take on immigration and population growth.
Clearly there are pros and cons to immigration but if people insist on only discussing those aspects that fit with their own ideological position we are bound to make a right mess of things. Ultimately this will play into the hands of the powerful vested interests who couldn’t care less about conditions for the majority and will do what ever boosts the bits of the economy that benefit them – most likely this will mean attracting as much cheaper labour as they can squeeze in to areas well away from them and their kid’s private schools.
Sarah
I thought fabians already had this debate following the impact immigration had on New Labour last time out? At least we’ve moved on from ‘your racist’. The majority of the public, when asked via IPSO polling, are against high levels of inward migration. Brief pro-fabian MP’s to put forward your points, at the debate.