The Saturday list #490 - Ten myths about illegal immigrants

I normally do nice, happy lists, celebrating silliness, but given the cobblers coming out of certain dodgy politicians mouths of late, I  felt it necessary to correct a few myths.

1. The UK is full and there is no space for asylum seekers crossing in boats. Last year, the UK had 108,000 asylum applications. That is undeniably a lot of people, but did you know that, according to the office for National statistics, 517,000 people left the UK. Now there were over 1.2 million immigrants, but less than 10% were asylum seekers, the rest were coming here perfectly legally. 

2. There is no space for all of the illegal immigrants. If you ever travel around the UK, the vast majority of the country is uninhabited. The problems with housing etc are largely because our cities have not grown to cater for the recent population growth. There are plenty of areas in the UK where population is declining. Of course, these are generally not places that immigrants want to live and they are shrinking because there is little work or prospects for the local population. Google AI says "Several areas in the UK are experiencing population decline. Coastal towns, particularly smaller ones, have seen slower population growth or even decline compared to inland areas. Certain local authorities in Scotland, including Inverclyde and North Ayrshire, have also seen decreases. Additionally, some towns in the North East of England and Wales have experienced a decline in younger age groups while older populations have increased. Finally, some cities in the Greater South East, like Oxford, Luton, Aldershot, and Ipswich, have also seen their populations fall. "

3. Illegal immigrants are taking social housing away from local people, who need decent housing. Of course, illegal immigrants, like everyone else, need to live somewhere and there is a fixed and stretched stock of housing. But housing policy in the UK has been failing since the days when Margaret Thatcher sold off the nations council housing stock, choosing not to replace it. Blaming people who have just turned up for decades of failure in housing policy is to allow those politicians, Tory and Labour, who have failed us, to escape blame for a situation they have caused.

4. Illegal immigrants are taking jobs that young people in the UK could do. I doubt any illegal immigrants are managing directors of FTSE or other major companies. Most do the absolute worst jobs, as cleaners, and in the building trade. UK residents generally won't do such work. It amuses me how often people who are rabidly anti immigrant are perfectly happy to employ cheap, dodgy tradesmen, paying cash for services, to get a "good deal". There is a reason that illegal immigrants do such jobs. It is because the UK population is addicted to wanting a bargain. 

5. Asylum seekers are sponging on benefits. I have a major problem with the UK government policy on Asylum seekers. They are actually forbidden from working by law until their situation is resolved. This means that the taxpayer picks up the bill, often for people perfectly capable of doing jobs. Personally I think that anyone going through the system should have to pay their own way, unless they physically can't.

6. Illegal immigrants are an army invading the UK, bent on changing our culture. Anyone who has ever been to Spanish coastal resorts, will see how well the English integrate when we go abroad. Anywhere with a large English population, will have English cafe's, English Pubs, etc. Interestingly they are usually packed in a way such ventures in London can only dream of. A mate recently posted on facebook that he liked going to Spain because you can get a decent full English at a recent price. That is how we behave abroad. Yet some people get the right hump when people from other countries want to keep elements of their own culture, for their communities here. No one is denying that we have problems with some of the people who've come here. My view is that the UK authorities should not be tolerant of anyone who arrives and breaks our laws. So long as new arrivals respect the law, contribute to our country and work to make the UK a better place, they should be welcomed. The 'army' arriving in boats, are simply people who did what Norman Tebbitt urged the English unemployed to do "GEt on your bike and look for a job". I don't understand how the right wing can celebrate Tebbit then get the hump with people who do just that.

7. Why don't immigrants go to other European countries instead of the UK? This is what Google has to say about the number of immigrants in various EU countries and the UK.

In absolute terms, the largest numbers of foreign-born individuals living in EU countries on 1 January 2024 were found in Germany (16.9 million), France (9.3 million), Spain (8.8 million) and Italy (6.7 million).

In the year ending June 2022, there were an estimated 10,388,000 people in England and Wales who were not born in the UK, accounting for approximately 14.8% of the total UK population. This includes both UK citizens and foreign nationals who were living in the UK at that time.

As you can see, Germany has a larger number, France and Italy have a similar number (bearing in mind populations, apologies for only being able to get UK stats for 2022). Whether you like it or not, EU Nations also have large immigrant populations. 

8. Why do we have to take so many immigrants with no link to the UK? Sadly, this argument is a fallacy. A century ago, around a quarter of the population of the Earth lived under UK rule. India, large parts of Africa, other parts of Asia, all were run by Great Britain. In the 1950's, the then Conservative shadow employment spokesman minister, Enoch Powell, who is best known for his incendiary racist speech that got him the sack in 1968 from Ted Heath's Shadow Cabinet, invited Commonwealth citizens (now known as The Windrush Generation) to do the jobs British workers felt were beneath them. The vast majority of immigrants come from places that the British used to run. Of the other places, we have been involved in wars in those areas and often our involvement helped trigger huge population movements of refugees.

9. The Reform and the Tories are more anti immigrant than Labour. Of course we all know what a certain Mr Nigel Farage has to say about immigration. But as he's never been anywhere near power, we have no idea what he would actually do in power. What we do know, is that there are many people in Reform who have defected from the Tories. Historically, the Tories are the party of business and business in the UK is addicted to cheap labour from migrants. The Labour party is funded by the Trades Unions, who are very anti immigrant. Unions exist to improve the wages and conditions of members. Immigrants undermine these goals. The Tories talk tough on immigration, but this is all for show. I believe the same will be true of Farage, given that his party is funded by wealthy business people.

10. In 100 years time, everyone in the UK will have brown skin and we'll all go to the Mosque instead of Christian Churches. Sadly, the reason people are not going to church is nothing to do with immigration. It is because they what is on offer doesn't appeal to them. The graph below gives some clue as to how we are changing.

The biggest source of immigrants is India, who are largely Hindu and most certainly won't be going to the Mosque. We also have large influxes of people from China and Ukraine. Of course many immigrants from Pakistan are Muslims, but they are not a particularly large part of the overall total. As for the Nigerian immigrants. If, like me, you actually go to Church, you'll know that half the congregation are Nigerian. In fact the church is more packed than ever, with Ukranians and Nigerians!

By all means, and I'd agree, that both Tories and Labour have made a dogs breakfast of immigration, and they are equally useless, slag off the government. By all means, and I'd agree, say that their policies are damaging the UK and causing division. But please, do me a favour and base your arguments on reality and the facts, not the myths perpetrated by the likes of shady snake oil salesmen such as Nigel Farage. 

I apologise for not putting up a fun list. It's just that I cannot stand liars. 

Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper lose the plot on immigration

 I daresay that I'll upset a few friends with what I have to say here, but I simply don't believe that we can avoid telling the truth. As the only real policies Reform seem to have are related to immigration and they are ahead of the other parties by ten percent in some polls, burying heads in the sand is no longer an option. I had always thought that whatever Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper were or weren't, stupid was not one of them. Hearing Yvette Cooper talking about immigration yesterday. I have had to change my views. Why?

Well lets start by looking at why immigration is an issue for so many people. I talk to a lot of people from all walks of life and there are four reasons which I hear repeated time and time again. These are

1. Illegal immigrants are coming during a housing crisis, taking up all of the social housing and claiming benefits, adding to the tax burden of hard working British people. This means that we have less money in our pockets and our young people are priced out of the housing market.

2. Immigrants are involved in crime and anti social behaviour, not respecting British Culture.

3. Immigrants are changing the face of our towns and cities, Churches, Pubs, etc are disappearing and our High Streets are being overrun with Businesses which are fronts for money laundering. 

4. The Police, Courts NHS, Councils and other Government agencies give Immigrants, their culture and their cultural needs preferential treatment, at the expense of indideonous British people.

Regardless of whether you think these statements are true, the reason that a significant number of people in the UK are now committed to voting Reform is because they believe them to be true and also only trust Nigel Farage to deal with their concerns. Sir Keir Starmer has four years to change their minds and prove that he can address their fears. There are two ways he can realistically do this. The first is to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, in a way that the general public will believe, that he is addressing these issues. The second, is to implement policies that address the root causes of the discontent that the likes of Farage are counting on to persaude people to vote Reform.

I was fascinated when I saw Yvette Cooper on the news explaing how she was addressing these fears. Her big idea? To stop care workers from moving to the UK to work in care homes. To me, this is bonkers. The one thing, not even the most ardent Reform supporter has ever suggested we need to do, is stop genuine, hard working immigrants from working in care homes. The concept that there are lots of British people queueing up to work in care homes and are being forced out by immigrants is ridiculous. Of course, some at the fringes of the far right, would deport all immigrants, but that is a really minority view and not why Reform are polling at over 30% in some polls. This policy would be awful for all manner of vulnerble people. It does nothing to address any of reasons listed above.

So what should Starmer be doing? Well, if I was in his shoes, this is what I'd do to address the four issues.

1. The first thing I would do is to make any money given to France dependent on stopping illegal crossings. I'd double the money we pay France to police the channel, but I'd dock a sum for every crossing. We pay France around half a billion pounds a year to stop channel crossings. In 2023, approximately 29,000 people crossed the English Channel in small boats from France to the UK. This number was down from 46,000 in 2022.  So if we docked £10,000 f'or every migrant crossing from France, they'd lose the half a billion extra if they let levels rise to 2023 levels again. I believe that the problem would stop and we'd save far more money as we'd not have the bills of housing and feeding migrants. I also believe that the UK government needs to do something to make housing affordable for younger people. That would remove a big cause of resentment.

2. Successive governments have chipped away at Police numbers and made it almost impossible for the Police to do their job. Having an effective Police force costs money. Starmer and Cooper need to properly fund the police. When the Police have the tools to do the job, crime drops and these sort of grumbles dissipate. 

3. Yes, our high streets are changing. This has always been the case. If you think of the poem, Rub-a-dub-dub, it refers to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Most of us just have a Tesco's Express instead now. Pubs don't close because "someone wants to put a Mosque there". They close because people stop going to the pub. I'd like to see things like pubs given support and protection from greedy developers, but ultimately if people don't want to use businesses on the High St, then the High Street changes. As for the charges of money laundering, see the answer to 2.

4.  I think that there is a perception that the Police and Courts do not enforce the law properly for fear of creating a backlash. The grooming scandal is an example. It seems to me to be a complete no brainer for Yvette Cooper to instruct all police forces and the CPS to enforce the law without prefudice and with equality for all. I have no idea why Cooper hasn't already said publicly "We have reviewed what has been going on and in future, if people comit crime, they will feel the full force of the law, regardless of creed or colour'.

My views on this are not new, I've mentioned all of the above previously in blogs, if not all in one blog previously. I accept that fixing migration is far more complex than can be summed up in one short blog by someone who knows little about the subject. But I can also spot dodgy policies that won't work a mile off. Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have clearly panicked after the appalling results in the local elections. They have rushed through a series of completely idiotic suggestions that will do nothing to address the real issues that concern people and everything to damage the social services sector. In short, they've lost the plot

How Tory mismanagement of Brexit opened up our borders to criminals

Do you know how much extra money the UK is spending checking perfectly lawful people crossing our borders, following Brexit? According to Reuters, the figure is £4.7 Billion pounds. This is not money spent preventing human trafficking gangs, or stopping drug smugglers. This is money that is required to check perfectly legal citizens crossing the border with EU conutries and making sure that when prawn sandwiches and baguettes are imported from France, the paperwork is correct. One of the mantra's of Brexit was that it would let us "take back control of our borders". What has happened is the complete opposite. We are spending £4.7 billion pounds checking what is by and large perfectly legal activities, adding huge costs and wasting everyones time, whilst starving our border forces of the money required to stop criminals using non legal routes. In short, it is a huge waste of money. It is beyond dispute that the Tory government have lost control of the borders. What no one seems to be saying is that a vast sum is being spent checking and inconveniencing perfectly law abiding citizens, diverting money from where it should be spent, stopping criminals.

It doesn't matter whether you support Remain or Brexit, the truth is that the government has made a monumental cock up in the negotiations with Europe. We have the worst of all worlds, huge inconvenience for travellers, huge costs for businesses and an ipen border for criminals. Rishi Sunak has been Prime Minister overseeing this mess. Perhaps the only thing he has done right is give us the opportunity to sling him out on the 4th July. 

The truth Rishi Sunak, James Cleverly and Suella Braverman will not tell you about immigration

The Tory Party has been ripping itself to shreds over its Rwanda policy and the issue of small boats. The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the Home Secretary James Cleverly and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman seem committed to trying to make this dogs breakfast of a policy 'work' (whatever that may mean). There is this notion that once the first plane takes off for Rwanda, all illegal immigration will instantly cease. Cleverly also this week announced a new policy to make it harder for the people we need to keep the economy running, to enter the UK. He's upped the salary threshold for legal economic migrants from £26,000 to £38,000 as he seems to believe that the only part of the economy that needs skilled workers. He's also making it harder for immigrant workers in the NHS to bring families and dependents, depsite acute staff shortages in the NHS.

It caused me to wonder how we managed to end up with a government that understands so little about how the economy works and what drives migration. The truth of the matter, that none of these characters want to mention, is the fact that illegal immigration happens because there is an economic necessity for it, both for the migrants and the people who employ them on the black market. The government very foolishly, in my opinion, made it illegal for immigrants who have not entered with the correct papework to work legally. Just about everyone crossing on small boats are able bodied men, who are coming here as they think they can earn some cash and have a better quality of life. The vast majority of them did not stick a pin in a map and come to the UK on the off chance that things may be better. They know people here and they know they have a prospect of employment. As the government has cut off the legal employment route, they work illegally. This means that not only are they in receipt of benefits, but they are also not paying taxes. For dodgy employers, it means that they can make significant savings. Many work on small scale construction projects, where home owners are quite happy to pay cash for a cheaper job, with no questions asked. Walk past any household being renovated in our part of London and tell me how many of the workers are English born? When I was growing up, the building game was largely run by Irish immigrants in London. As they assimilated and became more affluent and their kids went to University, the trade has been staffed by workers from further afield. It is funny how many right wing Tories, who despise "small boats", that seem only to happy to have their house done up by people who only take cash (no questions asked) and employ cleaners that have a pile of tenners left on the table for them at the end of the shift. 

Other areas of the economy that see a lot of non legal workers are drivers for delivery firms, where one person is paid but several people are doing the work. The legal member of the team then doles out cash and takes a cut. There are those that are in detention centres, awaiting judgement/deportation, but many that are deported, will simply just have another go when they are back in France. They know sooner or later, they'll get through.

It strikes me as perverse that the government does not seek to make people who are perfectly able to work and support themselves do just that and pay taxes on it. It strikes me that a far more sensible way to go would be to give people legal work whilst their case is being determined, and make them pay their way. What Sunak, Cleverly and Braverman will not say is that after 13 years of Conservative governments, is that the UK is unable to function without a high level of immigration. After Enoch Powell's infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech, the cry from those on the far right was "Send 'em home". If we did that now, the country would simply fall to bits. If you had a plan to send people living here legally back to a home that in many places has been wiped off the face of the earth, there would be no doctors, nurses, cleaners, or indeed anyone to do the dirty and low payed jobs that we've convinced ourselves are beneath the indigenous population. I was in hospital in August and it was clear to me that the place only functioned due to the efforts of a multi national and multi ethic work force. 

Whilst the UK economy is 100% dependent on immigrants to function, the concept that we can accept only those who conform to some arbitary set of criteria, that seems to change from month to month, is ridiculous. It is not the idea of arriving in the UK that attracts illegal immigrants. It is the fact that they have family, friends and contacts here and they have a very good chance of a significantly better quality of life. The reason that we hear many illegal immigrants "simply disappear" is because they have family, friends and jobs waiting for them and they can quite easily disengage from the official process.

A number of years ago, I was given a lift by an Iranian cab driver. We got chatting and he told me that he'd had to leave Iran at very short notice as he'd been a senior official and had fallen foul of President Rafsnajani. He'd arrived in the UK and claimed political asylum. The rules meant that a very well eductated and highly qualified man had ended up working as a cab driver. I was intrigued that, with the UK having significant economic interests in the region, he hadn't been given an advisory job, given his knowledge and contacts. He told me that the way the system works, he gets the same uninterested treatment from officials as people arriving in the UK with no skills at all. Even though his case appeared fairly cut and dried, as he would stand a very strong chance of being murdered if her returned, the whole thing still dragged on for years. 

Although his case was no means typical, it made me realise that the whole system is a painfully slow bureacracy. Cases that are clear and cut and dried go on for months and years. Clearly a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money out of all of this. I sincerely believe that the legal industry do not let such lucrative cash cows go quietly. 

Immigration will remain high, regardless of planes going to Rwanda, salary cap raises or anything else, until such time as the economy no longer has a desperate need for labour, both skilled and unskilled in the UK. I happen to believe that the vested interests that support the Tory party are far more pro immigration than Labour's Trades Union backers, who traditionally see that cheap labour damages their members terms and conditions. One of the reasons Margaret Thatcher was so pro signing the Single European Act, when she was PM was because she knew it would give the UK access to cheap immigrant labour. When the UK voted for Brexit, I stated that immigration would go up, not down and people would simply come from further afield. This has proven to be 100% correct. I thought more people would come, because they would be even cheaper to employ. That is a very simple trend to understand. 

What Sunak, Cleverly and Braverman will not say publicly, is that until such time as the UK has a proper plan for ensuring we are developing the right skills for the economy in the UK, we will have high immigration. Even if we set up a plan to sort things out, it would take a generation to get the economy to a point where it didn't require immigration to function. But the sad truth is that any politician brave enough to say that will be committing political suicide, especially if they are a Tory, as none of their backers want it sorted out and none of the party faithful want to hear it. 

Should migrants wait two years for benefits?

What sort of a society are we turning into. There seems to be a bidding war at the moment as to who can kick immigrants the hardest. There is a lot of talk about how long immigrants should wait before they can claim benefits. There is a groundswell amongst Tory ranks to go well beyond the 3 months proposed by the coalition. It seems to me reasonable that economic migrants from other parts of the EU should come here to work and have a job lined up. The idea that people can move to wherever the benefits are most cushy is not a great idea. This begs the question of how long an immigrant should have to wait.

There is talk of a period of two years, but as far as I am concerned this is a ridiculously long period. Most people, after a period of a few months would take on commitments with properties. If there was no prospect of getting rent paid if tenants lost their job, Landlords would not be prepared to rent accomodation. Like it or not, this would be bad for the economy. I think that a period of three months is quite a reasonable period. People moving to a foreign country should make provision and have the finances to get settled in. Are we really saying that someone who has come in good faith, worked for a company for eighteen months and then finds the company has gone bankrupt, should lose all means to pay the rent. Most will find jobs quite quickly, but sometimes people get unwell or have accidents. Are these to be excluded? If a migrant has been a hard worker and gets mown down by an indigenous drunk driver, should they receive no benefits as they recuperate?

Another argument is that migrants haven't paid anything into the system, so why should they be able to take benefits out. Apart from the obvious fact that we are a civilised country and we don't simply let people fall into destitution, one has to say that most migrants who end up on benefits have not done so out of choice. Benefits should be a safety net. Contrary to much right wing press propoganda, life on benefits is not cushy. Most immigrants have a strong work ethic and have come to the UK to better themselves. You only need to look at your local high street to see how many small businesses are owned by people from other countries.

I am not saying that there are no cases of abuse, but I have yet to see anything which shows that immigrants are any more like to be workshy than the local population. You only have to see how many do menial, low paid jobs to know the opposite is true.

The simple truth, that most right wing politicians are either too dishonest to tell you or too stupid to realise is that without the labour of people who have moved to the UK, the economy would collapse. Next time you go to a hospital, travel on public transport or buy some fast food, try and visualise that running without the efforts of people who weren't born in the UK.

I am not saying that mass immigration is the answer to all the worlds problems, but I believe we should treat everyone with fairness and dignity. To throw people onto the streets because, through no fault of their own, they have become unemployed, with no safety net is simply wrong.

The Baby Jesus was an Asylum Seeker

Yet again the right wing tabloid press bombard us with stories of a forthcoming apocalypse of immigrants. The current flavour of the month for immigrant bashing are Romanians and Bulgarians, who will shortly have a legal right to come and live in the UK. They seem to have usurped Asylum Seekers as the target for bile in the right wing press. The Daily Mail has several immigration related stories on their website this morning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530928/Dont-lift-border-controls-grassroots-Tories-beg-Cameron-Activists-say-risk-social-unrest-PM-doesnt-tear-plans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531051/Senior-Roma-says-Britain-concerned-bankers-stealing-billions-surge-street-beggars-Eastern-Europe.html


The recurrent theme is that "immigrants are bad". We are encouraged to begrudge immigrants the right to free treatment in A&E departments in one of the Daily Mail stories. The Mail are telling me that if someone moves to the UK, perfectly legally, from Romania to work, perfectly legally, contributing to the UK economy and GDP, they should be denied healthcare if they get run over? The Mail gloats

Migrants who go to A&E will be billed between £20 and £100 for a consultation, on top of the cost of their treatment – with staff presenting chip-and-pin machines at their bedsides.

Whilst I am sure that many Mail readers will be bashing one out in an excited frenzy at such news, I find it appalling. For many years the bogeymen of the right were Asylum Seekers. I often wonder what spin the Daily Mail would have put on the biblical story of Joseph and Mary taking the baby Jesus to Egypt, to escape Herod's Slaughter of the innocents. Here is my stab at how the Cairo Daily Mail (circa 0AD) may have covered the story (we must of course recall that the Daily Mail has a bit of history for being anti semitic, supporting Hitler in the 1930's). Something like this?

--------
The Cairo Daily Mail has uncovered an incredible story of dodgy Asylum seekers from Israel. It wasn't so long ago that the Jews were only too keen to turn their back on Egyptian hospitality, under the radical cleric Moses. Now it seems the Land of Milk and Honey isn't so sweet. The Cairo Daily Mail was shocked to learn of the story of a Mr Joseph Davidson, a Jew from Bethlehem, who recently arrived in Cairo. Customs officials found a large amount of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh in his position. Mr Davidson claimed that "Three Kings had turned up from the East and given it to his son". On questioning, it transpired that the woman Mary, travelling with Mr Davidson wasn't actually his wife. When questioned Mr Davidson admitted that the baby wasn't even his child. He told customs officials that "an Angel of the Lord nipped round, whilst I was making a table for Avi Cohen". When questioned as to how he could believe such a cock and bull story , Mr Davidson said "I had a dream where an Angel told me it was OK". Customs officials are currently testing the large stash of Frankincense, to see if it actually something stronger.

When asked why he'd brought his 'family' to Cairo, Mr Davidson said that the angel of the Lord had told him to escape persecution by King Herod, whilst him and his girlfriend were squatting in a barn with the baby. When customs officials asked why King Herod would be bothered about a carpenter and his mistress, Mr Davidson replied that he was scared because the baby was the rightful king of the Jews. Mr Davidson explained that King Herod and his army were terrified that the baby would kick them out of their palace. Customs officials suggested that maybe Mr Davidson was more concerned with undercutting local tradesmen and taking advantage of the Egyptian medical and social security systems.

Ever since lax border controls were brought in under the left wing administration of Cleopatra, Egypt has been swamped with foreigners. There are no longer proper border controls, allowing the likes of Davidson to turn up and simply live here, taking jobs from skilled Cairo craftsmen. Doubtless this baby will put a further strain on the oversubscribed Cairo schools and Mary will soon be off looking for other "Angels" whilst Mr Davidson is round fixing the Pharoah's table leg. Whilst the story of "Dodgy Davidson" and his "modern family" will soon be forgotten, Egypt will be permanently ruined by these dodgy foreigners and asylum seekers if something isn't done.

-------

Nothing really changes, does it?

Boris the king of waffle and indecision !

Just how stupid can a man be? I just read this Press release from our beloved Mayor. Boris berates the goverment for their policies (or lack of them). What does he propose? He says :-

Firstly we need far tougher border controls to control the flow of people into our country. Secondly we need a frank debate about what to do with the half a million in the capital who are not able to join the economy legally.

So that's the answer is it? Lets have a "Frank" debate? He's clearly thought this one through.

Well Boris, I've got a suggestion for a policy. Are you ready for this? The migrants come to London because there is a huge pool of unscrupulous employers stoking the problem by exploiting the situation. I would offer every illegal immigrant in London the right to stay if they shop the people employing them illegally. I'd the fine these employers 5 year's salary at the minimum wage. That way the people stoking the problem (ie the rogue employers) would be punished, honest and decent businesses would have a level playing field and lots of unfortunate people who have been exploited would get a fair chance in life. When the labour market dries up, the problem will disappear, without having to resort to BNP friendly language or policies.

The scheme Boris proposes does nothing to address the cause and in my opinion will only encourage the likes of the BNP and their fellow travellers.

Immigration, Jobs and Barnet

It seems that the papers are doing the devils work and stoking up resentment against migrant workers. The Daily Express leads the way with it's front page lead 3.8 Million Jobs go to Migrant Workers. This is one of the most ill thought through pieces I've ever read. It panders to the worst elements of the right wing xenophobic rump of British politics, those BNP cheerleaders such as Migrationwatch ("We're not like the BNP we just don't like foreigners").

Let's just look at a few facts. There are 3.8 million migrant workers and 1.9 million jobless. That means that if all the migrants went home and every job could be filled by a Brit, we'd be 2 Million workers short. This would lead to economic collapse, far worse than the current recession. Most of the immigrants are doing low paid work, keeping hospitals and buses running. A significant number however have skills which can't be filled. Engineers, doctors, nurses, teachers. The report says that 2.6 Million of these immigrants are from outside the EU. Well Australia, The USA, New Zealand and Canada are outside of the EU.

Lets look at a few areas of Barnet, where I've personally come across migrant workers. I know for a fact that many of the teachers in Barnet are from New Zealand and Australia, without them my children would not be receiving an education. The Lady who used to deliver my mum's meal on wheel was of Indian origin. My physiotherapist is a Kiwi. My favourate restaurants in Mill Hill are all run by immigrants. I can't imagine a curry house approved by the BNP doing much business.

I don't know about you but I'd rather my mum had her dinner delivered by a nice lady from India than a Frank Gallagher type, forcibly compelled to do it, who'd probably throw the dinner in the bin & go to the pub (as I understand it the BNP want to compel the jobshy to do this type of work). I certainly wouldn't want my kids education to suffer, I don't want my physiotherapist to be slung out and I certainly don't want my curry to be cooked by a numpty from the BNP who's idea of spicing up a meal is salt and vinegar.