The BBC have seen the uncomfortable shadow of UKIP and its popular immigration policies upsetting the cosy apple cartel of elitist politicians and their media friends who want to keep the doors firmly propped open.
This article is a rather desperate attempt to claim that the Tory immigration targets are being met…and so ‘nothing to worry about here then‘ about immigration:
A shortcut to hitting net migration target?
The government could already have hit its target to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands” a year – if short-term migration was included.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show a lot more people leave the UK for between three and 12 months than move to it from other countries.
Yes that’s right…go abroad for an extended holiday or to work for 6 months and you have emigrated.
Desperate stuff from the BBC.
Presumably the people leaving the UK short-term are telling the truth, why would they lie? The same can not be said of those coming in because we have no mechanism for tracking them or checking that they leave.
The USA has better controls than we do but someone that I know of went there on a 90-day visa, complete with return air ticket, and just never left. I can’t believe that similar ‘temporary’ migration isn’t happening here. Maybe it would be more accurate to ADD the 3 – 12 month figure (or a proportion) to the current figures?
There is also the question of housing. A lot of the temporary ’emigrants’ will leave empty houses or bedrooms that won’t be occupied by temporary ‘immigrants’, so their will be an asymmetric demand for housing.
It is curious though that all of a sudden the BBC is ‘pro’ the Conservatives!
“The USA has better controls”
It seems to. Several years ago we visited relatives in the US. For some reason our departure was never recorded. On three subsequent visits we were pulled over and questioned about it.
On our first return we were able to satisfy them that we hadn’t overstayed because my passport, which was older, had stamps for other places we’d visited in the interim. Now, whenever we go there, we take old passports with us in case we’re pulled over again.
Not a perfect system because we were told that the system could not be updated, but at least it seems to do what it’s supposed to do.
The problem with the UK is that the will hasn’t been there in the first place. Probably part of the “nose rubbing” policy.
Net migration is irrelevant. It always has been. The figures I would like to see ,and you will never repeat never get these are the numbers of ethnic Englsih, Welsh and Scottish who leave and the numbers of non indigenous immigrants who replace them.
A process of population replacement and colonisation. It is one of the liberal lies. The lie that they have bought into our country. That we are not being replaced or colonised.
So net migration is meaningless. It always has been and all politicians collude in the deception.
This existential fear for our country is what is driving UKIP. Nobody wants to say it but listen and talk and you will hear it all the time.
The most dangerous of deceptions is the one you practice on yourself. This is what is happening in England and the future is bleak.
To get a liberal to face up to this is impossible. So what do you expect from the BBC? An outbreak of looking reality in the eye? Never in a thousand years. They are incapable of that and we will all suffer the consequences.
” Net Migration.”
If you have a shopping basket with 6 apples in it, take them out and replace them with 6 oranges, it’s still 6 items but it isn’t the same.
”To get a liberal to face up to this is impossible.”
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, by importing millions of Third World immigrants and displacing the indigenous inhabitants, liberals think they’re being helpful and charitable.
Not so sure. Some, maybe, but I think others know exactly what they’re doing.
If you have a brown paper bag chock full of apples, remove 6 apples and replace them by pushing in 7 oranges.
You have a large number of apples (and 7 oranges) rolling on the floor as the bag burst.
And what if the 6 apples you remove are freshly picked, tasty ones and the replacement 6 oranges are over-ripe, bordering on decomposing and riddled with grubs and worms such that you cannot eat the fruit?
Is this a reference to BiasedBBC?
Did you find Mohammed?
If you lose an architect, a civil engineer and a doctor and get 2 baristas, a cleaner and a “Big Issue” seller in return, some might say that’s a pretty poor bargain.
Oh come on, our cars are cleaner than they have ever been…..
Tell that to the educational establishment. We could do with more home-grown doctors and engineers, and fewer media studies and sociology graduates.
Meanwhile, strangly only on the BBC’s German service, top German newspaper editor announces he voted twice:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27587714
is this why UKIP didn’t do so well in London!
Say what you like,his logic is irrefutable!
the labour party liars and the socalists will never fess up and admit they got it wrong on mass immigration from 1997 to 2010.in fact the opposite is happening amongst the big wigs in the labour party tony blair etc with this constant diet of bull from them lot that immigration has enriched all are lifes and multi culturism and diversity has brought us wonders and happyness that we could not of dreamed of,i was taking to my mate scott tonight in the pub who lost his job as a bricklayer 2 weeks ago and i ask him this one question,has immigration and diversity improved your life in recent years,i wont repeat what he said but i am sure you can guess,the bottem line is this,if the labour party and ed milliband win the election next year it is back to business with more mas immigration and politacal correctness,that prospect should scare us all.
”if the labour party and Ed Milliband win the election next year.”
Britain is headed for oblivion.
Or civil war, eventually.
If there isn’t a correction now a civil war is inevitable. You might even see a military coup if they keep going after lower rank soldiers for “war crimes”.
I was chatting to an elderly retired diplomat not so long ago and his analysis was that we are heading for a bloody revolution.
Amongst ethnic Britons there is a constant bubbling of frustration. The semi police state that is modern Britain has successfully kept a lid on it. The UKIP move is hopefully the first step in the correction or else we are faced with the prospect of violence.
Which is exactly why UKIP is so important and must be listened to. I hope the Newark election is a UKIP victory. It will reinforce our democracy although the liberals/tories don’t see it that way. But then they never look into the future. The worst of leaders for difficult times.
If you marginalise the traditional conservative people of England then you ask for trouble down the road. It has always been so.
To take a line form a song you may know
‘Men will come from the shadows’
An ancient people are not going to go away for the fulfilment of a liberal fantasy.
The main ONS stat that I recently took notice of is that in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 the net pop increase was 4 million. This is based on the census. As there is an average of 200,000 emigrants each year, that means the total of all immigrants is about 6 million. Another number you will NEVER hear the bBC utter. 6 Million immigrants.
If immigration ceased today the ethnic British inhabitants will still become a minority in 50 years time due to the birth rates. Ethnic minorities have 5 or 6 children each and they in turn will have 5 or 6 kids and so on and so on, they pop out babies like biscuits in a biscuit factory.
No financial help passed the first two. That will have a very sobering effect on their nuptials.
UK average child per indigenous couple 1.6
Muslim average child per couple 4.4
In just two generations, on average that will become 4.1 indigenous births v 85 Muslim births, from one family.
Shocking….
Stressing that ethnicity is not a factor I have sought to go near (short route to a knock on the door), with our county’s ongoing travails with budgeting, I have started tasking councillors on actual budget and forecast numbers in detail, and they are suddenly coming all over like the BBC with a FoI on ‘purposes of journalism’.
My original concerns were around planning as they seem to feel concreting over the entire arable surrounds with ‘affordable housing’ is a hell of a wheeze and won’t impact everything from schools to flooding.
This was all ‘sold’ on the basis that it would bring investment to the area, and also see contributions to the coffers.
But when some start tasking how, with poor job prospects, dumping a bunch of benefit-drains on the area is going to do anything except make things spiral until the golden geese leave or are drained dry, seems to be beyond their computational abilities.
It’s almost like the pols in the cities are seeing the nightmare scenarios they have created there, and rather than plug the problem are simply seeking to export the whole thing further afield.
As services get slashed, seeing what’s left dedicated to areas that may not favour the actual workforce operating family lives to suit local conditions as ‘newer’ factors get priority, may see frictions arise.
A pretty good analysis, I’d say. Unless something is done soon we’re all buggered. Did anybody hear about the new “garden cities” on the radio? Now I wonder why we need all those?
Do those bright sparks inside the M25 have any idea where food comes from?
I forgot to mention that the large majority of the immigrants were NOT EU. How did they get visa and permission to stay permanently? Again another question and statistic that the bBC will never highlight.
Hooray, another chance for pompous self-loathing liberals to blindly and ignorantly spam the word ‘racist’ until it’s completely meaningless in a story that offers nothing whatsoever to do with race. Predictable as death and taxes – oh wait, apparently you can get around the latter these days as well.
Oh dear ! How well the technical weasel words work !
I wouldn’t say there was a poster here yet who correctly understands that there is an ocean of difference between migration and immigration. Every single poster appears to have conflated the two words into the worst possible – immigration.
Migration is a movement of people from one country to another, they do not change their nationality, and might be removed if they commit serious crimes.
Immigration is a movement of people from one country to another – normally permanently where they surrender nationality of the original country and gain nationality of the other.
The two are very different things !
If you want to know why the Conservatives allowed in 550000 people last year, go take a look at my post on the ‘start the week thread’ ‘a short economics lesson’.
When it all does go wrong, neither Cameron or BLiar will around to sort it all out, and will have made enough money to leave the UK for another country whose politicians haven’t fucked it up beyond all recognition.
Well the BBC doesn’t know the difference either!
This story is headlined “May says immigration target ‘getting more difficult'” yet the lead paragraph says “Theresa May says she still has the target of cutting net migration to the UK to below 100,000, but admitted it had become “more difficult”.
The civil service runs rings around the politicians, including the ones who think they are smart, like ‘St.’ Margaret Hodge of the Church of BBC, because they create their own definition of words and phrases with common sense meanings. The politicians, and the BBC, fall into the trap every time.
The electorate are let down by poor reporting and pathetically poor scrutiny by MPs.
‘Affordable Homes’ and ‘Value for Money’ are two other terms that don’t mean what MPs, the BBC or the public think they do either.
The BBC doesn’t know the difference or is cleverly mixing the words deliberately ?
If anyone wants a demo of how we are being out populated and out bred take a look at this from the 1960’s (just 45-50 years ago).
Also note the section on Camden which is today only 44% White British. When watching things of this era its almost impossible to believe that we inhabit the same country today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0229pbj/britain-on-film-series-2-2-kids-today
L.P. Hartley quote
”The past is another country, they do things differently there.”
Indeed , but for the vast majority of people that foreign country was a kinder,happier,safer more secure and cohesive place.
It is also worth remembering that those that warned of irreversible demographic change as a result of immigration, were howled down as hysterical bigots by the nascent liberal inquisition.
Those same patrician class elites have stopped telling us ‘it will never happen’ or even asking ‘why does it matter’
Now we are racists if we do not accept our extinction with joy, if do not march cheerfully to oblivion as willing sacrifices to their pseudo-religion of original guilt.
we may not even mourn the annihilation of our past/future but must applaud those that replace us ,even as they dance on the graves of our unborn dead.
It is no longer even like it or lump it now it like it or else .
Stewart if Ashdown, Harman, Blair, Toynbee, Milliband, Brown et al were here they would chastise you for just not understanding what good it will do you. Don’t you want to live in “a lively and diverse community” with fighting, racial violence and “peace walls”? You just don’t get it. Don’t worry they have made the decision whether you and the majority of England (and a lesser extent Britain) don’t want it and have never been asked.
Which is why London is becoming so isolated from old England. When the indigenous population drops below a certain number then they all go if they can. Reality not fantasy. London has no future as an English city. It will be someplace else. Now that is unprecedented for a capital city to be denuded of the people who created it. Other than by war or conquest.
I would like to see a serious programme on the BBC dealing with this.
Not in a thousand years.
The liberal is in denial.
One of the areas depicted in that lovely old film was Camden in north London. It looked a splendid place to live. All the kids were white; they seemed cheerful, well mannered, wholesome. Have a dekko around this gruesome ghetto today and you will find a very different area. Infested by gangs, drugs and stabbings. Some people call it a diverse, buzzing, multicultural utopia. Of course most of these types don’t actually live there, they occasionally pop down from the shires for a bit of urban excitement.
This weekend we are commemorating D Day. Remembering the men who risked their lives to protect our homeland and way of life.
If I had a time machine I’d be sorely tempted to nip back and tell them not to bother…
This is the crux of England’s tragedy. Our fathers and uncles died for nothing. When I think of what my uncle went through I feel ashamed of what I have allowed to happen to my country. He was a kind and gentle countryman who fought in some battles so appalling even his brother, my father, could not get him to talk of them.
We dishonour these men every day of our lives.
“Migration” is the new politically-correct word for immigration. It used to be used more for animals (e.g. migratory birds) and for seasonal workers and implies a temporary relocation.
“Immigration” implies a permanent relocation. What is more, the word most linked with “immigration” is “illegal”: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/3-strategy-analysis-which-words-appear-immigrants
Thus, use of the word “migrant” is encouraged by the MSM to disguise the permanent nature if the changes facing “liberal”countries like the UK and to avoid the negative connotations of the word “immigrant”.
Give it a decade (if that), and we’ll be using another word.
They’ll call it “Global Worker.” or some such bullsh@t. But I guess they won’t say anything at all and then it isn’t an issue.
Remember Northern Ireland’s low-level civil war was euphemistically called “the Troubles”? Something that “our” present political classes, with their willing poodle the BBC, is enthusiastically bringing and stoking-up with multiculturalism to mainland Britain. In the years to come we will resemble the Balkans…and all that goes with it.
“Migration” is the new politically-correct word for immigration.
No it isn’t ! See above for the explanation of its actual meaning !
Actual meaning?
You are joking!
Who Counts As A migrant?
“Who is a ‘migrant’ is often unclear in public debate. For example, migrants are often conflated with ethnic or religious minorities and with asylum seekers (Saggar and Drean 2001; Crawley 2009; Beutin et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2008).
Media discourses commonly use such terms interchangeably, particularly in tabloid newspaper discussions of asylum (Baker et al. 2008). Meanwhile the UK government’s official estimates of migration (ONS’ Long-Term International Migration estimates) include asylum seekers in counts of migrants entering the UK, while attempting to adjust the total numbers to exclude those who stay in the UK for less than a year and thus do not qualify as migrants defined by length of stay.” etc.
” When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Yes they are often conflated, but that doesn’t mean that they are the same !
Unlike ‘racism’ which is a meaningless word, there is a difference between a migrant and an immigrant.
As quoted before the difference is that one gains citizenship and the other does not. So those from EU countries are Migrants, those from outwith are immigrants, assuming they gain citizenship.
Those with a visa to work here are also migrants.
The fact that mischief makers deliberately conflate the two does not change the meaning of the two words, which is different.
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
An immigrant is someone who comes to Britain to settle. Thus, many so-called “migrants” are actually immigrants – if they intend to remain here.
Nationality doesn’t come into it – I could emigrate to Spain and retain my UK citizenship. Many from the subcontinent and elsewhere who come to the UK to settle already have British citizenship – such people are nevertheless viewed as immigrants.
I believe that the terms are nowadays used almost interchangeably because: (1) the word immigrant has negative associations as per the study cited above and also because (2) the word “migrant” implies something temporary and therefore “nothing to worry about”.
This is really bugging me – ‘Net Migration’ is the dodgy get-out clause. Who immigrates to the UK? The most useless, under-qualified, laziest dole-seekers. Who emmigrates from the UK? The top performers, who spent years at school, some of the best universities in the world, then headhunted to run a programme or deliver a professional service somewhere else in the world, getting top dollar and paying top tax in some other country. Or British pensioners, on a good pension, with a nest egg or a good amount of income, going to live in a sunny clime.
Both figures are way up, so the taxpayer is losing out both ways, training up some of our best people, then losing them to other countries where they will never pay tax in the UK to support those coming up through uni, at the same time we are getting another 250k people per annum plus the rest, draining our economy of everything from the dole, houses, education, medical attention etc. but also living in houses on our floodplains, drinking our scarce water, using our expensive and scarce power, transport links etc. and never contributing.
Now, because rich people are fleeing over-taxed Britain at almost the same rate as destitute are arriving, we say there is ‘net migration of only xxx’ and it all seems ok.
Migration Watch holds pretty good data on UK statistics – this rarely get reported as being of any great concern (to the BBC luvvies) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/
But then I always do suspect (any) government statistics seem to put their own policy spin on ‘target’ – (before later falling off a cliff statistically). Peter Hitchins suspects that UK crime reporting (like Migration) is also ‘massaged’ by the way crime is reported (i.e. when is a crime not a crime, or when is a ‘migrant’ a ‘migrant’ if he simply ‘disappears’ from the crime stats (if the BBC can do it, why not all)!
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/peter_hitchens_politicians_interfere_crime_statistics-27284