The truth about Britain’s migrant numbers
The Office for National Statistics has not yet updated its 2017 population statistics, but its last report of July 2017 states that in 2016 the population of the UK was 65.6 million, its largest ever.
The ONS has also stated that “the UK population is projected to continue growing, reaching over 74 million by 2039.”
The latest net migration statistics show that in the year ending September 2017, net migration to the UK was 244,000.
In a 2016 report the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reported that, in the six months to September 2015, 6,400 migrants had been found entering the UK as stowaways, more than double the previous year.
SafeSubcribe/Instant Unsubscribe - One Email, Every Sunday Morning - So You Miss Nothing - That's It
In 1998 the then Labour government ended the system of exit checks on non-EU migrants which meant that for nearly 20 years, until their reinstatement in April 2015, it has been impossible to determine who is still in the country.
In 2010 Migration Watch UK estimated the illegal immigrant population at 1.1million (see here). In 2017 a former Head of Immigration Enforcement, David Wood, and a former speechwriter to the then Home Secretary (Theresa May) Alisdair Palmer, claimed that the Home Office was of the opinion that each year as many as 150,000-250,000 foreign nationals fail to return home when they should or enter illegally, thus adding still further to the illegal migrant population. (To read Wood and Palmer’s full report click here) (This is not the annual increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the country as some may later decide to go home or go on to regularise their stay).
All of these numbers provided by government agencies and even Migration Watch UK could easily be way off the mark.
In October 2007 The Independent published a fascinating story that no other newspaper thought worthy of further investigation that completely debunks the national population numbers, that if rising too fast would only lead to the embarrassing conclusion that government had not just lost complete control of its borders but had been totally overwhelmed.
The upshot is this. In 2007/8 the British public was told by government officials that the population of the UK was about 61 million. That figure is not supported by the corporations who were feeding the nation who quite clearly stated the population was then somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
With huge ramifications for the civil and political life of the country, this story was either censored or at best, massively suppressed.
The journalist in this report was Martin Baker who wrote: “My sources (for the above statement) are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It’s like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers – the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That’s easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption – that’s the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat one lunch and one dinner.“
The supermarket in question was privately lobbying the Competition Commission to let it grow its market share. The argument, reasonably enough, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realised, so expanding the network was fair.
Baker went on to say that he had a second highly respectable source to support his theory. A major, non-commercial agricultural institution reckoned at the time that there were 77 million people in the UK. Again, its reckoning was based on what was being eaten.
Baker continues to state why these numbers were censored from the British press: “In political terms, standing behind these figures would be to toss a hand grenade into a vat of gasoline. People would be hounded out of a (journalistic) job for scaremongering.”
What is interesting is what Baker says next. “If the true numbers were revealed, the Little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of immigration. But that’s what made America great in the 19th century, and it’s a driving force of our economy right now. It’s also anti-inflationary.
And when I say “anti-inflationary”, I mean they are getting rotten wages. Dignified by the term “cheap labour”, the hidden hordes will do well for the services sector, among others. People are assets – to maintain and to be maintained – so we are wealthier as a nation.”
Every town and city up and down the country feels like it has an extraordinary number of migrants from restaurant workers and cashiers to car washes and cleaners. For all of the positive effects of migration such as increased economic activity and consumption led demand, there is a considerable downside.
The housing crisis is bad for people but good for the construction industry. The NHS crisis is bad for the people but good for privatisation and the corporations who profit from it. Britain’s transport system is choked and its education system failing – all as a result of a population the politicians won’t admit to with a budget it simply cannot support.
The other interesting point to remember here is this. Brexit was largely about migration and the strain on the infrastructure as a result of it. If, as the government has promised that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – large numbers of migrant workers will be forced to leave the UK, but even if that is not delivered, large numbers will be stopped from arriving. The result will clearly be reduced consumption – also known as – a recession. So it is not in the governments’ interest to throw out large numbers of migrants or stop them coming, be they illegal or otherwise.
The public is lied to about inflation and unemployment and all sorts of other measures of the nation’s wealth and prosperity – why did you think they would be telling the truth about their abilities to control its own borders either now or in the future?