Is MigrationWatch UK a security service front organisation?

When the British media wishes to provide an “an opponent to immigration” they almost invariably turn to MigrationWatch UK. Its ubiquity in this role is suspicious in itself for why should one organisation so often be called upon to represent a position on an issue  which is seen as amongst the top two or three  issues facing Britain when virtually no other person or body opposed to mass immigration is given regular access to the mainstream media? To that suspicious circumstance can be added several  other distinctly odd features about MigrationWatch UK which taken together suggest that it may not be all that it seems but  an agency of the British state.

Consider these facts:

1.  Its  founder,  Sir  Andrew Green,  is  a  retired  career  diplomat,  just about the most improbable background one could  find in someone supposedly campaigning against immigration.

2. Migration Watch appeared very suddenly, fully formed, with   funds and a functioning administration.

3.  Despite having no public profile, Green had absolutely no  difficulty in gaining frequent access to the mainstream media   despite  the  fact  that  he was dealing  with  a  subject  –  immigration  concern – normally  guaranteed to  keep   anyone  out  of  the  media.   A  plausible  explanation  for   this  exceptional treatment is that media folk run by the  security  services  are facilitating his access to the public.

4.  Almost all of Migration Watch’s broadcast media interviews and most of its mainstream press articles  are  made or written by Green.  This allows firm control to  exercised  over  what is said.

5.  Migration  Watch have an official  policy of  only  using   written  work  produced by their “approved”  researchers  and  writers. Again, this gives control.

6. Comments  on their website  which MigrationWatch UK claim are from “ordinary people” are anonymous. They could be written by anyone.  Control again. (http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/WhatYouSay)

7. There is no opportunity of the MigrationWatch UK website for members of the public to post comments either directly or moderated with their names intact.  Control yet again.

8. MigrationWatch UK frames its opposition to immigration on economic grounds. This  is clearly displayed on their website: 

“An Introduction to MigrationWatch UK

While we appreciate the valuable contribution that many earlier immigrants have made, we believe that the numbers have now become too great. In 2007, net foreign immigration was 333,000; this fell to 250,000 in 2008, mainly because more east Europeans went home. According to the projections of the Office for National Statistics, the population of the UK will increase by 10 million in the next 24 years, mainly in England. Nearly 70% of this increase will be due to immigration.

We believe that this will place an unacceptable strain on our public services, infrastructure and environment. Our concern is widely shared by the public, 81% want to see a substantial reduction in immigration.” (http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/introduction

No mention is made of the dangers to the  dilution of our  culture  and sense of national solidarity or the immense damage  that has already be done to British traditions of liberty through the imposition of laws which penalise anyone who expresses their discontent with mass immigration  and the creation and imposition by our elite of a  culture of political correctness whereby any white Briton is frightened of saying anything which could be construed as “racist”.  Note also the routine liberal mantra of “the valuable contribution that many earlier migrants have made.”

9.  Look  beyond  the  rhetoric at  the  actual  policies  of   Migration Watch.  They  are not that far removed from  either   the  Labour or Coalition  immigration policies*.  Apart from  a  few       murmurs about the new EU entrant states,  Migration Watch has   ignored  migration  within  the EU.  It  also  sanctions  the   replacement  of  the native population by immigrants  of  any   type provided  inward and outward immigration is balanced. It  is also vague on exactly how many should come through  asylum   and  would  allow those deemed absolutely necessary  for  the   economy.  All of these policies are merely variations on  the   theme  of “controlled immigration” that is plied  assiduously  by the Labour and Tory parties. Again, let me refer to the MigrationWatch UK website:

“Why hasn’t Balanced Migration been proposed before?

For a generation people have avoided tackling the subject for fear of being thought to be racist. Now we are having a proper debate, we can address the issues sensibly. The Government are now putting in place a whole range of measures to try to get our borders back under control. The Prime Minister has declared the government’s intention to get net immigration down to “tens of thousands”. They are well aware that public opinion is extremely strong.

“Is “Balanced Migration” really feasible?

“Certainly – over a period of time. It would also provide a focus for policy formation as the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has suggested.” (http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/faq)

That completely sells the pass because  MigrationWatch UK is effectively echoing the Coalition line which is also in broad agreement with that of Labour.   They are also promoting the idea that “balanced migration” – which only means as many coming in as leave the UK , regardless of their origins –  is feasible when quite clearly it is not while we remain within the EU.

Why  would  the security services want to  set  up  Migration  Watch?  Simple, to  control and manipulate  the expression of  dissent.  This is a routine security service tactic. It allows those with power within politics and the media to maintain a façade of  “all views are being publicly heard” whilst controlling what is said.  The hope of this ploy is that the general public – the vast majority of whom  detest mass migration –  will be gulled into believing that someone is speaking for them.

Is MigrationWatch UK  a security service front?  Decide for yourself.

*The chairman of MigrationWatch, Sir Andrew Green,   was on  Victoria  Victoria Derbyshire’s  R5 morning programme (14 Feb 2005).

I managed to get on towards the end  of Green’s stint and asked him  why  MigrationWatch  ignored the EU dimension entirely when our membership of the EU rendered any control of our borders null and void. Green had already said that MigrationWatch  was in favour of a nil net immigration each year, that is,   the same number leaving as coming in. He also gave as the current net inflow 100,000  per year, with 100,000 leaving and 200,000 coming. .

In response to my question, he  at first  quite incredibly claimed that the numbers coming from the EU  before the  recent EU enlargement were balanced, that is, as many leaving as  coming. I say quite incredibly because MigrationWatch  has itself tried in the past to get   solid figures for the EU movements and has been unable to do so  for the simple reason that no record is kept because movement within the EU is free.  I challenged him on this and he refused to answer but kept on with what was obviously his prepared script.

Eventually by butting in vigorously  – I had to do it because the interview was nearing its end – I got him to say that since enlargement  10,000 net per month were coming  from the new EU states, or 120,000 pa.   Green eventually said that if more came from within the EU then those coming from outside would have to be reduced. I tried to point  out that if we were to have balanced migration only 100,000  could come in to match  that number who were leaving and that this would mean not only that the  new EU inflow of  120,000, pa being reduced to 100,000 but that there could be no migration from outside the EU. Unfortunately I was cut off before I could fully make the point.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Tony  On November 25, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    The fact you were cut off during the phone-in means someone either had something to hide or wanted to suppress something they feared was about to be said. Other than that, the the real question is how is Migrationwatch funded. I doubt it is by ” private donation ” which would at best be patchy and uncertain plus M/W must have rather high running costs?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: