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.