91Èȱ¬

There is a point that is missed by Moxon (I have read his book) and by most political commentators, including some I respect.

Work Permits UK includes many professional and business-focussed staff with a great store of knowledge on UK businesses and the skills they need.

The problems at WPUK and our foreign consulates have arisen always because there has been some form of political interference in their operation.

What Moxon uncovered was not the 'norm'. Instead, scant attention was being paid to some applications because immigration minister Beverley Hughes had given a direction that backlogs should be cleared quickly to reduce the figures that coincided with the accession of countries like Poland.

Another scandal came about when David Blunkett sought to interfere in the normal process (the 'no favours, but quicker' scandal).

Left alone WPUK works better than most other countries' immigration systems. It is when ministers interfere that these notorious incidences have occured.

These scandals were not on-going - they were created in each instance by ministers.

Now John Reid proposes dissipating what expertise WPUK has by giving responsibility for permits to dispirate consulates, high commissions and embassies, mistakes will become more likely, no less.

Meanwhile we have treated the next wave of accession countries shabbily - making them jump through all the pre-accession hoops without allowing their citizens the key benefit of free movement.

I'm surprised that no mention is made of the most disastrous piece of legislation the incoming Labour government of 1997 brought in - the abolition of the primary purpose rule.

That opened up the floodgates of foreign born spouses which has caused a massive immigration and community cohesion problem which we will be lucky to recover from for decades. And it still hasn't come onto the radar of the chattering classes.

I really do despair sometimes.

At least Moxon is no longer seen as public enemy no 1 by the lefties at Newsnight, so the true state of our hopeless immigration system must be beginning to hit home somewhere.

I couldn't disagree more - with most of the extract (apart from (c)) and the comments.
Immigrants should be welcomed for their contribution to society. They are cost effective and I for one am very glad to have brought up my children in multi-cultural London, (where they and their friends never seem to have had any trouble finding holiday work).

The immigration rules seem fine, though badly administered. This is the small part of the extract with which I do partly agree.
Firstly, from where I sit (in a Law Centre with colleagues dealing with the 91Èȱ¬ Office all the time) they seem far from PC. Irrational, unreasoned, and sometimes illiterate in their decision making (which does not seem to be evidence of HO people being highly educated, but impractical). Time wasting in their preparation of cases too. Those with the strongest cases to be made for being allowed to work here, granted leave to remain here, or granted full asylum etc often seem least likely to get it.

Secondly we all need to take drastic steps to reduce pollution - wherever we live. It seems totally irrelevant to a discussion about migration or even just managed migration.
We need workers from outside the UK for the jobs that no-one else will do, for those where there are skill shortages in the local population (including it seems the building trades, the hospitality trade, seasonal farm work etc) and for specialist work including all areas of the health service, dentistry etc. I don't know how much it is due to the UK failing to train enough people for these jobs, unwillingness to do some of them, and/or how much it is due to trained people leaving the UK shortly thereafter. I understand that, once again after a blip in the 90s when we had wars in Europe, almost as many British people leave the UK each year as immigrants arrive.

Thirdly there's always been migration, and bigots. You only need to read the papers from times when large numbers of Irish people or Jewish people were arriving here.

How can further immigration possibly help the UK's environmental problems? Even through the rose-tinted glasses of political correctness, is it not obvious that the more migrants there are, the more garbage they will generate? Do migrants not drive cars or ride on buses? Do they not use electricity created from the burning of coal and gas? Through the aircraft that carry them, immigrants start polluting our air before their feet have even touched UK soil.
I, for one, am yet to feel the benefits to society brought by migrants. Precisely what is this cost effectiveness they bring? Those with businesses to run can rake in even fatter profits by paying lower wages to desperate migrants. But I have never received goods or services of a better quality or at a cheaper price because of immigration.
Where I live, British people still wait tables and drive garbage trucks. Local students still work summers helping on farms. I don't think they are waiting for the first busload of immigrants to arrive so they can relinquish their "unwanted" jobs.
My doctor's office isn't boarded up awaiting an immigrant to take over. I don't have trouble communicating with my dentist or lawyer. In fact, I don’t see any gaping holes in society that need to be filled by alien workers.
As migrants continue to flood in and bring their own cultures - pernicious Islam, people trafficking, polygamy and forced child labor to name just a few - we should take a fond look back at our own childhoods and remember that we owe those same joys to future generations.

I have not heard amongst all these articles, who is paying for the migrant workers families to be taught English? Is this money coming from British childrens education? Are British children all falling through the net in order to provide specialist teachers for the immigrant workers children?

The lack of intellect of most posters in this respect is unbelievable. How do these ageing individuals propose to pay for public services, pensions etc. Are these people aware that Europe needs 1.4 million immigrants a year just to maintain the ratio of working to non-working population at it's current level. Oh, what about the 2 million Britons who have migrated to other European countries? Oh, and the half a million in the US, Oh and yes the millions in other countries around the world.

I write this comment, as my last one was rejected, due to the truth and really in the news media.

I think I should see what is happening in American and realize what the cost is to one's culture,customs and one's country. I would suggest oneone except former european and would try to encourage your former countrymen/women to come home. You see the state of Israel and other country, why shouldn't we?.

Bravo Guessedworker! I agree with you, but even if I didn't, would query the failure of the media to cover the widespread and deeply held opposition to the mass immigration to which Britain has been subjected, without the consent of the people. Keep fighting.

Immigration scandal? You Brits have an unpleasant situation while we, in the US, have a GENUINE immigration scandal.

Ken, unless you are a Native American, then you are descended from immigrants! Also, your country is so much bigger than ours.

If you're concerned about immigration, then you must vote for the BNP - it is the only option. Mark my words - the BNP is going to do EXTREMELY well at next year's GLA/London mayoral election!

There's an interesting discussion at Google Answers on what it means to have 'difficulty' hiring US workers, and the role of immigrant labor:

I think it will be of interest to the readers here.

it would be nice if there was a party that took some of the views of the bnp and ukip but without the vitriole. there is nothing wrong with trying to protect our way of life - after all we are constantly being urged to protect the way of life of others but i feel the bnp and ukip are still a little too aggressive/isolationist to be a serious political force. i think there is quite a bit of support for preserving a bit more of what the english-scottish-welsh used to stand for, after all it is virtually impossible to watch a history programme without there being some reference to an english-scottish-welsh modus spreading around the world - magna carta, industial revolution, religious tolerance, syncopated music, language, military organisation, education systems, and so much more.

wappaho (#18) Whilst I'm sure you're in good company, that same company has (no doubt often unwittingly) elected International Socialists (as you no doubt know, New Labour is a member of the SI), and they appear determined to Balkanise the UK and turn England into Regional Assemblies as part of their programme to politically integrate what was the UK into the EU. One of the tools in their disunity armoury appears to have been mismanaged migration, which has further facilitated de-nationalisation, just as the free-market has denationalised industry and public services. Will we be better managed/represented if the EU becomes a federation of states/regions, each with a population of 4-6 million?

Given the late vote on the Lisbon Treaty, it looks like a fait accompli. People won't vote BNP or UKIP in large enough numbers to make any difference (and for the reasons which you give). Anyone in favour of nationalism or the welfare state is likely to be made to feel like a Nazi or Stalinist by these internatinalists.