Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come,says Mandelson

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson
 Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration
 Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million
By Tim Shipman
PUBLISHED:01:10, 14 May 2013| UPDATED:19:14, 14 May 2013
Comments (1922)


'We were sending out search parties for people': Former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson has admitted that his party actively encouraged immigration to the UK while in government
Labour sent out ?search parties? for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party?s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson?s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ?rub the Right?s nose in diversity?.

He said there was ?a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural?.
Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.
But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ?In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.?

He said: ?The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.?


 'Ed Miliband is average' says Labour's ?12m donor - as he announces he will not give to party again
 A fifth of murder and rape suspects born abroad, shock survey finds
 Shock as 84 schools have NO white British pupils at all... double the number of five years ago

When Labour encouraged new arrivals ?we were almost ... a full employment economy? but, he admitted: ?The situation is different obviously now.
?We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.
?For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.?

Mr Mandelson's admission that New Labour sought out foreign workers is a stunning confirmation that governments led by Tony Blair, left, and Gordon Brown, right, deliberately engineered mass immigration
His words are far franker than Mr Miliband?s. Asked earlier this month whether ?too many people were allowed to come?, he replied: ?I wouldn?t put it that way, no.?


'I think we have to realise that the entry of migrants to the labour market is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to get jobs, or to keep jobs'
 Lord Mandelson yesterday

'Migrants are filling gaps in our labour market that Britons are not available to fill or unwilling to fill. There has not been an adverse effect on employment of British nationals'
Mandelson in March 2009.
Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: ?Peter Mandelson?s candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.?
Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: ?This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour?s mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate.
?It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters forgive them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.?

Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP.

Mr Powell?s 1968 ?rivers of blood? speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration.
Former prime minister Mr Brown ? who once called for ?British jobs for British workers? ? told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: ?A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.?

Read more:
 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 11:06:56 PM by the leveller »


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come,says Mandelson
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2014, 08:42:53 PM »
How Labour threw open doors to mass migration in secret plot to make a multicultural UK

By James Slack
UPDATED: 16:32, 10 February 2010 




Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.

A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.

The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.

Melting pot: Labour's diversity drive is exposed in secret papers

Melting pot: Labour's diversity drive is exposed in secret papers

Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.

But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.


 SIR ANDREW GREEN: Paying the price for a decade of deception
 DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Migration and a legacy of deceit
 Justice Secretary Jack Straw rejects burka ban for Muslim women
 Hindu grandfather wins 'human right' to be cremated on open-air funeral pyre
 France's hardline anti-burka immigration minister denies planning to convert to marry his young Muslim girlfriend
 Judge slams 'pitiful' immigration checks as he jails Vietnamese traffickers
 Alan Johnson attacked by own border staff over Britain's lax immigration

Mr Neather said he helped to write the 2000 report which outlined a strategy to ‘open up the UK to mass migration’.

The document was not published in its original format over fears of an adverse public reaction. Instead it was released a year later as a research document on the economic benefits of migration.


The highlighted text below was contained in the original draft of the document drawn up in 2000 for a discussion on immigration policy - but deleted from the version published in 2001.

1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.
Mr Neather’s claims last October were denied by ministers, including Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who said they were nonsense.

A draft of the original Cabinet Office report has now been published following a freedom of information request by Migrationwatch.

It contains six references to social policy, all of which were removed from the later, published version.

One deleted paragraph said a framework was needed to ‘maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s social and economic objectives’.

Another says that migration pressures will intensify because of demographic changes across Europe but that this ‘should not be viewed as a negative’.

It states: ‘The entry control system is not closely related to the stated policy objectives.

'This is particularly true in the social area, where in the past the implicit assumption has largely been that keeping people out promotes stability.’

Also cut out was a statement that ‘in practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion’.

Damian Green, Tory immigration spokesman, said: ‘This is a very significant finding because it would mean that Labour’s biggest long term effect on British society was
based on a completely secret policy.

‘This shows Labour’s open-door immigration policy was deliberate and ministers should apologise.’

Mr Neather’s claims were made in a column for the London Evening Standard. He said Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate attempt to engineer a ‘truly multicultural’ country and plug gaps in the jobs market.

He remembered ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.

Whitehall research shows that the number of foreigners arriving in the UK rose from 370,000 in 2001 to 510,000 in 2006.

The figures for net foreign immigration– the number of non-British citizens arriving, less the number leaving – are even more dramatic.

In 2001, this figure stood at 221,000 but by 2007 it had risen as high as 333,000 – up 50 per cent.

The number fell to 250,000 in 2008 mainly because of a decline in arrivals from Eastern Europe.

It had already emerged that the Cabinet Office report was censored to remove details of possible links between immigration and organised crime, street fights and begging.

One of the sections missing from the final report said: ‘There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.’

A second section warned: ‘Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.’

Last night, immigration minister Phil Woolas said there was ‘no open door policy on migration’.

He said the draft report made clear that migration was ‘not a substitute for Government policies on skills, education and training of British citizens – which the Government has invested in over the past decade’.

Paying the price for a decade of deception

COMMENTARY By Sir Andrew Green

Chairman of MigrationWatch and former British Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia

UPDATED: 16:32, 10 February 2010 




So there was indeed a Labour conspiracy to change the nature of our society by mass immigration.

New evidence confirms claims made by a Labour political adviser last October which
he subsequently tried to recant.

In an article for the Evening Standard, Andrew Neather revealed that ‘it didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year ...was to open up the UK to mass migration’.

Today's Britain is multicultural

Community spirit: Today's Britain is multicultural

He went on to describe a Government policy document which he had helped to write in 2000.

He said that ‘drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was paranoia about it reaching the media’.

The paper eventually surfaced as a purely technical product of the research department of the Home Office but earlier drafts that he saw ‘included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.

We in Migrationwatch have now obtained an earlier draft of that policy paper, circulated in October 2000.

It had already been censored but it was to be neutered still further. In the executive summary, six of eight references to ‘social’ objectives were cut from the version later published.

What could have been meant by social policy in the context of immigration, especially as it was dressed up as combating social exclusion?

This must surely have been code for increasing the numbers substantially, as Mr Neather revealed. If not, why all the secrecy?

Why the censorship that has now been laid bare? Reading between the lines of these
documents it is clear that political advisers in Number 10, its joint authors, were preparing a blueprint for mass immigration with both economic and social objectives.

None of this was in the Labour manifesto of 1997 or 2001. One passage in the report that the political censors failed to cut was a prediction about foreign immigration from outside the European Union.

This had it climbing from 142,000 in1998 to nearly 180,000 in 2005 (in fact, it reached nearly 200,000 by that date).

But what this shows is that ministers were clearly warned about a continuing rise in immigration which, even leaving aside the East Europeans, has been even greater than expected.


Tony Blair: Labour wanted to use immigration to make the UK multicultural

So what can we deduce from all this? Mr Neather later withdrew some of his remarks but examination of the texts shows that he had, in fact, blurted out the truth.

It seems there was a project led by Downing Street political advisers to introduce
a secret policy of mass immigration.

Their economic arguments surfaced in an obscure research document but the social objective of greatly increased diversity was entirely suppressed for fear of public reaction – especially from the white working class.

These are the very people who are now paying the price for a decade of Labour deception. What the Government now fears is that they will take their revenge on election day.

Why on earth should they have taken such a risk with their traditional supporters? Was it pure ideology or were there other factors at play?

One point to consider is the impact on the electorate. It is not generally realised that
Commonwealth citizens legally in Britain acquire the right to vote in general elections
as soon as they put their names on the electoral register.

In Labour years we have now seen an additional 300,000 from the Old Commonwealth and about one million from the New Commonwealth.

They may well have been conscious that they have much stronger support among the ethnic communities than their Conservative rivals.

Given that mass immigration is heavily in Labour’s electoral interest, they may have thought that they could get away with it.

The trades unions have been silent despite the concerns of their members. And they
may have calculated that anyone who opposed it could be silenced by accusations of racism.

They have not succeeded but we are left with a tale of betrayal which has generated a very dangerous current of extremism which could yet come to haunt us.

Share or comment on this article


Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk