In this, he said:
“Immigration on the scale the UK has experienced in recent years has many potential consequences. If it persists over a long period of time, it may radically alter the cultural, ethnic, racial and political character of this country. It may also be disruptive and undermine social cohesion, with negative implications for national identity and democratic governance.All of the above is just plain common sense.
Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity...
The economic consequences of large-scale immigration are mostly trivial, negative, or transient… the interests of more vulnerable sections of the domestic population may well be damaged; and… any small fiscal or other economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with immigration’s substantial and permanent demographic and environmental impact.
Overall the economic record of recent immigration does not seem impressive, and there is a growing body of evidence that its effects are more often negative, partly because so much immigration is not primarily economic in motivation. Needs and benefits in the receiving countries may well be transient while the immigrant populations, especially those from poor countries, are more likely to be permanent...
The claim that large-scale immigration will be of great economic benefit to them is false. Some will gain, but others will lose. With respect to the existing population of the UK and their descendants, the purely economic consequences of large-scale immigration could be negative or positive, but either way they will be small…
Immigrants are the only unequivocal economic beneficiaries of migration. There is no guarantee that anyone else will be… The more important effects of sustained large-scale immigration on the UK are demographic, social, and environmental: provoking unexpected renewed growth in population and in housing demand and risking new and intractable social divisions and a corresponding weakening of national identity and cohesion, with the prospect of an eventual eclipse of the population receiving the migrants and of its culture.
Explaining why the UK government is embarking on a policy with such potentially radical social and demographic consequences for so little and uncertain material benefit for its own citizens is beyond the scope of this article…
It may be legitimate to argue that large-scale immigration should be permitted because it is beneficial to people who are poorer than the inhabitants of the UK. However, this case should be made explicitly. At present, it is smuggled in behind the claim that a high level of immigration will be of great economic benefit to the existing population. The evidence presented above suggests that it will not...
The focus of this report has been on the economic and demographic consequences of large-scale immigration. These consequences are mostly negative for the existing population of the UK and their descendants... If net migration continues on the present scale, the UK will quite soon have a much larger population and a mu ch larger economythan would otherwise be the case, thereby imposing new pressures on the environment and national infrastructure.”
And, if I may say so, it is precisely what those of us who still remember what common sense is have been saying all along.
As we said this, the Marxist crazies who have ruled our world for the last half century or so called us ‘racist,’ ‘fascist,’ ‘Nazi’ ‘bigots’ just for pointing out the stone bl**ding obvious.
You know what's interesting? Professor Rowthorn, who, as well as being an Emeritus Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, advises the IMF no less, is a long-standing Marxist. You know, the type that insists that I'd be a ‘racist’ just for stating the 'stone bl**ding obvious?'
Well, all that time the Marxists were wrong about the eventual effects of mass immigration they were right about it destroying our world.
Which, if you haven't figured it out by now, was always the intention.
Perhaps, along the way of his Marxist idyll, the Professor had a partial change of heart. I say this because he was saying much the same as he says here ten years ago. Oh yes, this is not the first time the Professor has sounded the warning bell. In ‘The Economic Effects of Immigration into the United Kingdom,’ co-written with David Coleman and published in 2004, he said this:
"Since 1997 a new UK immigration policy has displaced previous policy aims, which were focused on minimizing settlement. Large-scale immigration is now officially considered to be essential for the UK’s economic wellbeing and beneficial for its society; measures have been introduced to increase inflows… Fears that large-scale immigration might damage the interests of unskilled native workers are discounted…The 2004 report concludes with the same categoric assertion that Rowthorne would offer up ten years later:
We conclude that… the domestic population may well be damaged; and that any small fiscal or other economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with immigration’s substantial and permanent demographic and environmental impact…
A restrictive policy on immigration had evolved in the late 1950s to limit the new and unexpected rise of immigration from New Commonwealth countries, hitherto subject to no controls… Despite initial Labour Party opposition and continued unease by sections of that party, the legislation survived the incoming Labour governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 and was indeed strengthened in 1965 and 1968, although implementation of the Immigration Rules was considerably softened in 1974–79.
All that has changed since 1997, when the incoming Labour government began to make a decisive break with previous policies and attitudes toward immigration… The first clear signal of a new departure was made in a significant speech in 2000 by a Home Office junior minister, who promoted migration as an economic, social, cultural, and demographic asset (Roche 2000).
While muted concessions to the continued need for regulation were still present, the main thrust was now to welcome and promote immigration, not to limit it… To dampen anxieties, the minister insisted that no radical change of direction was involved, for according to the speaker ‘Britain has always been a nation of immigrants’ (Roche 2000), a statement now often repeated in official pronouncements. In fact, this is a misleading half-truth.
The second White Paper (Home Office 2001a), supported by a generally favourable Home Office review of migration and its consequences, completed the transition to the new approach… Its proposals broke new ground in setting out numerous policies to abandon old restrictions and promote immigration… David Blunkett, the cabinet minister now in charge of immigration policy, has declared that he sees ‘no obvious limit’ to immigration (BBC TV Newsnight, 13 November 2003).
On the whole the new message has found much favour among the liberal, and especially among the metropolitan, elite, including business interests and economic commentators as well as left-liberal political groups. It enjoys the general support of the broadcast media, notably the BBC and its website, and much of the high-end press… numerous pressure groups representing asylum, immigrant, and human rights concerns, the Commission for Racial Equality and other quangos, and church opinion.
Thus has been created a new and positive Establishment orthodoxy in favor of immigration. As is the case in other countries, however, public opinion remains unconvinced, with majorities feeling that immigration is excessive, out of control, and in need of further restriction…
This divergence between elite and mass opinion on migration and related matters is found in numerous other democracies, including so-called countries of immigration such as the United States, Canada, and Australia.”
“IMMIGRANTS ARE THE ONLY UNEQUIVOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFICIARIES OF MIGRATION."It continues:
The claim that large-scale immigration will be of great economic benefit to them is false…
The more important effects of sustained large-scale immigration on the UK are demographic, social, and environmental: provoking unexpected renewed growth in population and in housing demand and risking new and INTRACTABLE SOCIAL DIVISIONS AND A CORRESPONDING WEAKENING OF NATIONAL IDENTITY AND COHESION, WITH THE PROSPECT OF AN EVENTUAL ECLIPSE OF THE POPULATION RECEIVING THE MIGRANTS AND OF ITS CULTURE.
Explaining why the UK government is embarking on a policy with such potentially radical social and demographic consequences for SO LITTLE AND UNCERTAIN MATERIAL BENEFIT FOR ITS OWN CITIZENS is beyond the scope of this article…
One could argue that immigration policy in a rich country, such as the UK, should have an altruistic dimension. Large-scale immigration may not be to the advantage of the local inhabitants, but it is to the advantage of the immigrants…
However, this case should be made explicitly. At present, IT IS SMUGGLED IN BEHIND THE CLAIM THAT A HIGH LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION WILL BE OF GREAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE EXISTING POPULATION. The evidence presented above suggests that it will not.”
That's what they forced upon us knowing the whole truth, not just the little bits of it they passed on to us. That's what they were determined to have no matter what we wanted.
Since when mass immigration has continued unabated. Official figures tell us that close to 600,000 immigrants have descended upon us every year since then, despite David Cameron’s 2010 pre-election promise to reduce it to the 'tens of thousands.'
At some future point, I hope to clap Professor Rowthorn on the back for his honesty then and now. After which I would question him closely with regard to his Marxist affiliations and philosophy. And then, if his answers weren't up to the mark, I would happily clap him irons until the error of his totalitarian way had been well and truly seen.
Reds are Reds and the destruction of a world that worked was always the plan. Indirect admissions of guilt, long after the diabolical Red horse had bolted, should cut no ice with the patriot.
P.S. During the course of the 4 December 2014 edition of 'Question Time' this question was asked:
"What is the future for the British identity after after a recent survey showed in some areas of England the most popular typical British names have been replaced with those of Islamic origin."
"Britain's always been a diverse country... We have people over very many centuries, who have come from all over the world to be part of Britain. You go back to the Norman Conquest, the Vikings or the Hugenots. or more recent migration. And that's the kind of country we've always been. I think we should be proud of our diversity."In 2004, Rowthorn and Coleman nail this all-pervasive PC lie thus:
"There has always been immigration into Britain, but the pace has accelerated markedly in recent times. Relative to population, apart from a few short-lived episodes, the scale of immigration is now much greater than during any period since the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions of the first millennium… Britain has been a country of EMIGRATION until recently, with immigration usually playing a minor role in its demographic development."To put some historical flesh on the bones of this statement, apart from Cooper's Hugenots and the Jews, from time of the Norman invasion until 1948 when the Windrush arrived from Jamaica and refugees from the slaughterous civil war sparked by India's partition began to descend upon us, there was NO large scale movement of non-native peoples into the British Isles. NONE.
In other words, for almost a thousand years, the ethnic and cultural make up of the British peoples remained almost entirely constant. The odd foreigner would, of course, settle here from time to time, but whoever did so made no difference whatsoever to the overall identity of our country.
The Hugenots, unlike those who have come here in recent times, were very similar to us and, thus, found little difficulty in assimilating with the host community. Fleeing religious persecution, about 40 to 50,000 of these settled here in the 1670s and 1680s. Several tens of thousands more arrived before and after this period.
In all, no more than 80,000 descended upon us over the course of a hundred years or so. Compare this with the annual intake of more than 500,000 foreigners EVERY YEAR from 2000 onwards!
There is no comparison.
As for the Jews, In 1880, 46,000 were known to have been living here. By 1919, the population, had increased to around 250,000 as a result of the pogroms and expulsions throughout the Russian Empire.
They did not assimilate as easily as the Hugenots and their burgeoning presence was often resented. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that 200,000, over a period of forty years, would have caused at least a hundred times less of a national trauma than 5 to 600,000 over the course of one year.
When Yvette Cooper, and those of her ilk, trot out the old diversity and immigration chestnuts they are lying. What is worse, they know they are lying. There is no way at all a Harvard-educated, top table Socialist will not know the actual facts, figures and comparisons.
In LibLabCon world, unfortunately, actuality in almost always the enemy.