IMMIGRANTS

The Labour Government planners are working on a figure of 5.5 million new houses to be built on over 1000 square miles of virgin countryside by 2015. When last in power the Tories planned for 4.4 million. Although the liberals do their best to avoid stating the obvious, it is the effect of mass immigration - legal, illegal and asylum seekers - that is destroying our country aesthetically. It is not a race problem, for in this instance it does not matter if they are black, brown, white or zebra-striped. One does not need to have a degree in statistics or economics to realise that the millions of immigrants that have poured into Britain over the past twenty years have to live somewhere.

Additionally, many ‘ethnic’ families are adding to the problem by their considerably higher birth-rate. Britain will need to build a MILLION new homes to cope with the flood of immigrants and that doesn't include housing for those who enter the country illegally. Eventually immigration will have “serious consequences” for the nature of British society, according to Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green who believes the estimated cost of building services to go with the new homes is a whopping £20billion. New roads, hospitals, schools and public transport will all be needed, and huge swathes of the countryside will be gobbled up.

House prices will continue to rocket as a result of shortages. Alarmingly the figures do not take into account the unknown number of illegal immigrants who will need accommodation. Sir Andrew, former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said, “Continued immigration on this massive scale will have serious consequences for our quality of life and eventually for the whole nature of our society. The government has clearly failed to consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure when calculating the economic impact of migration.”

The cost to the NHS of treating asylum seekers and other immigrants with infectious diseases could be more than £1 billion for each year's arrivals. Research by Migrationwatch believes the number of cases could run into tens of thousands. The infections of particular concern are Aids, the hepatitis viruses B and C and tuberculosis. These diseases represent specific, previously uncommon infections which, in some sending countries, are much more prevalent than in the UK.

"The potential cost to the NHS is enormous in both financial and staff terms," said Roger Williams, professor of hepatology at University College, London. "It is absolutely essential that firm action be taken to prevent any further increase in this growing pool of potential infection. Furthermore, even a fraction of the money spent in the UK would treat a far larger number of patients in their own countries." The authors multiplied the incidence of these diseases in the sending countries by the number of migrants from them to get an approximate measure of the likely number of cases arriving in Britain, the organisation said.

For Aids patients, it has been estimated that modern anti-viral therapy costs at least £15,000 a year, while for hepatitis B and C the cost of annual therapy is £10-12,000, Migrationwatch said. A Department of Health spokeswoman said, "Access to the NHS is based on residence in the UK. A person who has made a formal application for permission to take refuge in the UK is exempt from charges for any NHS treatment received." The rest of us who have to pay towards NHS treatment should, perhaps, make a formal application to live here.

Foreigners who are denied visas to come to Britain are getting UK taxpayers’ money to appeal and the Government says it has no idea how much is being spent on helping their cases. One charity, the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS), handled 163 appeals from people in one small area of Bangladesh in 2003, at a cost of around £60,000. Migrationwatch UK chairman, Sir Andrew Green, said, "It’s very surprising that people who are not British citizens are being given legal aid by the British taxpayer. This needs to be justified, otherwise it should be stopped.”

But the IAS defended the use of public funds. Boss Keith Best stressed his charity tried to limit use of taxpayers’ money by only taking on appeals likely to succeed. He added, “It has always been the case that people who access British law should, if they are financially eligible, be assisted for that.” But he warned that unscrupulous immigration advisers abroad make appeals with little chance of winning. Official figures show 16,255 people appealed against visa refusals in 2002, but only 42% succeeded.

Next >>>