Hubbry Logo
Migration Watch UKMigration Watch UKMain
Open search
Migration Watch UK
Community hub
Migration Watch UK
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Migration Watch UK
Migration Watch UK
Migration Watch UK
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Migration Watch UK is a British think-tank[1][2][3][4] and campaign group[5][6][7][8][9] which argues for lower immigration into the United Kingdom.[10][11][12] Founded in 2001, the group believes that international migration places undue demand on limited resources and that the current level of immigration is not sustainable.[13][14]

Key Information

The group has been praised for what is seen as improving the quality of debate around immigration[15][16][17] while others have suggested that the group is anti-immigration and have criticised what they say are faults in the group's studies.[18][19][20]

Lord Green of Deddington, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is the founder and president of the group. Alp Mehmet, former ambassador to Iceland, is its current chairman. David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, is an honorary consultant.

History

[edit]

MigrationWatch UK was founded in December 2001[21] by Sir Andrew Green, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia. In an article in The Independent, Deborah Orr writes that the organisation came into being when, "after reading some of his anti-immigration letters in The Times", the then Sir Andrew approached David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, and they subsequently set up MigrationWatch.[22]

The group first came to public attention in 2002 when it stated that immigration, including an estimate of illegal immigrants, was running at two million per decade "and probably more".[23][24] This claim was challenged at the time by a number of public commentators,[25][26][27][28] with an editorial in The Independent at the time criticising what it called "tendentious projections and the deliberate citing of the vast populations of countries such as India to frighten people and wreck any rational debate". Two years later, Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph would argue that Government Actuary's Department forecasts that the UK population would increase by six million people due to immigration over three decades "appear to confirm claims made by Migrationwatch two years ago, when the group first sprang to prominence".[24] A later Telegraph editorial following the 2011 Census would call the group's initial claims "overly cautious".[29]

The group quickly attracted the attention of Home Secretary David Blunkett, who in 2002 set up a unit intended to monitor and rebut the organisation and sought to control the timing of statistical releases to avoid pressure from it.[30]

The organisation has an advisory council, which is chaired by Baron Green and whose members include David Coleman, Caroline Cox and Alp Mehmet, former ambassador to Iceland.[31]

Outputs

[edit]

MigrationWatch's website contains a range of briefing papers to support the organisation's perspective on the statistical, legal, economic and historical aspects of migration, and on topics such as the European Union, housing, health and social cohesion, as they relate to immigration.[32] It has also helped to contribute to briefings on immigration for third parties such as the BBC.[33]

MigrationWatch has been frequently cited and seen its spokespeople featured in British newspapers such as the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Sunday Times,[34] The Guardian, Daily Express and Daily Star.[35][36] as well as British broadcast media such as BBC News and ITV News.[37][38]

In October 2011, the group started a petition on the UK Parliament petitions website calling on the government to take "all necessary steps" to stop the UK's population exceeding 70 million. The petition reached over 100,000 signatures.[39]

Policy stances

[edit]

Immigration flows

[edit]

MigrationWatch argues that the growth of the population of the United Kingdom through international migration is a key "factor driving problems around pressure on school places, the NHS, housing and the transport infrastructure".[13] The group in 2018 argued that migration was linked to 82% of population growth between 2001 and 2016, when combining both net migration and children born to immigrant parents.[40] In the same year it predicted that the population of the United Kingdom would exceed 70 million by 2026.[41]

A 2019 report by MigrationWatch condemned the Conservative government's approach to immigration, stating that its policies could increase immigrant numbers by 100,000.[42] It has called Britain's port security "resourced to fail" in stopping illegal immigration,[43] and has opposed the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants in Britain, after it was postulated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.[44] The group criticised the same government for extending the period in which overseas students can stay in the UK from four months to two years, arguing that it would "likely lead to foreign graduates staying on to stack shelves".[45] It was also critical of proposals by Boris Johnson to scrap the £30,000 salary cap on migrants, warning that abolishing the cap could lead to further rises in migration.[46]

The group has expressed opposition to sham marriages, and in August 2019 called for nationality profiling in an attempt to crack down on the practice.[47]

Asylum seekers

[edit]

MigrationWatch supports the principle of political asylum,[48] but argues that many asylum seekers do not have a genuine case for qualifying for refugee status and are instead using the asylum system to gain entry to the UK for economic reasons.[49] The group has also been strongly critical of what it sees as the government's failure to remove many of those whose claims are rejected.[50] In a briefing paper published in January 2009, the group's Honorary Legal Adviser Harry Mitchell, QC stated that while the group supported "asylum for genuine claimants", the "overwhelming majority of asylum seekers" were in fact economic migrants and did not have a "well-founded fear of persecution".[49]

In July 2010, MigrationWatch highlighted what it saw as the potential consequences of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom's unanimous ruling in favour of two homosexual asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon, allowing them to stay in the UK. The group argued that the decision would "increase by many thousands the numbers of persons who may be eligible for asylum", as well as "generate a large number of claims that will be difficult to determine", such as instances where people smugglers "tell their clients who come from countries where homosexual acts are illegal to claim that they are homosexual". It argued that assessing such claims "can often take many months during which applicants are supported by public funds".[51][52]

In August 2016, in response to Home Office data showing that over a third of asylum applications were made by migrants who entered the UK illegally or overstayed their visas, MigrationWatch suggested that the data showed that "many of those claiming asylum were in fact economic migrants".[53]

The group has defended the use of the term "illegal immigrant" to describe those who enter a country for the purpose of claiming asylum, against those who associate the term with criminality. The group argues that the term is appropriate, as those who come into a country without permission and outside the law are doing so illegally.[54]

Economic impact of immigration

[edit]

MigrationWatch has argued that, while limited skilled migration (in both directions) is a natural and beneficial feature of an open economy,[55] very large scale immigration is of little benefit to the indigenous population. MigrationWatch has said that migration into the UK has and will tend to hold down the real wages of British citizens.[56] In 2006 it expressed concern that immigration from Eastern Europe was depressing wages.[57]

In December 2008, a MigrationWatch report stated that while some immigration results in an increase in the number of people in employment, "it seems an inescapable conclusion that the sudden arrival of a very large number of very capable workers willing to work for low pay has had a negative impact on the employment of British-born workers at the bottom of the pay scale".[58] Will Somerville and Madeleine Sumption of the Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute state in an Equality and Human Rights Commission report that: "Few serious international or UK economists would agree with this conclusion".[59] Their report did, however, note that "the recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers".[60]

MigrationWatch has criticised sectors that lobby for a permissive immigration policy, accusing them of offering "low paying jobs with poor conditions and little flexibility for workers".[61]

In 2014, the group published a report on population growth in London, in which it said that immigration trends had put "massive pressure on schools and hospitals and especially housing".[62] It has expressed concerns about the effects of migration rates on the national housing market as a whole, pointing to the discrepancy between migration rates and the number of new houses being built to accommodate a growing population.[63][64] In 2017 the group said that the impact of immigration on future demand for homes in England had been "seriously understated" by the British government.[65]

In 2016, MigrationWatch issued a paper estimating the fiscal impact of immigration for the year 2014/15, which found an overall fiscal cost from immigration with a positive contribution only from migrants of pre-2004 EU states.[66][67] This was in line with a 2014 study from University College London.[66][68]

Human rights legislation

[edit]

MigrationWatch UK in 2003 advocated that the UK government should "'cut loose from the straitjacket' imposed by its obligations under various conventions that made it impossible to operate the system in the country's best interests".[69] In 2007 it called for the British government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and write its own Human Rights Act.[70]

EU membership

[edit]

The group has been critical of large-scale migration from the European Union, having in 2013 predicted combined migration inflows from Romania and Bulgaria of approximately 50,000 per annum when free movement restrictions would be lifted the following year.[71]

In January 2016, the group published a report claiming that the UK leaving the European Union could result in a reduction of annual net migration from 180,000 to around 65,000, although added that such a number should not be taken as a "precise estimate" but was "intended to illustrate the scale of the potential reduction under the policy outlined".[72] MigrationWatch stated that they would not take a position on the UK's EU membership referendum held in June 2016.[73] In 2017 the group backed the idea of visa-free travel between the UK and EU after Brexit, adding that EU citizens who would want to work in the UK should need a work permit.[74]

Hong Kong

[edit]

After the British government reacted to the Hong Kong national security law, announcing that British National (Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong would be given the right to live, study and work in the UK and would be offered a route to route to citizenship, MigrationWatch published a paper stating that "a Home Office factsheet confirmed that the number who might eventually be able to come is up to 2.9 million – the current number of BNOs residing in Hong Kong". The paper argued that the government had "cast the proposed offer of a pathway to citizenship as part and parcel with the UK honouring its 'historical responsibilities'", suggesting that this set a dangerous precedent. Chris Whitehouse, responding to the MigrationWatch paper in an article for CapX, argued that "the UK's historic duty towards Hong Kong is very different to other former colonies; and the future of Hongkongers is based on China keeping its word, which it is brazenly failing to do". He concluded that "Lord Andrew Green and Migration Watch are out of step with the nation on this one, and they should urgently consult Lord Patten on their route ahead if they are not to lose their way".[75]

Reaction to the group

[edit]

Praise

[edit]

Conservative politician Jonathan Aitken has credited MigrationWatch with improving the quality of the British debate on immigration. He argues that "Migrationwatch has changed the administrative practices of the civil service and the policies of the major political parties on asylum seekers, work permit criteria and numerical totals. It has introduced integrity and accuracy into the previously misleading government statistics on immigration. The level of understanding of the subject in all serious newspapers and broadcasting organizations has been improved. Britain may or may not have the right answers to immigration questions, but we certainly now have a far more informed debate on them".[15]

Similarly, an article by Dean Godson of the centre-right think tank[76] Policy Exchange published in The Times in June 2006 states: "The dramatic change in the terms of the immigration debate over recent months is largely down to the determination and courage of a single individual – Sir Andrew Green, the founder and chairman of MigrationWatch UK. Almost single-handedly, he has rescued the national discourse from the twin inanities of saloon-bar bigotry on the Right and politically correct McCarthyism on the Left".[16]

Jay Rayner, writing in The Observer quotes one senior BBC News executive, who stated: "We probably were reluctant and slow to take him seriously to begin with. We probably didn't like what he had to say. But then we were also slow to pick up on immigration as a story, not least because we are a very middle-class organisation and the impact of mass immigration was being felt more in working-class communities. If he's proved himself, it's because he hasn't put a foot wrong on the information he's published".[77]

Peter Oborne, writing as chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, has also praised MigrationWatch and the efforts of Lord Green. In 2014 Oborne called Green "one of the most morally courageous people in British public life", and has said that the "liberal media establishment" owe Green "a huge apology" for mocking his predictions about future immigration numbers.[17]

Criticism

[edit]

While the group describes itself as independent and non-political,[78][79] it has been characterised as a right-wing lobby or pressure group by some commentators[19][20][80] and academics.[81][82][83][84]

It has been argued that MigrationWatch's messages "can be taken advantage of by people with Islamophobia and prejudice".[85] The accuracy of the group's research has also been questioned. David Robinson, Professor of Housing and Public Policy at Sheffield Hallam University, argues that the group's assertion that immigrants are placing strain on social housing lacks evidence.[86] Economist Philippe Legrain has claimed that "MigrationWatch's xenophobic prejudice is causing it to twist the truth" about the impact of immigration on the employment prospects of British people.[87]

In February 2013, Migration Matters, an organisation chaired by former Labour MP Barbara Roche and co-chaired by then-Conservative MP Gavin Barwell, criticised the BBC for treating MigrationWatch's analysis as politically neutral.[88]

In 2014, Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research complained to the Press Complaints Commission that articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph about the net amount of tax paid by Eastern European migrants, which were based on MigrationWatch statistics, were inaccurate. The two newspapers amended the articles in response.[89][90]

Some other commentators have criticised what they see as the media uncritically reproducing the findings of MigrationWatch in their own reporting. Academics Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson in 2009 stated that while they believed the evidence used by MigrationWatch to be questionable, it received prominence in migration debates and had assumed an authority which they considered to be "dangerous if there is no similar authority presenting counterarguments".[91] Bernhard Gross, Kerry Moore and Terry Threadgold of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University have criticised the broadcast media's use of MigrationWatch to 'balance' reports on immigration, arguing that the "whole idea of 'balance' in these contexts needs to be re-thought" and that "there are never just two sides to any story".[92]

Defamation

[edit]

In 2007, the Daily Mirror paid damages to Andrew Green after columnist Brian Reade likened him and the group to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party, which the paper admitted was "untrue".[93][94]

In August 2010, Sally Bercow, a Labour Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and wife of Conservative MP John Bercow, argued on a Sky News newspaper review that a Daily Express article based on MigrationWatch research was "oversimplifying" and constituted "dangerous propaganda". As a result, MigrationWatch and Andrew Green threatened to take libel action against Bercow.[95] After she instructed the lawyer David Allen Green to defend the threatened action, MigrationWatch dropped its threat.[96] According to a MigrationWatch press release, in the light of an assurance by her lawyer that Mrs Bercow "did not intend to (and did not) allege that Migrationwatch is a fascist or racist organisation", the organisation decided not to take the matter further.[97]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Migration Watch UK

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Migration Watch UK is an independent, non-political founded in to monitor migration flows into and from the , examine their social, economic, and cultural impacts, and inform public policy through evidence-based analysis advocating for sustainable levels of managed immigration. Established by Sir Andrew Green, a former British ambassador to , the organization is currently presided over by Lord Green of Deddington in the same capacity, with Alp Mehmet, a former ambassador to , serving as chairman. Its core activities include producing research briefings, tracking statistics such as net migration—which reached 906,000 in the year to mid-2023—and critiquing policies that it argues lead to unsustainable , projecting an increase of 6.6 million by 2036, 92% driven by . Migration Watch UK has demonstrated a track record of accurate forecasting on trends, often submitting evidence to ary inquiries and highlighting issues like the exploitation of visa routes in sectors such as social care. Funded entirely by public donations without government support, the positions itself as representing widespread concerns over high levels, though it has drawn opposition from advocates favoring open policies who question its interpretations of .

Founding and Organizational Structure

Establishment and Founders

Migration Watch UK was established in October 2001 as an independent, non-political dedicated to monitoring migration flows to and from the , analyzing their economic, social, and cultural impacts, and advocating for sustainable levels of managed . The emerged amid growing and debates over high net migration rates, which had reached approximately 250,000 annually by the early , prompting concerns about integration pressures and strain. The group was co-founded by Sir Andrew Green (later Baron Green of Deddington), a retired senior British diplomat and former Ambassador to , and , Professor Emeritus of Demography at the . Green, who had concluded his diplomatic career in 2000 after postings including and , took on the role of initial chairman, leveraging his expertise in international affairs to frame migration as a issue requiring evidence-based scrutiny rather than unrestricted expansion. Coleman contributed demographic analysis, drawing on his research into and fertility trends, which highlighted long-term implications of sustained high for Britain's demographic composition. Formally incorporated as a by guarantee on 15 August 2002 under company number 04511775, the entity operated initially through voluntary efforts and private donations to maintain independence from government funding or political affiliations. This structure allowed Migration Watch UK to position itself as a to prevailing pro-immigration narratives in policy circles, emphasizing data-driven critiques over ideological advocacy.

Leadership and Governance

Migration Watch UK operates as a , registered under company number 04511775 with , and is structured as an independent, non-partisan without government funding. Its governance is overseen by a president, chairman, and an advisory comprising experts from , academia, , and other fields, which provides strategic direction and ensures analytical rigor in its policy research. The president is Lord Green of Deddington KCMG, who co-founded the organization in 2001 with Professor and previously served as a British diplomat for 35 years, including as Ambassador to (1996–2000) and (1991–1994). Educated at Cambridge University in natural sciences and , Lord Green chairs the advisory council and maintains an active role in shaping the group's focus on evidence-based immigration analysis. The current chairman is Alp Mehmet MVO, a former British Ambassador to (2004–2008) who joined the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office after a career in , including as an from 1970 to 1979. The advisory council, chaired by Lord Green, includes demographer Professor of Oxford University, who specializes in population studies and has authored over 90 academic papers and eight books on migration impacts; Baroness Caroline Cox, a and advocate with a background in , , and ; Neil Record, chairman of the Institute of Economic Affairs and founder of Record plc; and writer Hazhir Teimourian, a long-time resident and former and Times journalist. This council draws on members' professional expertise to review outputs and maintain the organization's commitment to data-driven assessments of migration flows, rather than partisan advocacy.

Funding and Independence

Migration Watch UK maintains its operations through voluntary contributions from individuals and does not accept government funding, a policy it states enables independence from state influence. The , incorporated as a in 2002, files annual total exemption full accounts with , confirming compliance with charity and company regulations, though specific income figures and donor identities are not detailed in public summaries. This funding model positions Migration Watch UK as non-reliant on grants or support, aligning with its self-description as a non-political entity focused on evidence-based analysis of migration. However, the group does not publicly disclose lists of donors or contribution amounts, leading to criticism regarding transparency; the Who Funds You? project rated it E—the lowest category—for funding disclosure as of November 2023. Proponents of the organization's approach argue that avoiding institutional or governmental ties preserves analytical integrity against potential biases prevalent in publicly funded research bodies, while skeptics contend that opaque private funding could introduce unexamined influences, though no verified evidence of donor-driven agenda distortion has been documented. The absence of or corporate sponsorship distinguishes it from many migration-focused think tanks that receive mixed public and philanthropic support.

Historical Evolution and Key Milestones

Early Advocacy (2001-2010)

Migration Watch UK was established in October 2001 as an independent, non-partisan research organization focused on analyzing immigration trends and advocating for controlled levels to align with public concerns and national capacity. Founded primarily by Sir Andrew Green, a former British ambassador to and , the group aimed to counter perceived official reticence on immigration data by producing evidence-based briefings and public commentary. Green, drawing from his diplomatic experience, positioned the organization to emphasize the unsustainability of rapid driven by net migration exceeding 100,000 annually under the Labour government. In its formative years, Migration Watch UK prioritized submissions to parliamentary inquiries to underscore the scale of inflows and policy shortcomings. For instance, in early 2002, it provided a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee on removal, highlighting over 500,000 failed asylum seekers and cases remaining in the UK, arguing for stricter enforcement to maintain control. The organization also critiqued the absence of comprehensive migration statistics, pressing for transparency amid rising non-EU economic migration, which reached 108,825 work permits and dependants in 2001 alone. These efforts established its role as a data-oriented voice challenging the era's open-door policies. A pivotal early campaign centered on the EU enlargement, where Migration Watch UK warned of uncontrolled inflows from accession states without transitional restrictions, estimating potential surges that could strain public services. Despite the UK opting not to impose full barriers—implementing only a worker registration scheme—the group advocated for safeguards akin to those adopted by and others, citing risks to wages and housing. Through media appearances and reports, it highlighted how net migration quadrupled between 1997 and 2010, contributing to over 2.2 million arrivals and fueling debates on integration. By the decade's end, Migration Watch UK had issued numerous briefings on asylum backlogs—peaking at nearly 85,000 applications in 2002—and fiscal pressures, solidifying its advocacy for numerical limits over selective systems.

Influence During EU Referendum and Brexit (2011-2020)

Migration Watch UK intensified its scrutiny of free movement policies during the lead-up to the 2016 membership , publishing analyses that linked unrestricted migration from to sustained high net migration levels, which reached 323,000 in the year ending December 2015. The organization argued that EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 had driven an influx without transitional controls, contributing to public discontent and influencing 49% of voters to cite as a factor in their decision. While MWUK maintained neutrality on overall membership, its emphasis on migration control aligned with broader skepticism toward free movement, amplifying calls for border sovereignty in the public discourse. In June 2016, shortly before the on , MWUK released a report projecting that a vote to remain in the would result in annual net migration exceeding 250,000 through 2035, with approximately 60% originating from the due to ongoing economic disparities and lack of enforceable restrictions. This forecast, based on historical trends and demographic projections, was cited in media coverage highlighting strains on , services, and wages, reinforcing arguments that rules prevented effective migration management. The group's data underscored the 's migration dimension, where Leave advocates promised to end free movement—a pledge that resonated amid record inflows, contributing to the 52% vote for departure. Following the , MWUK advocated for strict post-Brexit controls, submitting evidence to ary inquiries that free movement must cease to address public demands for reduced EU inflows, which had averaged over 100,000 net annually in prior years. In July 2017, it warned that a "soft Brexit" retaining access would sustain EU net migration above 100,000 yearly, undermining the 's intent and failing to alleviate pressures on . Through briefings and media engagements, MWUK influenced negotiations by critiquing transitional arrangements that risked prolonging high migration, estimating up to 375,000 net EU arrivals over three years without firm caps. By 2020, as the exited the EU's transition period, the organization had shaped policy debates toward points-based systems prioritizing skills over unrestricted access, though it noted persistent challenges in enforcing reductions.

Post-Brexit Developments (2021-Present)

Following the end of free movement with the in 2021, Migration Watch UK criticized the implementation of the , arguing in a May 2022 briefing that it had not achieved the government's stated goal of reducing overall migration levels, with non-UK nationals receiving over 1.3 million entry clearances in the year to 2022 alone. The organization highlighted a shift from to non-EU inflows, particularly from South and East Asia, as visa grants for work and study surged, contributing to net migration rising to 745,000 by 2022. A key focus emerged on irregular migration via small boat crossings in the , which escalated post-Brexit amid reduced legal routes from ; Migration Watch UK launched an online tracker in response, documenting incidents and arrivals that reached over 187,000 cumulatively by October 2025. In August 2024, the group issued statements asserting that the government had "lost control" of these crossings, with daily updates emphasizing failures in deterrence and returns, as only about 3% of small boat arrivals had been removed by late 2024. The organization maintained regular commentary on official statistics, responding to data showing net migration at 685,000 for 2023—after a mid-year peak of 906,000—and falling to 431,000 in 2024, yet still far exceeding pre- averages. Chairman Alp Mehmet attributed sustained high levels to liberalized rules for , dependants, and lower-skilled workers, advocating for caps on total inflows and tighter visa criteria, including in an August 2025 briefing on curbing migration to prevent chain effects on family entries. Migration Watch UK submitted evidence to inquiries, urging a return to "firmer" controls promised during the campaign, while noting that post-2021 policy tweaks, such as salary thresholds, had minimal impact on curbing the overall scale.

Research Outputs and Methodologies

Briefing Papers and Reports

Migration Watch UK produces briefing papers as its primary research outputs, which analyze immigration trends, policies, and impacts using data from official sources such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and reports. These documents, often numbered sequentially (e.g., MW 522), aim to inform public and policy debate by highlighting what the organization describes as unsustainable migration levels and their consequences, including economic, social, and security effects. The papers typically employ statistical analysis of net migration figures, data, and asylum claims to support arguments for policy reforms, such as caps on inflows. Key briefing papers address economic dimensions, asserting that high exerts fiscal pressures without commensurate benefits. For instance, a 2019 paper examined 's economic role, critiquing reliance on low-skilled migrant labor and projecting strains on public services amid net migration exceeding 200,000 annually. More recent analyses, like MW 521 from May 2024, advocate a net migration of 100,000 per year to restore control, citing ONS showing 685,000 net migration in the year ending June 2023 as evidence of policy failure post-Brexit. On and irregular migration, MW 520 (May 2024) links large-scale asylum inflows—particularly small boat crossings—to heightened risks of and , referencing European data where concentrations correlated with attacks, such as in post-2015. papers, including MW 516 (October 2023), evaluate government responses to Channel crossings, numbering over 45,000 in , and deem Labour's proposals inadequate for deterrence. Student and family migration features in specialized papers, such as MW 522 (August 2025), which scrutinizes post-study work visas contributing to net migration spikes, with over 500,000 student visas granted in 2023 alongside dependents. Historical overviews, like an updated 2014 summary, trace patterns from post-war inflows to EU expansion effects, using census and ONS longitudinal data to quantify demographic shifts. These outputs prioritize empirical metrics over qualitative narratives, though critics from pro-immigration outlets question their interpretive framing; nonetheless, they consistently reference verifiable government statistics.

Data Monitoring and Statistical Analysis

Migration Watch UK monitors UK migration data by systematically reviewing and analyzing official releases from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the , focusing on metrics such as net migration, , asylum applications, and irregular entries. The organization emphasizes immigration's role as the dominant factor in recent population increases, citing ONS figures showing net migration reaching 685,000 in the year ending June 2023, with projections indicating continued high levels absent policy changes. A key tool is the Channel Crossings Tracker, which aggregates on small boat arrivals across the , tracking incidents (boats detected) separately from individual migrants to highlight operational trends and enforcement gaps; for example, it documented over 187,000 arrivals since through October 2025. In briefing papers, the group conducts granular statistical examinations, often critiquing official estimates for undercounting elements like overstayers or rejected asylum cases. One analysis of records from 2016-2020 found that 54% of age-disputed asylum claimants were assessed as adults, suggesting potential systemic abuse in claims. Similarly, papers on illegal populations adjust ONS estimates upward, incorporating on refused cases and non-compliance rates, estimating figures exceeding government baselines by factors of 10% or more in rejection adjustments. Migration Watch UK has validated its analytical approach through historical forecasting accuracy, such as projecting approximately two million non-EU net migrants from 2002-2012, closely aligning with eventual ONS outcomes after accounting for illegal flows. The organization advocates for enhanced data collection, including better e-borders tracking to address "flying blind" gaps in overstayer monitoring, as evidenced by persistent discrepancies between inflows and exit records.

Public Engagement and Media Presence

Migration Watch UK engages the public through targeted tools, including a prominent "Write to Your MP" campaign that urges individuals to their parliamentary representatives to demand stricter controls, citing support from nearly 30 million residents who favor managed levels. This initiative is complemented by calls to share materials with networks to amplify the message, alongside donation drives to fund opposition to high volumes. The also maintains a for subscribers to receive updates on migration debates, fostering ongoing public involvement without reported participation metrics. In media outreach, Migration Watch UK provides data and commentary to journalists, resulting in frequent citations across outlets such as the , The Telegraph, GB News, and Express, often addressing topics like asylum claims, housing pressures from legal migration, and Channel crossings. Spokespeople, including Chairman Alp Mehmet and former figures like Lord Green, appear in television and radio interviews; for instance, Mehmet discussed cultural integration risks in a May 2025 appearance, while Green warned of a 10 million increase driven by in a 2015 segment. The group participates in debates on platforms like TalkTV and , emphasizing empirical migration statistics to inform public discourse. Social media bolsters visibility, with the @MigrationWatch X account amassing over 76,000 followers by late 2025, posting analyses of migration impacts to raise awareness. The page similarly promotes action items like MP outreach and content sharing, positioning the organization as a counter to unchecked inflows. These channels, alongside public trackers like the Channel Crossings monitor, enable direct dissemination of statistics to audiences seeking unfiltered data on inflows.

Core Policy Positions

Advocacy for Reduced Immigration Levels

Migration Watch UK has long advocated for reducing net migration to the to sustainable levels, specifically annual figures in the tens of thousands, arguing that higher volumes impose unsustainable burdens on infrastructure, services, and social cohesion. This stance echoes the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition's pledge to lower net migration to the "tens of thousands," a target the organization has endorsed and used to critique subsequent policy failures. The group contends that unmanaged high lacks consent, with net inflows since 2001 adding approximately one million people every three years and driving 82% of projected population growth over the next 25 years. High net migration figures—peaking at 906,000 in mid-2023 and estimated at 431,000 for 2024—exacerbate housing shortages, pressure on the , and school overcrowding, according to Migration Watch UK analyses based on data. The organization highlights that such levels equate to annual population increases comparable to the size of a major city like , without corresponding expansion, and asserts that economic benefits from mass low-skilled inflows are overstated relative to fiscal costs. In support of reduction, it cites polls indicating 75% public preference for lower , positioning its advocacy as aligned with majority sentiment rather than elite-driven policy. To achieve these reductions, Migration Watch UK calls for stricter visa controls, including caps on work, study, and routes beyond essential economic or humanitarian needs, while preserving properly managed inflows that demonstrably . It has criticized governments, including post- Conservative administrations, for repeatedly failing to deliver on reduction promises, as evidenced by net migration remaining in the hundreds of thousands despite pledges. Prior to the 2016 , the group projected that regaining via could cut net migration by about 100,000 annually by curbing EU free movement. These positions are framed as pragmatic responses to empirical trends, emphasizing controlled migration over open borders to maintain national capacity and cultural continuity.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Migration

Migration Watch UK maintains that to the imposes a substantial net fiscal cost on the public finances, with migrants overall consuming more in benefits and services than they contribute in taxes. In their analysis of the tax year 2014/15, using data from the UK Labour Force Survey and Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, they estimated the total immigrant population generated a net fiscal deficit of £16.8 billion, comprising a £1.2 billion cost from (EEA) migrants and £15.6 billion from non-EEA migrants. Among EEA subgroups, recent arrivals from the EU14 (pre-2004 members) yielded a net contribution of £2.8 billion, while recent EU8/EU2 (post-2004 enlargement) migrants incurred a £2.9 billion cost; non-EEA recent migrants added a £3.8 billion deficit. This overall fiscal drain, Migration Watch UK argues, persists despite selective positive contributions from high-skilled subgroups, as lower-skilled and family migration dominate inflows and draw heavily on welfare, , and services without commensurate revenues. Their 2016 assessment critiqued methodologies in studies like those from , which claimed net positives by excluding migrant dependents or attributing public goods costs unevenly, estimating instead a cumulative fiscal burden of £160 billion from 1995 to 2011 when remedying such assumptions. They further reference projections showing immigration enlarging total GDP by about 0.5% annually under high net migration scenarios (e.g., 250,000 per year), but with near-zero long-term uplift to GDP —a key prosperity metric unaffected by population-driven aggregate growth. On labor market effects, Migration Watch UK highlights modest aggregate wage stability but disproportionate harms to low-skilled natives, citing research indicating a 2% depression for semi- and unskilled service workers per 10% rise in immigrant share. Non-EU migration shows tentative displacement, with the Migration Advisory Committee estimating 23 UK-born workers losing jobs per 100 non-EU entrants from 1995 to 2010. Productivity gains remain elusive, as evidenced by stagnant output per worker despite a 2 million immigrant labor force increase since 2006. Collectively, these findings underpin their conclusion that mass immigration yields no compelling economic rationale, prioritizing reduced levels to safeguard fiscal sustainability and native living standards.

Asylum Seekers and Irregular Crossings

Migration Watch UK has emphasized the scale of irregular crossings into the , particularly via small across the , as a primary vector for unauthorized asylum claims. Since 2018, their Channel Crossing Tracker has documented over 160,000 such arrivals, with annual figures peaking at 45,755 in 2022 before declining to 29,437 in 2023 and rising again to 36,816 in 2024. These crossings, which the organization characterizes as illegal entries from safe European countries, accounted for 80% of all irregular arrivals since 2020, often involving overloaded vessels carrying an average of 49 people per in 2023. A significant proportion of these arrivals—95% in 2024—subsequently claim asylum, contributing to systemic pressures including a backlog of 90,000 cases by the end of 2024 and daily hotel accommodation costs exceeding £8 million. Migration Watch UK highlights that 70% of arrivals since 2018 are adult males, with top nationalities including , , and , and notes that many destroy documentation upon arrival, complicating identity verification and returns. Returns remain minimal, with only 2,580 small boat arrivals (2% of the total) removed between 2018 and 2023, a figure the organization attributes to inadequate enforcement and permissive policies that incentivize further crossings. In policy terms, Migration Watch UK advocates for robust deterrence measures, such as offshore processing and swift returns to countries of origin like or , criticizing the abandonment of the scheme in 2024 as a policy failure. They have deemed Labour's post-2023 approaches, including proposed returns agreements and embassy-based applications, as ineffective and likely to increase inflows, citing historical data under the where the accepted nearly twice as many irregular migrants from the as it returned (3,961 versus 1,763 from 2015-2020). The also warns of security implications, pointing to overlaps between top crossing nationalities and those linked to charges since 2001, as well as elevated rates associated with asylum influxes, with foreign nationals comprising 12% of the prison in 2024. Migration Watch UK has consistently argued that the (ECHR), incorporated into UK law via the , impedes effective immigration control by enabling appeals that prioritize individual claims over public interest. The organization contends that adherence to the ECHR, particularly in cases involving foreign criminals, results in prolonged legal challenges that frustrate removals, with data from 2007 indicating that the UK's commitment to the convention attracts security risks by limiting expulsion powers. In a 2011 briefing, Migration Watch UK highlighted recent judicial interpretations expanding ECHR protections, such as under Article 3 (prohibition of ), which have blocked returns to countries deemed unsafe despite evidence of safe relocation options within those nations. A focal point of criticism is Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. Migration Watch UK maintains that this provision is frequently invoked by migrants to resist deportation, even in cases of serious criminality, as courts balance individual rights against the state's interest in maintaining immigration rules. The group welcomed aspects of the Immigration Act 2014, which introduced public interest factors to weigh against Article 8 claims, arguing it addressed prior imbalances where family ties formed in the UK—often after illegal entry—outweighed offenses like drug trafficking. In 2012 analysis, they noted that unqualified Article 8 rights have led to inconsistent rulings, with the (ECtHR) overriding domestic decisions, thereby undermining on immigration. Regarding asylum policy, Migration Watch UK supports measures like the removal scheme, asserting that it complies with core conventions while circumventing ECHR Article 3 barriers through evidence of 's safety for processing claims. Following the High Court's 2023 ruling upholding the scheme's legality, the organization emphasized that such offshoring deters irregular crossings without violating principles, contrasting it with ECtHR interim measures that halted initial flights in 2022. They advocate temporary withdrawal from the ECHR if necessary to enforce border controls, as stated by chairman Sir Andrew Green in , who described ongoing asylum backlogs and accommodations for claimants as a "madness" enabled by convention obligations that neglect British citizens' rights to security and resource allocation. In October 2024, Migration Watch UK reiterated the case for ECHR exit, citing examples from other signatory states achieving 70% rates for illegal entrants, implying the UK's higher legal hurdles stem from expansive domestic interpretations rather than the convention's text. The group urges legislative reforms to prioritize national sovereignty, arguing that while the ECHR originated as a safeguard, its application to has distorted original intent, favoring absconders and failed claimants over deterrence and enforcement.

EU Membership, Brexit, and Post-Brexit Policy

During the period of membership in the , Migration Watch UK consistently argued that the principle of free movement contributed to elevated levels of immigration, undermining national control over borders. Following the 2004 EU enlargement to include Eastern European states without transitional controls, the organization estimated average annual net migration from the EU at 136,000, with particular concern over inflows from and averaging 46,000 per year since 2014 restrictions were lifted. Migration Watch UK highlighted how this system allowed EU citizens to enter and reside without prior leave, leading to forecasts of sustained high net migration exceeding 250,000 annually for at least two decades if the UK remained in the . In the lead-up to the 23 June 2016 Brexit referendum, Migration Watch UK advocated for departure from the as essential to terminating free movement and restoring over , aligning with public sentiment favoring reduced EU inflows. The organization submitted evidence to parliamentary inquiries emphasizing that post-Brexit arrangements should prioritize ending unrestricted access, rejecting "" deals that prolonged free movement, such as those akin to Norway's EEA model. Following the invocation of Article 50 on 29 March 2017, Migration Watch UK opposed extended transition periods, warning that a two- to three-year continuation of free movement rules could result in 250,000 to 585,000 additional net EU arrivals, alongside up to 1.5 million registrations and accruing rights to permanent residence. Free movement formally ended on 31 December 2020, with EU arrivals thereafter requiring permission to stay beyond the transitional phase. Post-Brexit, Migration Watch UK has critiqued successive government policies for failing to deliver meaningful reductions in overall despite the shift to a points-based system effective from 1 January 2021. In its assessment of the December 2018 on immigration, updated in May 2019, the organization argued that proposals to abolish caps on highly skilled workers, lower the skills threshold to A-level equivalents, eliminate the Resident Labour Market Test, and introduce unenforceable temporary routes for low-skilled EU youth mobility (potentially admitting up to 59,000 annually) would likely drive net migration higher than the pre-Brexit level of 270,000. It recommended stricter controls, including addressing family migration (148,000 visas annually) and bolstering enforcement, while submitting to parliamentary committees that objectives should align with public preferences for lower EU and total immigration. The group has continued to press for elevated salary thresholds and reduced reliance on non-EU labor to mitigate fiscal burdens from lower-earning migrants.

Hong Kong BNO Visa Scheme

Migration Watch UK has expressed strong reservations about the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) (BNO) visa scheme, viewing it as a pathway that could lead to mass migration inconsistent with the UK's immigration reduction goals. In a June 5, 2020, briefing paper, the organization warned that extending a route to citizenship for BNO holders and their dependents could admit up to three million people, far exceeding historical precedents like the resettlement of Ugandan Asians in the 1970s (approximately 30,000 individuals). The paper estimated that around 2.9 million people in Hong Kong qualified as BNOs, with 350,000 already holding BNO passports at the time, potentially including family members in the total influx. The group argued that the scheme's scale—equated to tripling the population of Birmingham or eleven times the UK's typical annual net migration—risked breaching Conservative Party pledges to lower overall immigration levels and could set a dangerous precedent for demands from other former British territories, such as India or Nigeria. Migration Watch UK questioned the UK's invocation of "historical responsibilities," noting potential inconsistencies with the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which outlined Hong Kong's handover without provisions for mass repatriation to Britain. They further contended that such a policy might fail to deter Chinese actions in Hong Kong and could inadvertently weaken local democratic resistance by offering an escape valve rather than bolstering on-the-ground opposition. Post-implementation of the scheme on January 31, 2021—which permits BNO holders and dependents to live, work, and study in the UK for five years before applying for settlement—Migration Watch UK has incorporated inflows into broader critiques of uncontrolled migration. In June 2023 commentary, Chairman Alp Mehmet highlighted migrants alongside those from and as contributors to record-high figures, arguing that such humanitarian routes have overwhelmed the system without adequate fiscal or integration safeguards. Similarly, in a May 2025 parliamentary , President Lord Green of Deddington differentiated BNO visa holders from traditional asylum seekers, emphasizing the need for distinct treatment to avoid conflating geopolitical responses with broader migration pressures. The organization has not advocated abolishing the scheme outright but consistently urged tighter controls to align it with net migration reduction objectives.

Reception, Influence, and Controversies

Praise and Endorsements

In October 2014, Prime Minister nominated Sir Andrew Green, founder and long-serving chairman of Migration Watch UK, for a life peerage, appointing him as Lord Green of Deddington as a crossbench peer in the . Migration Watch UK described the honor as "an endorsement of the work the organisation has done" in scrutinizing immigration policy. The nomination was viewed by observers as signaling Cameron's alignment with calls for stricter immigration controls amid rising public concern and electoral pressures from parties like UKIP. Migration Watch UK's statistical analyses and policy briefings have been acknowledged in parliamentary contexts for contributing data-driven perspectives to debates. During a Home Affairs Committee evidence session, members highlighted the organization's input as offering "an important contribution" to understanding migration impacts. Sir Andrew Green himself has been profiled in media as a "respected former " whose leadership of the group provides authoritative commentary on demographic trends. The group's emphasis on empirical monitoring of migration flows has garnered support from figures advocating controlled immigration, including cross-party parliamentarians concerned with fiscal and social cohesion effects, though explicit endorsements remain tied to specific policy alignments rather than unqualified acclaim.

Criticisms from Opponents

Migration Matters, a pro-immigration advocacy group, has criticized Migration Watch UK as a lobbying organization with a predefined agenda against high immigration levels, rather than an impartial think tank, arguing that its positions—such as campaigning under the slogan "No to 70 million" population by 2050—are inherently partial yet often aired unchallenged on platforms like the BBC. The group's director, Atul Hatwal, contended in 2013 that treating Migration Watch as neutral analysts distorts public discourse on migration. The Institute of Race Relations, an organization, accused Migration Watch in 2012 of manipulating statistics in a report linking to , claiming the analysis employed spin and stereotypes to advance a reductionist on pressures, despite refutations from mainstream economic research. Economist of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research specifically highlighted the report's fast-and-loose handling of evidence to fit a policy-driven goal of curbing . The Institute further described Migration Watch's emphasis on an "overcrowded island" as echoing outdated Malthusian views, effective in shaping media s but lacking empirical rigor. Ian Dunt, then-editor of Politics.co.uk, lambasted Migration Watch in 2016 for producing misleading reports that distorted immigrant numbers, costs, and economic impacts, particularly during the EU referendum, by ignoring factors like labor demand and portraying migrants uniformly as a fiscal burden despite contrary . Dunt alleged a pattern of logical inconsistencies, such as shifting from benefit-chasing claims to work-driven migration while maintaining negative framing, and criticized the group's media alliances for amplifying these distortions as authoritative analysis. Community advocacy groups like Ligali have denounced Migration Watch's as racially charged, arguing in the mid-2000s that its lobbying influences policy in ways that stoke under the guise of neutral concern over numbers. Academic comparisons have also faulted Migration Watch's immigration forecasts for statistical inaccuracies, contrasting them with more permissive analyses from pro-migration entities.

Accusations of and Defamation Cases

Migration Watch UK has faced accusations of from groups and sections of the media, which contend that its research selectively emphasizes negative aspects of immigration while downplaying potential benefits. In 2013, a cross-party criticized the for presenting Migration Watch UK's views as neutral without sufficient challenge, arguing that the organization pursues a "clearly defined agenda" favoring reduced immigration levels. Similarly, in 2007, The Guardian described Migration Watch UK as "a nasty little outfit with a distinctly unpleasant agenda," implying an underlying against migrants. Community organizations such as Ligali have challenged its influence, alleging "racist rhetoric" in its policy . The Institute of has linked Migration Watch UK's campaigns to broader narratives promoting "xenophobic and even racist politics" through selective use of statistics on immigration impacts. Critics have also questioned the rigor of specific outputs, such as a 2019 Migration Watch UK study projecting post-Brexit immigration surges, which the fact-checking organization highlighted for methodological flaws leading to its withdrawal. These accusations often emanate from sources aligned with pro-immigration perspectives, including outlets like and advocacy bodies, which Migration Watch UK has countered by emphasizing its reliance on official data from bodies like the Office for National Statistics and its non-partisan status. Regarding , Migration Watch UK has initiated legal threats against individuals accusing it of . In October 2010, , a political commentator, faced a libel threat from the organization's then-chairman, Sir Andrew Green, after she described Migration Watch UK on as "xenophobic, right wing and borderline fascist." Bercow's remarks, made during a discussion on , prompted the action on grounds that they falsely portrayed the group as promoting discriminatory views. No full trial ensued, and the matter appears to have been resolved without court proceedings, though it underscored tensions over characterizations of the organization's stance. No successful suits against Migration Watch UK itself have been documented in public records.

Measured Impact on Public and Policy Discourse

Migration Watch UK has contributed to UK discourse by submitting evidence to parliamentary inquiries, where its analyses of migration and shortcomings have been referenced or debated. In a 2006 Home Affairs Committee report on control, the was cited for arguing that large-scale was "contrary to the interests of all sections of our community," highlighting pressures on public services and social cohesion. Similarly, MWUK provided written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in 2021 on irregular migration, noting that approximately 50% of detected illegal entrants in 2020 arrived by small boat, totaling around 8,500 individuals, which underscored failures in border enforcement. These submissions have informed committee discussions on enforcement gaps, though direct adoption remains limited. In media coverage of asylum and , MWUK has served as a recurrent source, often alongside government officials, amplifying data-driven critiques of high inflows. A analysis of British media from 1999 to 2009 identified MWUK as one of the primary institutions quoted in immigration stories, particularly on numbers and integration challenges, contributing to a narrative emphasizing control over expansion. More recently, its briefings on net migration surges—such as the record 745,000 figure for —have been invoked in public debates, aligning with broader concerns over shortages, NHS strains, and fiscal costs, even as official policies have not curbed inflows. MWUK's emphasis on security risks from unchecked migration, including in a 2024 briefing linking irregular arrivals to potential vectors, has entered conversations, echoing in on external threats. data reflects heightened concern, with 37% of Britons in April 2023 favoring stricter asylum rules, a sentiment MWUK's consistent highlighting of empirical trends—such as post-Brexit migration spikes despite promises of reduction—has helped sustain. However, measurable shifts attributable solely to MWUK are modest; net migration rose under successive , indicating its influence has primarily shaped oppositional discourse rather than enacted controls, countering institutional tendencies to downplay negative externalities.

References

  1. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us
  2. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
  3. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/521/immigration-no-cap-no-control
  4. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/425/migration-watch-uk--our-track-record
  5. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/39368/pdf/
  6. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2024/02/23/the-social-care-visa-scam/
  7. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/how-you-can-help
  8. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/who-funds-you/migration-watch/
  9. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us/lord-andrew-green
  10. https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/migration-watch-uk/
  11. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04511775
  12. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us/advisory-council
  13. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04511775/filing-history
  14. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/
  15. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/about/funders/
  16. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29703281
  17. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11178010/Immigration-in-the-open-thanks-to-Sir-Andrew-Green.html
  18. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/uc1185-i/1185m05.htm
  19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c576fe5274a2041cf35ef/5684.pdf
  20. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/23/eu.thinktanks
  21. https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/files/3952798/EU%2520expansion.pdf
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story
  23. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.26
  24. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/media-reports-visit/164
  25. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/Public-Opinion-Voting-MW361.pdf
  26. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/european-union
  27. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36514849
  28. https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/europe/uk-brexit-campaign-migration
  29. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/76478/html/
  30. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/415/what-does-a-soft-brexit-mean-for-immigration-from-the-eu
  31. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/440/implications-for-immigration-of-a-post-brexit-transition-period-
  32. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/131/tony-blair-is-wrong-yet-again-immigration-from-the-eu-post-brexit-can-and-will-be-controlled
  33. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/507/non-uk-entry-grants-under-the-post-brexit-immigration-system
  34. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/migration-statistics-over-time
  35. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/channel-crossings-tracker
  36. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/video/72/the-government-has-lost-control-of-channel-crossings
  37. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/
  38. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/731
  39. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/92516/html/
  40. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-papers-archive/6
  41. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/520/is-immigration-a-threat-to-uk-security
  42. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-papers-archive/2
  43. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-papers/category/9
  44. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/48
  45. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xgkx20dyvo
  46. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/document/500
  47. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/109
  48. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/MW425-accurate-estimates-of-future-net-migration-and-population-growth.pdf
  49. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/MW488-what-action-is-the-government-taking-to-tackle-overstaying.pdf
  50. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/take-action
  51. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/media-reports
  52. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gyMnGN0XtY
  53. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-30276504
  54. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-we-do
  55. https://x.com/MigrationWatch
  56. https://www.facebook.com/MWUKOfficial/
  57. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/07/26/the-verdict-is-in-the-government-has-not-reduced-immigration/
  58. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/434
  59. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/381
  60. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/386
  61. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/235
  62. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/economics
  63. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/726
  64. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/516/labours-feeble-plan-to-tackle-channel-crossing-asylum-seekers
  65. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/76
  66. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/231/the-european-convention-on-human-rights-
  67. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/251/european-convention-on-human-rights-echr--article-8
  68. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/334
  69. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2012/02/23/european-convention-on-human-rights-echr-article-8/
  70. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/696
  71. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/46/what-about-our-human-rights
  72. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2024/10/26/the-case-for-leaving-the-echr/
  73. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/458/assessment-of-the-white-paper-on-immigration-after-brexit
  74. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/461/estimate-of-post-brexit-migration-levels-under-the-white-paper-proposals
  75. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/476/route-to-uk-citizenship-for-up-to-three-million-people-from-hong-kong
  76. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/196/our-country-faces-a-truly-critical-turning-point-both-asylum-and-immigration-are-now-out-of-control
  77. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-05-15/debates/9B009764-6283-402F-A43F-CB309054D027/ImmigrationSystem
  78. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/migrationwatch-thinktank-sir-andrew-green-peer-ukip
  79. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/david-cameron-ukip-desperation-migrationwatch-uk-founder-peerage
  80. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/525735/Migrant-Watch-Peer-Campaign-House-of-Lords
  81. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/uc884-i/uc88402.htm
  82. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/07/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices
  83. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2013/04/08/what-they-say/
  84. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/27/bbc-immigration-campaign-group-neutral
  85. https://irr.org.uk/article/lies-damned-lies-and-racism/
  86. https://workpermit.com/news/migration-watch-uk-criticised-misleading-uk-immigration-reports-20160629
  87. https://periodicos.uff.br/enfil/article/download/44313/25287/149208
  88. https://www.pacma.org.uk/ligali/article.php?id=2295
  89. https://fullfact.org/immigration/heres-why-migration-watch-got-their-study-post-brexit-immigration-wrong/
  90. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/48/its-not-racism-but-pure-common-sense-
  91. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/oct/01/sally-bercow-migration-watch
  92. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2010/10/sky-news-comments-threatened
  93. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/775/77505.htm
  94. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/TCM-UKMedia.pdf
  95. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/document/520
  96. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
  97. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772910/EPRS_BRI%282025%29772910_EN.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.