EU, Immigration and UKIP

[deltic]

I find UKIP a bit of an enigma. A bunch of Neo Liberals who seem to be completely against the unfettered immigration that makes Neo Liberalism work, cheap foreign labour. Too many people seem to want their cake and to eat it. Cheap consumer goods and expensive British labour making them. Apparently Boris Johnson was disgusted about an Australian who got booted out of the UK, I guess Boris has never tried to get a work permit in Australia.

UKIP is far from being neo Liberal - for example they seem to support nationalisation of the rail network and are opposed to private sector involvement in the NHS. They are purely a populist party - supporting a set of incoherant policies they think will find favour with the public. The Economist recently had a good chart showing that the proportion of the public concerned by immigration has been consistent for decades regardless whether net migration was postive, negative or zero.

For those of a certain age it is interesting to compare the launch of the SDP with UKIP. UKIP is nowhere near the level of support the SDP achieved and has none of the "names" that the SDP had. I seem to recall some 20 MPs left Labour to join the SDP compared to 2 Tories joining UKIP!

 

[21C101]

UKIP is far from being neo Liberal - for example they seem to support nationalisation of the rail network and are opposed to private sector involvement in the NHS. They are purely a populist party - supporting a set of incoherant policies they think will find favour with the public. The Economist recently had a good chart showing that the proportion of the public concerned by immigration has been consistent for decades regardless whether net migration was postive, negative or zero.

For those of a certain age it is interesting to compare the launch of the SDP with UKIP. UKIP is nowhere near the level of support the SDP achieved and has none of the "names" that the SDP had. I seem to recall some 20 MPs left Labour to join the SDP compared to 2 Tories joining UKIP!

2 so far....

28 labour MPs and 1 tory MP defected to the SDP in 1981/2. However they did not resign their seat and fight a by election as the two UKIP guys have done.

One did, John Mann of Mitcham and Morden - and lost the byelection to the Tories.

Most unusal was that Basingstoke had a Democratic Unionist MP for a while after the outgoing MP Andrew Hunter defected to them. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/dec/11/uk.houseofcommons

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This exceptionally sad story that appeared on BBC News today is relevant to this thread. Jimmy Mubenga: Deportee shouted 'you're killing me'

The story itself is a report on court proceedings after Angolan citizen Jimmy Mubenga was killed by security guards on the aeroplane while being deported from the UK.

Now while the real tragedy is - obviously that he was killed and has left behind a fatherless family, let's accept that was not intended, was possibly an accident, and look at the wider circumstances of his deportation:

This guy had been living in London, quite legally, for nearly 20 years - as far as I can tell from Googling, he came here because of the risk of persecution in his native Angola. I'd say 20 years is easily long enough that you can say the UK is his permanent home. He had a wife and 5 children here - the youngest was less than a year old at the time of his deportation/death. He was being deported because he'd been involved in a pub brawl which lead to his being sent to prison for ABH - usual policy is to deport foreigners after prison sentences.

Now - two questions for those people here who are thinking of voting UKIP because you think that we're somehow not being tough enough on immigration...

Obviously I don't remotely condone being in a pub brawl. But can you please explain in what way deporting a person who has lived in the UK for 20 years, and in the process possibly separating him permanently from his wife and 3 year old kid is not tough enough? Can you explain what else you'd like to have done to this man, and to his family, and why?

Secondly, related to the earlier comments in this thread regarding racism: A British-born citizen, involved with the pub brawl and charged with same crime would presumably get the same prison sentence and then be released - end of punishment. Can you please explain the moral basis for why the fact of not being a UK citizen means that a person should receive a far bigger punishment (ie. be sent to prison AND then be separated from his family) than a British citizen in the same circumstances would be given? Can you explain in what manner deliberately giving harsher punishments to foreigners is not racist?

(Before anyone says that this is an isolated case: Yes, every case is different, but from all my dealings with and following of immigration issues, I'm very certain this case is not atypical of UK immigration rules, other than the horrible fact that Jimmy was killed while being departed. It's estimated that tens of thousands of families are being split up because of UK immigration restrictions - although usually the cause is one family member not being allowed entry to the UK in the first place because of the onerous visa regulations, rather than being deported following a crime).

 

[ainsworth74]

Wait, if he'd been here for 20 years why hadn't he naturalised as a British citizen?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That I don't know. A couple of plausible possibilities are that some quirk in the (very complex) regulations prevented him from doing so, or (more likely) he saw no particular reason to apply - since the process of applying is expensive and for most purposes (other than travelling abroad), once you have indefinite leave to remain and have lived here for a long time (> 3 years after getting ILR), having a British passport doesn't make much difference. But I'm just guessing there.

 

[21C101]

That I don't know. A couple of plausible possibilities are that some quirk in the (very complex) regulations prevented him from doing so, or (more likely) he saw no particular reason to apply - since the process of applying is expensive and for most purposes (other than travelling abroad), once you have indefinite leave to remain and have lived here for a long time (> 3 years after getting ILR), having a British passport doesn't make much difference. But I'm just guessing there.

I do agree he was treated harshly.We're hardly unique in that. For example if you are given the equivalent of indefinite leave to remain and get involved with an imprisonable offence the same rules apply.

I think what is happening is that due to the influx from other EU states (which EU rules prevent us doing anything about until MPs regrow a backbone and assert the supremacy of parliament), non EU citizens are suffering from harsh treatment.

It quite frankly appalls me that we have unrestricted immigration from countries within the EU which we share no language or culture with (eg France, Lithuania) while countries that share most elements of our culture, speak English and have the same head of state (eg Barbados and Jamaica) are subject to heavy restriction. It should be the other way round.

 

[EM2]

UK gains £20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal

European migrants to the UK are not a drain on Britain’s finances and pay out far more in taxes than they receive in state benefits, a new study has revealed.

The research by two leading migration economists at University College also reveals that Britain is uniquely successful, even more than Germany, in attracting the most highly skilled and highly educated migrants in Europe.

The study, the Fiscal Impact of Immigration to the UK, published in the Economic Journal, reveals that more than 60% of new migrants from western and southern Europe are now university graduates. The educational levels of east Europeans who come to Britain are also improving with 25% of recent arrivals having completed a degree compared with 24% of the UK-born workforce.

It says that European migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011. Those from the original 15 EU countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, contributed 64% – £15bn more in taxes than they received in welfare – while east European migrants contributed 12%, equivalent to £5bn more.

The research by UCL’s centre for research and analysis of migration was undertaken to “fill the void” in the debate on immigration in which the contribution of unrestricted migration from within the EU has become the centre of intense political and public concern.

Prof Christian Dustmann, co-author of the study and director of the centre, said: “A key concern of the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems. Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.”

He said that the educational qualifications of new migrants to Britain, especially from western and southern Europe, was now extraordinarily high and higher than any other EU country. He said the UK would have had to spend £6.8bn on education to build up the same level of “human capital”. The study shows that not only are European migrants more highly educated than the UK-born workforce but they are less likely to be in receipt of state benefits – 43% less likely among migrants in the past decade – and more likely to be in employment. They are 7% less likely to live in social housing.

The report was criticised as being “shallow” by David Green of the centre-right thinktank, Civitas. He said that by focusing on taxes and benefits, the report had missed out some vital costs.

“People who migrate tend to be young, better educated and energetic. They make good employees here but they are a loss to their own country. If other European countries fail to prosper because their brightest and best have travelled to the UK, we are all worse off,” he said.

Green added that the survey also disregarded the waste of human capital involved in too many university migrants working as baristas or waiters.

The Conservative immigration minister James Brokenshire, responding to the UCL report, said: “Since 2010, we have reformed benefits, healthcare and housing rules to make them among the tightest in Europe and we continue to see an increase in the number of British citizens in work. In the past, the majority of growth in employment was taken up by foreign nationals; in the last year, three-quarters of it was accounted for by UK nationals.

“We are creating a system that is fair to British citizens and those who want to come here legitimately and contribute to our national life, but which is tough on those who flout the rules.”

 

[meridian2]

I'd like to see the evidence and factual information supporting this claim of us gaining £20bn. It's a sweeping generalisation. More EU propaganda; how much has free immigration cost?

 

[EM2]

Why not download the report and find out for yourself?
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

 

[Antman]

I'd like to see the evidence and factual information supporting this claim of us gaining £20bn. It's a sweeping generalisation. More EU propaganda; how much has free immigration cost?

Exactly, most migrants are doing low paid jobs and therefore paying little or no tax.

There is no escaping from the fact that they are driving wages down and housing costs up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This exceptionally sad story that appeared on BBC News today is relevant to this thread. Jimmy Mubenga: Deportee shouted 'you're killing me'

The story itself is a report on court proceedings after Angolan citizen Jimmy Mubenga was killed by security guards on the aeroplane while being deported from the UK.

Now while the real tragedy is - obviously that he was killed and has left behind a fatherless family, let's accept that was not intended, was possibly an accident, and look at the wider circumstances of his deportation:

This guy had been living in London, quite legally, for nearly 20 years - as far as I can tell from Googling, he came here because of the risk of persecution in his native Angola. I'd say 20 years is easily long enough that you can say the UK is his permanent home. He had a wife and 5 children here - the youngest was less than a year old at the time of his deportation/death. He was being deported because he'd been involved in a pub brawl which lead to his being sent to prison for ABH - usual policy is to deport foreigners after prison sentences.

Now - two questions for those people here who are thinking of voting UKIP because you think that we're somehow not being tough enough on immigration...

Obviously I don't remotely condone being in a pub brawl. But can you please explain in what way deporting a person who has lived in the UK for 20 years, and in the process possibly separating him permanently from his wife and 3 year old kid is not tough enough? Can you explain what else you'd like to have done to this man, and to his family, and why?

Secondly, related to the earlier comments in this thread regarding racism: A British-born citizen, involved with the pub brawl and charged with same crime would presumably get the same prison sentence and then be released - end of punishment. Can you please explain the moral basis for why the fact of not being a UK citizen means that a person should receive a far bigger punishment (ie. be sent to prison AND then be separated from his family) than a British citizen in the same circumstances would be given? Can you explain in what manner deliberately giving harsher punishments to foreigners is not racist?

(Before anyone says that this is an isolated case: Yes, every case is different, but from all my dealings with and following of immigration issues, I'm very certain this case is not atypical of UK immigration rules, other than the horrible fact that Jimmy was killed while being departed. It's estimated that tens of thousands of families are being split up because of UK immigration restrictions - although usually the cause is one family member not being allowed entry to the UK in the first place because of the onerous visa regulations, rather than being deported following a crime).

Obviously it's terrible that he has lost his life and hopefully the court case will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

As I understand it Mr Mubenga was jailed for two years for ABH, so it sounds like a bit more than a pub brawl. Presumably he would have known that any criminal convictions could see him deported but he still took the course of action that he did?

Presumably British citizens living in many other countries would also face deportation in these circumstances?

 

[EM2]

Exactly, most migrants are doing low paid jobs and therefore paying little or no tax.

There is no escaping from the fact that they are driving wages down and housing costs up.

And what about the VAT they pay on their food, clothes, power, mobile phones etc., the duty they pay on their beer and cigarettes, the duty they pay on the fuel and the VED they pay for their car? Just for starters, like...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd like to see the evidence and factual information supporting this claim of us gaining £20bn. It's a sweeping generalisation.

You could try reading the report for yourself and see what happens?

They look at the amount of tax they pay in and the amount of stuff they take out (benefits, NHS costs, education costs). Given that EEA migrants do not get asylum seeker payments (obviously) and are not usually entitled to welfare benefits as they do not have the "right to reside" here if they're not working, it is not a surprise that they pay more in than they take out.

Non-EEA migrants, who will more often be receiving asylum seeker payments, take more money out than they put in (£120bn over the last 17 years in fact). But because UKIP are attempting to blame the Polish for all the world's ills this part of the report has been ignored.

Exactly, most migrants are doing low paid jobs and therefore paying little or no tax.

They're also diligent workers who have little or no access to welfare benefits. Therefore they may be paying smaller amounts of tax (don't forget that most taxation in the UK is indirect) but they're still paying more than they put in.

There is no escaping from the fact that they are driving wages down and housing costs up.

That's the common narrative but evidence is sketchy. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

In London it isn't the poor workers at the bottom who are driving rent and property purchase inflation, it's the fact that every single last new development in London is marketed to rich people from China and the middle east long before Londoners get a look in. Oddly enough it's the Tories who have made it easier for these people to "invest" in London- Economics George will sell non-EEA citizens a British passport for £1m- and UKIP's Thatcher Fanbois seem perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

There is no escaping from the fact that they are driving wages down and housing costs up.

...and all those super rich tycoons/oligarchs/oil-rich arabs that are attracted to London properties where they -allegedly - don't stay very often are having a greater effect on the massive hike on London property prices over the last few years! I think that they are pricing 'ordinary' Londoners out of the housing market!

 

[meridian2]

They're also diligent workers who have little or no access to welfare benefits. Therefore they may be paying smaller amounts of tax (don't forget that most taxation in the UK is indirect) but they're still paying more than they put in.

They have the same amount of access UK workers do to the welfare and benefits system, but the sheer influx of enquiries is causing the system to delay assessing claimants for well over a year. Now i'm well aware of correlation/causation but it is a considerably strong associative factor. The welfare system is under strain as is the healthcare system.
What I want to know is why is free movement preferable to targeted movement.

 

[bb21]

They have the same amount of access UK workers do to the welfare and benefits system, but the sheer influx of enquiries is causing the system to delay assessing claimants for well over a year. Now i'm well aware of correlation/causation but it is a considerably strong associative factor. The welfare system is under strain as is the healthcare system.
What I want to know is why is free movement preferable to targeted movement.

I think that says more about the unfit-for-purpose government department than problems caused by immigrants.

Enquiries do not equal payouts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They have the same amount of access UK workers do to the welfare and benefits system

They don't.

Access to welfare benefits is heavily restricted if you do not have the "right to reside" in the UK, and if you're not in employment or a student then you usually don't have the "right to reside". There are exceptions for EEA nationals with temporary illnesses or who are pregnant, provided that they were working immediately before they became ill or pregnant. People who are long-term incapable of work due to illness or disability will often lose the "right to reside".

EEA nationals can also only retain their "worker" status and claim JSA for a maximum of six months, and they must demonstrate a reasonable chance of being able to find work, unless they have been here for several years in long-term employment. UK nationals don't have to prove this, and can claim JSA for a much longer period.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/new-restrictions-migrants

What I want to know is why is free movement preferable to targeted movement.

It works both ways and has done for a very long time, as anyone who emigrated to the Costa del Sol or went to work on building sites in Germany will tell you.

 

[jon0844]

I'd like to see the evidence and factual information supporting this claim of us gaining £20bn. It's a sweeping generalisation. More EU propaganda; how much has free immigration cost?

I don't disbelieve it for one second.

We have far too many people that believe people coming here are just here to enjoy benefits, free healthcare etc.

I see it as being that these people are here to work, legally, and 'keep their heads down' before going home. Rather like some big working holiday, which might be six months or a few years.

Some will want to stay and bring up a family and 'give up' their original home, but many see working here as a means to an end.

They can put up with living in conditions that most people wouldn't choose to do (like 3 or 4 people sleeping in a room, or even the latest 'trick' where a landlord will rent for 12 hours a day, so when you work there's someone else in your bed for the other 12 hours) because it's part of the job. Earn as much as possible, without paying too much, so you can build up savings.

Employers love this, as it drives down pay. They don't need to worry about keeping pay high if there's no shortage of people to do the work. Obviously not every job will be like this, but all those manual jobs in warehouses aren't likely to be filled by local people. Indeed, these companies advertise abroad exclusively and some will arrange transportation, either directly or via an agency.

You could almost class some of these agencies as being legalised traffickers - but from an economical point of view, it's all good for business.

 

[Antman]

I don't disbelieve it for one second.

We have far too many people that believe people coming here are just here to enjoy benefits, free healthcare etc.

I see it as being that these people are here to work, legally, and 'keep their heads down' before going home. Rather like some big working holiday, which might be six months or a few years.

Some will want to stay and bring up a family and 'give up' their original home, but many see working here as a means to an end.

They can put up with living in conditions that most people wouldn't choose to do (like 3 or 4 people sleeping in a room, or even the latest 'trick' where a landlord will rent for 12 hours a day, so when you work there's someone else in your bed for the other 12 hours) because it's part of the job. Earn as much as possible, without paying too much, so you can build up savings.

Employers love this, as it drives down pay. They don't need to worry about keeping pay high if there's no shortage of people to do the work. Obviously not every job will be like this, but all those manual jobs in warehouses aren't likely to be filled by local people. Indeed, these companies advertise abroad exclusively and some will arrange transportation, either directly or via an agency.

You could almost class some of these agencies as being legalised traffickers - but from an economical point of view, it's all good for business.

But obviously not good for working class people for the reasons you mentioned

 

[21C101]

But obviously not good for working class people for the reasons you mentioned

I think it is pretty certain that if the net benefit to the country of EU immigration is indeed £20 billion a year (which I have grave doubts about but that's another story), the 1% gain a benefit of £40 billion from it and the other 99% get a benefit of -£20 billion from it.

 

[jon0844]

But obviously not good for working class people for the reasons you mentioned

Yes, unless they're willing to live in the same terms. Don't get a mortgage, instead rent and share a room with others, drink at home instead of going out and.. Oh wait, you're not going to eventually leave the country to go somewhere where that saved money is worth loads more.

That's why a lot of people here are buggered and it's no longer correct to simply say that native Brits are too lazy to take some jobs. Of course that is true in some cases, but the high cost of living will make some jobs only possible for a certain type of person. Most likely someone from eastern Europe.

Clearly someone from France or Germany or Scandinavia isn't going to come here for a low paid job and to live in worse conditions than home. But if the money you get here is worth 5 times or more than back home, why wouldn't you do it? It's legal, easy to do (given English is taught in schools) and makes perfect economic sense.

 

[deltic]

How many people on here know an economic migrant? What job do they do? Are they in your opinion a benefit or a disbenefit to the UK economy?

My office is full of people from around the world, most well paid and certainly paying far more in taxes than any benefits from the state. We advertise for graduates and at times get virtually no UK applicants, most speculative CVs come in from non-UK applicants. As a multinational if we cant recruit people to work in the UK the work ends up being offshored elsewhere. It also has to be said a high proportion of our cleaners are also migrants.

My children (white, British) are the ethnic minority in their school. Their friends families come from the EU, Africa, South America, Asia. The school 'a bog-standard inner London comprehensive" is one of the best performing in the country. In part because migrant parents are committed to ensuring their children get a good education because they know its a passport to future prosperity. Compare that to the results of the secondary schools in Clacton where there are virtually no migrants, standards are poor and aspirations are low.

Recent ONS analysis shows migrants and especially recent migrants are better qualified than UK born residents. Some 34.8% of people living in the UK but born overseas have a degree or higher. That compares with 25.9% of the UK-born population. Recent arrivals are the most likely to hold a degree - some 37.7% have one.

Migrants are working at all levels in the UK often doing jobs that Brits often cant do or dont want to do. The best way to reduce immigration is radically improve our education system and change young people's expectations and aspirations. I remember a relatively young engineer working on Crossrail going round schools drumming up interest in careers in engineering. The children were reasonably impressed when she told them she was on £60k until they realised that was a year rather than per week. Their expectations and aspirations were those of the celebrity culture that we have created and to which they have as much chance of achieving as winning the lottery.

 

[Johnuk123]

"EEA immigrants made a positive fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people a negative net contribution of £591bn"

Does anybody seriously believe that the whole world including the British living here come at a massive cost to this country but European immigrants are the only ones to have a positive effect ?

It's simply ridiculous but entirely predictable from an organisation so far left as UCL.

 

[deltic]

"EEA immigrants made a positive fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people a negative net contribution of £591bn"

Does anybody seriously believe that the whole world including the British living here come at a massive cost to this country but European immigrants are the only ones to have a positive effect ?

It's simply ridiculous and laughable.

In case you havent noticed the UK runs a huge budget deficit (well over a £100bn a year recently) and has done for years - the reason is that we spend far more on Brits than they pay in taxes while most migrants pay more in tax than they receive in state payments being mainly in work and healthy.

 

[EM2]

Does anybody seriously believe that the whole world including the British living here come at a massive cost to this country but European immigrants are the only ones to have a positive effect ?

It's simply ridiculous and laughable.

Maybe you should ask the authors?
I'm more inclined to believe a research report, complete with data and quoted sources, from a professor of economics at a well-respected institution, who is also an advisor to the Home Office, than the opinion of a bloke on an internet forum for rail enthusiasts.

 

[rdeez]

"EEA immigrants made a positive fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people a negative net contribution of £591bn"

Does anybody seriously believe that the whole world including the British living here come at a massive cost to this country but European immigrants are the only ones to have a positive effect ?

It's simply ridiculous but entirely predictable from an organisation so far left as UCL.

Well, you're free to look over their report, including their sources and references, do the calculations yourself and see what you come up with. Until such time as you do so, I'd say it's safer to put faith in the results of that report than your anecdotal non-evidence.

This argument that migration pushes down wages for low paid workers is rubbish. There's plenty of British people that work for the minimum wage, too. The stagnation in wages is down to business and government. Business doesn't want to pay more, on the whole. Government (well, one of its executive agencies) sets the minimum wage. I have no doubt that migrants or no migrants, if the minimum wage were to be abolished tommorow, there'd be plenty of businesses that would take the opportunity to start recruiting at a lower rate than before.

Migrants are an easy target for so many of the ills in society, but most of the time the blame is so sorely misplaced.

 

[Johnuk123]

In case you havent noticed the UK runs a huge budget deficit (well over a £100bn a year recently) and has done for years - the reason is that we spend far more on Brits than they pay in taxes while most migrants pay more in tax than they receive in state payments being mainly in work and healthy.

So the obvious answer to that is to expel all the idle and ill British and replace them with Romanians as they're all young fit and healthy and will work for peanuts.

I'm surprised somebody hasn't thought of that by now.

 

[deltic]

So the obvious answer to that is to expel all the idle and ill British and replace them with Romanians as they're all young fit and healthy and will work for peanuts.

I'm surprised somebody hasn't thought of that by now.

They have - its called the USA

 

[radamfi]

They can put up with living in conditions that most people wouldn't choose to do (like 3 or 4 people sleeping in a room, or even the latest 'trick' where a landlord will rent for 12 hours a day, so when you work there's someone else in your bed for the other 12 hours) because it's part of the job. Earn as much as possible, without paying too much, so you can build up savings.

Brits are obviously missing a trick here. There are millions of UK citizens living in prosperous parts of the country, not needing to move in order to access western European wages. They are in an even better position than EU-immigrants as they learn English as a first language. Many of them get highly educated at university (fees and maintenance paid by parents in some cases) to give them a reasonable chance of getting some kind of job, and probably ultimately a graduate job earning above average pay.

EU-immigrants save money by house or room sharing, but many UK residents benefit from living rent free in the house that they grew up in. They therefore have a great chance of saving good money if they live a frugal lifestyle, not a typical British consumer lifestyle with own flat, iPhone and car. Once they've saved a few quid they also have the opportunity to live in a cheap part of the world, possible never needing to work again.

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ shows that it is possible to retire extremely early even if you don't earn a high wage. This option is really only open to those living in a mature developed economy. We are so lucky.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No, (I think) UKIP are racist because members of their party and Nigel Farage himself are racist, and this has been proven over and over again (I'll give you sources when I'm on my laptop). Nigel Farage are not going to be putting the UK first, when they're discriminating against a lot of the people in it, and it saddens me deeply to see that a lot of the people in this country are similarly racist and will happily back them.

Voting UKIP doesn't make people racists. Many people who are voting UKIP have had enough of people heading to the UK to take advantage of the attractive benefits on offer in this country.

 

[rdeez]

Voting UKIP doesn't make people racists. Many people who are voting UKIP have had enough of people heading to the UK to take advantage of the attractive benefits on offer in this country.

...which, as research has shown so very many times, including today's report, represents a tiny minority of the minority that are immigrants to this country.

So when some UKIP supporters focus so ardently on what is, by many measures, a very small problem, it's understandable, if not excusable in some cases, that accusations of racism get thrown around.