Previous Press Releases
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001July June May April March February January
Press Releases for July 2010
July 19, 2010
Financial Times claims for immigration fail to convince
July 12, 2010
Supreme Court greatly widens the scope of the Refugee Convention
July 7, 2010
Migrationwatch media comment on today's Supreme Court decision on gay applications
Full Text of Releases : July 2010
Financial Times claims for immigration fail to convince
In a paper issued today think-tank Migrationwatch examines claims made in an article in the Financial Times on 18 June that a cap on economic migration will raise taxes and cut growth.
The report points out that labour shortages are not the main constraint on growth in a period on high unemployment. Furthermore, less than 40% of immigrants to Britain arrive for the purpose of work.
Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK said: ‘In their enthusiasm for immigration, the Financial Times had clearly not thought through the claim that they were making’.
Back to top
Supreme Court greatly widens the scope of the Refugee Convention
An analysis by our Honorary Legal Adviser, published today, shows how the recent ruling by the Supreme Court has extended the test for asylum claimed by a homosexual from "a well founded fear of persecution" to whether or not he has "a right to live freely and openly as a gay man" in his own country. This is a very long way from what the framers of the Convention intended.
Back to top
Migrationwatch media comment on today's Supreme Court decision on gay applications
The following can be attributed to Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, if you wish.
'This could lead to a potentially massive expansion of asylum claims as it could apply to literally millions of people around the world. An applicant has now only to show that he (or she) is homosexual and intends to return and live openly in one of the many countries where it is illegal to be granted asylum in the UK.
'The judges are no doubt interpreting the letter of the international convention correctly but the consequences are potentially huge. The principle of asylum is, rightly, widely supported but it should be a matter of domestic law. It is high time that we reviewed our adherence to an international convention drawn up nearly 60 years ago in entirely different circumstances.'
Back to top