I think many, if not most, of the respondents to this question have missed the point.
There is no doubt that from a pure economic point of view, immigration is a good thing: 1) Immigration has the immediate effect of reducing wages and other labour costs. 2) Immigrants tend to be young: that means they pay taxes and social welfare contributions and don't draw pensions. 3) It is more easy in the medium term fund current pensions from the increased immigrant tax take.
The last Labour government had no mandate to allow unfettered waves of immigrants into the UK, but they did, why?
Did they not know the economic effects of immigration, of course they did. They knew real wages in the unskilled, low paid segment would be put under pressure. They knew that many would be forced from the labour market onto surviving on benefits.
Did they estimate the social welfare effects; pressure on education in some areas, local doctor surgeries, hospitals etc. etc. Of course they knew what was going to happen. Look at the government reports and estimates of the demand for social welfare in the short to medium published in the early part of the last government - the figures are there?
Did they think that planned waves of immigration would create social tension which could easily spill over into outright race riots. Yes they did. That is why they invented the biggest taxpayer backed programme of political re-education / brain washing since the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The diversity and multi-cultural programmes and training. Under Gordon Brown 56% of the working population was in the government sector. That means that a very large proportion of the population has undergone this unnecessary, taxpayer funded political brain washing.
They spawned a whole new industry overnight. Teachers and health workers diverted from teaching and caring into delivering political propaganda. The oodles of consultants, consulting to all manner of government bodies on how to implement and maintain compliance with the new laws. The hundreds of taxpayer funded quangos advising and reporting on multiculturalism and diversity. One such body in the Welsh Valleys advised its local government clients to stop using the term "British" when speaking to members of the public regarding nationality because, and I quote, "The term, British, could easily be interpreted as a term of abuse and or taken as an insult and or cause offence".
So in short, the Labour party, with malice and aforethought, embarked upon a programme of mass immigration that they knew full-well would screw their own working class electoral base. Nobody can argue that they didn't know what they were doing and what the effects would be and on whom. They knew alright. So why?
Well if you care to read the documents (secret under Labour) that the new government had released, the answer is there; and I quote, "immigration will further the social aims of the Labour Party". What does that mean?
It means it is a well known fact that immigrants, when they achieve the right to vote, tend to vote left wing by a margin of 70%. Moreover, the released reports thinly veil the fact that immigration was a tactic designed to put the right wing in the country on the back foot. That is why whenever any body questioned the policy they were accused of being racist.
Insofar as the current high levels of immigration are maintained then, IN THE SHORT TERM, real wages will continue to be depressed and pressure on social welfare systems will continue. One simply has to accept this new reality. If you are low paid and feeling the competitive pressure from immigrants willing to work even harder for even less, then I'm sorry, but it's not going to change. Neither will the pressure on the social welfare systems - you are going to have to get used to longer queues at the doctors and class sizes approaching 40 pupils - of mixed language ability.
Many on these pages have repeatedly mentioned the economic and social welfare effects. However, there is now sufficient evidence - gleaned from academic studies, reports and opinion poles - to suggest that once the economy pulls round these worries will disappear. But the long term deeper seated worries will remain and that these are worries about cultural differences.
The judeo-christian ethic, like it or not, is the cornerstone and foundation of all Western society. Each separate region or country of the "West" has taken this foundation and remoulded it in their own way. Slavic Poland is staunchly Catholic. But so are the Mediterranean countries; but the Catholicism is very different - because the Romano, Gallic, Iberian culture is different from Polish-Slavic culture. The British have a particular culture and history that is as important to us, and our sense of who we are and what we want to be, as being Polish is to a Pole who lives in Warsaw. Being British, living amongst fellows who share common values and culture is important - and there is nothing wrong with that.
The evidence suggests there is a growing sense, across all social spectra that, "traditional British culture" is being persecuted, purposely depressed and outlawed. Daily reports of Christians being persecuted and sacked due to their faith when other religions are given free reign. The pub which during the World Cup was threatened with closure by the police unless it took down its St, George's cross flag - because a passing commuter on a bus had called and said he was offended by it. The prosecution of young adults in Swanson for flying the St. Georges cross flag on the occasion of an England win.
The problem is not East European immigration. The East Europeans share a common judeo-christian ethic and in a couple of generations will be playing cricket, eating fish and chips and cheering England in the World Cup. Because of their common judeo-christian ethic they will be assimilated and as British as they come - even if their name ends in "ski". The problem is non-European immigration.
What is stoking up the long term fires of anti-immigration is the general sense that being British and proud is somehow no longer official accepted. That being British has to be subsumed, hidden away, no longer socially acceptable. The sense that "British" culture is being slowly outlawed and legislated against.
Most British people want to live in a community that shares common traditional "British" values. Most persons would prefer government expenditure be directed towards assisting new arrivals to quickly assimilate rather than, at every opportunity, ramming down the throats of the general population, politically correct diversity and multiculturalism.
What we need is assimilation not multiculturalism.
If you are working class, low paid or unemployed then the next time you consider voting Labour just remember that it was they, with full knowledge, malice and aforethought, that screwed you and your fellow workers. That being low paid but British and proud was no longer acceptable and that you had to be content with just being low paid.