Immigration is one of the most serious failures of public policy in Britain over the past thirty years. Yet, despite the purpose of the Committee hearing being to scrutinise the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026, some questions at times strayed from examining how the legislation would achieve the Government’s stated objectives of reducing illegal immigration and restoring confidence in the asylum system, and descended into political point-scoring.

When asked what evidence there was of measures that had proved successful in dealing with illegal immigration and reducing the number of asylum applications, Alp offered Australia, Denmark, Italy and the United States as countries that had succeeded in slowing or of almost halting the flow of illegal border crossings, adding little in the Bill came close to emulating the measures adopted by any of these countries. Denmark, for example, had confiscated valuables to help meet the cost of accommodating migrants; failed asylum seekers were held in camps pending removal; and measures had been introduced to prevent parallel societies from developing by limiting the proportion of migrants in any given area. There were also lengthy qualifying periods for indefinite leave to remain (eight years). None of this was in the Bill.

According to some reports, a number of countries, including Greece and Italy, had even turned boats back, while the United States had all but sealed its southern border and pretty much halted illegal border crossings along its border with Mexico.

The Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, Dr Zubir Ahmed, challenged the reference to the United States by asking whether Alp was advocating a model in which “American citizens are being shot dead in the streets”. Alp was puzzled by Dr Ahmed’s question and its relevance to what had happened along the US–Mexico border, which had the desired effect. A government that demonstrates that unlawful entry will not result in indefinite residence creates a very different incentive from one that repeatedly proves incapable of, or unwilling to, remove those who arrive illegally.

As Alp told the Committee, securing the border is hardly an alien or un-British idea. Practical measures such as detention on arrival, rapid processing and the return of those with no right to remain were standard practice for much of the post-war period.

Between 2018 and June 2026, around 210,000 people were detected arriving by this route – more than the entire strength of the combined British armed forces.

Alp argued the Bill does not address the central incentive behind the boats: the expectation that reaching Britain gives an individual a strong prospect of remaining here for a very long time, whatever the eventual merits of his claim.

Dr Ahmed also suggested that leaving the European Union had reduced Britain’s ability to deal with the problem – this is, frankly, nonsense. Alp said, in practice, returns under the Dublin Treaty were few in number in either direction, often took months to arrange, we often took in more than went in the other direction, and provided little deterrent. Alp pointed to what he saw as the Bill’s biggest flaw: its further opening-up of the border through the proposed “safe and legal routes”. These routes would allow approved organisations, institutions, and employers to sponsor asylum seekers.

Under the Bill, any of the 118 million displaced people worldwide (according to UNHCR) who has a relative in the UK or can secure sponsorship from a university, prospective employer, or community may be eligible to enter through one of these routes. Although there have been vague suggestions that the numbers will be capped, it remains unclear how the cap would be determined, who would set it, or whether there would be separate caps for each route or a single overall limit. Alp warned that we would rue the day this part of the Bill came into force.

He further argued that this loosening of the system could ultimately dwarf the Boriswave, a development against which Migration Watch had repeatedly warned. As with the Boriswave, by the time the Government realises what is happening, it may already be too late. Our Chairman concluded that the Bill represented another missed opportunity. If the Government were serious about ending illegal immigration, he argued, it should have gone further by committing to withdraw from the ECHR and ECAT (the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings), repealing the Human Rights Act, and restoring the requirement for migrants to satisfy an immigration official of their bona fides, as used to be the case.

The Bill should also have stipulated that anyone arriving illegally and without documents be denied the opportunity to apply for asylum and refused entry pending removal. The requirement imposed by the courts for the Home Office to disprove a claimant’s backstory is, he argued, both absurd and dangerous.

The post A Serious Problem Deserves A Serious Debate first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has acknowledged that high skilled migration partly reflects failures to improve training, pay, conditions and retention. Salaries are perhaps the biggest issue. In 2023, the MAC estimated that newly arriving migrant nurses earned 18% less than domestic nurses, after controlling for age, gender and region. This is because the NHS starts migrant nurses at the bottom of pay scales irrespective of experience. No wonder a dependence has formed, when employers (i.e the NHS)  can use migrant labour to undercut British-trained staff so heavily! Overseas recruitment allows governments to postpone the investment needed to attract and retain staff here, and should be treated as a policy failure to overcome, rather than justification to continue the failure.

As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. The GMC’s 2019 Fair to Refer? report found immigrant doctors were 250% more likely to be referred for a formal disciplinary process over fitness to practice concerns than their British-trained counterparts. Rather than invite reflection, the GMC attributes this to “unconscious bias and lack of strong support networks for BAME doctors”. Likewise, the annual cost of clinical negligence claims against the NHS tripled between 2006/7 and 2024/5.

Meanwhile, opportunities to train remain scarce. Across UK medicine admissions in 2025, there were 25,925 applicants and 11,765 acceptances. England funded 8,230 undergraduate medical places in 2025/26. Britain should expand opportunities for capable students here, alongside the clinical placements and postgraduate posts needed to complete their training. Our medical services have become increasingly dependent on overseas trained medical staff, often importing them from countries with a far greater need for doctors, nurses, midwives and just about every other medic. This is shameful, not least because it is happening when perfectly able, aspiring health professionals here in Britain are being rejected.

The post The NHS Must Break Its Dependence On Overseas Recruitment first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

There is one awkward problem: after thirty years of mass migration, the basic stats have barely budged.

We at Migration Watch have looked into the figures.

In 1994, there were 10,250,000 people claiming a state pension, and 25,070,000 people aged 16-64 in work (rounded to the nearest ten thousand). Put another way, for every 100 pensioners, there were 245 working-age people paying for those pensions through work.

Thirty years later, in 2024, there were 12,900,000 people claiming a state pension, and 32,130,000 people aged 16-64 in work: or, for every 100 pensioners, 249 working-age people in work.

At this point, migration advocates will argue that this underscores their case. Without the mass migration efforts of the last thirty years, the ratio of pensioners to workers might have been even greater. The issue, of course, is that the problem is still there. Enormous, demographically catastrophic mass migration has been pushed on a country that repeatedly rejected it at the ballot box. The pensions crisis remains unresolved while population growth – driven by migration – continues at a historically unprecedented pace, as young migrants too grow older and become the pensioners of the future.  


Looking to the future, the Office for Budget Responsibility still projects the old-age dependency ratio to rise from 31% in 2023 to around 47% over the next half-century. The reason is obvious. Migrants might be younger when they arrive, but they do not remain young forever. The OBR itself warns supposed fiscal benefits of mass migration will be offset by greater pressures on pensions as those migrants age and retire.

This is the flaw in using immigration as a demographic Ponzi scheme. Each new cohort can briefly offset the growing pensioner dependency ratio, but if migrants remain permanently, they eventually become pensioners themselves. Maintaining the ratio then requires another cohort behind them, and behind that cohort, and so on… until the original population has been almost entirely eclipsed.

Meanwhile, the massive inflow of people from overseas creates its own economic problems. The Migration Advisory Committee notes that rapid population growth can reduce capital per worker unless investment keeps pace, while increasing demand for roads, rail and public buildings. Their summary of OBR modelling found that increasing net migration by 200,000 annually might raise GDP by 1.5%, but GDP per head by just 0.1% if capital adjusts fully — and could reduce GDP per head by 0.4% if it does not. The MAC has also concluded that migration’s wage effects are small overall but can be negative for lower-paid workers. To make matters worse, Britain’s real-world productivity growth has stagnated, and at least £9 billion (likely more) leaves the British economy each year in remittances by migrant workers to their homelands.


Not only is the worker to pensioner ratio essentially unchanged since the 1990s, the migration obsession of successive governments has added dozens of other crises to our economy.

The data clearly show using migration to plug the gap hasn’t worked. Never-ending mass migration is not the answer. Indeed, it exacerbates the problem. We say, if you want to solve the pension conundrum, start by calling a halt to the migration Ponzi scheme, now!

The post Immigration Ponzi Scheme Puts Pensions in Peril first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she? Let’s take a closer look.

The figures published on Thursday show that 85,891 people claimed asylum in Britain in the year to June 2026, a fall of 21% on the previous year. OK, but it remains well above the levels Britain experienced for most of the two decades before 2021, when annual claims generally ranged between 22,000 and 46,000.

Nor has illegal entry become a marginal feature of the asylum system. More than half of asylum seekers in the latest year came by an illegal entry route, with 33,949 – 40 per cent of all asylum seekers – arriving by small boat. Altogether, the Home Office detected 38,086 arrivals by illegal routes in the year to June.

Then there are the hotels. The government is understandably pleased that the number of asylum seekers housed in them has fallen by half, from 32,041 to 16,021. Yet look beyond the headline and the picture is less reassuring. There are still 93,293 people receiving taxpayer-funded asylum support. More the double the number ten years ago of 42,500. As for the fall in hotel accommodation, all that is happening is that asylum seekers are shuffled into even more expensive and less secure social housing and contracted homes.

While today’s arrivals command the headlines, yesterday’s immigration is rapidly becoming permanent. The same statistical release reveals that 199,628 people were granted settlement – the right to remain permanently in Britain – in the year to June. That was up 24% in just twelve months and was the highest annual total since 2011.

This is the part of the immigration debate too often forgotten – migration is a cumulative problem, not an annual problem. A huge number of people entering Britain in one year does not magically become acceptable if half as many enter the following year. It has consequences stretching decades into the future as temporary migration feeds through into settlement, chain migration, citizenship, family formation and population growth.

Bringing numbers down from historically exceptional highs is one thing. Restoring a properly controlled, sustainable immigration system, at levels the country can absorb, is quite another.

Andy Burnham’s government is still failing to get a grip. The unacceptably high migration of the past 25 years continues to filter through into settlement, add massively to the population, radically changing the very nature of our society and creating a huge liability for future generations, potentially in the hundreds of billions of pounds.

The post New Home Office Stats Show Government Still Hasn’t Got A Grip first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

On Wednesday, the Home Secretary – no doubt with a nod of approval from her new boss, Prime Minister Andy Burnham – decided to test the theory that all that was needed for young men from countries with very different societal norms where women and girls are regarded as little more than chattels and subservient to men, whatever the circumstances, was a booklet on how to behave. In the face of a litany of sexual crimes committed by asylum seekers (according to the Centre for Migration Control, Afghans are many times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British citizens) the Home Office, rather than securing the borders, is issuing new arrivals with a series of leaflets advising them to avoid raping or assaulting women and children. You can read the full booklet here.

Education Secretary Lucy Powell MP’s defence of the booklet was typically revealing:

“I think it’s pretty straightforward that we should be explaining to people…. the rule of law in this country. People coming from other countries do have different cultures, and we have to be absolutely clear with people of how much we abide by the rule of law in this country, what the rule of law is about, and that if people break those laws, they will be treated very harshly… that’s something that we have to constantly educate lots of people about.”

We are glad Ministers finally accept what most sensible people intuitively understand, that cultures have different norms, that their people are not immediately interchangeable, that integration is a difficult and lengthy process, and that failure to integrate incoming populations poses a clear danger.

But for a moment, let us imagine Ms Powell decided to up sticks and move to Afghanistan. Upon arrival in Kabul, she is presented with a booklet similar to the one her government has published, informing her that men and women are not equal; that consent does not matter; that rape is acceptable; that a woman who is raped will be seen as the guilty party, stigmatised and even punished for allowing herself to be raped. And if she has the misfortune to be assaulted, the law will regard her as the guilty party. Would Ms Powell suddenly see the light, acknowledge the error of her English ways and embrace the cultural and behavioural norms of her new country? Exaggerated, maybe, but that is effectively what our government is expecting of young, fighting-age men from parts of the world like Afghanistan. How naïve.

The same day that Ms Powell appeared on LBC to defend this booklet, two Afghan asylum seekers were convicted of raping a woman as she was stargazing in a public park, one of them holding a knife to her partner’s throat. Two more Afghan migrants appeared in court accused of raping a 14-year-old girl on a train. Earlier in the week, an Eritrean man was convicted of raping a pensioner outside a church. An Italian citizen of Nigerian origin who raped a sleeping woman was allowed to stay in the UK by an immigration tribunal.

Would any of these horrendous crimes have been prevented by handing the perpetrators a booklet asking them to behave like the British? Would the men who committed those crimes have changed their views on women and children because Ms Powell handed them a focus-group-tested booklet?

Looking at this from another perspective, the booklet does also show that the politicians finally accept that the flood of undocumented migrants arriving illegally poses a threat, especially to women and girls. What the government must also now acknowledge is that the open borders – by which, in this case, we mean admitting (mostly) young men without being able to check who they are or what their motives, are, are making Britain less safe. The government must stop treating the British people like fools.  The people this absurd booklet is intended for should never be admitted. If they arrive without passports or any other document that shows who they are and what their nationality is, they should be detained, refused entry and returned whence they came – as Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 requires.

One, particularly mealy mouthed extract from the booklet is the following: If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.

“Affect your asylum claim”? It should read:

If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You will go to prison, you will lose your support and accommodation, your asylum claim will be annulled, and you will be removed on the first available flight out of the UK after serving your sentence.

The post The Home Office’s Plan To Stop Asylum Rapes first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

It’s worth putting this in perspective. Those 230 Channel migrants on that single boat are the equivalent of a Boeing 737 packed to the brim with passengers. In comparison, 813,000 people migrated to Britain legally in 2025 alone, with the state’s blessing and signature: or, put another way, over 3500 fully-packed Boeing 373 jets in a single year. The dinghies are a fraction of the story and we have never pretended otherwise. But they are the fraction on which Johnson, Sunak, Starmer and now Burnham have staked their governments on fixing. So why have successive Prime Ministers so comprehensively failed to solve what has become an ever more intractable, costly and dangerous problem?

It’s because we have built a system which continually ratchets up pull factors. 95% of small boat migrants claim asylum, and only 4% are ever removed. This means small boat migrants can remain here for many years, at your expense, and in practice for the rest of their life, to enjoy an expanding range of benefits. This week, we learned ministers are weighing paying above-market rents to place asylum seekers in more expensive areas. It’s no surprise that this so-called “dispersal” of asylum seekers appears, among other things, to correlate with increased sexual violence (a 500% increase in sexual violence in north-east England since 2014, for example). Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie suggests, facetiously, that this clear and present danger to women and children could be averted with state-funded brothels for the new arrivals. Or, to put it another way, add a cherry to the cake of taxpayer funded housing and welfare. Ms Currie may have been joking but don’t be surprised if the smugglers weave her remark into their marketing strategy as a serious proposal.

The gangs have, of course, taken full advantage of the situation by professionalising, with better boats and bigger hulls, built to specification. Larger boats mean ticket prices can be cut while the gangs still make huge profits. The Daily Telegraph reports a Channel crossing went for €600 – roughly £513 – in the aftermath of the attempted invasion of Ceuta, down €200 in a week. Many of these cut-price tickets come with riders such as paths into criminality. Even with discounted rates, Monday’s boat will have grossed some £120,000.

While the gangs make fortunes sending boats off, the French government continues to sign lucrative “agreements” with its British counterpart to stop them, no doubt fully expecting the demand for illicit crossings to continue unabated.

The maths is not complicated. The gangs profit from the crossings, France benefits from the crossings, while the migrants benefit with free housing, support and the near-certainty of remaining once here. Everyone does well out of this transaction except the put-upon British taxpayer who is forced to pay up and shut up.

The post For Boatload, Read Planeload first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Except it isn’t meaningless. White British is a formal category in the UK census, and, as often as not, you’re invited to ascribe one to yourself when completing most official forms – remember the pandemic and the vaccine queues? You had to answer every question, including declaring your ethnicity. This is how our chairman, Alp Mehmet, responded to Mr Nelson on X: “What does the ONS mean by ‘White British? It also refers to ‘other White’ groups and other ethnic groups including: Asian British, Black, Black British, Black Welsh. All tropes? Prof David Coleman + other demographers have for over 15 yrs pointed to 2065.”

It is why Migration Watch uses the term capitalised, as that is how it is written in the census. And on that official, census-tracked measure, the trend is not in doubt. In 2021, 74.4% of people in England and Wales described themselves as White British, down from 80.5% in 2011 and 87.5% in 2001.

As Alp said, Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography at Oxford University, projects white Britons would fall below half the population around the 2060s. Professor Matt Goodwin similarly projects a crossover point in the 2060s.

Messrs Robinson and Nelson, of course, know all this full well.  Their confusion is purely performative. It is a tidy way to dodge the real issue, that Britain is being transformed by rapid mass immigration faster than at any time in its history, despite government after government promising to address the causes of rapid demographic change.

The demographic change Fraser Nelson alludes to, far from being a trope, is not only real but threatens the future stability and economic wellbeing of our country.  Rapid transformation on the scale we are now experiencing strains public services, housing affordability and, above all, the cohesion engendered by a common history, a shared heritage and values inculcated in us by families and communities over generations.

There are those who say,  White Brits becoming a minority will have no effect on our country or that we shouldn’t care either way. Others say not to worry, diversity is our strength. Remember this by Anthony Browne in the Guardian some 25 years ago:

“Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. ‘Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.’”

You may recall Migration Watch commissioned polling into what the public actually thinks about all this. The findings were not surprising – half of the population consider White Brits becoming a minority to be a very negative development for Britain.

So the pretence collapses on contact with the public. Ordinary people do not find “White British” baffling – they know exactly what it means. For some reason, it is only in the radio studio or the editor’s office that a plain census term becomes a riddle. Britain deserves better than a debate in which words in the title of the debate are off limits. This is both absurd and senseless.  

The post What Do We Mean By The White British? first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

“Reports today suggest new homes built in this country will be required to house arriving migrants.

This is scaremongering.”

Of course, anyone with a lick of sense understands that people need places to live; that if you have too many people, and not enough houses, excess demand will cause rents to rise; and high rents and house prices have many second and third order negative effects, such as making it harder for people to have children, save for a deposit, or benefit from social mobility. It is deeply concerning that our Ministry of Housing thinks it’s “scaremongering” to even discuss these effects.

While Britain’s housing crisis is national in scope, some areas are hit harder than others, as local authorities fail to build enough houses to cope with the enormous inflows we have seen since 2019, and in particular, under the so-called “Boriswave”. We are working on a deep-dive analysis of what the impact of migration has been on housing costs, broken down by area. Here is a sneak preview of the figures:

• In 2025, almost a quarter of non-London English local authorities (66/285) failed to complete enough houses to accommodate net international migration to their area – meaning that arriving migrants directly competed against existing tenants for scarce rental properties, driving up rents.
• Birmingham, England’s worst affected city outside London, built just 1030 houses despite needing 4410 just to house new arrivals, a net shortfall of 3380.
• Luton needed to build 1939 new homes to accommodate international migrants, but managed just 40, or a 98% shortfall.
• 14 non-London English local authorities not only failed to build enough houses to hit their MHCLG-imposed housebuilding targets, but had international migration of such extreme numbers that even hitting the target would not have been enough.
• One local authority, Derby, needs 1725 new houses every year to accommodate new migrants. It has a target of 906 new houses built per year. In the last financial year, it completed just 490 new houses.

The Ministry for Housing might say this is “scaremongering”; we say it is the consequence of a broken immigration policy that year after year, admits hundreds of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers without due regard for impact on housing, services or wider British society. Indeed, the rights of new arrivals often prevail over those of the resident population.

You may be interested in our wider analysis of international migration figures broken down by area, using figures published by the ONS this week. Net international migration accounted for 92% of England’s population growth in 2025, with marked regional differences as deaths outstripped births.

The distinction matters for anyone planning public services. School places, GP registrations, housing turnover, English language provision, and local authority caseloads respond to arrivals and departures, not to the net residual left after the two are subtracted. Planning on the basis of the net figure therefore systematically understates the demands actually placed on local infrastructure.

The post England’s Housing Crisis and Immigration first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

The Centre for Migration Control recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice for conviction numbers by offence type and offender nationality, covering 2018 to 2024. The MoJ refused to reveal the data, claiming this might put convicts at risk of identification. Eventually, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) formally required the department to provide the data to CMC. However, despite the formal direction, this week, the Government Legal Department announced it would take legal action to avoid publishing the data it holds.

This seems to have become the government’s default reaction when, for reasons that aren’t always made clear, it decides to withhold information from the public. As Neil O’Brien MP sets out, the reluctance for clarity and official prevarication runs through every stage of the criminal justice system whenever data touch on migration or involves migrants. Arrest data by nationality and immigration status is collected by police forces, but not centrally collated by the Home Office. The Ministry of Justice collates data on prosecutions or convictions by nationality or immigration status, but refuses to publish it. Even the Department for Transport admits the non-GB licence box on the collision reporting form is filled in by police but never extracted; crucial information on traffic accidents involving migrants who would not pass a UK driving test goes unpublished.

Covering up the data is bad enough, but it’s not just the stats that are going missing. More than 50,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals were recorded as absconders as of December 2024, including 1,200 foreign national offenders. That is more missing people than there are asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision. The government’s own report on the asylum system was utterly damning:

“Basic information we would reasonably expect to see, such as the number of absconders or number of repeated appeals, is incomplete, inconsistent or simply unavailable. Officials were unable to provide key figures with confidence, and arrangements for assuring data quality were unclear.”

Notwithstanding withheld data on migrant crime rates, the Home Office has no idea where tens of thousands of people who should not be in the country are!

Migration Watch has long made the case for immigration reform based on the facts and figures. Increasingly it seems the government, having for years known (it’s inconceivable that officials didn’t know) how poorly the facts reflect on mass migration, is choosing to keep data under wraps. The public are entitled to accurate information on the impact of mass immigration and its effect on public safety.  We are now witnessing the absurd spectacle of a hard-up country, struggling to make ends meet as the taxpayer comes under increasing pressure, while a desperate government spends taxpayer money to limit what they have every right to know. We expect better from our government.  

The post See No Evil, Hear No Evil first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Migration Watch warned from the outset that this deal would be bad for Britain. Ministers will protest that the exemption applies only to a limited category of seconded workers, not all Indian workers. True, but this misses the point. This is part of a deliberate strategy by India, and other labour-exporting countries, to offload surplus workers, by hook or by crook. The NI exemption was at least agreed by our government via a formal, reciprocal agreement, even if it is a deeply damaging agreement. Other countries don’t bother with agreements; they simply exploit our own foolish visa laws.

Consider what else emerged this week: sanctioned Iranian regime-owned banks hold Home Office licences to sponsor workers into the UK. These banks are allegedly contributing to “the proliferation or development of nuclear weapons in, or for use in, Iran”, yet our government trusts them to import Iranian nationals. Why?

The simple answer is that the register of businesses approved to sponsor skilled workers has ballooned out of all control. An excellent illustration was provided this week by Daxwells Memon: 77 licensed skilled worker visa sponsors on the Whitechapel Road in East London alone, including “Ukay International Fish and Meat Bazar Ltd” and “Javed Phonehouse”. Do we really need to import halal butchers and mobile phone repairmen from overseas?

Unsurprisingly, Indian nationals make up the single largest group of work visa recipients – of the 89,406 work visa recipients since the fourth quarter of 2024, 21,334 were Indian, or about 24%. Given the calibre of companies approved to sponsor visas, how confident can we be that those Indian nationals are genuinely skilled and necessary workers? “Ukay International Fish and Meat Bazar Ltd” will not be sponsoring a doctor or an engineer. Britain is flying blind. We cannot trust the statistics and justifications offered by a government that cannot even adequately scrutinise the companies it permits to import so many people.

The migration crisis is multi-pronged, but the issuing of work visas to unskilled and lower-skilled workers (and their dependants) is perhaps its most egregious element. It must be addressed.  Migration Watch will shortly publish its own report into work visas. Do look out for it

The post We Warned Them: Indian National Insurance Exemption Extended first appeared on Migration Watch UK.