Labour Police Commissioners Publish Pro-Immigration ‘Fact Sheet’ Claiming Immigration May Cut Crime
Three Labour Police and Crime Commissioners have published a pro-immigration ‘fact sheet’ that claims migrants contribute more to the economy than they take out and immigration may cut crime. The Telegraph has more.
The PCCs of Durham, Northumbria and Cleveland have joined up with pro-migrant group The North East Migration Partnership (NEMP) to produce the leaflet, which will be distributed to community centres and libraries across the three regions.
The NEMP says on its website that it “provides support to migrants” and “helps make sure the region can benefit from migration”.
The ‘Migrant Myth Busters’ leaflet claims to “take common myths” about new arrivals and dispel them.
The two-page document features nine “myths”, including that migrants “drain our public resources”.
“Quite the opposite,” the leaflet claims, suggesting that migrants coming to the UK will contribute more than the average British citizen.
It reads: “The Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that the average migrant, who moves to this country at the age of 25 and lives until 80, will contribute £341,000 to public finances over the course of their lives. That’s more than a British citizen contributes on average.”
Last year, the OBR found low-wage migrants cost taxpayers more than £150,000 each by the time they hit state pension age, and cost the Government more than they paid in from the moment they arrived.
The leaflet also suggests that there is “no evidence” that “migrants bring crime to our streets”.
Only 12% of prisoners are immigrants, the leaflet states, which “reflects the percentage of migrants in the population”.
“In fact, various studies have found that neither asylum seekers nor other types of migrants could be linked to significant changes in violent crime,” it added.
“One study found that there could be a link between waves of immigration and falling crime rates.”
In August, the Telegraph revealed that at least 200 people living in asylum seeker hotels have been charged with criminal offences this year.
Court records show that 211 people living in hotels, which are used by the Home Office to house asylum seekers, have been charged with a combined 425 offences.
Of these,109 were violent offences and 44 were sexual offences, including four counts of alleged rape. There were also 63 theft-related offences.
Last week it was revealed an Egyptian migrant described as “a serious criminal” and “a danger to the community” won his appeal to stay in the UK.
The man, in his early 20s, won an asylum claim on human rights grounds, despite having committed 19 crimes since arriving in the UK nine years ago.
Worth reading in full.
And now let’s look at what Matt Goodwin discovered earlier this year about crime – via FOIs, not officially published statistics, naturally:
In recent years, the data show, foreign nationals were convicted of nearly one-quarter of all sexual assaults and rapes in Britain, despite making up only 9% of the population.
Remarkably, contrary to what you hear in London, Oxford, and Cambridge, foreign nationals are 71% more likely than British to be convicted for sex crimes. …
More generally, beyond sexual offences, the new information released by police authorities also shows that foreign nationals are 69% more likely than British people to be convicted for drug crimes, 25% more likely to be convicted for theft and 39% more likely to be convicted for all crimes.
So much for not affecting violent crime.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Morons, idiots, Marxist reality-deniers.
And these arselings wonder why no one trusts them and why anyone with >IQ 70 just turns them off.
Next, Labour geniuses prove that oxygen is bad for you (Drumpf said he enjoyed breathing). 100% upside down clown world.
Spot on.
I read this and thought how can I make a sane comment about such blatant nonsense and lies? I really am lost for words.
I personally know one of Labour’s Police Commissioners. Nice, but dim and thick as mince. Catapulted into the role as a compliant nonentity – manipulated by the local Labour hierarchy from behind the scenes. Totally useless and with no experience of managing anything whatsoever, thereby stealing a fat wage and pension; unfortunately, it’s one of those areas where the local population would vote for a corpse – as long as it was wearing a red rosette.
It is a mistake to get into an argument whether immigration creates more crime or not, whether it helps the economy or not, because that isn’t the basis of most people’s objections.
Even if it was 100% certain that immigration reduced crime and improved the economy, you might still not want it. Would you want a country that is really safe and really rich but governed by Sharia law? No.
The only honest argument against mass immigration is that you don’t want it. You like your country and your community as it is and you don’t want it transformed.
The problem is that over the last 30 years the politically correct movement has bludgeoned everyone into accepting their moral code as the only valid one. And so we are now in a situation where it is socially unacceptable to say something as reasonable (in the view of many) as I just don’t want lots of muslims in my community or my country. Not allowed. That’s the problem.
100%
Other than rich white countries, every other country, race and culture on this planet is encouraged to retain, protect and celebrate its own identity.
Lies like these make sense from the point of view of our rulers. After all, our rulers divide the population of our country into two groups: “the Wonderful People” (i.e. parasitic and criminal foreigners) and “the trash people” (i.e. the English people). The question is, do our rulers really believe the drivel they publish? Do they really not realise that we can see, in our day-to-day interactions, that our society is collapsing? Do they really not realise that we can see the cause of this collapse in the Establishment’s policy of mad, mass, unlimited, and unvetted immigration?
The “establishment” is well aware that our society is collapsing as a result “mad, mass, unlimited, and unvetted immigration?” That is the plan.
Note to the Commissioners. We’ve unmasked all the ruses. We’ve seen through all the excuses. We’ve deflected all the deflections. We’ve survived all the gaslighting. We’ve detected all the misinformation.
Libraries? Who uses them apart from the OAPs trying to keep warm. Leaflets? Isn’t that rather analogue. Is it really wise to damage your credibility further with this sort of patronising?
Matt Goodwin tells it how it is – “Migrant crime wave the state does its best to conceal…”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/bombshell-stats-the-state-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
“…You cannot simultaneously accuse people of suffering from ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ while hiding crucial information such as this from them.”
Crime means Non-Crime, Non-Crime means Crime, Fact Sheet means Lies.
Great link – I’ve added a quote from it to the article.
“One study found that there could be a link between waves of immigration and falling crime rates.”
Did it find Mirpuri mothers and daughters dobbing in their menfolk who were part of the ‘grooming gangs’?
If the number of crime being committed in the whole population increases more slowly than a rapid increase in that population then of course the overall crime rate will fall.
The important factor is what is the crime rate within the immigrant groups compared to the rate among the indigenous, and what type of crimes are being committed.
Here we go again, lies, damned lies and statistics. I am prepared to accept that the crime rate of migrants is the same as the indigenous population, but I suggest that having been welcomed into someone’s home, you should commit no crime, because you should respect the home you have been welcomed in to. The supposition is that migrants commit the same level of crime as the indigenous population but makes no reference to the type of crime, so are they comparing speeding and littering to violent and sexual crime or are they saying migrants commit crime at the same rate in each crime type, because we know that isn’t true, unless they are combining the women and children migrants, who are less likely to commit violent and sexual crime.
Contribution to an economy is not the cost to the economy, so unless they claim the migrants are making a net contribution, we’re back to the lies and statistics again.
I also forgot to include the lie about asylum seekers. These people never use the number of asylum cases granted, always applications. There are European countries that start with a relatively high number of applications but end up with almost no cases granted (in Hungary’s case, apparently they are all withdrawn before assessment). We agree a much higher percentage of applications than others, so comparing applications is rubbish.
Gaslighting
Since WWII immigrants – however labelled – have been encouraged to come here to provide a large surplus of cheap labour. Initially this was desperate Governments trying to reduce the payroll expense of the State-run industries and the NHS out of control monster, later economic illiterate politicians who think cheap labour is good for the economy… because it’s cheap… and of course more recently just to impose open borders on us, destroy our culture and fragment society in order to increase power and control over the Plebs. Every activity has a cost. If the input cost exceeds the output value the result is bankruptcy and poverty. So. Imported cheap labour results in decrease in labour productivity, overall pulls down the entire pay structure, displaces indigenous labour to lower wage work or welfare, all of which reduces economic activity and economic prosperity making everyone poorer. Imported cheap labour has immediately access to public funded services, but due to low pay, contributes very little or nothing towards the cost. This makes provision of public services more costly meaning a reduction in provision as budgets are more quickly depleted, and an increase in taxation and borrowing to try to cover the cost. Increased… Read more »
More official lies from official liars.
What are PCCs supposed be for, can anyone remember?
“What are PCCs supposed be for, can anyone remember?”
Soaking taxpayers.
No one actually needs “Police & Crime Commissioners”, which were only forced upon the nation by David Cameron, as an extra layer of bureaucracy.
What started out as a good idea by Douglas Carswell, to bring back “Shire Reeves” or “Sheriffs”, was transformed by Cameron & the Tories into what we have now: people with no actual experience of policing installed as “bosses” over police.
Sheriffs in the US are law officers, local, elected (non-partisan) and paid for by the community they serve, which makes them truly responsive and answerable to the people.
That’s what we need, not civilian bureaucrats, tainted by politics, who perform no useful function.
And paid by the public purse
Absolutely.
And some elected Sheriffs in the US have done great things in recent years, using their official local mandate from the people to defy the worst excesses of the Communist Globalist Democrats in Washington.
The US Sheriffs have more power than many people realize… heirs to the historical Shire Reeves of Old England… and most of them use it wisely. It is a tradition more than a thousand years old, originating in 7th-8th century Anglo-Saxon times.
And two out of the three commissioners are soppy women.
Surely they must have realised this stuff is counter-productive by now?
How can they reconcile these government figures – In 2002 Muslims were 8 percent of prison population but in 2022 this had risen to 18 percent. But this group made up 7 percent of the general population at that time.
Author: Comrade Gary Neville.