text:
Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

Since 1945, immigration to the United Kingdom, controlled by British immigration law and to an extent by British nationality law, has been significant, in particular from the Republic of Ireland and from the former British Empire, especially India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Caribbean, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Hong Kong. Since the accession of the UK to the European Communities in the 1970s and the creation of the EU in the early 1990s, immigrants relocated from member states of the European Union, exercising one of the European Union's Four Freedoms. In 2021, since Brexit came into effect, previous EU citizenship's right to newly move to and reside in the UK on a permanent basis does not apply anymore. A smaller number have come as asylum seekers (not included in the definition of immigration) seeking protection as refugees under the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.

About 70% of the population increase between the 2001 and 2011 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration. As of 2013, 7.5 million people (11.9% of the population at the time) were born overseas, although the census gives no indication of their immigration status or intended length of stay.

Provisional figures show that in 2013, 526,000 people arrived to live in the UK whilst 314,000 left, meaning that net inward migration was 212,000. The number of people immigrating to the UK increased between 2012 and 2013 by 28,000, whereas the number emigrating fell by 7,000.

From April 2013 to April 2014, a total of 560,000 immigrants were estimated to have arrived in the UK, including 81,000 British citizens and 214,000 from other parts of the EU. An estimated 317,000 people left, including 131,000 British citizens and 83,000 other EU citizens. The top countries represented in terms of arrivals were: China, India, Poland, the United States, and Australia.

In 2014, approximately 125,800 foreign citizens were naturalised as British citizens. This figure fell from around 208,000 in 2013, which was the highest figure recorded since 1962, when records began. Between 2009 and 2013, the average number of people granted British citizenship per year was 195,800. The main countries of previous nationality of those naturalised in 2014 were: India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Nepal, China, South Africa, Poland and Somalia. The UK Government can also grant settlement to foreign nationals, which confers on them indefinite leave to remain in the UK, without granting them British citizenship. Grants of settlement are made on the basis of various factors, including employment, family formation and reunification, and asylum (including to deal with backlogs of asylum cases). The total number of grants of settlement was approximately 154,700 in 2013, compared to 241,200 in 2010 and 129,800 in 2012.

In comparison, migration to and from Central and Eastern Europe has increased since 2004 with the accession to the European Union of eight Central and Eastern European states, since there is free movement of labour within the EU. In 2008, the UK Government began phasing in a new points-based immigration system for people from outside of the European Economic Area.

Net migration into the UK during 2022 is reported to have reached a record high of 764,000, with immigration at 1.26 million and emigration at 493,000. Net migration was 685,000 in 2023. Of the 1,218,000 migrants in 2023, only 10% were citizens of EU member states. Around 250,000 people came from India, 141,000 from Nigeria, 90,000 from China and 83,000 from Pakistan. Around 50,000 people, including those from Ukraine and Hong Kong, came for humanitarian reasons in 2023, down from 162,000 in 2022.

Definitions
According to an August 2018 publication of the House of Commons Library, several definitions for a migrant exist in United Kingdom. A migrant can be:
 * Someone whose country of birth is different to their country of residence.
 * Someone whose nationality is different to their country of residence.
 * Someone who changes their country of usual residence for a period of at least a year, so that the country of destination effectively becomes the country of usual residence.

World War II
In the lead-up to World War II, many people from Germany, particularly those belonging to minorities which were persecuted under Nazi rule, such as Jews, sought to emigrate to the United Kingdom, and it is estimated that as many as 50,000 may have been successful. There were immigration caps on the number who could enter and, subsequently, some applicants were turned away. When the UK declared war on Germany, however, migration between the countries ceased.

British Empire and the Commonwealth
Following the end of the Second World War, the British Nationality Act 1948 allowed the 800,000,000 subjects in the British Empire to live and work in the United Kingdom without needing a visa, although this was not an anticipated consequence of the Act, which "was never intended to facilitate mass migration". This migration was initially encouraged to help fill gaps in the UK labour market for both skilled and unskilled jobs, including in public services such as the newly created National Health Service and London Transport. Many people were specifically brought to the UK on ships; notably the Empire Windrush in 1948.

Commonwealth immigration, made up largely of economic migrants, rose from 3,000 per year in 1953 to 46,800 in 1956 and 136,400 in 1961. The heavy numbers of migrants resulted in the establishment of a Cabinet committee in June 1950 to find "ways which might be adopted to check the immigration into this country of coloured people from British colonial territories".

Although the Committee recommended not to introduce restrictions, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed in 1962 as a response to public sentiment that the new arrivals "should return to their own countries" and that "no more of them come to this country". Introducing the legislation to the House of Commons, the Conservative Home Secretary Rab Butler stated that:

"The justification for the control which is included in this Bill, which I shall describe in more detail in a few moments, is that a sizeable part of the entire population of the Earth is at present legally entitled to come and stay in this already densely populated country. It amounts altogether to one-quarter of the population of the globe and at present there are no factors visible which might lead us to expect a reversal or even a modification of the immigration trend."

The new Act required migrants to have a job before they arrived, to possess special skills or who would meet the "labour needs" of the national economy. In 1965, to combat the perceived injustice in the case where the wives of British subjects could not obtain British nationality, the British Nationality Act 1965 was adopted. Shortly afterwards, mainly asian British passport holders from Kenya and Uganda, fearing discrimination from their own national governments, began to arrive in Britain; as they had retained their British nationality granted by the 1948 Act, they were not subject to the later controls.To manage this exodus from the former East African colonies, the Home secretary James Callaghan under a Labour party government introduced a bill in February 1968, and got it passed within a week.The  new act called Commonwealth Immigrants Act placed entry controls on holders of British passports who had "no substantial connection" with Britain by setting up a new system. For the first time, the 1968 Act required migrants to have a "substantial connection with the United Kingdom", namely to be connected by birth or ancestry to a UK national. Those who did not could only obtain British nationality at the discretion of the national authorities. The Conservative MP Enoch Powell had campaigned hard for tighter controls on immigration, however one month after the adoption of the Act, Enoch Powell made his "Rivers of Blood" speech.

By 1972, with the passing of the Immigration Act, only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry – effectively stemming primary immigration from Commonwealth countries. The Act abolished the distinction between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth entrants. The Conservative government nevertheless allowed, amid much controversy, the immigration of 27,000 individuals displaced from Uganda after the coup d'état led by Idi Amin in 1971.

In the 1970s, an average of 72,000 immigrants were settling in the UK every year from the Commonwealth; this decreased in the 1980s and early-1990s to around 54,000 per year, only to rise again to around 97,000 by 1999. The total number of Commonwealth immigrants since 1962 is estimated at 2,500,000.

The Ireland Act 1949 has the unusual status of recognising the Republic of Ireland, but affirming that its citizens are not citizens of a foreign country for the purposes of any law in the United Kingdom. This act was initiated at a time when Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations after declaring itself a republic.

Post-war immigration (1945–1983)
Following the end of the Second World War, substantial groups of people from Soviet-controlled territories settled in the UK, particularly Poles and Ukrainians. The UK recruited displaced people as so-called European Volunteer Workers in order to provide labour to industries that were required in order to aid economic recovery after the war. In the 1951 United Kingdom census, the Polish-born population of the country numbered some 162,339, up from 44,642 in 1931.

Indians began arriving in the UK in large numbers shortly after their country gained independence in 1947, although there were a number of people from India living in the UK even in the earlier years. More than 60,000 arrived before 1955, many of whom drove buses, or worked in foundries or textile factories. The flow of Indian immigrants peaked between 1965 and 1972, boosted in particular by Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's sudden decision to expel all 50,000 Asians (people of Indian or Pakistani origin) from Uganda. Around 30,000 Ugandan Asians emigrated to the UK.

Following the independence of Pakistan, Pakistani immigration to the United Kingdom increased, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Many Pakistanis came to Britain following the turmoil during the partition of India and the subsequent independence of Pakistan; among them were those who migrated to Pakistan upon displacement from India, and then emigrated to the UK, thus becoming secondary migrants. Migration was made easier as Pakistan was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Pakistanis were invited by employers to fill labour shortages which arose after the Second World War. As Commonwealth citizens, they were eligible for most British civic rights. They found employment in the textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire, manufacturing in the West Midlands, and car production and food processing industries of Luton and Slough. It was common for Pakistani employees to work nightshifts and at other less-desirable hours.

In addition, there was a stream of migrants from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). During the 1970s, a large number of East African-Asians, most of whom already held British passports because they had been British subjects settled in the overseas colonies, entered the United Kingdom from Kenya and Uganda, particularly as a result of the expulsion of Asians from Uganda by Idi Amin in 1972.A majority of the Pakistani immigrants to UK trace their origin to Mirpur district in the region  presently called Azad Kashmir.

There was also an influx of refugees from Hungary, following the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian revolution, numbering 20,990 people.

Until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, all Commonwealth citizens could enter and stay in the UK without any restriction. The Act made Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs), whose passports were not directly issued by the UK Government (i.e., passports issued by the Governor of a colony or by the Commander of a British protectorate), subject to immigration control.

Enoch Powell gave the famous "Rivers of Blood" speech on 20 April 1968 in which he warned his audience of what he believed would be the consequences of continued unchecked immigration from the Commonwealth to Britain. Conservative Party leader Edward Heath fired Powell from his Shadow Cabinet the day after the speech, and he never held another senior political post. Powell received 110,000 letters –  only 2,300 disapproving. Three days after the speech, on 23 April, as the Race Relations Bill was being debated in the House of Commons, around 2,000 dockers walked off the job to march on Westminster protesting against Powell's dismissal, and the next day 400 meat porters from Smithfield market handed in a 92-page petition in support of Powell. At that time, 43% of junior doctors working in NHS hospitals, and some 30% of student nurses, were immigrants, without which the health service would needed to have been curtailed. By 1972, only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry – significantly reducing primary immigration from Commonwealth countries.

Immigration as influenced by the EU (1983–2022)
The British Nationality Act 1981, which was enacted in 1983, distinguishes between British citizens and British Overseas Territories citizens. It also made a distinction between nationality by descent and nationality other than by descent. Citizens by descent cannot automatically pass on British nationality to a child born outside the United Kingdom or its Overseas Territories (though in some situations the child can be registered as a citizen).

Immigration officers have to be satisfied with a person's nationality and identity and entry can be refused if they are not satisfied.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the civil war in Somalia led to a large number of Somali immigrants, comprising the majority of the current Somali population in the UK. In the late-1980s, most of these early migrants were granted asylum, while those arriving later in the 1990s more often obtained temporary status. There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands and Denmark. The main driving forces behind this secondary migration included a desire to reunite with family and friends and for better employment opportunities.

Non-European immigration rose significantly during the period from 1997, not least because of the government's abolition of the primary purpose rule in June 1997. This change made it easier for UK residents to bring foreign spouses into the country. The former government adviser Andrew Neather in the Evening Standard stated that the deliberate policy of ministers from late-2000 until early-2008 was to open up the UK to mass migration. The Immigration Rules, under the Immigration Act 1971, were updated in 2012 (Appendix FM) to create a strict minimum income threshold for non-EU spouses and children to be given leave to remain in the UK. These rules were challenged in the courts, and in 2017 the Supreme Court found that while "the minimum income threshold is accepted in principle" they decided that the rules and guidance were defective and unlawful until amended to give more weight to the interests of the children involved, and that sources of funding other than the British spouse's income should be considered.

The foreign-born population increased from about 5.3 million in 2004 to nearly 9.3 million in 2018. In the decade leading up to 2018, the number of non-EU migrants outnumbered EU migrants while the number of EU migrants increased more rapidly. EU migrants were noted to be less likely to become British citizens than non-EU migrants. In January 2021, analysis by the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence suggested that there had been an "unprecedented exodus" of almost 1.3 million foreign-born people from the UK between July 2019 and September 2020, in part due to the burden of job losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic falling disproportionately on foreign-born workers. Interviews conducted by Al Jazeera suggested that Brexit may have been a more significant push factor than the pandemic. Subsequent analysis of the impact of the pandemic on population statistics generated by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) suggests that "LFS-based estimates are likely to significantly overstate the change in the non-UK national population". Payroll data shows that the number of EU workers fell by 7 per cent between October–December 2019 and October–December 2020.

Office for National Statistics migration estimates published in November 2021 suggest that the number of EU nationals leaving the UK exceeded the number arriving by around 94,000, compared to net inward migration from the EU to the UK of 32,000 in 2019. Some commentators suggested that these figures underestimate the extent of emigration of EU nationals from the UK.

Immigrants from the European Union
One of the Four Freedoms of the European Union, of which the United Kingdom is a former member, is the right to the free movement of workers as codified in the Directive 2004/38/EC and the EEA Regulations (UK).

With the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus, although the substantial Maltese, Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities were established earlier through their Commonwealth connection. There are restrictions on the benefits that members of eight of these accession countries ('A8' nationals) can claim, which are covered by the Worker Registration Scheme. Many other European Union member states exercised their right to temporary immigration control (which ended in 2011) over entrants from these accession states, but some subsequently removed these restrictions ahead of the 2011 deadline.

The United Kingdom uses statistics to predict migration that are produced primarily from the International Passenger Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The survey's primary mission is to help government's understand the effects of tourism and travel on their economy. Two parliamentary committees criticized the survey and found it to lack credibility. The actual net migration in 2015–16 from EU states to the United Kingdom, 29,000, was 16% higher than the ONS expected.

Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that, between May 2004 and September 2009, 1.5 million workers migrated from the new EU member states to the UK, but that many have returned home, with the result that the number of nationals of the new member states in the UK increased by some 700,000 over the same period. Migration from Poland in particular has become temporary and circular in nature. In 2009, for the first time since the enlargement, more nationals of the eight Central and Eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 left the UK than arrived. Research commissioned by the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Expert Panel suggested migrant workers leaving the UK due to the recession are likely to return in the future and cited evidence of "strong links between initial temporary migration and intended permanent migration".

The Government announced that the same rules would not apply to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria (A2 nationals) when those countries acceded to the EU in 2007. Instead, restrictions were put in place to limit migration to students, the self-employed, highly skilled migrants and food and agricultural workers.

In February 2011, the Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, stated that he thought that the Labour government's decision to permit the unlimited immigration of eastern European migrants had been a mistake, arguing that they had underestimated the potential number of migrants and that the scale of migration had had a negative impact on wages.

A report by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) entitled International Migration and Rural Economies, suggests that intra-EU migration since enlargement has resulted in migrants settling in rural locations without a prior history of immigration.

Research published by University College London in July 2009 found that, on average, A8 migrants were younger and better educated than the native population, and that if they had the same demographic characteristics of natives, would be 13 per cent less likely to claim benefits and 28 per cent less likely to live in social housing.

Post-Brexit immigration
In 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to reduce net migration to the UK (the number of people immigrating minus the number emigrating) below 250,000 per year. In 2021, net migration to the UK was 488,000, up from 184,000 in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Net migration to the UK reached a record high of 764,000 in 2022, with immigration at 1.26 million and emigration at 493,000. Most of the migrants came from non-EU countries, including India, Nigeria, China and Pakistan. Of the 1,218,000 immigrants who came to the UK in 2023, only 126,000 were citizens of EU member states. Since the full implementation of Brexit, more EU nationals are leaving the UK than moving to it. In the 12 months to June 2023, net migration of EU nationals was negative 86,000.

Expulsions of criminals
Expulsions of immigrants who had committed crimes varied between 4,000 and 5,000 a year between 2007 and 2010.

Controversy over application of section 322(5)
In May 2018 under the tenure of Sajid Javid, it was the view of a significant minority that the Home Office was misusing section 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. The section was designed to combat terrorism, but the Home Office had been wrongly applying it to hundreds of settled, highly skilled workers. The hardship faced by the workers was compared to the Windrush scandal, which occurred around the same time. By early 2019, approximately 90 people had been deported from the UK due to section 322(5).

In May 2021, the Director of Advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian highlighting how the Home Office under Priti Patel viewed "activists as a security threat". The human rights activist was tortured and imprisoned in Bahrain for taking part in the country's Arab Spring uprisings, following which he fled to the United Kingdom. In 2015, Bahrain "arbitrarily revoked" his citizenship. Before the birth of his daughter, Alwadaei submitted his application for indefinite leave to stay in the UK and to prevent his child from being born stateless. However, the Home Office delayed the approval of his application until 2019, and his daughter was born without any citizenship. Alwadaei said the Home Office was keeping a record of his years of activism, labeling his case as "complex". His daughter was not granted the British citizenship she was entitled to by law, even after her parents forcefully paid £1,012 for her citizenship application. Alwadaei also pointed to the growing ties of Patel with conservation regime, Bahrain, stating that it is "deeply alarming".

Immigration Rules and prior statutory instruments and controls on aliens
In 1914, Parliament enacted "panic legislation", The Alien Restrictions Act, 1914, during the onset of World War I to place limits on the entry into, and stay in, the UK of foreign nationals. The act provided for the introduction of Orders in Council to detail the restrictions to be imposed on aliens. In 1919, after the conclusion of the war, that legislation was re-enacted, while the provisions that limited it to a time of war were removed. By the early 1950s, roughly 20 Orders in Council had been passed to flesh out the details for immigration control.

In 1952, Parliament moved to place its imprimatur on those orders by approving a consolidating order, The Aliens Order, 1953, that also removed some of the more objectionable provisions. However, other provisions of concern remained, including those potentially incompatible with other laws and international obligations of the UK.

The Immigration Act 1971, section 1, provided for "rules laid down by the Secretary of State as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act".

In 1972, the Heath administration introduced the first proposed Immigration Rules under the 1971 act. The rules proposal drew criticism from Conservative Party backbenchers, because it formally implemented a limit of six months of leave to enter as a visitor for white "Old Commonwealth" citizens who were "non-patrial" (did not have Right of Abode under the 1971 act, generally because they did not have a parent or grandparent from the UK). At the same time the proposal opened the door to free movement of certain European workers from European Economic Community member states. Seven backbenchers voted against the proposed Rules and 53 abstained, leading to defeat. Minutes from a Cabinet meeting the next day conclude that "anti-European sentiment" among backbenchers, who instead preferred "Old Commonwealth" migration to the UK, was at the core of the result. The proposal was revised, and the first Rules were passed in January 1973.

By August 2018, the Immigration Rules stood at almost 375,000 words, often so precise and detailed that the service of a lawyer are typically required to navigate them. That length represented nearly a doubling in just a decade. During the period of the introduction of the "hostile environment" policy under Prime Minister Theresa May, more than 1,300 changes were made to the Rules in 2012 alone. Former Lord Justice of Appeal Stephen Irwin referred to the complexity of the system as "something of a disgrace", and an effort to gradually overhaul the Rules into a more understandable system began to take place. The England and Wales Law Commission began to make recommendations for clearer rules to be adopted.

Managed migration

"Managed migration" is the term for all legal labour and student migration from outside of the European Union and this accounts for a substantial percentage of overall immigration figures for the UK. Many of the immigrants who arrive under these schemes bring skills which are in short supply in the UK. This area of immigration is managed by UK Visas and Immigration, a department within the Home Office. Applications are made at UK embassies or consulates or directly to UK Visas and Immigration, depending upon the type of visa or permit required.

In April 2006, changes to the managed migration system were proposed that would create one points-based immigration system for the UK in place of all other schemes. Tier 1 in the new system – which replaced the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme – gives points for age, education, earning, previous UK experience but not for work experience. The points-based system was phased in over the course of 2008, replacing previous managed migration schemes such as the work permit system and the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.

A points-based system is composed of five tiers was first described by the UK Border Agency as follows:
 * Tier 1 – for highly skilled individuals, who can contribute to growth and productivity;
 * Tier 2 – for skilled workers with a job offer, to fill gaps in the United Kingdom workforce;
 * Tier 3 – for limited numbers of low-skilled workers needed to fill temporary labour shortages;
 * Tier 4 – for students;
 * Tier 5 – for temporary workers and young people covered by the Youth Mobility Scheme, who are allowed to work in the United Kingdom for a limited time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives.

The Migration Advisory Committee was established in 2007 to give policy advice.

In June 2010, The newly elected Coalition government brought in a temporary cap on immigration of those entering the UK from outside the EU, with the limit set as 24,100, in order to stop an expected rush of applications before a permanent cap was imposed in April 2011. The cap caused tension within the coalition, and then-Business Secretary Vince Cable argued that it was harming British businesses. Others have argued that the cap would have a negative impact on Britain's status as a centre for scientific research.

For family relatives of European Economic Area nationals living in the UK, there is the EEA family permit which enables those family members to join their relatives already living and working in the UK.

Though immigration is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government under the legislation that established devolution for Scotland in 1999, the Scottish Government was able to get an agreement from the Home Office for their Fresh Talent Initiative which was designed to encourage foreign graduates of Scottish universities to stay in Scotland to look for employment. The Fresh Talent Initiative ended in 2008, following the introduction of points-based system.

Refugees and asylum seekers

The UK is a signatory to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the 1967 Protocol and has therefore a responsibility to offer protection to people who seek asylum and fall into the legal definition of a "refugee", and moreover not to return (or refoule) any displaced person to places where they would otherwise face persecution. Cuts to legal aid prevent asylum seekers getting good advice or arguing their case effectively. This can mean refugees being returned to a country where they face certain death.

The issue of immigration has been a controversial political issue since the late 1990s. Both the Labour Party and the Conservatives have suggested policies perceived as being "tough on asylum" (although the Conservatives have dropped a previous pledge to limit the number of people who could claim asylum in the UK, which would likely have breached the UN Refugee Convention) and the tabloid media frequently print headlines about an "immigration crisis".

This is denounced, by those seeking to ensure that the UK upholds its international obligations, as disproportionate. Concern is also raised about the treatment of those held in detention and the practice of dawn raiding families, and holding young children in immigration detention centres for long periods of time. The policy of detaining asylum-seeking children was to be abandoned as part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who formed a government in May 2010. However, in July 2010 the government was accused of back-tracking on this promise after the Immigration Minister Damian Green announced that the plan was to minimise, rather than end, child detention.

However, critics of the UK's asylum policy often point out the "safe third country rule" – the convention that asylum seekers must apply in the first free nation they reach, not go "asylum shopping" for the nation they prefer. EU courts have upheld this policy. Research conducted by the Refugee Council suggests that most asylum seekers in the UK had their destination chosen for them by external parties or agents, rather than choosing the UK themselves.

In February 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair promised on television to reduce the number of asylum seekers by half within 7 months, apparently catching unawares the members of his own government with responsibility for immigration policy. David Blunkett, then the Home Secretary, called the promise an objective rather than a target.

It was met according to official figures. There is also a Public Performance Target to remove more asylum seekers who have been judged not to be refugees under the international definition than new anticipated unfounded applications. This target was met early in 2006. Official figures for numbers of people claiming asylum in the UK were at a 13-year low by March 2006.

Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have argued that the government's new policies, particularly those concerning detention centres, have detrimental effects on asylum applicants and their children, and those facilities have seen a number of hunger strikes and suicides. Others have argued that recent government policies aimed at reducing 'bogus' asylum claims have had detrimental impacts on those genuinely in need of protection.

The UK hosts one of the largest populations of Iraqi refugees outside the Gulf region. About 65-70% of people originating from Iraq are Kurdish, and 70% of those from Turkey and 15% of those from Iran are Kurds.

Asylum seekers have been kept in detention after the courts ordered their release because the Home Office maintains detention is not dissimilar to emergency accommodation. Immigrants with the right to stay in the UK are denied housing and cannot be released. In other cases vulnerable asylum seekers are released onto the streets with nowhere to live. In January 2018 the government repealed a law that previously allowed homeless detainees to apply for housing while in detention if they had nowhere to live when released. Charities maintain around 2,000 detainees who before this applied for support each year can no longer do so.

On 9 August 2020, the reports suggested that the number of people who reached the United Kingdom shores in small boats, during that year, surpassed 4,000. The undocumented migrant crossings of the English Channel mounted tensions between the UK and France.

On 17 August 2021, the United Kingdom Government launched a new resettlement programme which aims to settle 20,000 Afghan refugees fleeing the 2021 Taliban offensive over a five-year period in the UK. This includes many Afghans who worked with British forces in Afghanistan. Hundreds of former members of Afghanistan's special forces have been refused resettlement to the UK. That same year the government also launched a scheme for Hongkongers following the Hong Kong national security law, with an estimated thousands emigrating to the UK either as refugees, asylum seekers or under student visas. By January 2024, more than 191,000 Hong Kong-born residents had applied for a visa.

As of May 2023, the United Kingdom has issued 230,300 visas to Ukrainians as a result of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine from a total of 292,900 applications received.

The UK also operates the UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship Scheme and Mandate Resettlement Scheme. Previous UK resettlement schemes included the Gateway Protection Programme and the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Programme.

Illegal immigration

Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:
 * entered the UK without authority
 * entered with false documents
 * overstayed their visas

Although it is difficult to know how many people reside in the UK illegally, a Home Office study released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000.

A recent study into irregular immigration states that "most irregular migrants have committed administrative offences rather than a serious crime".

Jack Dromey, Deputy General of the Transport and General Workers Union and Labour Party treasurer, suggested in May 2006 that there could be around 500,000 illegal workers. He called for a public debate on whether an amnesty should be considered. David Blunkett has suggested that this might be done once the identity card scheme is rolled out.

London Citizens, a coalition of community organisations, is running a regularisation campaign called Strangers into Citizens, backed by figures including the former leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested that an amnesty could net the government up to £1.038 billion per year in fiscal revenue, however the long term implications of such a measure are uncertain.

It has since been suggested that to deport all of the illegal immigrants from the UK might take 20 years and cost up to £12 billion. Former Mayor of London Boris Johnson commissioned a study into a possible amnesty for illegal immigrants, citing larger tax gains within the London area which is considered to be home to the majority of the country's population of such immigrants.

In February 2008, the government introduced new £10,000 fines for employers found to be employing illegal immigrants where there is negligence on the part of the employer, with unlimited fines or jail sentences for employers acting knowingly.

Women who are illegal immigrants and also domestic violence victims risk deportation and are deported if they complain about violence. Women get brought illegally into the UK by men intending to abuse them. Women are sometimes deterred from complaining about violence to them due to the risk of deportation, therefore perpetrators including rapists remain at large. Martha Spurrier of Liberty said, "It will leave people afraid to report crime, robbing them of protection under the law and creating impunity for criminals who target vulnerable people with unsettled immigration status. This is criminalising victims and letting criminals off the hook."

Nearly 30,000 undocumented migrants crossed the Channel in small boats to the UK in 2023.

On 20 March 2024, 514 people crossed the UK Channel, the busiest day for Channel crossings since the start of 2024. Following this, on 21 March 2024, the UK government announced that it was dealing with a "migration emergency."

Comparison of European Union countries
According to Eurostat, 47.3 million people lived in the European Union in 2010 who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (63%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (32%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1 million), the United Kingdom (4.7 million), Spain (4.1 million), Italy (3.2 million), and the Netherlands (1.4 million).

Citizenship laws
Individuals wanting to apply for British citizenship have to demonstrate their commitment by learning English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic and by having an understanding of British history, culture and traditions. Any individual seeking to apply for naturalisation or indefinite leave to remain must pass the official Life in the UK test.

Brexit
"Figures published in November 2021 by the Office for National Statistics showed that more EU nationals left the UK in 2020 than arrived for the first time since 1991, a net emigration of around 94,000. ... At first sight, the UK now has one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world outside the EU."


text:
She Used to Be My Girl

"She Used to Be My Girl" is the fourth episode of the sixteenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on December 5, 2004. It features actress Kim Cattrall from Sex and the City.

Plot
One day, Marge sees a friend from high school, Chloe Talbot, on TV and is jealous of her success as a news reporter. When they meet, an embarrassed Marge confesses she never left Springfield, but the two are glad to see each other again. Chloe comes to the Simpsons' house for dinner, but her exciting stories annoy Marge and inspire Lisa, who goes out to dinner with Chloe.

Marge reveals that she and Chloe were reporters for their high school newspaper, but after high school Marge stayed with her sweetheart Homer after Bart was born, with Chloe leaving her sweetheart Barney when he proposed. With all of Chloe's success, Marge seems to begin to resent both her decision and her family but receives supporting words from Homer.

On their way back from dinner, Chloe invites Lisa to the United Nations women's conference, with Lisa saying she would need parental permission. Upon arriving at the Simpsons house, a drunk Marge, who is worried that Lisa likes Chloe more, provokes Chloe and the two fight on the lawn. This leaves Marge with a black eye.

After Marge talks with Lisa about what happened, she forbids her to go to the women's conference, but Lisa sneaks out and hides in Chloe's car's trunk. Then, as Chloe drives off, her boss calls her, telling her to cover the story of the eruption of Springfield Volcano. When Lisa pops out of the trunk, Chloe has her be her cameraman after her original one fled at the sight of lava.

When Marge and Homer arrive at the women's conference to find Lisa, they see Chloe's live broadcast from the volcano, crediting Lisa behind the camera and the two trapped by a sea of lava. Marge and Homer race to the volcano and the former leaps from rock to rock to rescue Lisa. Moments later, Barney descends in a helicopter to rescue Chloe, who grants him a half hour of pity sex.

When Marge imagines her life as a reporter, she screams to her family, who shows little interest.

Production
The episode was written by Tim Long and guest starred Kim Cattrall as Chloe Talbot.

Reception
In its original American broadcast, "She Used to Be My Girl" was viewed by 10.3 million people.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: She Used to Be My Girl


text:
Talk:Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

A question of terminology
Asylum Seeker is nearly always used in a, at best, negative and, at worst, outright pejorative sense. The correct term is refugee (for which there is a WP entry). Refugees in turn should be distinguished from economic migrants. Let's head lazy tabloid thinking off at the pass, eh?

 * I've changed the heading Refugees ('Asylum seekers') to Refugees and asylum seekers. First because asylum seekers and refugees are not the same thing at all, and second becuase the quote marks make it seem like asylum seeker is a slang term or something

 * An asylum seeker is anyone who is applying for refugee status, and will inevitably include people who do not qualify (and will become a failed asylum seeker). A refugee on the other hand is a person whose asylum claim has been accepted - ie they have been found to be fleeing persecution. It is important to keep the distinction between these two groups, which the tabloids frequently use interchangeably! MyNameIsClare   talk  13:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody got any information about the picts and pictish? I know a bit but havent really got the time to write an article. Also there needs to be a mention of Manx. The North east of ireland,isle of man, and lowlands have a lot of important history, particularly in relation to language.

Also maybe some information regarding the higland clearences?Ukbn2 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Controversy
I've removed a statement in the introductory paragrapg about immigration causing controversy. If people wish to make such a statement, then it better put in a specific section with evidence. --NeilTarrant 20:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Does the Brexit vote count as evidence? Ttulinsky 20:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)

United Kingdom?
Surely this should be the Islands of Great Britain and Ireland. As the UK a faily modern invention?
 * Not really. Although the beakers and celts made it to Ireland afaik the Romans didn't, neither did the Anglo Saxons (although they certainly raided it), the vikings raided Ireland though didn't establish any kind of control there, neither did the normans and by the time we get to the huguenots we're well on the way to Britain becoming the UK.  The article is currently heavily weighted in the direction of history rather than modern day, because I certainly don't know anything about immigration as a contemporary topic and I get the impression that neither do other editors currently inolved in this cotw.  But with a full compliment the balance should be fairly even between the two. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 01:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Dublin is a viking city, the extent of roman contact with island is still a bit of a mystery I beleive. The UK does include part of Ireland ATM.--Jirate 01:28, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

 * I think the main thrust of my point is that the article when finished is supposed to convey modern immigration to the UK as well as historically. It doesn't at the moment because nobody has contributed anything towards the law section yet.  Otherwise for what you're suggesting you'd require two separate articles, one of the history, and one for contemporary immigration, which kind of cancels out the collaboration of the week. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 01:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Effects of Immigration on British Culture
This is a bit of a 'stream of conciousness' post! Martin TB 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 20thC eating habits - Chinese - Curries etc. Note most (as in 90%) UK curry houses are actually Bangladeshi run, not Indian per se.
 * tolerence - UK more integrated than many european counties - possible explanations?
 * The Arts - Chris Ofili (sp?) Anish Kapoor (sp?) etc.
 * French Huguenot Silkworkers
 * Look in Culture of the United Kingdom if you get stuck. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Population of racial minorities
The article might want to provide information on the size and growth of racial minorities. How large is the Asian population, Afro-Carib population, etc.? How fast are they growing? How does this compare to the general population?

Stuff moved from Briton
The Briton article had a lot of material also covered here, and in far poorer form with no references, so it has been removed. About the only thing worth saving was some information about Celt/Anglo-Saxon genetic evidence, which I've just inserted. References:

 * BBC article on genetic evidence supporting a Welsh-Irish-Basque connection
 * BBC article on why some Welsh men are not directly descended in the male line from Germanic men
 * Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

Long history of immigration, or of invasion?
Is it really accurate to say, as the article currently begins, "The United Kingdom has had a long history of immigration, from the Beaker people of the 3rd millennium BC, to the waves of invasions by the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons and Normans"? Are these instances of immigration, or is it reasonable to make a distinction between immigration and invasion? To say nothing of the fact that this train of thought seems discordant with the additions an anon made to the second paragraph today. - Nat Krause 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to say I feel that second paragraph needs to be made more npov: scientists come up with this stuff fairly regularly and I'd insist on more than just one reference befrore integrating that sort of thing into the article. Saying that invasion is a form of immigration, because the invading (settling) forces bring with them new cultures, styles etc that alter the fabric of the native society.  If we ignore the invading forces altogether we end up with a short article that leaps from the Beaker people to the Hugenots to 20th century colonial settlement.  I think invasions are important to keep in the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 21:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * While I agree that the second paragraph should express a more neutral point of view, I do not agree that multiple sources are required for a point of view to be expressed. I do not think this is a requirement of the verifiability policy. In order to get a more neutral perspective any alternative points of view should be expressed in addition to the current POV, and of course these should also be referenced. Alun 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the Celtic invasion didnt happen. Probably this was just a culture change.

Post war economy boom?
Did Britian's economy really "boom in the post war period"? I don't get it, I've always viewed the History of Britian following WW2 as going down hill for the latter years of the decade, remember the government was almost bankrupt? still on rations into the fifties, Is that an "economic boom"? Surely this wasn't a "boom" in the American postwar sense of the word.

 * Um, wasn't it Harold Macmillan in the 50s who said most of our people have never had it so good? Alun 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A question on spelling
The use of US-English spelling formation in a UK related article is not only highly innapropriate, offensive, and incorect by anyone not from the USA, but also in violation of wikipedia recommendations. To every native and 2nd language speaker of English on the Globe not from the USA, this article is spelt wrong. Wikipedia recommends that articles pertaining to all Commonwealth countries use International Commonwealth standard English, and only US related articles use US formations. Articles written about non Anglo-related topics are up for grabs, but it is also polite to use Commonwealth standard as this is what a person from taht area would be taught if he or she were to take an English course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.225.5 (talk • contribs).

 * Yes, it is Wikipedia standard to use British spelling for articles about Britain. It is also standard procedure to post new comments on the bottom of talk pages, and to sign them. Go ahead and change this article's spelling. -Willmcw 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NHS,council housing, massive development in industries = boom?Ukbn2 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration
Removed the following text as it requires a source and evidence. Note that US Citizens do not figure highly in removal or refusal figures so what evidence supports the following assertion?

Contrary to expectations, the largest group of illegal immigrants were found to be American nationals who had entered the UK on tourist visas and had overstayed.

above unsigned comment made 8 April 06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.183.28 (talk • contribs)

I've heard that statement made about Americans before, and also Australians. It may well be true, but I can't find a reliable reference to support it. Interestingly the largest group of illegal immigrants in Australia are from Britain. Cordless Larry 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Future repatriation?
I think this section should be removed. This article is about immigration, what has this neo-NAZI policy got to do with immigration, it would be emmigration surely? It is also something that will never happen as no serious political party has any such policy, so it would be Potential for repatriation or something like that. It seems an odd section, very short sort of joined on to the end of the article. I am baffled as to why it is there at all, are we going to express the policies of all crazed extremists? I'll remove it soon if no one objects. Alun 15:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a neo-nazi policy, however:
 * 1) It is a suggestion made by some people in the UK (whether it would happen or not) and so needs to be reported about.
 * 2) It is to do with immigration, as its proponents argue that it is a reation to immigration.
 * So, what ever our feelings on it, it should be included on this page for ensyclopedic accuracy, although, it should be made clear it is only an opinion (as is the total open border policy). Dave 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But is it important enough to be included? The neutral point of view policy talks of significant minority opinion, it isn't really a significant minority. This party is tiny and I'm not sure that it plays an appreciable role in any serious discussion about immigration. Alun 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it's been changed and now reads Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. Alun 15:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point, it is a very minority view but, the BNP are big enough to have their own page and so, surly this warrents just a mention. Dave 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well they already have a mention in the Impact of immigration on society and culture section, the Future repatriation section is devoted only to a BNP policy (no other party mentions this). They are not big enough to warrant their own section. The article at present gives the BNP far more coverage than they deserve, there is no mention, for example, of Howard's concentration on immigration at the last general election,(Howard denies 'racist' policies) but the Tories always get over 30% of the national vote, what do the BNP get? The article as it stands makes the UK sound like a country obsessed with race and immigration. There is also mention of the 1981 riots in Brixton as race riots, but as I remember it the riots were about poverty and social exclusion, there were people of different races rioting together, not against each other. Unemployment had skyrocketed from about a million in 1979 to three million in two years because of Thatcher's moronic economic policies, and it was the resultant unemployment that caused the social unrest. Unless much of this section is properly verified I think it should be removed. Alun 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I, after a bit of thought, I agree with you, and think that the section should be removed. Dave 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How to cite sources
Copied from my talk page, for Ukbn2. OK, find your source, it needs to be verifiable, you can follow the link to find out more, but it means that it should be from a published source that other people can check, like a book or newspaper article or website. It should also be from a reliable source, so not ramblings on a chatroom or someone's personal website, but something that people would generally consider reliable. You need to cite your source, like in the references section (see here for more info). Then, after the section you want to reference write this. There's more info about footnotes here. Hope this is of help. Alun 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Split of article suggestion
I think the scope of this article is too large. I would suggest two articles, one containing information on Immigration to the United Kingdom, this would include only migration dating from the introduction of migration law, and focus on modern immigration. The other article could concentrate on migration up to say 1875. This could focus on the debate over how much evidence there is for Celtic migration or Anglo-Saxon migration, and things like the settlement of the Danelaw. The academic debate surrounding cultural diffusion and mass migration could be dealt with here. For example there seems to be more and more opinion in the academic world that the postulated Germanic invasions during the Sub-Roman period may not have occured at all, and the amount of immigration may have been quite small, see Sub-Roman Britain. It also occurs to me that the UK didn't exist untill the Acts of Union in 1707, so much of immigration refered to in this article was really to Great Britain before the UK existed. What's the general consensus on this? Alun 17:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest splitting the page at the 1914 Aliens Restriction Act, as this was the first time any real restriction was placed on immigration. Dave 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds like a good plan. Let's see what other people think. Alun 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd go with the original suggestion as the history of legislation reaches back to 1793 Weggie 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So if it gets split just after the Huguenots section and before the Historical immigration (1875 to the modern day) section. I would suggest some mention of the 1793 legislation in the introduction to the Immigration to the United Kingdom article to emphasise that it is about immigration in the modern sense, with laws etc. Let's wait a week or so longer to see if anyone has any objections before proceeding. Alun 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the EU
This section needs a reference, broadcast media cannot be used as a source as they are not verifiable, we need a published source.

Please see the appropriate policy page here. Alun 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) In the first twelve months of the expanded EU 133,000 immigrants to the UK were registered under this system.

I have removed this section based on the above, it is not verifiable.

''Since then - 'Britain's Polish workforce has boomed in the two years since Poland joined the European Union. It's estimated that nearly 350,000 Poles have come to the UK since 2004 - but why?' This was the main line (and substantiated) of the programme broadcast by BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 14th May 2006, with the tag line 'This week's 'In Business', Peter Day speaks with members of this new army of workers, and asks them what they find attractive about Britain, and what they want to achieve whilst they're here.'' Alun 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this is an out-dated concept - we are "broadcasting" in front of things that look like televisions. electronic media IS verifiable if it is recorded.Ukbn2 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It is not verifiable unless it is accessible, any book or newspaper can be checked, but a broadcast from last week cannot readily be checked. Is the radio programme available for download from the BBC website? I know that they do maintain some archives. You should take a look at the reliable sources guideline, it only mentions published sources. But I agree, if broadcast media are readily accessible, and so can be verified, then I don't see why they shouldn't be used for verification. Alun 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Some bias creeping in?
It may be my immagination, but I have noticed some rather intollerant and biased edits recently in this article. Maybe it's just my immagination but this is certainly not the place to express political and/or neo-fascist opinions. It is also not a forum for promoting the BNP, a tiny minority party that IMHO is so small that it doesn't even warrant a mention based on the neutrality policy. Far more relevant for example is the failiure of the Tories under Michael Howard in 2005, who did have an extreme policy on immigration (he was assisted by Lynton Crosby who had helped John Howard win in Australia by using racism/immigration as an issue). The Tories increased their proportion of the vote by less than 1% between 2001 and 2005. I am somewhat concerned about this trend and am wondering if we should make some sort of request to get the page protected somehow. Alun 09:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the fact that some people want to politicise this page, but, compared with most pages, the amount of vandalism is very small. Instead of protecting, which would be an option if there was a more consistant flow of vandals, all we can do is revert the edits which we percieve to detract from the article. Having said that, we can't fall into the trap of embedding our own biases into it (but I don't think that has been happening). Dave 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, we need neutrality and verifiability, I'm all for articles being unbiased, but some of the edits recently have served no other purpose than to promote exclusively extremist POVs, and have attempted to shift the balance of the article in favour of a less tollerant POV. It is not the purpose of this article to articulate the policies of a single party, let alone one with such miniscule support as the BNP. As I have said before, if we want to have a section on the importance of immigration as a British political issue, it would be more accurate to discuss it in terms of how it failed to significantly increase Tory party support between 2001 and 2005, which makes it a non-issue really. I think the British press (which are IMHO mainly very right wing in the UK, with a few notable exceptions) has become somewhat hysterical over this issue in the recent past, which has raised the profile of the neo-nazi BNP recently, it's probably little more than a blip, when the press move on to their next bete noir it will be forgotten. I am worried that without constant vigilance some of the edits might become permanent, though I do have this page on my watch list. I point out the edits today by User:Harrysheldon that I reverted and our previous discussion about Future repatriation, this section stayed in the article for some time. There have also been some unverified edits regarding failed asylum seekers. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I am concerned that the article may be drawing the attention of people with  an agenda, and could become the target of a conserted campaign of racist edits. I think the more enlightened editors of the article need to be a a bit extra vigilent in the near future. Alun 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst you may have a point about biased edits from one side of the argument, I believe that the above contributors too have their own biases in favour of immigration. Saying immigration is a "non issue" (yet it still appears highly in peoples' concerns in YouGov or when asked whether there should be more immigration, the majority are against)), mentioning "neo nazis" and mentioning hysterical tabloids and "racism" would indicate you are perhaps biased yourselves. NPOV works both ways. GimpyFauxHippy (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 "The Government announced that the same rules would not apply to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria when those countries acceded to the EU in 2007. Instead, restrictions were put in place to limit migration to students, the self-employed, highly skilled migrants and food and agricultural workers." Why should the British governement put restrictions on highly skilled migrants? There is definetly a mistake in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.228.104 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Impact of immigration on society and culture-music
particularly in the traditions of sound systems and celebrity DJs.

Does anybody have a better way of rephrasing this? It almost sounds like a David Brent comment.

Im not aware of any Jamaican made sound systems.

What about?

"particularly in the influence of British music"

Ukbn2 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, it does look odd. How about particularly with regard to music and celebrity DJs? Alun 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Added some points relating to music.Ukbn2 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006, with the majority of chart music obviously written by and influenced by black artists." - This is an opinion, and at the moment, in 2006, I would argue that this comment is wrong. --Screeming Monkey 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Removal
Removed paragraphs with unsourced material as per wiki guidelines: The Week is unverifiable as there are several publications of this name. Also, got flamed when I tried to tidy up which was nice since its not my material. Will replace with a sourced piece in a couple of days if no feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)

According to an article in The Week, 27th May 2006, there are 204,895 Poles registered for work in the UK and pay tax. The amount of unregistered Poles working in the shadow economy is probably as large. The Poles are relatively dispersed throughout Britain but do have some concentrations making up a sixth of the population in Jersey and Crewe.

 * A sixth?? Sorry, but I live here, and the Polish population of Crewe is 6%, about 3,000, not a sixth (16.666%). Also I'm a bit doubtful about the assertion concerning Jersey, since even we Brits don't have freedom of movement to set up home there - the States would have something to say about it. -- Arwel (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the immigrants are well educated people in the 20-35 year age group. Eastern Europeans have migrated for mainly economic reasons. Most Poles do low paid work in areas such as catering, agriculture, construction and the stereotypical Polish Plumber. Eighty percent earn £6 per hour, equivalent to the British Minimum Wage. According to The Week this is four times what they would earn in Poland. About 4000 Polish doctors have been recruited for Britain's hard pressed National Health Service although there have been concerns about their relatively poor English language skills.

The benefits to Britain from this influx of cheap labour are assessed as being an extra 0.2% of GDP growth and interest rates 0.5% lower according to the Ernst & Young Item Club.

 * If you are refering to me, then it was not my intention to flame you, sorry if I caused offence, not my intention at all. I was just requesting proper verification from the person who made the edit. I agree about removing the material untill we can get verification. Alun 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

terminology
There is a terminology dispute ongoing which primarily involves U.S. participants, but might benefit from the involvement of people knowledgable about immigration politics in other countries. Usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I have also noticed that there are legal inaccuracies. However, an undocumented immigrant under UK immigration law is an illegal immigrant. --Panzer71 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Potentially Anti-British statement
"Other high-profile areas such as entertainment and sport are also very inclusive. Many leading broadcasters and scientists are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In music, the impact of black culture has been extensive. British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006."

This paragraph sounds like an anti-British-culture statement because it states that ethnic British music has done absolutely nothing since the 1950s. This is an outright lie, when one doesn't consider that so much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. The phenomena on the "British Invasion" in the U.S. and Canada come to mind and names like The Rolling Stones or Billy Idol surely can't be forgotten.

I will remove the last sentence.. but has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence? The only one I can think of is the Spice Girls, but there was only 1 black member and there was certainly no African beats or influences portrayed in their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Andem (talk • contribs)

 * It's not an anti-British statement. The problem with British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006. is that it is an unsupported point of view, points of view should only be expressed if there is a supporting citation and if the other different points of view are also included (as long as they exist and can be supported by citations). Ideally we need a source that supports this statement, and then another that supports your pov. That way we give both points of view, and anyone that reads the article can draw their own conclusions. Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * ethnic British music ......much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. This comment of yours doesn't make sense to me. Just because it comes from the UK doesn't make it ethnically British. I don't think any pop music can be considered ethnically-British, isn't nearly all popular music derived from the Blues and Jazz of the thirties, fourties and fifties, and aren't these ultimately African-American styles of music? I think the best one can say is that British folk music (maybe people like Jethro Tull) are derived from ethnic-British music.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence The article didn't state an African presence, it stated an impact from Black culture. You seem to be (possibly deliberately) ignoring musical styles like Ska and Reggae, are you disputing the West Indian origin of these styles? Or are you possibly forgetting that there are bands like UB40 and Madness etc. out there.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

UK work permit
I have added the UK work permit page, generally as I have one and found it tough to find information on the governments site that made sense and clearly outlined what was required. Actually I had trouble getting info from immgration service companies, they wanted money first than I would get answers.

The Immigration to the United Kingodm page mentions the work permit scheme but has no in depth information on the requirements etc for a UK work permit.

The company that I finally is the same company I have gotten the content for my page (permission was granted by their marketing manager). They were the only ones who spelt out the entire system to me and my HR manager, and were helpful without money.

There is a page for HSMP, so thought the same for work permits would be good as well.

The information will change as soon as the government has updated its agenda for the new tier 1/tier 2 visa scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillfire (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that the Uk work permit and Highly Skilled Migrant Programme pages should be merged into this article, in a shortened form. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I don't think we need an article that is essentially providing immigration advice - as worthy as that is, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. I think we should follow the lead of Immigration to Australia and include brief information on the different schemes on the 'Immigration to...' page. Cordless Larry 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the page
I think we need to remove information from this article that does not pertain to the UK. We need articles called Migrations to Great Britain (pre 1066) and Migrations to Great Britain (1066-1706) and Immigration to the United Kingdom. How can neolithic people have been migrating to the UK? The UK is a political entity, it didn't exist untill 300 years ago. Besides there's no real consensus of when or how or if there has been any significant migration to Great Britain since the paleolithic expansion. I think we need articles for the ancient migrations that deal with archaeology, written history genetic evidence etc and place the debates in their correct contexts. This article could then concentrate on immigration law and more contemporary ideas about immigration, which after all have very little similarity to those of ancient migrations. It would also free the pages for English people, Welsh people and Scottish people to be more about the people and the culture, and less about origins, because origins could be covered in the migration articles. Any thoughts? Alun 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes - this makes sense to me. It's also covertly biased to include all the ancient migrations on this page because it suggests that since there always has been migration we needn't get too worked up about it. Although that's a strong argument, it is made deceptively. I would favour one article for pre-1707 and one for post-1707. Andeggs 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I have just finished a re-edit of the contemporary migration section and feel this would work well on a standalone page. Will go ahead and split in two when i have time. Andeggs 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Pre-1922 material has now been moved to Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922). Thanks Andeggs 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Impact of immigration on society and culture
I think this whole section should be scrapped. It seems to me to be far too rambling (and unverified) for Wikipedia. We probably do need a section on the Geographical settling patterns of migrants - but how can centuries of immigration ranging from African slaves to IT workers be summed up in "impact on society..."? Will heavily cut in the next few days if no-one objects. Andeggs 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The country name....
Since when was it called the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It never was. Certainly not in 1922. Sorry, it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. White43 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish immigration
I think a mention should be made of Polish forced immigration in the immediate post war period of members of the Polish Armed Forces in the West. I'm speculating and it would need a source to confirm it but this probably also had an effect on the numbers of recent Polish migrants as it is much easier to emigrate to a country which already has a nucleus of fellow nationals as they can provide an informal network of support. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is worth a mention. I remember seeing the Polish-born figures from the 1951 census and there were over 162,000 then, making the Polish-born one of the largest foreign-born groups. This population had declined a lot by the 2001 census (because of deaths, onward migration to the US, return migration to Poland, etc.), but was still significant. This is a good source, as is Keith Sword's Formation of the Polish Community in Great Britain, 1939-1950, if you can find it. Cordless Larry 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I suggest that Labour Party immigration scandal should be merged into this page - the subject in question doesn't merit a unique article. Please see discussion here.--Pondle (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but don't give it too much weight in this article. It's basically a single event which doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia entry. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support When you google "Labour Party immigration scandal" it refers to immigration policy or lack of policy as a scandal, not the specific conspiracy theory in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is not notable and its subject will not have "significant lasting and historical interest and impact". Furthermore, it is, as other users have pointed out on its talkpage, riddled with POV and political bias as shown by its "sources" from the Torygraph and Daily Mail. Merging that article into the present well-balanced and referenced text would be a slap in the face for the editors which have worked on this piece. Scrap this merger proposal, let's move to AfD. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be averse to an AfD. As I said, if it's merged here, it only deserves a very brief mention. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not mean that content from the other article is added to this article, but rather that the issues in the other article are dealt with here. Since there is nothing of any value in the other article then nothing would be added to this article.  We now have two conflicting articles presenting different views of immigration policy when we should have one.  (Basically a vote to merge the other article means that it is deleted while an AfD would keep the article.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, far-left/Labour attempt at a cover-up job. The article is referenced reliably from mainstream media resources. There is still some more to add to the article, including Alan Johnson's apology over immigration the other day and the response. The Shadow Cabinet are initiating an official inquiring—wait until that is completed before trying to merge. No valid rationale for attempt to merge or cover up/hide, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, per my comments on the article talk page. A long way from meeting WP:N criteria. Deserves only the very briefest of mentions, and if editors object even to that, they are probably right. --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I've put the POV fork page up for deletion, here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please suspend this merger proposal pending the outcome of the AfD? I'm minded to withdraw my opposition here if the outcome is keep. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neather article
I [ added] a brief sentence based on Andrew Neather's article. I was careful to add only the narrowest and best supported claim from that article. My previous involvement comes from the Articles for deletion/Labour Party immigration scandal debate. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Managed migration update
The "Managed migration" section may need further updating for the change to the points-based immigration system and the UK Border Agency. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Calais: what's the attraction?
why is Britain apparently more attractive to irregular immigrants than mainland Europe ? Is it that wages or benefits are more generous ( I doubt it)or perhaps detection is less likely ( no ID cards?) ? I never notice any mention of this phenomenon, particularly the bizarre situation in Calais, in either mainstream media or here either. Given that terrible hostel fire a few years ago, and what I understand to be the B&B policy of local councils, UK doesn't sound like a particularly attractive place to be "undocumented". But is it better than conditions in eg France or germany etc..? Grateful any response to CC me at my own Talk page, please Feroshki (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that part of the answer is that the "Calais phenomenon" is simply a more visible manifestation of irregular migration than other aspects of it. For example, when in the Schengen area, irregular migrants can move from country to country without having to pass through border controls. By contrast, if they try to move to the UK it is more difficult and hence attention is drawn to their attempts. The same goes for people attempting to get into Europe in the first place: people crossing the Mediterranean are more visible than those crossing from France to Germany, for instance. Other than that, if the UK is actually a more popular destination (I actually think that other countries such as Greece and Spain may have larger irregular populations), then I would suggest that it's to do with the low unemployment rate that existed for the last decade or more in the UK. This may have now changed with the recession. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. This is an issue rarely discussed in the UK press, but one which comes up often in France which has to deal with the consequences of large numbers of migrants using Calais as a transit point for the "eldorado" which the UK is perceived to be for them. This article explains that many would-be migrants speak some English, have relations in the UK and believe that they have more of a chance of being allowed to remain in the UK rather than France. There's also the fact that France has far more stringent controls on migrants, both at the borders as well as within the country. Furthermore, to get almost anything in France (a job, bank account, housing etc) an individual will be required to provide a number of ID documents. In the UK, the only controls are on the borders and there are little to no paperwork requirements. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this crap
These Immigration articles seem to focused on the British isles like there was no immigration from the isles to Europe, or other European countries immigrating to neighboring countries in Europe, NONSENCE, these are pathetic articles, what happened to neutrality why aren't their articles like British immigration to Europe, or German migration to France, it's all pointed at the British isles which is unfair.109.154.8.185 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are equivalent articles to this one for a number of other European countries, including Immigration to Germany and Immigration to Spain. There is also a specific article on British migration to Spain, although we could probably do with more of these type of articles given the significant British populations in several other European countries. You could always help out by starting such an article! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Immigration data source from guardian.co.uk
I found the following source of information about UK immigration from a blog on the guardian.co.uk web site: the data is compiled under this google spreadsheet: here though the post's author doesn't cite his sources.
 * Guardain Datablog: Immigration to the UK: the statistics

Bouktin (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

weasel placement
the total immigration and emigration number is put under the eu section. even despite knowing the real numbers this led me to believe for a while that this was eu numbers, higher than i thought. somebody who is unaware of the actual facts may not look long enough to realise the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.26 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted and now ✅. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since World War 2
This would be better than the current cut-off which seems arbitrary until I asked someone on a related talk page and they said it was because of the Irish independence. The article is already mainly about post-war immigration so why don't we just change the name to reflect this. The cut off would be much more sensible this way especially seeing as the 1922 is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article and neither is Irish Independence plus isn't it bad to have an arbitrary year in the title Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be a better title than currently but it's not as good as the one I proposed at the start of my rambling. Eopsid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe 1922 was chosen because the present configuration of the UK dates from then. It also ties in with the timeline in Historical immigration to Great Britain. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should have said that if I made my proposed move Historical immigration to Great Britain would be changed to reflect it and plus your first sentence is just another way of saying after Irish Independence which is what I already said. Eopsid (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1922 is nonetheless a more logical start date than 1945. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case naming the article Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be better than the current one because after 1922 is more arbitrary than after Irish Independence and it was originally called 1922 to mean after Irish Independence. Eopsid (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Problematic as Irish independence is not a straightforward issue and, in any event, it was really the Anglo-Irish Treaty which led to GB and NI. Also, the proposed title would give too much prominence to Irish independence, whereas this is only relevant as a historical starting point. There could however be an argument for using 1948 as a starting point for "modern" immigration which is synonymous with the Windrush and the British Nationality Act 1948. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But I don't want to just use a date because that is arbitrary. A specific event as the cut-off point like Irish Independence or World War 2 would in my view be preferential. Eopsid (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Move to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom
The current title seems rather wordy and highlights an event that is not dealt with by the article. (The question of the free movement of the Irish to the UK might once have been an issue but is not even considered. Ireland doesn't even appear in the EU table.) So we either go back to the original title and explain in the header that only modern immigration is being considered, or use a modifier such as "modern" or "recent". I'm not fully convinced either way, but the word "recent" seems to beg the question, and "modern" can be explained by keeping the header note in place. So I propose the use of the term "Modern". Chris55 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree but perhaps you should use the page move template: NewName . Lamberhurst (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That template is for requested moves considered "controversial or potentially controversial". Does this come under that heading? The previous section suggests that not many are even interested. And I'm not requesting a move, simply proposing it. (A request seems to me to be asking someone else to do something.) Chris55 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could just go ahead and do it. The advantage with the template is that it provides a bulwark against other editors moving it again at their whim. See the discussion above where although I opposed the September 2013 move, the editor ignored my concerns and did it anyway. Immigration to the UK is a controversial topic. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he moved it from "since 1922" to "since Irish independence", despite proposing "since World War 2". I'm cheered you're not opposing the move, but I'll let it wait for a day or so to see if other people have ideas. Chris55 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Chris55 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article structure
This article's present structure is rather odd and I've tagged it as requiring restructuring. The "British Empire and the Commonwealth" is largely focused on post-WWII immigration, but then there is a second on post-war immigration later in the article, which also covers immigration from the Commonwealth. I think we need to decide whether the article should be organised into sections based on time periods, or based on the source regions of migration. My preference would be for the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070923144837/http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/History/6_1_History_of_immigration.pdf to http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/History/6_1_History_of_immigration.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512084839/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/ to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720043527/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/timetableforPBSlaunch to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/timetableforPBSlaunch
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221012223/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/howitworks to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/howitworks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Large Increases in 1997 and 2004 Seem Downplayed
I'm an American reading this article without knowing much about UK immigration, except that it was a big issue in the recent Brexit vote. When reading the section "Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" it became clear that there had been a large increase in immigration, but it was not clearly stated that it occurred. Instead there are statements about forces that caused immigration and attempts to limit it. The graphs in "UK Migration from 1970.svg" make it clear there were big jumps in 1997 and 2004.

But the text there just the statement
 * Non-European immigration rose significantly during the period from 1997

in the fourth paragraph of "Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" without any number or percentage for approximately a 200% jump, judging from the graphs.

The section "European Union" meanders around, discussing

 * The of the Four Freedoms of the European Union,... substantial Maltese and Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriot communities ... There are restrictions on the benefits ...

Finally in the third paragraph:

 * Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that, between May 2004 and September 2009, 1.5 million workers migrated from the new EU member states to the UK

This does give numbers but softens them with the phrase "Research suggests", gives but no percentage again, for a 50-100% jump, again softens the increase with the statement (not a "suggestion") that many have returned home, then at the bottom of the paragraph admits many  will probably come back.

This may simply be a case assuming that most [UK] readers know there was a large increase in immigration, and not bothering to state it, and going immediately to the resulting controversy. But the article should state the important facts before talking about the causes and reactions to them, and moreover it seems to be obscuring the fact of big increases in immigration. Ttulinsky 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234444/http://www.24dash.com/news/57/12221/index.htm to http://www.24dash.com/news/57/12221/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718031206/http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10524.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10524.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207074918/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/new_europeans.pdf to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/new_europeans.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215012227/http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/gateway/ to http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/gateway/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308182913/http://www.identities.group.sheffield.ac.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Somali%20Migration%20to%20the%20UK.pdf to http://www.identities.group.sheffield.ac.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Somali%20Migration%20to%20the%20UK.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202101114/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502050446/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/worker_registration.html to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/worker_registration.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806163440/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854800.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854800.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226123932/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854822.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854822.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108040541/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk./workingintheuk/tier1/freshtalent/ to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/freshtalent/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929155339/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/TTB_definition_draft_techni1.pdf to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/TTB_definition_draft_techni1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626085941/http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=2794 to http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=2794
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626090020/http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=3483 to http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=3483
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207045025/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/content/ind/en/home.html to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/content/ind/en/home.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615014648/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/immigrationrules/ to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/immigrationrules/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Graph
Stacked graphs are well known to be subject to misinterpretation, especially when the topic has political or emotional associations. It seems to me that a side-by-side presentation would be more illuminating, as I have shown here. The big problem with it, I recognise, is that the total is not easily visible. Is there a way to have the best of both worlds? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, a side-by-side represenation is less illuminating as it fails to provide a total. Concerning "the order of subsets", If "Figure 1" is observed in the source, the graph uses the same order as the source data. Hence if the University of Oxford doesn't have a problem with data being displayed in that order, it should be good enough for enwp editors and audience alike. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern? immigration
Just wondering what is modern immigration?

What makes it modern? For instance for immigration to the United Kingdom after the second war and until the entry into Europe?

It was eventually modern in the 1980s or 1990s. Is this still the case?

Why not to use another word than modern?

2021
In 2021, almost 30.000 immigrants have crossed the English Channel. The Second Johnson ministry had claimed the Brexit would makew it easier to keep them out of the UK.

Versprechen nicht gehalten (means promise not kept)

In November 2021, 27 migrants died last week when their smuggling boat sank en route to Britain EU plane to monitor migrants on Channel shores after deaths (AP 28. November 2021) - that brought some attention to that migration.

--Präziser (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Population Density
It might be instructive and useful to split out the 4 Nations of the UK in the population density comparison with EU countries. Not to replace the UK wide figure but to list the nations as well. Doing so would reveal that England is super dense, as much as the Netherlands, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are much closer to most european countries in terms of population density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population lists the stats in population by square km, which I think if you multiply by 2.59 converts to population by square miles. The 2011 figure of 406.55 population per sq km for England therefore is 1053 population per square mile, just slightly more than the Netherlands.

Furthermore listing regions in comparison with other EU countries is even more dramatic with London coming in at 5199.71/km2 = 13,467/sq mile.

new PM Rishi Sunak
[https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/migration-nach-grossbritannien-wir-werden-die-boote-stoppen-18534290.html 35 % coming by boat to the UK are Albabians. Many of them claim to be 'victims of modern slavery', which is an official reason for asylum since 2015. ]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/14/uk-coastguard-responds-to-small-boat-incident-in-channel-search-and-rescue

PM Sunak is obviously trying to make a turn. I am no native speaker and hope that a 'native' (ore some) will update the lemma. 178.203.108.170 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

New section post-EU
Hi, personally I feel this article now needs a new section to cover post brexit. any thoughts on this? Firestar47 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)