The Pseudoscience Behind Britain’s Open Borders

Britain’s immigration policy has been run by researchers who were never right — and rarely challenged

ROB BATES

Since at least the Blair era, low-grade Home Office ministers have found it far too easy to justify their harmful migration policies by deferring to the work of a self-fancying epistemic community that tells them what they want to hear

Migration researchers, by and large, combine two dangerous ingredients; a veneer of respectability, and a burning desire for open borders. Research in the US by the social scientists George Borjas and Nate Breznau found that less than 8 per cent of those working in the migration field believe in a toughening of immigration laws, with 72 per cent favouring a relaxation. These ideological predispositions have a direct impact on modelling choices that are made and the conclusions that are eventually put forward.

Nowhere is this bias more evident than when reading a 2000 Home Office and Cabinet Office paper entitled “Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis”. A piece of polemic, masquerading as empiricism, that conformed with the existing anti-British psychosis of Tony Blair’s frontbenchers and ultimately defined New Labour’s open border experiment. It brought about one of the most liberal migration systems in all of Europe, dramatically increased low-skilled worker routes, and aimed to double the number of foreign students in the country.  

The piece reflects the intellectual inadequacies and personal desires of its authors, relying less on data and more on wild assertion, perhaps best exemplified by a central premise of the paper that “Britain is a country of immigration”. 

To the authors – Jonathan Portes, Sarah Spencer et al — it was somehow “obvious” that allowing foreign students to stay after completing a humanities degree at Swindon Roundabout University (formerly North Wiltshire Polytechnic) would bring vast economic benefits. It was, they insisted, “widely recognised that zero or near-zero migration of low-skilled workers to the UK is neither an available nor a desirable policy choice”. And, even more, that the majority of the public “consistently regards immigration has having a positive effect on British culture”. 

No actual evidence, few proper citations, and the kind reckless postulations you would expect from a sixth form debating society. Yet its conclusions were adopted wholesale by a Labour government that wanted to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, and led to net migration running at an average of 200,000 per year for the next decade. 

The country never recovered from the decisions taken off the back of these scribblings. Indeed, researchers have been compounding the problem ever since. 

In 2004 the Eurofederalist Labour Party were weighing up whether to open Britain’s borders to citizens of the A8 EU member states. The same caste of ideologues told them that forecasts suggested between 5,000 and 13,000 would arrive. In reality, 129,000 migrants arrived between 2004 and 2005 alone. 

In 2018, as Theresa May somehow clung on as Prime Minister, the post-Brexit EU Settlement Scheme was created to give EU citizens resident in Britain at the time of departure the indefinite right to stay in the country and claim welfare. Whitehall’s eminent migration researchers estimated that 4.1 million migrants would be eligible for the route and plans were put in place on this basis. As it turns out, 5.8 million people, and counting, have signed up so far. 

Not to be outdone, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson allowed himself to be bounced into the creation of the Health and Social Care visa. Again, “expert” Civil Servants in the DHSC told ministers that the numbers using the route would be small — somewhere in the region of 6,000 a year. Again, they were wrong. In 2023, 348,000, predominantly non-European migrants, arrived under this route. 

This is not to absolve the last Tory government of any blame. Many were very happy with open borders, and for those claiming to want migration control, it is their fault for being naive, for blindly following advice, and for not following through.

As Milton Friedman said, “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results”. We now have nearly twenty-five years of evidence which shows that the policies being advocated for by migration researchers have been an unmitigated disaster for the country. Whether the current situation is by their design or just incompetence, they have done enough damage and it is time they were put out to pasture.

---

This article (The pseudoscience behind Britain’s open borders) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Rob Bates

Where ‘soft-touch’ Britain’s new citizens are REALLY coming from: Interactive map reveals the far-flung nations the UK is handing out citizenship to – as storm over allowing Egyptian ‘extremist’ to stay rumbles on

CAMERON ROY

British passports are being ‘cheapened’ by the Home Office‘s ‘soft touch’ citizenship system, campaigners said today.

Last year, migrants from more than 200 countries – including Nepal, North Korea and Fiji – were rubber-stamped as British in the year ending September 2025.

More than 55,000 came from India, Pakistan and Nigeria alone – enough to fill towns the size of Horsham, Dunstable and Clacton.

The figures have raised further questions about Britain’s citizenship process, which has been embroiled in scandal over Keir Starmer‘s handling of the case of Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah.

He was granted citizenship in 2021 despite calling for the murder of Jews and police officers. The 44-year-old also voiced his hatred of white people in a series of vulgar outbursts on social media.

Freed from jail in Egypt following a long campaign, El-Fattah was welcomed back by the Prime Minister when he landed in London on Boxing Day.

Robert Bates, of the Centre for Migration Control, told the Daily Mail: ‘The whole world seems to be getting in on Britain’s soft touch pathway to citizenship.

‘This has caused the value of a British passport to be cheapened and awarded to those who are, quite frankly, not British.

‘The soaring grant numbers show Starmer’s government is happy to throw around passports like confetti, but as we have seen with extremists like El-Fattah, not all of these applicants should have been approved in the first place.

‘It is far too easy for migrants to obtain British citizenship after just a few years in the country, and the whole process needs a radical overhaul.’

Statistics from the Home Office show that the number of citizenship applications being granted was as low as 15,000 in the early 1960s.

But this has spiralled to the two highest numbers on record under Labour’s watch, with 269,000 in 2024 and 241,000 for the year ending September 2025.

The two biggest surges over the decades came in the New Labour era of the late 1990s and early 2000s and in the post-2020 immigration boom.

The number of people now being approved as British is enough to fill cities the size of Newcastle, Brighton or Plymouth each year – double levels seen a decade ago.

Most citizenship grants come from the naturalisation process, which most people become eligible for a year after achieving permanent residence, which itself normally takes five years.

This means a surge in citizenship grants usually comes years after a spike in immigration numbers.

Once immigrants become British citizens, they can live and work in the UK free of any immigration controls.

They can also apply for a British passport, register to vote in all forms of elections and referenda, and share in all the other rights and responsibilities of their status.

But Home Office inspectors have previously warned that citizenships have been handed out to thousands of illegal immigrants and foreign criminals without basic checks.

The Daily Mail: continue reading

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.