The facts are in: mass immigration has led to a rise in crime
For years we have had an institutional cover-up of the costs of immigration. The amount of serious and violent crime we have imported from low-skilled migration has been swept under the carpet.
From what I can only deduce is out of misplaced fear of harming social cohesion if the truth were to emerge, the public have had the wool pulled over their eyes. Officials have hidden behind the excuse of 'operational challenges' and 'disproportionate cost'.
But the dam is now breaking. The Home Office will publish crime data by nationality 'by the end of the year'. It should happen sooner, and it should be more thorough – breaking down visa and asylum status too. But it is a welcome step in the right direction.
This should have been put into the public domain long ago – as the US and Denmark have done. Over a year ago, I wrote a report with Neil O'Brien and Karl Williams setting out all the social and economic data we needed. I even tabled an amendment, backed by more than 40 colleagues, to the Crime and Policing Bill to mandate the publication of the volume and type of migrant crime. Plenty of other campaigners and parliamentarians have raised this issue, only to be met with a 'computer says no' response.
The Government has been forced, through freedom of information requests, to release indicative data. The preliminary findings are extremely concerning. For instance, Algerians appear 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft as British citizens. Congolese nationals appear to be 12 times more likely, and Somalians eight times more likely, to be convicted of a violent crime than UK citizens.
The initial data on sexual offences – which needs verifying further – is even more alarming. The data appears to show that Afghans and Eritreans are more than 20 times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British citizens. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be convicted for sex crimes.
It makes me sick to my core to think we are importing people into this country who are causing such terrible harm. We, rightly, talk a lot about protecting women and girls in Parliament. One of the biggest things the Government could do to protect them would be to reduce visas radically and to dramatically increase background checks for nationals from those countries – as well as deporting their failed asylum seekers. And do it now.
The full, verified Home Office data will give us the unvarnished truth: some nationalities are significantly more likely to commit crime than others.
As Kemi Badenoch has said, it shouldn't be controversial to state that not all cultures are equal. Freedom of Information requests thus far suggest 66 nationalities have a higher conviction rate per 10,000 than Britons. If we are to build an immigration system that protects the interests of the British public, we need to know which nationalities are higher and which are lower.
The data on migrant crime is not an academic exercise. It is a means to an end. Its purpose is to inform an immigration system that puts the safety of British people first. Coming to this country is a privilege, never a right. It should not be afforded to anyone likely to endanger our citizens.
I don't care if that ruffles Left-wing feathers. The public – and policymakers – need the truth. It will be hard for some to read. But I'll take a hard truth over a gentle lie every single time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
35 minutes ago
- The National
Gaza Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship
Members of the humanitarian coalition are currently en route to Gaza on the Madleen ship, which is expected to arrive within the next 24 hours. The vessel flies a UK flag, meaning that it falls under the jurisdiction of the UK Government. There are 12 volunteers on the ship, including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, as well as other volunteers from France, Turkey, the Netherlands, Spain, Brazil and Germany. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say The ship set off from Sicily on June 1 and its live tracker shows that it has almost reached Gaza. In a statement shared in the early hours of Saturday, the group said: "The 'Madleen', a UK-flagged civilian ship en route to Gaza, is protected under international maritime law. "As a vessel flying the British flag, it falls under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the UK government, which has a legal duty to defend 'Madleen' and the civilians on board, and to prevent unlawful interference - including any threat or use of force - by foreign powers such as Israel." The coalition called on the UK Government to issue a public warning to Israel that any action against the Madleen is "unacceptable and unlawful" and to act to protect the rights and safety of those onboard the vessel. The group also urged the UK Government to "comply with its legal duties" to "prevent genocide" and to "[reject] the legitimacy of Israel's blockade and actively supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian aid and uphold international law". It comes after crew on the Madleen issued an alert after a drone was spotted flying over the vessel on June 3 as it was more than 1000km from Greek waters. The drone was later identified as a Helenic Coast Guard Heron surveillance drone, which the coalition said is used as part of a wider military and intelligence partnership between Greece, Cyprus and Israel. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Israeli news outlets are reporting that Israel is preparing to block the vessel from entering Gaza. According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli navy is monitoring the boat's route and plans to intercept the vessel if it continues to Gaza. The newspaper adds that the UK Government is monitoring the situation and that it has reportedly asked Israel to vouch for the safety of the Madleen and those on board. The Foreign Office has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers
The government is struggling to cut the amount of money from the foreign aid budget it spends on asylum seekers in the UK, new figures show. Home Office figures show the department expects to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year, of which £2.1bn is expected to be spent on asylum support. The predictions for this year are only slightly less than the £2.4bn spent in 2024/25. Official development assistance (ODA) – which was slashed earlier this year to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for a boost to defence spending - is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. A portion of this money is handed to the home office to support asylum seekers after they arrive in the UK, most of which goes towards their accommodation. But the government's failure to cut back on this spending has led aid organisations to accuse ministers of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', claiming they are in danger of a 'reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' Figures published in March revealed that the number of asylum seekers housed in costly hotels has increased by more than 8,000 since the general election, with 38,079 migrants being housed in hotels at the end of December. It comes despite Sir Keir Starmer previously saying a Labour government wouldn't use the foreign aid budget to pay for asylum seekers' hotel costs – but admitted that the government would not be able to stop doing so immediately. 'I'm not going to pretend to you we can do that in the first 24 hours', he said in May 2024. Meanwhile, Labour's election manifesto vowed to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, warned that 'cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul', he told the BBC. Meanwhile, Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK. The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." The Home Office told the BBC it is committed to ending asylum hotels and is speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The department also said it had reduced overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds in the last financial year, saving £200m in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. In April, The Independent revealed that the government had awarded a contract which allows for hotels and barges to house asylum seekers up until September 2027, despite Labour vowing to end the practice. The contract, advertised ahead of the election, was awarded by the Cabinet Office in October 2024 – just months after Labour won a historic landslide election victory - and runs up until September 2027. In June, the home secretary admitted she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation, adding: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Nigeria's reforms have put the country on the global economic map
As ghosts of the 1930s haunt the global outlook, the scramble for trade deals has seized control of government agendas. The United States has leveraged its 'tariff war ' to secure better terms, driving both friend and foe to the negotiating table. British deals with the US and India have provided some refuge from the prevailing gloom. Less reported – but with similar potential – was last year's signing of the Enhanced and Trade and Investment Partnership (ETIP) between the UK and Nigeria , the former's first such agreement with an African nation. Quiet in its arrival, the pact may yet echo louder. As someone who has built multinational businesses across Africa, I know the vast opportunity the continent offers, and Nigeria in particular, which alone accounts for a fifth of sub-Saharan Africa's 1.2 billion people. But I also understand the limitations we have often placed on ourselves when it comes to securing investment. Lowering barriers to trade is crucial, and for that Britain's ETIP looks prescient. However, investment and business potential will remain discounted as long as African nations cling to state intervention – from subsidies and price controls to exchange rate distortions – all of which have consistently bred dysfunction and economic instability. Fortunately, Nigeria has now decisively turned a corner, embracing market economics under a liberalising government. In Morocco this week, Foreign Secretary David Lammy indicated Britain's position is shifting too. Setting out his strategy for Africa, he said British policy must transition from aid to investment. 'Trade-not-aid' is no new idea – but it is the first time a British government has so clearly echoed the demand the African continent has voiced for years. In making that shift, Nigeria is taking the lead for a continent to follow. So many Nigerian administrations I have known have been hostage to economic events, doubling down time and again on state intervention rather than having the conviction to reform. This administration is proving different. After two years of difficult reforms, Nigeria – under President Bola Tinubu – is now poised to fulfil the promise of its vast natural resources, rapidly growing population of over 200 million people, and strategic coastal location along the Gulf of Guinea. First, the Tinubu administration removed a crippling fuel subsidy – the most significant policy reform in years. At 25 to 30 cents per litre, petrol in Nigeria was among the cheapest in the world. But the subsidy was bankrupting the government: by 2023, it consumed over 15 per cent of the federal budget – roughly equivalent to the proportion the UK spends annually on the NHS. When President Tinubu ditched the fuel subsidy on his first day in office, criticism quickly followed. Prices, at least for the time being, have risen. However, statistics must be understood in light of the wide-ranging distortions the subsidy created. Officially, fuel consumption in Nigeria has dropped by 40 to 50 per cent. But that is not because Nigerians' petrol use reduced by this amount. In reality the country was subsidising the region, with cross border fuel smugglers profiting from arbitrage. The illegal trade was so blatant that on a visit to neighbouring Niger a few years ago, then-President Mohamed Bazoum even joked about it, thanking Nigeria for the cheap fuel. Though the move was politically unpopular, the subsidy had become unsustainable. Now, spending is being redirected toward development and infrastructure – laying the foundations for long-term growth. Second, the country has moved from a fixed to a market-determined exchange rate. Previously, only select groups could access the official rate – especially those with political connections; the rest had to rely on a more expensive parallel informal market determined by supply and demand. But selling dollars at an artificially low rate only entrenched scarcity, a problem compounded by an opaque exchange mechanism that deterred foreign investment. Every two weeks, we used to make the 12-hour drive to Abuja to seek dollar allocations for imports – camping out at the Central Bank for three or four days. Now, I no longer need to go. I've met the new Governor only once in two years – because I haven't had to. Monetary orthodoxy has finally arrived, bringing with it the liquidity that both domestic and foreign businesses depend on to smooth trade and de-risk investment. Third, the shackles of politics are being prised from business, bringing greater certainty, fairness and stability to the landscape. Five years ago, I woke up one morning to find that the port concession for a new venture of mine had been revoked. It turned out my company was outcompeting a friend of an official of the Nigerian Ports Authority. In the end, it took then-President Buhari's personal intervention to save the enterprise. Had I not been politically connected, the business would have folded – along with the 4,000 jobs it provided – at a time when job creation was, and remains, Nigeria's most urgent challenge. Today, such connections are no longer necessary. The playing field is being levelled, flattening the political ridges and dips that once skewed the game. Many of these reforms required political courage to withstand the force of criticism. Prices rose as distortions were removed, yet the administration held firm, even as vested interests co-opted public discontent for their own ends. Indeed, many of the benefits of reform are still to be felt by the wider public. But economic fundamentals must be fixed before that becomes possible. That lead-time often tempts market reformers to reverse course, or avoid reform altogether. Now that Nigeria has made it through the toughest phase, its direction should be clear to investors. For Britain, the Enhanced Trade and Investment Partnership with Nigeria was a strategic bet on reform, resilience and long-term reward. Nigeria is now delivering its part of the bargain. As my country steadies itself, the UK, its Western allies – and their companies – should deepen this partnership.
