Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England confirmed as much in May last year.
The claim that migration is good for the economy is a murky one, especially when you start conflating standard migration (below 100,000 per year net) that we saw before the mid-nineties to the mass migration (330,000+ net) we have had post Lisbon Treaty. You are talking a quarter of a million people per year net or more!
Nobody, least of all UKIP are saying we don't have a problem with Social Mobility (the economic gaps between the rich and the poor), and your attempt to suggest Woolfe is blaming migrants is exactly the kind of rubbish that leads to people with genuine concerns being labeled as racist. Is there a recognised economic, social and environmental negative impact as a result of mass migration?
Should it be discussed?
So for this point, your accusation is made to look as silly as it is.
How utterly pathetic.
This whole debate is a direct result of the EU's foreign migrant policy and freedom of movement, so putting aside the EU, which is the core of this issue allows you to directly tackle Woolfe, and UKIP based on a non-point that would not exist as an issue were we not in the EU.
You claim that "Ukip is not a party known for its concern for the wellbeing of Black people living in Britain", really? That is an incredibly sweeping comment?
UKIP want all people to be considered equal, and not seperated and marked for special dispensation as you seem so eager to do in this article. The only reason UKIP and others have to speak about the BME community seperately from the rest of society is because people like you are so eager to define the BME community as something different, that needs to be treated differently.
FYI. UKIP, before, during and after the General Election highlighted the high BME unemployment rate in London, and the fact that mass migration hasn't done anything positive to improve specifically black Londers employment chances.
There are interviews with Steven Woolfe, and NIgel Farage saying as much allover YouTube.
Maybe instead of trying to paint UKIP out as being "xenophobic", you should take the time to actually do some research?
You then go on to make some sarcastic quip, which shows the leakage of your own personal bigotry towards UKIP. Ignoring the large number of BME candidates UKIP had in the General Election (more than the Greens), that half of our London Mayoral prospective candidates were BME, and that the person who came 2nd (behind the eventual winner who happens to be gay) is black.
I presume you also know that the first BME person to be elected to Tendring Council in Essex, is a UKIP Councillor, who happens to be Muslim.
When you claim UKIP "feign" concern, you lose all credibility in being able to write a open-minded, credible and impartial article. Your article goes from being a persons thoughts and opinions, into a party political hate-speech, and the only thing that is offensive is the nonsense you have spewed out, and your attempt to make one of the best up and coming politicians of our age out to be racist, ignoring the fact that he himself is welcomed and respected BME person, who even had Channel 4's Jon Snow reacting favourably to his views previous to the General Election.
You then go to rattle off the claim that UKIP are "anti-immigrant". This is a lie at best.
UKIP aren't and never have been anti-immigrant, no more so than any other controlled with a sensible points based immigration system like Canada or Australia is "anti-immigrant". We are not, "anti-immigrant", nor are the circa 70% of people in the UK who want immigration reform and a points based immigration system, that sees people from every country as the same, and values each according to what he or she can offer.
You do what every single anti-UKIP commentator does in every single hate-piece article. You start of acting understanding, and semi-complementary, and finish off by spewing all kinds of hate, accusations, smears and highlighting individuals who have caused problems. All the time overlooking the same, or in many cases, often worse problems that have afflicted other parties.
We see nothing of the Conservative Party councillors who make racist comments, we see nothing of the anti-Semitic people currently blighting the Labour Party, nor the thugs instigating child abuse who have been outed in the last week alone and we see nothing of the discriminatory anti-BME EU immigration policy that gives people from predominantly white nations of Europe the opportunity to transit between nations freely even with criminal records, but when it comes to a highly skilled Doctor or Scientist from India, Africa or elsewhere who comes from a BME background, they have to jump through hoops to enter the country.
We also never hear about those BME people who have lived the majority of their lives in this country, added to our community, only to be deported as a way of cutting down on net migration, to distant family members they have never met in countries that could pose a threat to their future development having since severed ties with the Institutions they were being trained in, in this country.
Why do we ignore this?
The reason why is if we highlight these issues, it will bring the EU's immigration policy, foreign policy and freedom of movement policy into question which is "gosh darn" something we cannot do whilst our membership of this highly discriminatory institution is still at risk.
I am not doubting or denying that UKIP has had its problems over the last few years, much in the same way British society has convulsed after being put through rapid growth.
UKIP has only been a party for 23 years, those other establishment corporate entrenched parties have nigh on 100 years head start on UKIP, not to mention funding to process and investigate people that UKIP could only dream of. Not to mention a National media that is more than willing to highlight UKIP's trouble-makers, but overlook the serious issues afflicting the establishment parties.
Yet regardless of these huge finances and experience the mainstream parties have, and continue to come a cropper with people saying unacceptable things, or backgrounds they were not aware of coming up!
The fact remains that UKIP are the ONLY party in British Politics who ban former members of the Far Right (post 2011), and when people are found to have lied in their application forms, and have had this former membership to the Far Right, they are tossed out of the party.
Meanwhile their are notable examples in Blackburn, Milton Keynes and Kesteven of people who have been allowed to stand for both the Conservative Party and Labour Party who have had membership of the National Front, British National Party and Neo Nazi League.
Where is the outrage from parties and people over these instances?
As for Winston McKenzie, he was a laughing stock whilst a UKIP member, caused the party much embarrassment, had his spokesperson position remove a year before he left the party, and has bounced around pretty much every party in British Politics bemoaning the fact that he has eventually been removed from standing for any position due to the fact that the majority of people cannot take him seriously. He of course claimed that he had been subjected to racist abuse, as it was the only way he could get himself into the media, highlighted for perspective party membership of another party and then laughably joined the English Democrats.
The fact that you have even felt the need to raise him as an example perfectly highlights the desperation of your article.
You then go on to ironically claim that Mr Woolfe is playing the "us vs them" idea, which is hilarious when you consider it is the entire premise of your article. "Us" (the moderates in your view) vs "them" (the nasty UKIPers), when the reality is, the whole premise of your article is attacking the views of a person who has only echoed the views of people like the head of the Bank of England, community leaders in London (not enough jobs for the people concerned) and other politicians who aren't connected to UKIP.
This kind of attempted labeling is cowardly at best, but having been a UKIP member for 2 years is something I have come to expect.
You then go on to make some kind of bizarre attack on "Britain", highlighting the "them" BME community compared to the "us", I presume you are alluding to the non-BME community, which is pretty ironic when you consider what I said earlier. The fact that you are the only separating the BME community as victims to views of UKIP, which in reality support those unemployed BME who have been impacted by mass migration in London and elsewhere.
Reading your article, you seem to be painting UKIP as some kind of villain to the BME community? Something I find baffling really, when UKIP don't, nor have ever had any anti-BME policies.
In fact one of UKIP's primary aims written into its constitution is a reconnect with the Commonwealth Nations we so badly let down when we signed the Lisbon Treaty. This is the Commonwealth Nations who are predominantly BME!
In fact if you could highlight an anti-BME policy UKIP have espoused over the last, whenever... it would be very much appreciated?!
The real fact of the matter, is you are trying to conflate the BME community as being "one" with the EU, and EU community. Because that is the only way you can counter the mass-migration debate. Well that and accusing UKIP of being "racist" and or "xenophobic", an argument that continues to lose weight every week a new BME UKIP pops up on BBC Question Time, or joins the party.
You also question his (Woolfe's) speaking of the BME community being on "the bottom rung of the ladder" economically in the UK, something you question as unacceptable, an argument you make that loses weight when you look at the source data showing the high unemployment specifically among the "16-24 year old, Asian and minority ethnic" communities of Britain. ("50% rise in long-term unemployment for young ethnic minority people in UK")
The fact is you cannot pick and dump data when it suits you, in an effort to attack a political party you quite obviously oppose.
The final line of the article then goes on to accusing "xenophobia", "shifting it between oppressed communities" and a form of "institutional racism"...
I'm not even sure how I can respond to this nonsense.
The UK as a nation has been incredibly tolerant and understanding to a massive change over an incredibly short period of time.
The UK has its problems with racism like every other, not just to the BME community, but on non-BME.
You then go on to highlight the "Oppressed communities" of Britain? Who?
The only oppressed communities I know of in the UK are the Jewish community, who in the current climate seem to be hated by everyone due to events in and around Israel, the elderly and disabled who are scapegoated by many as a cause of the countries economic ills and the poor who continue to see their living standards driven down by those in power who profess to want to help them!