Where Are All These Eastern Europeans Coming From?

Today the Daily Mail carries an article I couldn't avoid. I really intend not to solely focus on the output of the Mail, as even though they provide easily enough distorted rhetoric to support three of these blogs, they're by no means the only culprits (even if they are consistently the worst).

The article makes claims to analysing and discussing all the real aspects of immigration but, as always, these questions and more importantly their answers are blurred and tarted up by certain journalists in order to manufacture a worldview which enables readers to displace rage and blame at the same time as pretending that people like Gillian Duffy (the woman at the centre of the bigot 'scandal' during last year's General Election) are legitimately concerned about the economic consequences of immigration despite regularly saying things like "Where are all these eastern Europeans coming from?"

The Mail article begins:

Britain faces a new influx of migrants(1) who could claim benefits of up to £250 a week(2) within weeks(3) of arriving.

which actually means:

We're worried that there might be a slight increase in migrants from eight European countries.(1) They could claim benefits of an absolute maximum of £250 a week(2) within 3 months(3) of arriving.

It's imperative to realise that when newspapers twist facts like these, they don't lie - they're very clever indeed. They can say 'within weeks' when they mean 'within 3 months' because technically, 3 months is about twelve weeks. It isn't an explicit falsehood, so it's seen as fair game. It's also worth noting that the headline is:

Bar on benefits lifted for East European migrants who will be able to claim £250 a week

which isn't true, since it implies directly that all of the included migrants will be entitled to £250 a week (they won't) and indirectly suggests that it's the sudden overturning of a blanket ban on benefits for East European migrants (it isn't.)

As we sink deeper into the article we find this brilliant little rhetorical device:

Critics(1) are concerned about the risk of ‘benefits tourism’ by immigrants from the eight former(2) Communist countries affected.

which in plain English means:

We(1) are concerned about the risk of 'benefits tourism' by immigrants from the eight obviously evil(2) countries affected by the pre-planned abolition of a rule which was always meant to occur and is required by EU law.

This fantastic device enables newspapers with no real sources to suggest that there is vociferous and reasonable opposition to an idea, decision or even a system by using the umbrella term 'critics' which can include any or all of the following categories:

• Journalists at the very same newspaper
• One or two MPs from any political party
• Heads of organizations like MigrationWatch and the TaxPayers' Alliance who exist solely to provide quotes for stories like these.
• On occasion, when desperation sets in, even average members of the public

The Mail's article implies that parties from at least two of these four categories are included under the label of 'critic'.

It also contains the most common and crude of diversion and deception techniques: the last-paragraph game-changer.

The Department for Work and Pensions insisted that the rule changes will not mean people will be able simply to come to the UK and start claiming benefits – because there will be strict tests.

The rules have to be lifted because they conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement laws.

How many people do you reckon read this far down the article? Those are literally the last 2 paragraphs of the main body of text, before the paper starts quoting a YouGov poll in which 'Fifty per cent say benefits are too generous'.

I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with how the Daily Mail reports about them.