Labour flooding the nation with Labour voters.

Labour's justification for mass immigration was torn to shreds by experts last night.

Their landmark study - the most authoritative carried out by a parliamentary committee - also demanded a cap on new arrivals.

The devastating cross-party report went on to:

•Dismiss Ministers' "preposterous" assertion that migrants boost the economy by £6billion a year;
•Reject Government claims that foreigners will help to defuse the pensions timebomb;
•Demolish the "fundamentally flawed" Downing Street argument that migrants fill vacancies in the economy;
•And warn that migrants will force up house prices by 10 per cent in the next two decades.

The Lords economic affairs committee, which includes former Chancellors Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont, economists and captains of industry, said immigration had "little or no positive impact" on the living standards of the existing population.

In fact, the big winners were the migrants themselves who earn higher wages than in their homeland and can also send money home.

Some British workers were even seeing their incomes fall, while up to 100,000 youngsters have been unable to find work.

And, by pushing up house prices, migrants will keep young families off the housing ladder, the committee found.

With migration swelling the population by 190,000 every year, Labour has been keen to stress the economic benefits, not least over pensions.

But the peers said the argument did not 'hold up to scrutiny' because the migrants will grow old and claim pensions of their own.

The committee has among its ranks Labour and Liberal Democrat members with impeccable economic and business credentials. Many of them were the most trenchant in their remarks.

Downing Street's claim that migrants fill job vacancies in the economy was ruthlessly exposed.

The peers said that despite the influx of more than 700,000 workers from eastern Europe since May 2004, the number of vacancies has remained at between 600,000 and 700,000.

Allowing more and more migrants into the country created the need for ever more jobs because the new arrivals consume as well as provide services, the study found.

It called on the Government to set an "explicit target range" for immigration and set the rules to keep within that limit - effectively a cap.

Such a move has been stubbornly resisted by Ministers, who say it could damage the economy.

But committee member Lord Layard, a Labour peer and globally-respected economist, said the population would increase by around 190,000 a year for the next 50 years without a limit.

He warned: "We will have permanent pressure of people to move in our direction. Britain has an extra resource, which is the English language, for attracting people here.

"There is no doubt whatever that the pressure will remain for half a century or more.

"We are suggesting that the Government should set a target range for net immigration and then the rules should depend on the target range, rather than the numbers following from the rules as at pre-sent."

The language used by the peers to dismiss evidence given by the Home Office was devastating.

They described the department's economic case - principally that migrants boosted overall Gross Domestic Product by £6billion in 2006 - as "shaky" and a "bad argument".

Lord Wakeham, the Conservative former Cabinet Minister, was chairman of the inquiry.

He said: "The Government's use of impact on over-all GDP as the key measure is preposterous and irrelevant because it does not reflect the economic well-being of the existing population."

The committee said: "There has been little or no positive impact on the living standards of the existing population."

Asked if the economic policies pursued by Labour over the last decade had been a mistake, Lord Wakeham replied: "We have made it abundantly clear we do not believe there has been any great economic benefit from the policy it has pursued."

The report said the yardstick of economic success should be income per head of population, or GDP per capita, and here there was little or no proof of significant benefit.

"In the short term, immigration creates winners and losers in economic terms," said the report. "The biggest winners include immigrants and their employers in the UK.

"The losers are likely to include those in low-paid jobs and directly competing with new immigrant workers."

The destruction of the case for mass immigration leaves the Government in what critics say is an impossible position.

Ministers have accepted migrants are placing pressure on schools and hospitals, but have balanced this against the so- called "huge" economic benefits.

Now they will be forced to accept the social harm from migration, with little or nothing to fall back upon.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, says the wider costs of immigration are almost £8.8billion a year.

Professor Coleman said that the costs to the public sector are £1.5billion to run the asylum system, £280million to teach English to migrants and at least £330million to treat illnesses such as HIV.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the report showed "unequivocally that the benefits of the current immigration policy to ordinary UK citizens are largely non-existent.

"There are a series of long-term risks to the economy, not least the disincentive to train, and it presents absolutely no answer to the pension crisis".

The inquiry, which took nine months and runs to more than 500 pages of evidence, said the low-paid, some ethnic minorities and some young people looking for a foot on the job ladder may have suffered because of competition from immigrants.

It also warned that the Home Office's much-trumpeted new points-based immigration system carried a "clear danger of inconsistencies and overlap".

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: "This report is a welcome contribution to our huge immigration shake-up, and we are already acting on practically every single recommendation.

"It proves we were right to set up the independent Migration Advisory Committee to tell us which workers our new Australian- style points system should keep out or let in.

"We're glad to see the committee welcome the system as well as our ban on low-skilled migration from outside Europe."

**Still at least all the moslem barbarians they let in will vote Labour and that is all New Labour care about, never mind that in the long term they also face the prospect of dhimmi status, slavery oppression or beheading...

.