"You asked Keith to supply links to "unrestricted immigration" being published in the Guardian, and he has done so. "
A - I didn't ask him - Steve did and Keith replied to Steve.
B   He supplied four links - 2 of the articles linked made no reference whatever to "unrestricted immigration" - the one that did was in reference to a reader's letter referring to a previous article and claiming it was unfair - the reference was that of the latter writer, it was not an article from the Guardian.
The fourth said, in essence that "unrestricted immigration" was a fallacy and that emigration in no way effected Britain adversely.
The "new low" here is that Keith Googled the term and didn't even bother to open them to read what they said, and a further "new low" is that you haven't bothered to read the discussion here so you haven't a clue who asked who what and, despite tripping over yourself to defend Keith (H.M.V. or what?) you haven't even opened the links Keith gave, as you were in so much of a hurry to lift him out of the klarts he has dropped himself in - more haste, lass speed laddie.
The high point of this is the only Guardian article mentioning "unrestricted immigration" says it is a figment of the media and that immigration is to the benefit of Britain - thanks for the links Keith.
Let me remind you of Keith's original point (in case you didn't read that either
"The Guardian often refers to "unrestricted immigration.It is not an anti immigrant or derogatory term."
Presumably Keith made his point to show that "unrestricted immigration is a derogatory term."
His links deride the term say that immigration is not harmful to Britain.
Is there a literacy course at your local college (or in Hertford?)
Jim Carroll