In my January column, I outlined what is wrong with this country’s immigration system when judged against core libertarian principles.
In short, the system lacked democratic consent, was incoherent & muddled, and was riddled with gimmicky short-termism.
No wonder it has been an issue of concern for the British people and the country’s political parties over many decades.
In this article, I want to suggest some solutions based on those much-maligned principles: pragmatism and vested self-interest.
Firstly, illegal migration, including those entering the country and claiming asylum. The current system is out-of-date and one big bureaucratic go-slow, marked by huge backlogs in both asylum applications and appeals.
The Rwanda Plan is a joke: costing the Government by bleeding away its remaining political capital for a costly project that will have minimal impact on removing failed asylum seekers.
The Government has also misdirected its efforts by speeding up the woeful asylum backlog, currently standing at 80,000 people. But this involves a further extension of the state through the hiring of yet more petty functionaries at the Home Office. In any case, the real issue lies further down the process.
It is at the appeals backlog where those whose applications have been turned down, sit around, in either detention centres or hotels, for an average of 82 weeks, nearly 20 months, because of a shortage of legal aid lawyers. This quiet work-to-rule is probably an attempt at political defiance, reflecting much of the legal profession’s own agenda – in the face of the Government’s democratic mandate.
So, as a pragmatic one-off, I’d like to see extra funds released to lubricate the legal process and a robust approach thereafter taken to removing those illegally here, back to their countries of origin.
I’d also like to remove the nonsense of asylum seekers not being allowed to work whilst their claims are processed. However, before you shout me down, I’m not advocating a full right to work visa giveaway! Looking at the shambles of the ‘public realm’ in Suffolk, shows us that there is work to be done and the asylum seekers, with appropriate supervision, should be tasked to help do it.
We should also be far less squeamish about the Royal Navy and Border Force intercepting the small boats and turning them back to French waters – France, after all, being a safe country for asylum applications. And if this means we are in a technical breach of the European Court of Human Rights – so be it, we should leave it, and ignore the howls of protest from the lefty lawyers and human rights activists.
And perhaps, given the understandable desire of people to seek a better standard of living in this country, there should be an effort to incentivise UK businesses to invest in operations in those countries, and of the Government itself to take a lead in peacekeeping operations where conflict is the major reason people flee.
Ironically though, the impact of illegal migration is nothing compared to the unsustainable volumes of those arriving and staying here through legitimate channels.
The annual net increase in those living here amounts to over 1% of the population: some 750,000 additional people! The sheer number is impacting on the availability and cost of housing and public services, in some cases leading to individual misery and social tensions.
I’d advocate a number of measures to slow down – and eventually reverse - this unsustainable surge in numbers.
My underlying principle – over the longer term – is ‘one in, one out’, albeit allowing for short- and medium-term variations depending on national need. Such a disciplined approach needs to be carefully and accurately monitored – something the current Home Office seems incapable of.
How could we go about this?
Firstly, we must tighten the criteria by which workers are able to bring over immediate family members and other dependants, including the period before which such requests can be lodged. Even then, preference should always be given to those working in strategically important sectors facing acute labour shortages.
There should never be a presumptive right to bring over family members. This is true for other countries, so why not the UK?
Next, there should be no automatic right for first degree students, who having completed their courses, to remain here. Period. It should be incumbent upon their places of education to ensure that they fulfil their visa requirements and leave the country. Universities and the like should face massive fines if ‘their’ students don’t return home.
Obviously, if these graduates wish to apply from their home countries to return here, either before they return home or subsequently, to continue their studies or take-up full-time suitable/approved employment, then all well and good, subject to the required criteria?
Finally, this approach should be the catalyst to address one of this country’s greatest own goals: the 5.5m people of working age who are on out-of-work benefits but are not technically unemployed.
Research by the Learning & Research Institute suggests that had the UK the same level of employment rates as a basket of high performing countries, then our workforce would be 1.2m bigger than at present – dwarfing the current vacancy rate of 930,000.
The same report showed that the lowest economic activity rates were to be found among those with disabilities and among lone parents.
This country has it in its gift to provide much better policies aimed at helping employers make the adjustments needed to encourage those with disabilities into work. The Department for work & Pensions seems to be especially dozy in this regard: apparently, just 1 in 10 out of work disabled people get support to find work each year. Perhaps the private sector should take over responsibility?
Equally, investment in improving access to inexpensive but good childcare is essential in encouraging single parents or guardians to return to the workplace. The alternative might be to increase tax thresholds for such returnees (and for every worker come to that).
In short, we need a smarter and smaller migration intake. The most sustainable solutions are already within our grasp.
First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Friday, February 2, 2024.
Didn't the problem get a lot worse after leaving the EU? Before then the country's labour supply was more or less met by workers who could head to and from home far more easily than people from Asia and Africa, who basically have to uproot everything to move here.
ReplyDeleteBottom line is there was no democratic mandate for the deliberate switch to largely unqualified labour from outside Europe - by the party of which you were a proud member until about an hour ago. There is however a democratic mandate for legal aid - which protects all vulnerable people, not just migrants - its lawyers should be celebrated as those who forego high private practice salaries to protect our rights; however their number is dwindling, likely in part due to the now constant and frankly dangerous slander from the radicalised rich..Sunak, Dacre, yourself: the self-appointed 'voices of the British people'
You seem an intelligent man, so your (these days sadly predictable from the Loony Right) cry to break international law and treat our neighbours with contempt - while no doubt complaining when they of course reciprocate - seems to be more cynical rather than moronic. These days such BS more or less guarantees column space in the right wing press.