Yesterday, net migration soared to its highest-ever level: 330,000 in a year. While driven partly by a small decrease in the number of people leaving the UK, this is largely caused by more people coming to live in this country. As has been widely reported, 1 in 8 people living here was born abroad, compared to 1 in 11 in 2004.
Some of those well-versed in economics will see this as great news. Isolated issues in a few sectors aside, high immigration is generally a good thing for the country's prosperity, and some have argued that a consistent flow of people coming here to live and work over the past 20 years is part of what has helped turn us into a flourishing modern economy.
So why is this such a problem for the government, with immigration minister James Brokenshire calling the new figures "deeply disappointing?" Here's what the government needs to bear in mind if it wants—as it should—to change direction on immigration policy.
The government keeps missing its target. In 2010, David Cameron promised to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands." Most experts think this isn't do-able—or at least not without leaving the EU and its freedom of movement rules—and many, including prominent business leaders, argue that it isn't desirable either. So why keep the target (or "ambition," as it's now referred to)? Well, the voters most concerned about immigration also tend to have the least trust in politicians. Flat out abandoning it would be seen as a simple betrayal, not a sensible re-assessment. Any movement away from the government's target will need to be conducted slowly and carefully if it is to be done without completely losing these voters.
The public is concerned about immigration. Especially now, with one recent edition of a regular poll by Ipsos Mori showing concern on this issue at its highest ever level. This is a volatile topic which needs to be handled with care. That said, it's also misleading to say a large portion of the public is firmly anti-immigrant. Research by the think tank British Future has found that just 25 per cent of the public occupies that position, while another 25 per cent occupies a highly liberal position. The majority are in the middle, and with the right approach British Future reckons many can be persuaded of the benefits of immigration. But, they say, well-meaning but smug liberal "myth busting" helps nobody.
Culture matters too. This is perhaps the most sensitive area of the debate; there's a fine line between "cultural" concerns about immigration and genuine racism. Many people disagree about where exactly that line falls. But most people agree it exists; that it is possible to be uncomfortable about mass immigration without being racist. For people who feel like that, the economics don't enter into it—it's this that Nigel Farage tapped into when he said he'd rather see strong communities and more British people in work even if it meant sacrificing some economic growth. There's no easy solution to this. British Future suggests bringing more of the personal stories and personalities of immigrants into the debate, giving the numbers a face. But liberals need to remember the scale of the challenge. One sobering fact comes via YouGov—in 2012 nearly one in three people said that "being an island physically separate from other countries" was one of the best things about being British.
Asylum seekers suffer. Yvette Cooper, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, has pointed out that as long as asylum seekers are counted in the government's net migration figures, the government will be resistant to taking our fair share of them and thus getting further from their target. That's bad news for the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing horrifying situations in their own countries to come to Europe, many of whom we could—and should—happily accommodate.
Some of those well-versed in economics will see this as great news. Isolated issues in a few sectors aside, high immigration is generally a good thing for the country's prosperity, and some have argued that a consistent flow of people coming here to live and work over the past 20 years is part of what has helped turn us into a flourishing modern economy.
So why is this such a problem for the government, with immigration minister James Brokenshire calling the new figures "deeply disappointing?" Here's what the government needs to bear in mind if it wants—as it should—to change direction on immigration policy.
The government keeps missing its target. In 2010, David Cameron promised to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands." Most experts think this isn't do-able—or at least not without leaving the EU and its freedom of movement rules—and many, including prominent business leaders, argue that it isn't desirable either. So why keep the target (or "ambition," as it's now referred to)? Well, the voters most concerned about immigration also tend to have the least trust in politicians. Flat out abandoning it would be seen as a simple betrayal, not a sensible re-assessment. Any movement away from the government's target will need to be conducted slowly and carefully if it is to be done without completely losing these voters.
The public is concerned about immigration. Especially now, with one recent edition of a regular poll by Ipsos Mori showing concern on this issue at its highest ever level. This is a volatile topic which needs to be handled with care. That said, it's also misleading to say a large portion of the public is firmly anti-immigrant. Research by the think tank British Future has found that just 25 per cent of the public occupies that position, while another 25 per cent occupies a highly liberal position. The majority are in the middle, and with the right approach British Future reckons many can be persuaded of the benefits of immigration. But, they say, well-meaning but smug liberal "myth busting" helps nobody.
Culture matters too. This is perhaps the most sensitive area of the debate; there's a fine line between "cultural" concerns about immigration and genuine racism. Many people disagree about where exactly that line falls. But most people agree it exists; that it is possible to be uncomfortable about mass immigration without being racist. For people who feel like that, the economics don't enter into it—it's this that Nigel Farage tapped into when he said he'd rather see strong communities and more British people in work even if it meant sacrificing some economic growth. There's no easy solution to this. British Future suggests bringing more of the personal stories and personalities of immigrants into the debate, giving the numbers a face. But liberals need to remember the scale of the challenge. One sobering fact comes via YouGov—in 2012 nearly one in three people said that "being an island physically separate from other countries" was one of the best things about being British.
Asylum seekers suffer. Yvette Cooper, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, has pointed out that as long as asylum seekers are counted in the government's net migration figures, the government will be resistant to taking our fair share of them and thus getting further from their target. That's bad news for the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing horrifying situations in their own countries to come to Europe, many of whom we could—and should—happily accommodate.
