Migration is the most contentious of issues. It can invoke anger and fear. Politicians find it hard to hold their nerve. Even when they do, migration policy is complex, easier to get wrong than right, and even good ideas can be hard to implement when their realisation depends on overwhelmed and dysfunctional bureaucracies.
The current government has chosen performative politics over substantial reforms. Its controversial Rwanda deportation plan has just been found unlawful by the Court of Appeal. The wider Illegal Migration Bill, of which the Rwanda policy forms a part, returned to the Lords this week—with a near-consensus view among experts that its provisions are cruel, ineffective, expensive and will compound the failures of previous efforts. The current system is failing communities, the economy, and migrants themselves.
Polls suggest that it will be a Labour or Labour-led government that will face the political and delivery challenges of tackling migration in the coming years. In opposition, Labour has recently held a consistent lead on how it would handle the issue—a rare position for the party, historically. In a future government, the party would face different political challenges from either the current Conservative administration or previous Labour administrations (given that most Labour voters are now pro-migration) but years of policy and delivery failure have led to widespread public cynicism about the ability of governments to act.
The challenge is to find solutions that replace chaos and cruelty with fairness and competence, and to do so while building accountability and democratic consent.
Two revolutions, one loud and one quiet, suggest that the conditions exist to make positive reforms. The loud revolution is Brexit, which has fundamentally changed the types of people coming to the UK and the ways in which they come. Free movement from Europe has ended, and control over migration policy is in the hands of the UK government.
The second, far quieter revolution is in Britons’ attitudes to immigration. From shortly before the Brexit referendum, and accelerated by it, we have changed as a country—becoming much more positive about migration and much less concerned by it. There have been a lot of polling history “firsts” that make this case. Even at a time of historically high inflows, a majority of people now answer “yes” to the question: “does immigration enrich society?”.
This is a rare opportunity for a reforming government to remake the migration system for the 21st century. But reformers need to start with a clear-eyed view of where the problem is, why migration policy so often feels like such an intractable issue, and what the ideas are that will actually succeed.
The political problem is that there are perceived incentives (particularly, although not exclusively, on the right) to frame migration as a zero-sum game between “us” and “them”. Some politicians see gains among some voters in ratcheting up tough or even cruel action towards migrant groups. This leads to performative, unworkable and often self-defeating policies like the “tens of thousands” net migration target first announced under David Cameron, or the current anti-refugee bill going through parliament.
The administrative problem is hiding in plain sight. We organise our entire system through one centralised Whitehall department—the Home Office—that sets and marks its own homework with very little accountability from any other actor. No other OECD country does this to the degree found in the UK. The political problem and the administrative problem combined to cause of the Windrush scandal, among the most heinous government failures of 21st-century Britain.
What can we do about it? We suggest starting with three key principles—foundational commitments that any government could and should make, regardless of individual policy goals. We think decisions must have democratic consent; that they must be lawful and protect individual rights; and that decisions must be fair and be seen to be fair. These principles must be safeguarded by increased accountability to parliament, to communities, to citizens and also to migrants themselves.
Within this framework, what goals and policies might the next government pursue?
The first goal should be effective international cooperation. The UK should seek to improve the safety and security of migrants, aiming for costs, risks and benefits to be shared between countries. At the heart of this would be a new national refugee policy that is international and multilateral—working with partners to change conditions facing refugees across the world, with a credible plan for solving the urgent problem of channel crossings based on diplomacy, new routes, and better adjudication and systems. As the excellent article by David Normington in this magazine’s April edition suggested, reforms must be rooted in joint government action and effective administration, as opposed to the magical thinking of the current government.
The second goal should be based on economic contribution, defined as increasing UK per capita income, with the aim of seeing economic benefits spread more widely, in particular to lower-income households and communities. This should be about creating the economy we want, not just servicing the one we have. The migration system should aim to support economic growth, incentivise training and investment, and protect workers’ rights.
The third goal is one we believe has not been given enough weight: social benefit. Migrants coming to the UK should be seen as part of a joint effort to build a common society, where newcomers are able to commit and contribute as part of a shared society. Policy should accelerate the process of migrants becoming “us”—joining our democracy as equal citizens as quickly as reasonably possible. The primary social goal of the immigration system should therefore be to support and encourage successful integration, enabling migrants to build long-term relationships and communities with the rest of us.
The surest way to achieve this would be to redesign the system so migrants are by default placed on a five-year path to settlement and British citizenship. The Home Office could reduce application fees on the route to citizenship to cover costs only, and make an accelerated citizenship offer to all those who have received settled status. This would decrease the proportion of migrants who are at risk of irregularity and discrimination.
Firm principles, increased accountability and clear policy goals would give a future government a resilient political strategy and a robust migration policy framework. Such an approach would meet the needs of the country, unlock the talents of migrants and create confidence in the shared community we can build together.
Sarah Mulley and Will Somerville are the co-authors of the new Fabian Society report “Lawful and Fair: Building a Better Migration System”
