Jemima Bland

Opinion: Immigration – the shades of grey

By | Wed 18th December 2013 - 9:51 am

Immigration remains a toxic topic for politicians in Britain – but those of us in the political centre cannot afford to dodge this debate, or we risk standing by while Britain becomes a country known for xenophobia, not tolerance.

Across the UK, people are facing a tough Christmas this year. If you can pay your electricity bill without too much trouble this winter, you’re one of the lucky ones. Many argue that immigration, or immigrants, are somehow to blame for this hardship. After all – ‘they’ are taking our jobs, using up our welfare budget, and filling up our local A&E – aren’t they?  As activists, candidates and politicians, we face a tide of feeling on this subject from voters across the country.

The latest uncomfortable truth on immigration comes with news that Home Office policy is now separating couples which include non-EU spouses, where they are unable to demonstrate £18,600 of disposable annual income. Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, recent wrote in the Guardian about this.

Researchers estimate that 17,800 UK families face being broken up every year by new regulations, in force since July 2012. In a country of 63 million, 17,800 deportations is too small a number to have any impact on our welfare bill, or infrastructure – even if all of these people were claiming benefits, which they are not. And yet, this new regulation is set to wreck the families of about 25,000 men, women and children in the UK every year. Is this what was meant by ‘tougher immigration policy’?

In these austere times like these, everyone knows our resources are finite. Politicians, the UK Border Agency, and officials in Whitehall are all working to adapt our immigration rules and our infrastructure to complex and conflicting requirements.  We want more business investors, and free movement of labour, goods and services in the EU, but less economic refugees. More entrepreneurs and research scientists, but less pressure on housing. More foreign students paying top dollar at our universities, but less young unemployed people. In this complex field, some sensitive and careful limits must be set and enforced. The discussion here is one of shades of grey, not black and white.

Low pay, housing shortages and high food and energy costs are not, in fact, closely related to the number of people entering the UK to work, study, marry, or to visit relatives. Our current economic woes simply do not stem from immigration. This is a dangerous misunderstanding which must not be allowed to take hold.

In order to raise the level of this debate, politicians of all sorts must enter in to it. Lib Dems, from the centre ground and with the benefit of experience in government, must steer this heated discussion towards not just ‘tough,’ but also sensible, cool headed solutions. We can do this without letting go of our national traditions of tolerance, and we can take people with us.

* Jemima Bland is the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for East Worthing and Shoreham

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

19 Comments

  • tpfkar 18th Dec '13 - 12:02pm

    Indeed Sarah Teather is one of few to come out of this with any credit. Why on earth are we in the business of separating families? This should be a key negotiating plank with the Tories on any further immigration changes.

  • RC 18th Dec '13 - 1:19pm

    “And yet, this new regulation is set to wreck the families of about 25,000 men, women and children in the UK every year.”

    Surely those involved in illegal immigration should have weighed up the possibility of this happening before they came here and decided to have families?

    It is not “xenophobia” to insist that those who live in the UK have a legal right to do so, is it? After all, if I illegally overstay in Australia or the US, to shout about “xenophobia” if I am found out and asked to leave would be downright silly. It’s just applying the law.

    Presumably Jemima Bland would like either (a) for the law not to be applied and so become even more ridiculous and for there to be no sanction at all against illegal entry to the country whatsoever or (b) for there to be no legal limit on immigration to the UK.

    Which is it, precisely?

  • RC 18th Dec '13 - 1:30pm

    “Low pay, housing shortages and high food and energy costs are not, in fact, closely related to the number of people entering the UK to work, study, marry, or to visit relatives.”

    So the fact that employers can get all the workers they want at the going wage without increasing pay,and the massive increase in population, particularly in London and the South East, are both totally unrelated to the number of workers coming to the UK and to the increase in property prices and rents? This really does take the prize for “ostrich economics”.

    Low wages are everything to do with employers having plenty of willing workers coming in from outside. How could they not be? The sole reason why this upturn is different from others in the past like the mid 1990s in terms of wage inflation is the fact we are importing massive numbers of workers, whereas previously we were not. That is not anyone’s “fault”, least of all of the people coming to the UK, but could we at least have some admission of the underlying truth here?

    High food and energy prices are to do with the operation of world markets, as the BRICs and other developing economies claim their share of the world’s resources (another new factor we didn’t face in the 1990s), but to say that the UK employment and property market has not been affected by the arrival of millions of new workers is beyond the bounds of credibility.

  • Eddie Sammon 18th Dec '13 - 5:49pm

    Jemima, sensible articles such as this always brighten my day. If we are to be aiming high then it is not enough to simply be “pro” or “anti” immigration, we must all be in the different shades of grey and make this clear.

  • Little Jackie Paper 18th Dec '13 - 7:19pm

    Ms Bland – With respect (and to be clear here I do mean that).

    I’d like to reply to this because on the face of it this of a good article. However you talk about, ‘sensitive and careful limits must be set and enforced,’ and, ‘sensible, cool headed solutions.’ Could you perhaps elaborate on what you think those limits/solutions are?

    I would also add that in your comment you talk about, ‘making sure that those do come into our country are treated, without exception, with respect.’ There are British people that I don’t respect and there are people from overseas that I don’t respect. That is not an issue for government policy or legislation and nor should it be.

  • John Dunn 18th Dec '13 - 11:04pm

    “…..striking the right balance between a range of complex drivers in order to ensure we benefit from the net result of migration and immigration without overstretching ourselves”
    “As a Lib Dem, I understand that immigration policy is just a bit more complicated than that.”
    This is a substantial acknowledgement from a Lib Dem. But then we are left with a silent blank space. So how is Lib Dem policy, going to ensure that this complex immigration issue doesn’t overwhelm our already stretched education system, beleaguered health service, and housing predicament ?
    “..but those of us in the political centre cannot afford to dodge this debate”
    Then don’t dodge it, and tell us how Lib Dems would manage immigration, to avoid our services from being overwhelmed?

  • John Dunn 19th Dec '13 - 12:42pm

    O.K. So no reply to my very relevant request, from Jemima Bland, so let me expand the debate (that we cannot dodge!), with this comparison below.

    [ ….Principles defining Lib Dem policy on immigration and asylum…. ]
    Immediately reintroduce exit checks – count people out as well as in. Over the years, the Conservatives and then Labour made a huge mistake: they abolished exit checks for people leaving the country, so we have no idea who is here and who isn’t. We will reintroduce exit checks immediately.

    Focus deportation efforts on criminals – let law-abiding families earn citizenship. It would take years and cost us £8bn to deport all those who are living in Britain illegally. Some of them are criminals and people-traffickers. Others are families who have been here for years, and just want to work and pay their taxes. Immigration officers are focusing on families because they’re easy targets, letting criminals off the hook. We would allow people who have been in Britain for 10 years, speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn citizenship. That way, immigration officers can spend all their time deporting dangerous people and checking up on employers to stop illegal working.

    A regional points-based system to ensure migrants go where they are needed. Some parts of Britain, like Scotland, need and want more people to help the economy. Others, like the South East, are struggling to find enough water and homes for everyone. We’ll change the rules so it’s easier to get a work permit if you go and live in a part of the country that is short of workers, to encourage newcomers to live where they are needed.

    UK Border Force. For too long, Britain’s borders have been a soft touch. The steady flow of undocumented migrants into this country has undermined our historic liberal attitude towards immigration. The Government’s stop-start, piecemeal approach has failed to get a grip on the problem, and their Border Agency lacks the powers necessary to do its job properly. Liberal Democrats would establish a strong, unified, co-ordinated National Border Force with police powers to protect our borders effectively.

    Allow asylum seekers to work. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work (apart from exceptional circumstances after a year) while their claim is being processed, despite the fact it can take years. They are forced to live on state handouts, even though many are skilled people. It also fuels anger among some sections of the public. We would allow asylum seekers to work two months after making an application and benefits would only be paid if they could not find work. This would reduce spending on benefits, increase tax revenue, help integration, lower community tensions and greatly reduce dependence on welfare and social housing.

    Give responsibility to an independent agency. It is time to take the politics out of asylum. The Liberal Democrats would take responsibility away from the Home Office and give it to a Canadian-style independent agency, making decisions free from political considerations. Currently, a quarter of decisions are overturned on appeal. In Canada, it is less than 1%. We would fast-track asylum claims which are obviously well-founded and front load resources into making high quality initial decisions.

    Increase European cooperation. We would push for EU-wide cooperation on asylum to help share the burden proportionally between member states.

    End deportation of homosexual asylum seekers. The Liberal Democrats will end the deportation of asylum seekers to countries where they face imprisonment, torture or execution because of their sexual orientation or gender identification. Unlike Labour, we realise that persecution based on sexual orientation is a valid reason to claim asylum if people are from some countries in the world, like Nigeria.

    […. Principles defining UKIP immigration and asylum policy…. ]
    1. UKIP calls for an end to the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration. Since 1997 immigration has added almost four million new people to the British population; this figure does not include illegal immigrants, the exact number of which is unknown but is probably at least one million and possibly much higher.

    2. Britain is very densely populated. England, where the majority of people live, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world: more densely populated than China, India and Japan. We simply cannot sustain the level of immigration that adds another one million people to the population every four to five years. This puts an intolerable burden on our infrastructure and public services.

    3. UKIP would introduce a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement (with some exceptions) until we regain control of our borders, put in effective immigration controls, and deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. Overstaying a visa would become a criminal offence.

    4. Any future immigration for permanent settlement must be on a strictly limited and controlled basis where that can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy. Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

    5. Meanwhile UKIP would enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force.

    6. Measures would be taken to identify illegal immigrants and remove them to their country of origin. Exceptions may be made in limited circumstances, but there would be no general amnesty for illegal migrants.

    7. EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits).

    8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable. UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.

    None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union.
    ——————————————-
    I leave the above for cross comparison.
    But, my own take on this comparison, is that :
    UKIP policy is practical, achievable, and has the interests of (present) UK residents in mind.
    Lib Dem policy on the other hand looks hazy, is ill thought through and impractical, and relies on the trust of otherwise illegal immigrants, telling the truth. (If I were an asylum seeker or illegal immigrant, it would be the obvious solution to declare myself homosexual, and thus stop expulsion dead in its tracks).
    My overall conclusion, is that Liberal Democrat policy on Asylum and Immigration, does not dovetail with real world circumstances.
    Any takers on why my conclusion is wrong?

  • Liberal Al 20th Dec '13 - 1:11pm

    You are not a fool, so I will treat you as one. I am assuming you are trying to play devil’s advocate here (for whatever reason), but the problem for you is that based on an overall appraisal of the situation, you are wrong because policy making is about three things:

    1 – identify the problem (backed by evidence)

    2 – identify who is harmed by the problem (backed by evidence)

    3 – identify how best to tackle the problem (backed by evidence)

    So, judging these based on the respective times they were published (as much of the Lib Dem content has now been made moot by changes in this area over the last 3 and half years), how they – on the balance – hold up against this test.

    UKIP’s response:

    1 – immigration is the problem because there are too many people (no evidence and no focus on the specifics of the issue, just board-bush, populist viewpoint that any hack could say)

    2 – everyone is harmed (spurious evidence about population density in England (I guess Scotland has already left in UKIP’s eyes and Wales is not a real country, then?) and many more grand statements with little focus or substance. The public may agree with them, but that does not make them anymore right. A random sample of our population showed that 70% of us did worse on a general knowledge quiz than a monkey just randomly pushing buttons. Not a great showing.

    3 – Make the same grand statements that every Government of the last 30 years has made about how not enough is being done and we need to be harder by making our boarders even more secure through tougher controls. Oh, and throw in a statement that we will leave the EU, as well. No evidence or information about how to do this, just be big statements with less substance than the film, Avatar.

    The Lib Dems response:

    1 – Identify a list of key issues relating to immigration:
    i – criminals who are here illegally, but not being dealt with;
    ii – UKBA’s over-targeting of families;
    iii – the impracticality of trying to deport all illegal immigrants;
    iv – and regional overpopulation
    (These policies also realise that Scotland has yet to leave the UK – and may yet not leave). Furthermore, they are based on evidence of how UKBA is dealing with cases (and not dealing with others) and population reports/ employment reports across the nation.

    2
    i – Society at large due to practical problems it causes UKBA, the criminals going to untackled (empowering them), the direct victims (abused illegal immigrants) who are left unprotected and the individuals who are indirectly harmed by criminals actions (such as supplying illegal workers taking jobs from legal workers).
    ii – the families who are unfairly split up and put through the arduous process of an immigration tribunal and court case. Society at large who is left at the mercy of the criminal gangs who are not dealt with whilst UKBA wastes it time on easy targets (see above for affects).
    iii – The illegal immigrants who are isolated from mainstream society and often forced into working for callous organisations and companies who employ them illegally for lower than NMW and without any legal protection. Many of these are also enslaved (under the modern definition of the word) by criminal gangs and forced into things such as the sex trade. Society at large is harmed because these people deprecate low-wage jobs as legal workers often are unable to do this work anymore. Furthermore, we lose their taxes as their money is paid legally and often controlled by the criminal gangs who use their wages to fund other criminal activities – causing even further indirect harms, which links back to the problems with UKBA not tackling these individuals, instead focusing on the easy targets, such as families.
    Iv – The people living in overcrowded cities such as London due to overcrowding and job deprecation. The immigrants forced to move to areas, such as London, which often are overcrowded, expensive and have lower living standards. They are forced into these regions because other regions cannot offer the wages required by the arbitrary immigration rules as they currently are. The businesses in the regions that do not offer the wages required by the arbitrary rules because these regions suffer from under population, aging populations and a lack of specialist workers.
    3 –
    i – give UKBA the powers and more of mandate to deal with this issue, whilst removing its focus from other lesser issues. (This is a change of regulation, no evidence presented).
    ii – change the policies of UKBA to remove its focus on targets and make it target what needs focusing on. (Again, evidence of the effectiveness is lacking)
    iii/iv – deal with these two together by making immigration regional based (thereby ensuring it is focused where it is needed and not just where arbitrary rules make it possible to work). Furthermore, remove the problem of fear of outing one’s self by enabling people to live here legally (which is more beneficial for society and the individual) rather than acting as a big scary monster which just drives people underground and drives people into the welcoming hands of criminal gangs. Tough but unfocused laws make criminals and victims far faster than nature.

    As we can see, UKIP make big claims that may appeal to people, but really is no different to the same hash that most politicians have been saying for 30 years, egged on by the Daily Mail. Far from being focused, their policies can be summed up a few lines and do not offer anything substantive for us to evaluate. The fact they could be applied to any time period or any issue for the last 30 years shows how out of touch and wholly inappropriate they are.

    On the flip side, the Lib Dems may not appeal to the general populous on this issue, but that is because they have decided not to pander; instead, they have actually outlined a list of policies targeting the specific issues that link together to cause the problems within the bigger issue. Furthermore, the policies are adapting to the ever shifting dynamics of society and pervasive issues, such as immigration. My brief summary is unable to do justice to just how well thought-out and practical our policies are because they get to the heart of the issue and would, therefore, take hours to fully explain and understand.

    Sorry for how convoluted and poorly worded this is, I wrote it in a rush during my lunch-break.

  • Liberal Al 20th Dec '13 - 1:12pm

    Sorry, my post was in response to John Dunn.

  • John Dunn 20th Dec '13 - 6:09pm

    Liberal Al :
    “Sorry for how convoluted and poorly worded this is, I wrote it in a rush during my lunch-break.”

    I’m sorry for spoiling your lunch, and with the greatest respect, I read your comments regularly with interest, but this comment is a little bit incoherent and all over the place if you don’t mind me saying so.? I’m sure there are valid points in there, but I didn’t quite get them.
    But reflect on this Liberal Al.
    Those Lib Dems that keep saying we must engage with the public, and get our message across on immigration; and we LibDems must not dodge these important issues, have proved once more, that when the going gets tough, they cannot engage, and continue, as always, to dodge the issue of immigration.
    If anyone thinks differently, I’m happy to engage and not dodge the issue.

  • Liberal Al 21st Dec '13 - 12:50am

    You did not spoil my lunch at all, it was more I wasted my a short lunch break (getting everything in order before Christmas) writing this, realised it was a mess, but did not have the heart to delete it.

    The point I was trying to make is that whereas most of the other parties just make grand statements about ‘tackling immigration’ in order to appease the public, the Liberal Democrats have previously actually identified the real issues involved in immigration and put forward focused, logical solutions for dealing with those issues.

    Rather from dodging the issue, we were the one party to tackle it head on, even if that cost us political capital. On the other hand, parties like UKIP far from facing the issue, duck out of it by making populist statements with little substance behind them.

  • nvelope2003 23rd Dec '13 - 12:41pm

    The Liberal Democrat Party maybe very principled but only a small minority of the population/voters would be interested in any of this which no doubt explains a poll rating of 10% or less. I suspect that it is the discovery of what Liberal Democrats actually stand for because of the publicity derived from being in Government, rather than a mass exit of left inclined supporters, which has damaged the party’s poll ratings.

  • John Dunn 30th Dec '13 - 3:43pm

    @Jemima Bland
    ” p.s. I don’t recommend you ‘declare [your]self homosexual, and thus stop expulsion dead in its tracks’. I think UKBA just might see that one coming.”
    So what is the Lib Dem test to guide UKBA, as to whether someone is, or is not, homosexual?
    Like I said : Lib Dem policy is ill thought through, impractical, and more often not even based in reality.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Brenda Will
    I’m glad to see the focus on the state of our NHS. I hope more attention is given to NHS Grampian - in particular Aberdeen Royal Infirmary - where ambulances ...
  • Robert Heale
    Liberal Democrats must be the Party that supports a Mixed Economy of the Public Sector, Private sector, Mutual Societies, Co-operatives and Social Enterprises....
  • Tristan Ward
    Ed Davey's underlying speech can be found in the link below. I think it is interesting and exciting reading at a time when the Prime Minister is being rightly c...
  • Linda Chung
    We need to restore availability of that Lib Dem beermat....
  • Ruth Bright
    Yes - there is a lot of admirable stuff about "get her to stand" but very little "get her to stand again" after a break with kids/caring. Mind you, I hear my Mu...