We must be prepared to discuss immigration

“  Immigration has been central to the history of this country, and there
are few of us who would not agree that Britain is a more successful and
culturally richer place as a result.”

I’m sorry Jonathan, but that is not how a lot of people feel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right

And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons
agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad
thing for the country”.

I think we should practise a dual strategy. First, when it comes to established immigrant communities in this country (especially those living in segregated towns and cities and have faced racial discrimination) we should have an active approach to promote community cohesion and greater relations between different ethnic groups. However, this requires a contract of sort between these communities and the government. We will give them all the help and support needed to be an active part of society, but they must make the effort to integrate themselves and assimilate and take up British values.

Secondly, when it comes to numbers, I think we should focus on a target of zero immigration from outside the EU, while relying on the EU to fill labour shortages. However, to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of wages, we should ensure that we increase the minimum wage and upgrade it to a living wage, introduce strict penalties to companies that undercut British workers and employ migrant labour on lower rates, and introduce a small tax for every EU worker that a company employs. Moreover, we should increase the time that a company must look for vacancies in this country before looking for foreign workers through agencies.

When it comes to the thorny issue of housing, I agree with Andrew Harrop of the Fabian Society (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/labour-immigration) that there should be a contributory principle in the allocation of social housing. There was exceptional anger in places like Barking and Dagenham that recently arrived migrants were being pushed to the top of the housing queue ahead of local residents, and this is not a fair situation. We should have a policy where recently arrived migrants must make some community contributions before being allowed access to entitlements like housing, benefits and education (though healthcare should be free to all IMO). If we have this policy in place, I think we address the issue of fairness that is at the heart of the immigration debate. Local people have felt that they’ve been getting a rough deal out of immigration, and it’s time to address that.We should of course not engage in a race to the bottom on immigration rhetoric, but we MUST start taking about immigration, rather than treating it like the elephant in the room. Too often New Labour ignored the effects of immigration on the working class, focusing instead of the benefits of migration that mainly accrue to the middle class.

To a large degree Miliband did err on the side of caution and reason in
his speech, and all the policy points he has suggested (so far as I
can tell) are quite fair. In fact, I would go further and look at the
tuition fees charged to international students: as long as there is a
free market on these fees, universities have an unfair incentive to
take up international students instead of British ones as they get
more funding that way (and a disproportionate number of clearing
spaces go to international students). Equalising the fees (and
subsidising the differential from the treasury) would not only mean
the same fees for everyone, regardless of nationality (which is fair
for them), but it would also give British prospective students a fair
chance here.

However, in promising to tackle issues of immigration Ed Miliband needs to
draw a strong and clear dividing line between our reasonable approach
and the more over-blown, media-driven approach of the Tories and
others. Maurice Glasman’s radicalism here also is rather worrying and
we should reject it.

The media are guilty of a persistent and sickening focus on immigration
over and above all other issues. If Labour builds 100,000 houses in
a year, that story barely warrants mention in the press; yet the
effects of, say, 10,000 migrants on British housing supply receives
front-page coverage. In the Daily Politics the other day, Chris
Bryant suggested that Labour had let too many migrants into the
country when in power – he should have made the point that only
around 30% of Polish migrants ever had any intention of staying in
this country. When figures were released some years ago looking at
which UK jobs had gone to immigrants, the press jumped on the fact
that it suggested 98% of jobs under Labour had gone to immigrants -
but only if you assume that not a single migrant has left the country
since moving here! We do have to challenge these myths wherever they
are, and Bryant’s concession here (which he later reneged on…) was
unneccesary.

We also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, just because a voter says
they’re concerned about immigration, it doesn’t mean that’s the real
problem. I come from Amber Valley, which polled 3000 votes for the
BNP in 2010 and (until recently) had two BNP borough councillors.
According to Guardian figures some time ago, Amber Valley boasted the
second-highest number of BNP members of any parliamentary
constituency. But I can tell you that Amber Valley, of all
constituencies, is probably one of the least affected by immigration.
Entire years at my local secondary school would only have maybe 1-2
black students. That should give people an idea that overt fears
about immigration are often not about immigration at all. The way you
solve the issue here – as one great pamphlet with contributions from
Jon Cruddas says – is to tackle the underlying issues by listening to
voters and making local politics more attentive to people’s genuine
needs.

Nevertheless, I have no issue with Ed Miliband addressing the issue of immigration
as exactly what it is: just an economic phenomenon, bedded in (and
far less significant than) matters like housing, health, jobs and
welfare. Considering it like this is something that both sides on the
argument need to do: its effects can be positive or negative; neither
massively overblown or utterly dismissed. But here’s an interesting
fact: even during the Irish potato famine – which brought a flood of
impoverished Irishmen into the country and stoked up (probably for
the first time…) mass fears over immigration – local movements of
English people into the towns, even in Liverpool, was always higher
than the number of Irish people coming in. Domestic migration always
had a higher effect on housing, rates, etc than the movement of Irish
people. What stoked the fears about immigration then (as now) were
perceptions of “otherness” – the view that (despite Union
in the 1800s) the Irishman was not and never could be English – and
it is telling that in towns like Hull during this period (which had
higher employment and some key Irish figures in the city to help with
integration) fears of immigration were less profound than in
Liverpool, even though a great deal of Irish migrants did find their
way into Hull. Should local people then have been concerned about
Irish migrants? Absolutely. But when you read the vitriolic
complaints of the local Liverpool businessman of the time, he always
claims his fears and concerns are proportionate to the problem they
are faced with. If that was really true he’d have made just passing
mention of the domestic migrants too.

However, Ed needs to make sure he doesn’t get carried away in the over-blown
language and vitriol of some sections of politics and the press – and
through no fault of his own this speech has been interpreted wrongly
as both (a) committing Labour to an anti-immigration line; or (b)
showing Labour sees immigration as a completely positive thing –
which is a great shame.