What might a One Nation immigration policy look like?

13th November, 2012 9:00 am

As Labour seeks to elaborate its ‘One Nation’ approach to policy and politics, immigration raises a number of difficult questions. For many people, the UK’s public, political, and policy debate about immigration epitomises the precise opposite of ‘one nation’ – polarised, divisive, elitist, unfair, and perhaps even bigoted.

From one side of the debate, some will argue that tough immigration policy fails the ‘one nation’ test because it is founded on the principle of discriminating according to nationality.  Others will suggest that ‘tough talk’ on immigration undermines ‘one nation’ by emphasising what divides rather than what unites.

From the other side of the debate, some will assert that the diversity and change created by immigration undermines the very notion of ‘one nation’. Still others will say that a liberal immigration policy benefits the strong at the expense of the weak, and fails the ‘one nation’ test by increasing inequality.

All of these views are represented within the Labour Party, and many voters felt that the party failed on immigration in government, which makes this particularly challenging terrain for Labour. The current government is demonstrating that a simplistic approach based on a particular level of migration cannot work in practice. So, what direction should Labour take?

First, immigration policy must go hand in hand with a clear strategy to celebrate, support, and create integrated and cohesive communities. Some of this is about immigration policy – recognising that if migration flows increase too rapidly (locally or nationally) communities can come under strain, making sure that the immigration system requires migrants to learn English and ‘play by the rules’, etc.  But other policies (housing, support for community institutions, education, etc.) are in all likelihood much more important to the task of creating communities that are resilient, open and welcoming. Crucially, although immigration is often seen as the ultimate national policy issue, and questions of national identity are important, communities are local, and so must many of the solutions be.

It is also important to note that the challenge of integration and community cannot just be answered with policy. Politics and narrative have real impacts on the way we understand our nation, our neighbours and ourselves. On matters of identity and culture, what politicians say matters as much as what they do.

Second, Labour’s immigration policy should be founded on fairness.  At the most basic level, fairness requires that migration policy be based on respect for human rights, due process and the rule of law; and that discrimination and racism are countered wherever they are found. But it also means that politicians and policymakers need to measure, acknowledge and respond to the distributional impacts of migration.  Again, this might be about immigration policy (recognising that rapid immigration can have impacts on wages, at least in the short term, for example); but it is also about the broader frameworks of policy that ensure that people are treated fairly, and which seek to promote equality (Ed Miliband was right to address issues such as minimum wage enforcement when he spoke about immigration in the summer).

Fairness is different from equality, although the two are clearly related, in that it is defined not just by objective measures, but by normative frameworks (as a community or a society we define fairness through our attitudes, much more than we define equality).  For immigration policy to be fair, it has to be clear that one group is not enjoying an unfair advantage, and that the system is not delivering ‘something for nothing’. That means tackling difficult questions about reciprocity and contribution (for everyone, not just migrants) in our welfare system and public services, and communicating clear decisions to the public.

An immigration policy that delivered fairness and integrated and cohesive communities could garner mainstream support. This is essential not just for parties seeking to win elections, but because the current debate often leads to bad policy, and sometimes leads to very ugly extremist politics.

So Labour’s immigration policy must be backed up by a political approach to the issue that seeks to build consensus.  That obviously means rejecting tactics of divide and rule (and the dog whistle), but it also means understanding (if not always accepting) public concern and anger about immigration, as well as the anxieties of migrant and minority communities. It means being honest about the limitations of policy, and not making promises you can’t keep. Most difficult of all, it means being open and transparent about the trade offs that must be made.

Sarah Mulley is Associate Director for Migration, Integration and Communities at IPPR

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • PaulHalsall

    There is a consensus on immigration. The vast majority of people in the UK want to reject it altogether.

    The consensus is wrong. All societies change through demographic changes; Brits have taken advantage over the past two centuries to move freely all over the world (we would have a population of over 100 million by now if people had not left); and we have obligations to the countries that we colonised at took advantage of.

    I do accept, however, that there is a practical need to regulate the inward flow of immigration to avoid social disruption and a resources war (over housing and jobs). So a new Labour government will need to act on this.

    On basic socialist principles, however, an immigration system that, almost eugenically, allows only those with higher educational qualifications in must be opposed. In supporting such a system (i.e. the “points system”) we would intrinsically be stating that much of the current population is “inferior.”

  • PaulHalsall

    Also, how necessary are integrated communities?

    Over time such communities do develop. (For example in Los Angeles groups that might seem very different in New York – prople of Jewish, Italian, Irish, German, yes even English backgrounds all end up as “Anglos”). We should allow time to do its work.

    Most English Jewish families, for example, have been here for a hundred years or more. Many Jews are extremely integrated, but others (see Stamford Hill, or parts of Manchester) prefer *as is their right, to maintain a distinct community. Thank goodness for that.

    As a former resident of New York, and now a resident of Bury, I rejoice that I can still get access to good bagels locally.

  • Daniel Speight

    Does anyone remember Mrs Duffy? It’s useless to talk about immigration without at least talking about the free movement of labour inside an ever expanding EU. All we see now is a government policy hurting our education industry by making it harder to bring in students and hurting families already here bringing in parents and such.

  • PeterBarnard

    Sorry to say this, Sarah, but there’s a lot of general platudinous stuff in your article.

    If the ONS 2010-based population projection is correct, the UK is set to increase from 62.3 million people in 2010 to 73.2 million in 2035, and about half of the eleven million increase will be due to net migration.

    Immigration on the scale that we witnessed in the 2000s (about 1.8 million in ten years) was controversial. Another five or six million up to 2035 will be – shall we say – “politically challenging,” and a lot of people will need more than platitudes to assuage their concerns.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Surely a national immigration policy should be based on what the country needs in terms of a balance of population by age and and skills, in support of wider national objectives such as aspirations to provide well for our sick, needy, elderly and to offer our children the brightest future?

    Not, I would suggest as a first priority to achieve integrated and cohesive communities. Those should tend to occur as a product of getting the correct balance of immigration, and if not, there are other measures better able to achieve that worthy aim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    I think the problem with this analysis is that it is too parochial.

    To an extent, what can be done fairly with regard to immigration depends on one’s view of globalisation. If you welcome it and think it is essentially a positive move, then any attempt to control immigration will ultimately be pointless as well as utterly illogical

    If you are a critic of globalisation , and think there should be a recognition of its limitations, then there is at least a base for trying to make some sense of immigration in the context of broader policy aims.

  • Pingback: What are they saying about immigration and integration? « 171bus()


  • Featured News Lord Adonis resigns Labour whip to chair Government Infrastructure Commission

    Lord Adonis resigns Labour whip to chair Government Infrastructure Commission

    It will be announced tomorrow that Andrew Adonis will become chair of the Government’s Infrastructure Commission. Adonis, a peer, has resigned the Labour whip in the House of Lords to take up the role, as is normal for peers taking up independent bodies. In 2010, Frank Field and Alan Milburn were criticised were for taking roles advising the Government on poverty and social mobility. The National Infrastructure Commission is a policy from Labour’s manifesto this year, and Adonis was on the review […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Healey saw off Benn in 1981. What are the similarities with today?

    Healey saw off Benn in 1981. What are the similarities with today?

    The death of Denis Healey would have been a huge moment of sadness and reflection whatever the timing of his passing. There are very few figures beyond the sadly short list of six Labour Prime Ministers who have had as much impact on the party as him. But the timing of his death has the added poignancy of coming just after the election of a party leader from an avowedly Bennite tradition. Healey’s narrow victory over Tony Benn in the […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour figures react to death of Denis Healey

    Labour figures react to death of Denis Healey

    Labour figures are today reacting to the news that former Chancellor Denis Healey has died at the age of 98. We’ll keep this post updated as more come in. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: “Denis Healey was a giant of the Labour Party whose record of service to his party and his country stands as his testament. “He distinguished himself with his military service during the Second World War and continued that commitment to the British people as a Labour politician […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News 10 of the best Denis Healey quotes

    10 of the best Denis Healey quotes

    Denis Healey passed away today, aged 98. He was a giant of Labour politics, sitting in Parliament for 62 years until his death, having become a peer in 1992. He once told a reporter: “A statesman is a dead politician. I am in the home of the living dead which is betwixt and between: The House of Lords.” He will be remembered as an eloquent and quotable politician – here’s another 10 of his best lines. “First law on holes. […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Denis Healey passes away aged 98

    Denis Healey passes away aged 98

    Denis Healey, who served the Labour Party as both Chancellor and deputy leader, has died at the age of 98. He was an MP for forty years, having being elected as the member for Leeds South East in 1952 and Leeds East in 1955, and standing down in 1992. He then became a peer later that year. Throughout his forty-year career as an MP, Healey served as Secretary of State for Defence (1964-1970) under Harold Wilson, Chancellor of the Exchequer (1974-79) […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends