What might a One Nation immigration policy look like?

November 13, 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()

Latest

  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →
  • News Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Public Health, has called on Twitter to do more the stop racist terms being used on the site. Berger has herself faced a large amount of anti-semitic abuse on the site, and in October Garron Helm  was jailed for sending her a torrent of anti-semitic messages. Berger told the Telegraph (£): “At the height of the abuse, the police said I was the subject of 2,500 hate messages in the space of three days using […]

    Read more →