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.

  • 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

  • News Campaign round-up: Five days to go

    Campaign round-up: Five days to go

    It’s five days until voters go to the polls – here’s a quick look at how the elections are shaping up across the country. Quote of the Day Sadiq Khan lays out how he will tackle anti-Semitism as Mayor in Jewish News: I will always protect communities whose beliefs and practices attract the inexplicable hostility of others, and I’ll get to grips with religious hate crimes. I’ll make tackling hate crimes a far higher priority for the Metropolitan police, and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn launches anti-Semitism action plan – but Ken blames row on “embittered old Blairites”

    Corbyn launches anti-Semitism action plan – but Ken blames row on “embittered old Blairites”

    Jeremy Corbyn has revealed he is launching an action plan to deal with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, while Ken Livingstone has attempted to play down allegations, accusing “embittered old Blairites” of whipping up the storm in an attempt to get rid of Corbyn. In further developments, the chairman of the Israeli Labour Party has written to Corbyn to say he is “appalled and outraged” by recent examples of anti-Semitism in Labour, while 80 Jewish party members have put their names to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Defence review closes as Woodcock’s rival enquiry ramps up

    Defence review closes as Woodcock’s rival enquiry ramps up

    The deadline for member submissions to Labour’s defence review expires this weekend amid claims that an unofficial parallel party enquiry is gaining more traction with MPs. Emily Thornberry, shadow Defence Secretary, is leading the official review, which launched in January amid controversy that Ken Livingstone would be co-convenor. Livingstone was moved to co-convene the Labour foreign policy review, a role he is unlikely to continue in following this week’s suspension. The process has hit further snags, with MPs raising concerns […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe Featured Uncategorized Dear Jeremy… please speak up again and again for Britain’s place in Europe, a former British ambassador writes

    Dear Jeremy… please speak up again and again for Britain’s place in Europe, a former British ambassador writes

    Dear Mr Corbyn – or may I, a non-Corbynista, call you Jeremy? I am one of the many Labour party members and supporters, including your critics, who unreservedly applauded your big speech on 14 April setting out Labour’s powerful case for Britain remaining in the EU. You were right to draw a sharp distinction between the Labour and Tory arguments for staying in, including your striking health warning that following Brexit our right-wing government would make a bonfire of the EU’s hard-won protections for workers’ […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Ken Livingstone is a pariah and must be expelled from Labour

    Ken Livingstone is a pariah and must be expelled from Labour

      Ken Livingstone is finished in the Labour Party. His bizarre Hitler rant has succeeded in uniting Corbynista and centrist Labour MPs, as well as the entirety of the mainstream press, in condemnation. He has been suspended and will surely be expelled. For many in the Labour Party, it cannot come soon enough. Livingstone has disgraced himself one time too many and, if he is bowing out, it will be with perhaps his most toxic intervention yet. His comments about […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit