How to move the immigration debate on

It’s the longest running play since Mousetrap. Politician X says something on immigration to respond to popular anxieties further whipped up by the mid-market press. This time it was David Cameron who is worried about the anti-immigration UKIP threat to his support. Then back come the social scientists. Armed with a pile of data and research papers showing that people shouldn’t be worried about what they are worried about, they insist on a pure evidential basis to policy. They generally have good data and the arguments are convincing for other social scientists. Only the wider population doesn’t seem convinced. So round and round we go: a West End classic.

One side, the ultra-liberals, shout ‘you’re wrong’ and the other side, the emotive press and populist right playing on fears, shout ‘you don’t get it’. The funny thing is, I don’t think the majority of people are with either side. Both the populist right and scientific left miss where the vast majority of people are coming from.

I know which side I’d choose if forced to choose and I find the arguments and analysis of Ian Birrell in The Guardian and Vicky Pryce in The Independent this morning convincing as evidence. But neither, unfortunately, moves the debate on to ground where the pragmatic majority of people will feel able to engage.

People generally are sceptical but pragmatic when it comes to immigration. The problem is that immigration policy combines a whole series of other areas (and this is one reason why a purely evidence driven approach won’t work): values, identity, jobs, opportunity, welfare, housing, our relationship to other nations, social and cultural change, public services, the state of our democracy, and wider economic and fiscal challenges. So it’s not a simple right or wrong area of policy. Culture and values don’t tend to bend particularly to the evidence-only based approach.

People can see advantages of certain types of immigration. They are not deaf to the benefits in the way that the populist right press and politics is. They see that immigration is a fact of modern life as is diversity. But they are anxious that we do not have sufficient democratic control over it, that the system along with welfare can be gamed, and that the pace of change may be too frenetic. And if these fears which are about culture, values and security are not engaged with by those who understand the role that immigration will play in any decent economic and socially just future then it is to the populists that the pragmatic centre will begin to turn.

The key question is what can ensure the legitimacy of the immigration system. Every country manages its immigration in some way, shape or form. The question is how to manage it in a way that inspires public support without doing unnecessary harm (a test that the immigration cap doesn’t pass, for example).

So here is a constructive suggestion that has symbolic meaning as well as practical effect. Freedom of movement should remain a bedrock principle of the EU. However, its effect should be managed. The US has an ESTA requirement for visitors from the EU. It is a simple online form and lasts for a period of time for visitor entry to the US. A similar process should be introduced for EU travelers. The document would last for a year and while you were in an EU country on the basis of the one-year document you would not be able to claim benefits of any description. You would be absolutely free to travel and work. If you were injured or became sick you would receive support. You would have access to healthcare and education on the same basis as national citizens. After twelve months continuous residence, you would then have all the same welfare rights as national citizens.

This system may well require a treaty change. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that it would receive the support of other European nations who can see the impact of not managing migration in a more careful manner. The system would not target particular groups or nations – ie those that happen to be demonised at any given time (currently Romania and Bulgaria). It would be for all.

It is important that the EU shows some willingness to respond to these challenges. The court action against the UK for its habitual residence policy is ludicrous. Instead, EU nations and the commission should be working together to ensure a greater degree of popular legitimacy for freedom of movement.

Of course, none of this will make the slightest difference to those who are against immigration and are very angry about it. There is little that can be done other than respectful disagreement there. But for the pragmatic majority, it might at least demonstrate the European political mainstream was better aligning itself with their outlook and addressing their concerns directly instead of leaving it to the far right. The spectre of a UK departure from the EU after a nasty immigration-led referendum campaign is a terrifying prospect for Britain and Europe. Sensible responses would be one way of avoiding this nightmare.

It was David Hume who wrote that “reason is, and ought only to be a slave to the passions.” And that should be the banner to be draped over this debate. Evidence is critical to this debate but it is not sufficient. Democratic politics has to show some understanding about people’s anxieties and needs. There is a way through this debate that aligns the national interest with democratic politics. But it relies on a different tone, a responsive EU, and national democracies that work to constantly rebuild legitimacy for its institutions. The alternative is the dark path of fiery passions without any reason. That’s definitely a fate to be avoided.

Anthony Painter’s latest book is ‘Left without a future? Social justice in anxious times’