Miliband says it’s not prejudiced to talk about immigration – but that’s exactly what this immigration debate is built on  

As has become the norm in British politics, over the past couple of weeks immigration hasn’t been far from newspaper headlines. As politicians swamped (not the kind of language that we should surrender to Farage, Fallon and Blunkett so they can stigmatise immigrants) the papers with negative stereotypes about migrants, we’re reminded – as I and others have written – that on this topic some Labour MPs and the Labour leadership are falling short. Not because they’re not ‘tough enough’ but because they’re continuing to concede ground to Ukip and the Tories by accepting that immigration is a problem at all.

So while Miliband may say ‘it isn’t prejudiced to worry about the effects of immigration’, if we take a closer look at Labour’s rhetoric, prejudice is exactly what we find.

Last week, when the European Court of Justice backed Germany’s right to restrict unemployed migrants’ access to welfare, Labour MP Frank Field was quick to jump on immigration sceptics’ celebratory train. He wrote to migrants “you cannot hold out your hand the second you arrive, as you are not entitled to claim benefit for three months” (he’ll surely be delighted that Labour are now proposing that the waiting period should be set to two years).

The problem with this is that the underlying implication of Fields’ argument is wrong. Most do not come to the UK to live off the state; a study found that only 1% of migrants claim unemployment benefits. Field and co. ignore these facts and, whether implicitly or explicitly, paint a picture of all migrants as lazy good-for-nothings. This line bolsters some people’s prejudices, and in turn, strengthens the strain of fiction that runs so strongly through Farage’s arguments: that immigration is bad for the country.

Unfortunately, buying into and perpetuating negative stereotypes of immigrants isn’t just a habit of seeming outsiders like Field. It is at the core of the party leadership.

Take a look at Miliband’s speech last week. It was, for the most part, strong – the sentiment was there, even if the policies are not. But when it came to immigration, Miliband fell into (or perhaps willingly walked into, it’s hard to tell at this point) the trap laid by Ukip.

He argued, as he has done before, that migrants undercut the wages of people in the UK. This statement contradicts the message of his speech; that he wants to make the country work for the ‘many’ not the privileged ‘few’. Which category does he think most migrants fall into? It’s certainly it’s not the latter. Although he’s set out plans to stop employers exploiting migrants,  by including this point in the ‘immigration debate’ as opposed to discussions around fair pay, Miliband very subtly implied that it is migrants fault that they are paid poverty wages – and not solely that of employers who are choosing to exploit them. Rather than making such damaging comments about migrants, what Labour should do to protect everyone working in this country is introduce a statutory living wage and prosecute employers who don’t pay it.

There was a fleeting moment of hope when he accepted, as a report last week proved, that on aggregate immigration is good for the country. Yet it all began to crumble when he said the aggregate impact was different from peoples’ lived experience. Most prejudice against immigrants doesn’t stem from reality.  Ukip are most popular in areas where immigration is lowest, and studies show economic deprivation and segregation are far more likely to be the causal factors of low community cohesion than ethnic diversity. It is the fear of immigration rather than the actual process that whips up anti-immigrant fervour. And what upholds prejudice against migrants are the negative stereotypes that Miliband himself is subtly undergirding. The exact same stereotyping can be found in Yvette Cooper’s and Rachel Reeves’ policy announcements yesterday.

And by tacitly accepting that immigration is in some ways a ‘problem’, Labour strengthen Ukip’s case.

Miliband says it’s not prejudiced to be worried about the effect of immigration – that would be fine if people’s concern stemmed from the real consequences of migration (of which there are few negative ones, if any) rather than the imagined effects built on prejudice.

If the Labour party want to stop pandering to Ukip’s rhetoric, they should listen to people’s concerns on immigration and then explain the reality. Instead all we are seeing at the moment is a damaging strategy where Miliband is buying into negative stereotypes then framing his arguments by saying that he’s the son of immigrants – as if this fact cleanses his policies of prejudice. In doing so, he strengthens the anti-immigration tide championed by Ukip and silences those of us who are also the direct product of immigration but don’t see it as a ‘problem’ to be solved but rather a toxic conversation from which we’re excluded.

The Labour party say they believe in equality and internationalism, if such declarations are to hold any truth then when it comes to immigration, they need to start an entirely different conversation altogether.