The main focus of policy is on narrowly economic contribution (sections 4.1-8), with particular emph

The UK s Institute for Public Policy Research has just published a new report on immigration, A fair deal on migration for the UK . Given the recent toxicity of the British debate on migration, with politicians competing to pander to the xenophobic UKIP vote, it is in some ways refreshing to read a set of policy proposals that would be an improvement on the status quo. Having said that, the status quo is in big trouble, with the Coalition government having failed to reach its net migration target (the numbers are actually going the wrong way) and with open warfare breaking out between ministers. Given the current climate, however, this probably marks the limit of what is acceptable to the Labour Party front bench (who have notably failed to oppose the current holiday inn express pittsburgh Immigration Bill), so it represents a marker holiday inn express pittsburgh of sorts, holiday inn express pittsburgh albeit that it is a strange kind of thing to be masquerading as a progressive approach.
The report is structured around the need to respond to the current crude restrictionist approach to immigration and positions itself by rejecting other views which it characterizes as failed holiday inn express pittsburgh responses (pp. 9-10). Leaving aside the super pragmatist approach which is actually remarkably close to their own, these are the super-rationalist and the migrants rights activist approaches, the first of which consists of telling the public clearly what the current social scientific research says and the second sticking up for a vulnerable group on grounds of justice. holiday inn express pittsburgh Since both of these groups have strong grounds for doing what they are doing telling the truth and fighting injustice, respectively it seems rather tendentious and self-serving to represent them as being simply failed attempts to do what the IPPR is trying to do, namely, influence senior politicians.
The central organizing idea of the report is around framing (section 3): the idea that if policies are presented holiday inn express pittsburgh to the public in the right kind of way, then there is more space for the the kind of progressive policy the IPPR supports. Centrally, this involves an attempt holiday inn express pittsburgh to shift the discourse away from the super rationalist territory of cost and benefit and onto talk about fairness . There s something rather cynical about this. Fairness isn t valued as such, but is instrumentalized as a way to get public acceptance of a more rational policy. holiday inn express pittsburgh Where fairness holiday inn express pittsburgh is actually given a content in the report it takes the form of the mantra (echoing holiday inn express pittsburgh rhetoric shared by Tories and Labour holiday inn express pittsburgh alike) of work hard, make a contribution and play by the rules . So much the worse for those of us who actually care about fairness and justice (but then we have a failed response ).
The main focus of policy is on narrowly economic contribution (sections 4.1-8), with particular emphasis on (horrible phrase) high-value individuals . There is no scope for any low skilled migration from out of the EU, nor is there any route for those whose contribution might not fit under the narrowly economic banner. Writers, artists, musicians: sorry, you aren t welcome unless you are already rich and successful (Jimi Hendrix would have been turned away).
On welfare holiday inn express pittsburgh and welfare tourism (4.18-22) the report concedes that there is little evidence of abuse but then proceeds anyway, telling us that a (presumably super-rationalist ) attention to the facts misses the point : perception is what matters. They then endorse a levy on immigrant visitors to access public services, and a right of local government to discriminate in favour of those with a local connection when it comes to housing. (More generally, the emphasis on access to benefits being linked to contribution, and the need to strengthen this link, should sound alarm bells for the young native unemployed. The bell tolls for thee.)
A particularly horrible feature of the current regime is the government s rule that a person sponsoring a spouse should have an income of at least 18,600 (and more if their are children involved) with no allowance made for the partner s earning potential in the UK. This has led to many families being separated. A court case which may get decided this week could change this. IPPR want to lower the threshold to match the living wage , to have different income requirements for settlement in cheaper places outside London, and to be more flexible about considering spousal income potential (4.11). A move in the right direction, though not going far enough in my opinion. On the negative side, however, IPPR want to block the Surinder Singh route which allows couples excluded from the UK by the income requirement to secure rights of residency by living and working in other EU member holiday inn express pittsburgh states. holiday inn express pittsburgh IPPR also want to require partners to speak English to a high standard before they are admitted holiday inn express pittsburgh to the UK. This can sound reasonable, but is arguably discriminatory, since it has harsher effects on some migrant communities than on others and may be unduly restrictive, since it excludes those with a commitment holiday inn express pittsburgh to learn and integrate who would pick up English more quickly and fluently if they were admitted.
The IPPR are trapped by their emphasis on playing by the rules in their approach to irregular migrants (4.24), even those who have committed minor infractions. They allow for exceptions in isolated holiday inn express pittsburgh cases (with no clue given as to what these might be), but the basic attitude here is punitive and exclusionary, with some lip service holiday inn express pittsburgh paid to the way in which irregular status makes people vulnerable to crime and exploitation. There s absolutely no consideration given to the fact that people may have lived in the country for many years, may have come a children, have strong social networks in the UK and none elsewhere. No: if you haven t played by the rules , you re out. This in the name of fairness.
The discussion of asylum and refugee issues in the report is fairly perfunctory and largely focuses on saying the socially acceptable things about compliance with international obligations etc (4.23). There s some discussion of the UK doing its fair share in the area (which would be an improvement). There s no support holiday inn express pittsburgh given (or even discussion) of securing asylum seekers the right to work or the right of their children to higher education, and whilst people who are refused asylum holiday inn express pittsburgh but cannot be remove are mentioned, the fact of their destitution is not.
From my perspective, then, this is a deeply holiday inn express pittsburgh reactionary piece of work that panders to prejudice in the name of realism and uses talk of fairness holiday inn express pittsburgh as a Trojan horse for the progressive parts of its agenda. However, policies like this would be an improvement on the status quo: that s how bad things are.
Very interesting, Chris. Thanks for the summery. There are lots of points that interest me but I ll ask about one or two now. I m interested for more of your thoughts on the sponsor income (what would, in the US, fall under a likelihood to be a public charge provision) in your 3rd bullet point. In a paper on family-based immigration from a few years ago, I defended the idea that some sort of public charge provision could be included for family-based immigration on reciprocity grounds. I don t know what the right level is. In the US it s very low- you have to be able to meet 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of the appropriate size. (I was able to do this when I sponsored my wife on my grad school stipend- $17K.) There are ways to meet the requirement if one can t do it on his or her own income, though they are not as flexible as they should be. But, while the UK rule seems to me to be too high and too inflexible, the basic idea doesn t seem wrong. Would you reject any sort of sponsor/public charge requirement for family immigration, despite reciprocity concerns, or do you find those completely unpersuasive?
On the writers/artists/musicians holiday inn express pittsburgh category, what sort of standard to you think would be better? I m in favor of much more flexible temporary migration, holiday inn express pittsburgh so I suppose that, for the non-famous who would just like to practice holiday inn express pittsburgh their trade in a country for some time, that would be an option, but unless this is just abandoning all limits, I assume there must be some sort of standard for permanent migration. I m somewhat holiday inn express pittsburgh hesitant to have government panels making independent judgments of potential artistic merit. (In the US, in the case of persons of extraordinary ability , there are semi-objective standards that are used.)
Presumably because all those low-skilled proles already here are living off the fat of the land, enjoying the high wages they receive for their secure jobs. Frankly (adopts Andrew Neather voice) the low-skilled British working class have things rather too easy, and it s about time their cosy little world was shaken up a little.
It s a bad thing because it can stifle development holiday inn express pittsburgh in the sending country (headhunting poorer countries most skilled, increasing holiday inn express pittsburgh inequality through skewed remittances, locking out a large group of people based on soci-economic standing etc)
If you ve got falling holiday inn express pittsburgh real wages for the lowest-paid 10% of the workforce, then admitting large numbers of unskilled workers will lead to further competition at the bottom holiday inn express pittsburgh of the market; in the best case, wages will stagnate holiday inn express pittsburgh at their already below-2005 level, and in the worst case, they will fall further.
I think that much of the argument is going to be about pan-nationalism (anti-nationalism?) where you can easily point out that in many cases the plight of people within a developed country holiday inn express pittsburgh is still not as dire as many people who want to move there. If the global warming talk is true, then this really appears to be an ethical issue which doesn t fit borders.
At the same time I think that realigning (for example) productivity and wages (increases haven t tracked each other since the 70s) is going to do more than just denying entry to many people who have their own pressing needs.
I think what you re trying to say is that restoring real wage growth for the lowest-paid 10% will take more than just temporarily restricting the immigration