Thread by @Helenreflects

You know what is so very depressing about the MAC report about immigration and its impact? The wide disparity between their recommendations and the evidence they find about freedom of movement. It's pure ideology. 1/

Read here for the report gov.uk/government/pub…
And see here an illuminating thread by @The3Million that summarizes some main points.

https://twitter.com/The3Million/status/1042002616283279360

2/

Just some highlights:
*over their lifetime EU citizens contribute £78,000 more than they receive benefits and cost in the provision of public services
*by contrast non-EU workers contribute £28,000
*EU citizens don't weigh on the NHS, schools, housing and don't depress wages 3/

But they downplay our significant contributions and say "The small overall impacts mean that EEA migration as a whole has had neither the large negative effects claimed by some nor the clear benefits claimed by others." - and then go on to recommend restrictions on migration 4/

"If ... immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU and the UK is deciding its future migration system in isolation, we recommend moving to a system in which all migration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens" 5/

This is immediately followed by "This would mean ending free movement but that would not make the UK unusual"
It is worth repeating: Freedom of movement is NOT preferential access of UK labour market to EU citizens. It is a reciprocal right that UK citizens also enjoy! 6/

(just today a colleague said to me that she has no citizenship other than British, no Irish grandparents, she's terrified she'll be stuck in UK if the country goes belly up if no deal!)
British citizens realize it's a reciprocal right, why can't the government or its advisors 7/

Oh then, the gall the report goes on "But that would not make the UK unusual –for example, Canada has an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country."
Welcoming eh? Maybe Canadians can fill me in on the following? 8/

Does Canada use legislation meant to counter terrorism to deport and prevent skilled migrants from working because there was an error in their tax returns, which they often tried to amend? 9/
theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/m…

Does Canada require you to make more than what 40% of the population makes before you can bring your non-Canadian spouse over? And would it deport your spouse should you fall ill or disabled? Hint: it does not! 10/ canadavisa.com/canada-immigra…

When can you get permanent residency in Canada?
Oh look it looks so reasonable compared to the UK.
"you must be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days (2 years) in every 5-year period."
UK ILR: 5 years with no more than 180 days absent. 11/
settlement.org/ontario/immigr…

Let's talk price tag. Canadian permanent residency: 490 CAD ( 286 GBP) per person.
UK indefinite leave to remain: £2,389 per person
Dependent relative application for UK: £3,250 per person 12/

I could go on, about how UK Home Office basically uses every loophole it can to refuse your application, or chuck you out anyway once you're no longer a net contributor and thus not useful to them anymore, but you get the picture. 13/

Gesturing at Canada and saying "they don't have freedom of movement deals with any country" but not going into the details of what Canadian migration policy looks like is disingenuous. 14/

But then the xenophobia starts dripping off this otherwise sensible report "UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration. With free movement there can be no guarantee that migration is in the interests of UK residents" 15/

Never mind that *until now* every serious study has found that migration IS in the interest of UK residents, even with high numbers of incoming EU citizens. There are no negatives, only positives and the report gives us no reason to assume this will change. 16/

Indeed, the report shows that net migration is decreasing and the authors expect that it will further decrease. Besides, those net increases have not increased house prices, or increased pressures on the NHS, or decreased wages (as per the same report) 17/

So why the desire to control? Xenophobia is about controlling migration because the UK government, and its advisers, want to put migrants in a position below that of UK citizens. A position of dependence, subservience, potential rejection 18/ theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/he…

This passage is key "The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens" - but that's not the issue. The issue is whether on the whole EU migration benefits the UK! /19

I'm not denying that migration benefits immigrants (or more accurately, people who exercise freedom of movement). Someone who moves from Glasgow to London undoubtedly also does this to better himself. This is how freedom of movement works. /20

But now apparently it's about whether we are perhaps too happy? Maybe if we're miserable but the UK gains all would be fine? Or maybe our net contributions aren't enough? If £78,000 isn't enough how much would it take to quell those xenophobic feelings? £100,000? More? /21

"our recommendation is that there should be a less restrictive regime for higher-skilled workers than for lower-skilled workers"
That is not based in fact. non-EU workers are subject to such a system through minimum income requirements and bring in far less in taxes (£28,000) /22

To me this indicates: the free market works! Freedom of movement is more beneficial to the UK (as measured purely economically in terms of net lifetime tax contributions) than their highly restrictive visa regime. /23

A concluding thought: the Leave campaign was all about "taking back control".
But what this report shows is perhaps control is overrated?
Also, in how far is desire to control ideological, and in how far evidence-driven /end