Thread by @SimonFRCox

Charles Clarke didn’t understand migration politics or policy when he was Labour Home Sec.

He’s learned little in the years since.

Thread 1/ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Clarke continued Jack Straw’s promised that Government could “fix migration”. It would be “fairer, firmer, faster”. 2/

Labour delivered part of that promise. Asylum claims were decided much quicker. Appeal rights were made universal - human rights were brought home. Removals of refused cases increased. 3/

But Labour’s promises raised popular salience of migration. And promises of “control” tend to legitimise anti-migrant narratives (if we need control, doesn’t that mean there’s a threat)? 4/

What does “we’ll fix migration” mean? To people who don’t like:
- their 2nd generation brown neighbours?
- the Polish food aisle in the corner shop?
- the serious criminal allowed to stay because he’s lived in UK 40 years? 5/

As Clarke & Johnson accept, British anti-migrant feeling isn’t mostly based on facts or evidence. So why do they think promising changed facts will change minds? 6/

What Government calls “control” of immigration isn’t seen as control by the anti-migrant loudmouths - but *promising* control legitimises their claims that immigration is “out of control” 7/

Which is why - search as you will - Clarke & Johnson’s say nothing about how the anti-migrant measures they call for will change either facts or opinions. 8/

Let’s look at Clarke & Johnson’s proposals: the anti-migrant ones and the pro-migrant ones. 9/

1st. “Apply current EU rules!”

This is the saddest of the bunch. It’s based on a Remainer myth that the UK is a light touch compared to those Belgians.

It’s nonsense. 10/

When you hear people say “apply EU rules!” ask them 3 questions:
1. Which EU law says that’s allowed?
2. What’s the evidence from other countries it would make a difference?
3. What wider changes would be needed? 11/

For a year centrists have floated this idea of unused EU law tools (by Theresa May, right? The Minister who *really doesn’t like EU citizens*?)

But these are either
- are contrary to EU law
- require much wider problematic changes
- won’t change behavior or public opinion. 12/

Here’s my most recent thread on why it’s against EU law to expel people *just because* they haven’t found a job for 3 months (I know C & J are narrower, but it’s all there)

https://twitter.com/caprakan/status/1063202817719132160?s=21

13/

And here’s my thread from 2017 with my exchange with Belgium’s anti-migrant minister confirming Belgium doesn’t have any figures of EU citz removed for being non-economically active.

https://twitter.com/simonfrcox/status/881938153594138624?s=21

14/

Have C & J *costed* checking every EU cit for whether they are working or self-sufficient? No.

Have C & J thought about who will find the EU citz who don’t? What that will cost? And when immigration find them - they’re working, so it was pointless? 15/

How would a requirement to prove right to reside after 3 months change migrant behaviour?

A. It will increase migrant employment in marginal work. EG: Luisa was happy writing poetry & sleeping on sofas. Luisa will get min-wage part time job to qualify for the permit. 16/

B. It will push vulnerable migrants into situations of abuse. Jon has mental illness and can’t hold down a regular job. He’s afraid of deportation so goes off radar & works for a criminal to pay the bills. 17/

What *benefits* come from threatening to deport EU citz if they don’t find work within 3 months?

Well, it doesn’t save on benefits, because people with no right to reside AREN’T ENTITLED TO BENEFITS. 18/

But now the clincher. Remember, the point of these changes is to win over the middle ground Leavers.

Show me a Leaver who would vote Remain because of this change.

Clarke & Johnson can pretend, but at least Leavers know - free movement means free movement. 19/

C & J idea 3: ID cards! More state control over everyone to persuade Brits the authorities are controlling the migrants.

Look at Europe.

Do EU publics with ID cards think their Govs “control migration”? No.

Do the Irish - with no ID cards - feel like the Brits? No. 20/

But what would making every British resident hold a card imply about the migrant threat? A huge effort reaching every adult implies a *biiig* problem.

ID cards to control migration:

- legitimise anti-migrant fears
- don’t assuage those fears 21/

C & J idea 4: more money for EU’s 25 year old failed project of jobs for border guards and contractors to force migrants away from the least dangerous routes to Europe. 22/

So: 3 same old same old anti-migrant ideas from Clarke & Johnson. “EU law controls”, ID cards & more £ for corrupt, brutal officials and militias in N Africa.

Brexiters arent stupid. They can see this won’t change anything. 23/

Now for the better stuff. 3
ideas that help *empower* migrants to avoid exploitation and so, paradoxically, *cut the migrant worker demand* from exploitative employers. 24/

C & J Idea 2: labour market controls on employers. This is vague. But it’s the right direction. UK needs to uphold workers rights *regardless of migration status*. Immigration officers out of the workplace - get labour inspectors & unions in. 25/

Exploiters depend on worker fear of immigration. Exploiters fear having to pay full wages & deliver health & safety to “illegal” worker.

A radical Labour policy: firewall immigration from workers rights & criminal lW enforcement. 26/

(I’m not saying Clarke is saying this - but he isn’t contradicting it.. ) 27/

C & J idea 5 - local pay for posted workers (that’s workers employed in one EU state who are moved to work on a job in another.) Definitely worth exploring. (Would it apply to workers employed in Yorkshire brought to London?) 28/

C & J Idea 6. Local impact fund to address consequences of rapid population change. Great idea - and not just for international migration, but for migration within a country too. /29

C & J have EU law-breaking ideas too. Which shows how sloppy this is:

- 1st preference at jobs for locals. That’s national discrimination - better to skill people up to compete

- banning recruitmt firms from recruiting in EU. Breach of cross-border rules. Why not regulate? /30

What’s most troubling is the quality of this piece and the debate. British pols & commentariat claim to care about migration. But so few big names care to understand or think about it properly. 31/

There’s no good excuse for the shocking quality of UK’s migration debate. Hundreds of expert researchers, thinkers and journalists write clearly in English about these issues. 32/

How to start?

If you want to change a migration policy: explain the mechanism by which it will make changes in the world, what changes they will be - and why those are a good thing.

Not just more foolish high-level promises. 33/

Ask what effect *enforcement* of migration policies will have. Will it *actually* reduce exploitation - or just make migrants more vulnerable? Will it stop dangerous journeys - or push people away from safer routes?

We havedata thanks to your policies for last 20 years 34/

Ask what your promises say to the public about the problem. Does it mislead them about its size or importance? If so, maybe don’t do it at all - you’ll just generate more demand for more unnnecessary actions. 35/

Above all - make sure Government does the jobs they already have - before you promise even more. When immigration cases take 10 years to resolve, don’t give those staff more work, without fixing that problem. 36/

When immigration staff look for any reason to refuse people they can’t even remove, don’t tell them to police 10s of 1000s of Greek students and Danish visitors. 37/

When there are more immigration staff than labour inspectors, reconsider whether you are prioritising workers rights. 38/38.