Important distinctions in recent discussions about immigration and its regulation by the UK. Thread.
1. Refugees. Driven from homes by persecution and war. All Western nations offer right to asylum to them, following horrors of WW2 and Holocaust. 😇 UK policy involves tight review, with rules set nationally. Calais Jungle & now small no. of arrivals show borders are controlled.
AFAIK, EU acquis plays no role here. Brexit won't change treatment of refugees. Court of last resort in human rights matters is ECHR, which UK is not brexiting.
EU has struggled bc large nos. of refugees arriving IT, GR. Onward mvmt only by permission of UKgov (i.e. minimal).
EU has struggled bc large nos. of refugees arriving IT, GR. Onward mvmt only by permission of UKgov (i.e. minimal).
Merkel's decision in 2015 to allow ~1m refugees to move onward from IT, GR to claim asylum in DE is often misrepresented. It was a temporary measure followed by clampdown, collaborating with Turkey to stop the exodus at its Syrian border. Trumpian wall in EU periphery.
Leavers shld be proud of Merkel's NIMBYism. Instead are in moral panic abt DE's brief moment of compassion, pragmatism allowing asylum seekers already in EU to move to DE where they can be put up (GR, IT are indeed over-stretched). New arrivals 've dropped sharply from 2015 peak.
Critically for UK debate, asylum in DE confers no FoM rights, as refugees are not EU citizens until, much later if at all, they naturalize under rules that are no less stringent than those in UK. Even without Brexit, they wouldn't be able to enter unless/until becoming German.
It should be acknowledged that the distinction between refugees and economic migrants can be blurry. Nations from which people flee are often in economic or climate turmoil as well as given by totalitarianism and civil war. A challenge for regulation, regardless of Brexit.
2. EU FoM. This has been a stunning success of actual liberalism (never mind the "neoliberal" smear). On a continent where, until the 1800s, in many countries permits were needed to move between regional fiefdoms, it is now possible to move from Bradford to Belgrade or Berlin ...
... without more than minor formalities, such as local authority registration in countries where locals must do likewise. People have moved higher and yon, following cultural interest, love, and opportunities to work and study. By and large, they have integrated well.
The UK has been a magnet for EU citizens, due to cultural openness, use of English as modern lingua franca, demand for skilled employment, and study opportunities. Since 2004, net influx was boosted by EU enlargement, which UK has not regulated via transitional arrangements.
Indeed, UK never set up system to check that EU entrants obeyed Treaty rules: FoM is reserved for those who are employed, self-employed, job-seekers (with time limit), in full-time study, or self-sufficient. Rules are designed to prevent imposing on host state's welfare systems.
Despite this free-for-all, EU FoM has been stunning success, as the factual part of the gov't-commissioned 2018 MAC report documented, forensically dismantling EU migrant myths. (Disclosure: I am an EU migrant.) We boost GDP, contribute net to Exchequer (£78k ea over lifetime).
We close skills gaps, work in public services. We have not depressed wages or displaced British workers, and if our net tax input has not alleviated shortages in social housing, public services and NHS, blame 10 years' austerity, not us who contributed more per capita than Brits.
Never forget that over 1m Brits have also used FoM, working in many EU countries on the same reciprocal terms.
Brexit will be hugely disruptive to these benefits. Indeed, the deal negotiated by the Con UKgov has no other purpose than to put an end to this happy state of affairs.
Brexit will be hugely disruptive to these benefits. Indeed, the deal negotiated by the Con UKgov has no other purpose than to put an end to this happy state of affairs.
I have commented elsewhere on the economic consequences for the UK. Essentially, Brits will pay dearly to keep out economic contributors in future, curb the rights of those already here, leave UKinEU ppl marooned and their rights curtailed on return - by mutual agreement with EU.
The human cost is incalculable, but immigration-control-über-alles Brexit is also just very bad, costly policy, before even considering collateral damage.
3. Non-EU immigration. At the moment, this is at high and rising levels, despite being wrapped in red tape by a UKgov committed to reducing net immigration numbers. It thus manages to be simultaneously ineffective in its stated goal and capable of inflicting untold misery.
I gather that, unlike the net fiscal contribution of average EU immigrants, that of non-EU immigrants is generally close to nil, similar to that of Brits. I am not sure why, but it is striking that the UK's heavier regulation of non-EU migrants produces no better outcomes.
With non-EU immigration entirely within UKgov's remit, Brexit itself will do nothing to make the system more compassionate to non-EU ppl or better at benefiting the UK.
But wait, the gov't will reform both EU and non-EU immigration and level the playing field. Surely that helps?
But wait, the gov't will reform both EU and non-EU immigration and level the playing field. Surely that helps?
The Immigration White Paper suggests otherwise. Its headline feature is set to exacerbate skills shortages by imposing a prohibitive salary threshold. It is explicitly intended to drive down net immigration, never mind business and public needs or other considerations.
A better UK policy would enforce FoM rules for EU-27 ppl, extend a similar system to non-EU ppl, help the EU to cope with refugee crisis and reduce factors driving the crisis, and devote fiscal benefits from immigrants taxes to alleviating public services shortages. Not Brexit.
I have not addressed perceived threats from immigration to British identity. I doubt sense of threat would diminish if immigration-control-über-alles Brexit results, as it would, in economic collateral damage, falling disproportionately on areas that voted Leave in 2016.
/Ends
/Ends
