Thread by @stand_for_all

THREAD:
What we need in this country, and many others to be fair, is to stop treating immigration as a negative and start actually creating policies which benefit people, and the country. This isn't it. 1/
mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…

Before coming up with any policy you need to look at where public attitudes are. That doesn't mean just looking to your membership or what the most vocal shout. It's about seeing where attitudes in general are, and on immigration they're softening. 2/
bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/…

Immigration currently ranks at fourth on voter priorities, behind, understandably, the economy, health and the environment, with only 24% of people surveyed counting it is a core issue. 3/
yougov.co.uk/topics/educati…

Obviously though there are arguments which are used, even among a more positive attitude towards immigration, that any policy needs to address to ensure it gets support. These tend to be around infrastructure use though, e.g. housing and schools etc. 4/
ft.com/content/f2d72f…

Even when talking about channel crossings, despite what it may appear in the rhetoric shown by some politicians and pundits, the public tend to have be more sympathetic to asylum seekers crossing the channel and want a fairer asylum system. 5/
ipsos.com/sites/default/…

So in essence the atmosphere is in the right place, or moving that way, for Labour, and others, to start looking at positive and progressive immigration policies, and that does not mean "points based" or expanding "seasonal workers visas". 6/
theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/s…

What does it mean then? Well first off, while I may personally want to see them, it doesn't mean "open borders". Those require a global focus and the phrase itself has been tainted by those who claim any opening of routes is the equivalent to it. 7/

It is about ensuring that everyone, migrants and native citizens alike, benefit. It is about recognising that people are concerned about the economy and how they will survive, which does mean that they may question why people coming from overseas get assistance. 8/

The thing is that providing that assistance actually does benefit everyone. It is "development in parallel". So for example you end "no recourse to public funds" which denies migrants access to a multitude of benefits. 9/
citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/our-w…

While it may sound counterintuitive, scrapping NRPF actually helps boost the economy, by addressing issues of poverty, enabling investment in other areas, which means resources can be better targeted to the benefit of everyone. 10/
london.gov.uk/what-we-do/com….

Then there is providing asylum seekers with the right to work. This not only reduces, but also boosts the economy by providing more opportunities for people to earn, and contributes to a decrease in crime as people are less vulnerable to exploitation. 11/
antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/media/1599/rig…

Limiting where people can work, through specific visa routes, not only increases the risks of exploitation, but also stifles the economy, particularly in the face of an aging population. So you need to give migrants the opportunity to shift employment. 12/
ageing-better.org.uk/summary-state-…

In line with this you also need to scrap the minimum income requirement for bringing dependents over. Denying people a family life isn't just inhumane, it also means that you are more likely to lose out on people coming here, which isn't a good thing. 13/
davidsonmorris.com/skilled-worker…

Think about it, even Liz Truss recognises immigration is a benefit to the UK, although I would as part of this argue that you cannot just see migrants as an "economic resource", and by denying them a family life you are hardly creating a conducive environment for them coming. 14/

What about infrastructure though? People are understandably worried about the cost of living, housing, schools etc. Let's clear something up first, the total land use in the UK for homes and gardens is about 5%. Not a lot. 15/
showhouse.co.uk/news/five-surp….

Issues with housing supply are not, again despite what you may hear from certain quarters, down to immigration. There's no one reason, but a big part of it is years of underfunding and a failure to meet building targets by the government. 16/
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…

The same is true for schools, healthcare etc. Underfunding has far more to do with pressures than immigration. If you provide migrants with the ability to contribute to the economy then you are already covering a lot of any additional costs. 17/
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie…).%20...

What about any additional costs though? The majority of the costs associated with immigration in UK come down to three things, deterrents, detention and deportation. For example the Home Office has just signed a £399 million deal for detention centres. 18/
theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/s…

Add that to, for example, £120 million for the Rwanda deal, along with additional costs involved in that. Tends of thousands on deportation flights, and even £90k on social media adverts telling people not to come, and the money starts to build up. 19/
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…

Throw in £95 million for detention costs, and... you get the idea. £100 million here a £100 million there and soon you are talking about real money, real money which can be invested into communities to benefit everyone, including reducing homelessness 20/
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie….

As much as I don't like it, I get that a progressive immigration policy can't just rely on telling people to be humane and treat people equally. It needs to show how it benefits voters. What we need from #Lab22, and other parties, is a policy which does that. 21/