Anyone watching Newsnight this Wednesday would be forgiven for thinking that the entire debate about immigration comes down to numbers. Whatever people’s concerns about migration – be it the impact on the economy, public services or community cohesion – the answer from politicians is always the same: adjust the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Stop letting so many Poles in. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Let fewer in to the country. The economy needs more skilled workers? Adjust the points system to let them in.There is a danger with this approach that it assumes the only thing immigration policy can do is alter the number of migrants entering the country. But a lot happens once a migrant has crossed the border, too. Greater state support for settlement can improve integration and help tackle many of the problems people are concerned about. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Provide the schools with teaching assistants to help them cope. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Fund and support outreach workers to help them learn English and establish roots in the community.
I’m slightly bemused that while politicians are keen to point to Canada’s immigration system as a model way to control the number of immigrants arriving, they neglect to mention the fact that Canada also invests a great deal in supporting immigrants to settle in, and that their government endorses an official model of multiculturalism. Dedicated translation services, English language tuition, education programmes, information diffusion, citizenship instruction, employment programmes and social welfare policies are all part of the tool kit used. The evidence is that if you invest early in helping migrants to settle in to their new country, then you stave off many of the problems and tensions faced further down the line. It might just be more important to solving these problems than limiting the numbers you let cross the border in the first place.
Jonathan Clifton
Mr Clifton's view is a valid criticism of historic and current immigration policy by both main parties. But it seems to me partial.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite true that it makes no sense to let a lot of people in, and then not help them to adjust to their new environment. But there are two ways of resolving that. One is to let a lot of people in, and then help them (which raises divisive questions of "who pays?" at a time when Government departments are modelling 20% cuts). The other is to let in so few that one can select only those who will need to make minimum adjustment.
There is also a tension between cohesion and multiculturalism which needs to be resolved by every country: one cannot have both, tout court.
Can someone tell me if the Tories are going to adopt the cap on settlement approach that the Cross Party on Balanced Immigration is proposing? Does the IPPR back this theory? Please let me know. andrew_brigg@yahoo.com
ReplyDelete