Scrap the tabloids, the truth about asylum/immigration
Migrant | 10.06.2003 21:50
A Concise Guide to Migration Issues
Ten questions and answers
1 What is the outlook?
If present trends continue we can expect a net inflow to Britain of at least 2 million people from outside the EU over the next 10 years. This includes those legally accepted for settlement, asylum seekers and others. (EU Citizens are, of course, free to come and go; in any case, the net flows are not significant). It does not include illegal immigrants.
2 Can this really be true? If so, why has it not been raised before?
The government have decided to accept the 2001 census figures as accurate, despite a great deal of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. As a result they have reduced net immigration by 76,000 a year for each of the past ten years. Even so the figure for 2001 was nearly 200,000.
The issues have not been raised in public because:
• migration has been a "taboo" subject for many years;
• Home Office statistics are confusing;
• the situation has become more acute over the past decade as asylum seekers and others have realised how easy it is to avoid immigration controls. Nearly 90% of asylum seekers succeed in staying in this country, legally or otherwise. Hence, for example, the serious difficulties over the Channel Tunnel.
3 How have the numbers grown so large?
In a debate in Parliament in June 1976 the then (Labour) Government left the clear impression that they expected immigration to decline (but not to zero). However, about 55,000 a year continued to be accepted for settlement for the next 20 years. There was no public discussion but there was reasonable racial harmony. Until 1991 official projections showed net inward migration declining to zero after some years - not because the statisticians necessarily believed this to be likely but because it was Government policy that it should. In 1996 the Office for National Statistics adopted a projection of 45,000 per year, no longer declining to zero. This was gradually revised upwards. The most recent projection stands at 135,000 per year but even this projection is still well below the actual figure of 183,000 in 1999.
4 Will the problem go away?
No. Unless there are major policy changes, the flow is more likely to increase.
5 Does it matter?
Yes, considerably. The scale of net migration is now such that it will have a significant impact on both the total size of our population and the nature of our society, especially in our major cities where most immigrants settle. Ethnic minorities now comprise 27% of London's population. In a democracy the public should be aware of the facts. It is for the political system to respond as appropriate.
6 Are we not, in any case, a "nation of immigrants".
This proposition is completely false. Until 1950 there had been no demographically significant migration into Britain for nearly a thousand years. About 100,000 Huguenots arrived from France in the 17th century and a similar number of Jews in the late 19th century, joining a population that had then reached 30 million. In the 1930s about 70,000 refugees from Nazi Germany were admitted to the UK.
The present large-scale immigration began in the 1950's. The ethnic minority population has grown, partly by natural increase, from one million in 1970 to 4 million in the year 2000 (or 7% of the population).
Whether this matters depends partly on a judgement of the consequences.
7 Are there not economic benefits?
Yes. Some. But there are also economic costs.
Immigration could be used to meet skill shortages but the work permit system is more effective for this purpose since it is employer driven and matches the job to the migrant. It has been greatly liberalised in recent years. In the year 2001, 104,000 permits and 33,000 extensions were issued, four times as many permits as in the early 90s. Such permits can now be issued within a week. The Government "target" for 2003 is 175,000 permits.
Immigrants can also supply unskilled labour, for example, in restaurants. However, in general, increasing the supply of unskilled labour is contrary to the thrust of Government economic policy which is to increase productivity (currently 40% below that of the US). As long as there is a supply of cheap labour, there will be less incentive to improve productivity. Immigration is no substitute for a properly functioning labour market.
The claim that migrants contribute more to the exchequer than they cost in benefits is misleading. It is based on a definition of migrants so wide that it includes anyone born abroad and their UK born dependant children. They amount to 5 million people and include, for example, American bankers, French entrepreneurs and the children of British expatriates - categories which tend to improve the outcome.
In addition, there are substantial infrastructure costs. A recent report on London, commissioned for the Mayor, predicted an increase in population of 700,000 over the next 15 years to 8.15 million, mainly driven by international immigration. This will require 400,000 new houses and 130 new schools.
It is also suggested that migration will improve the balance between old and young, thus helping to pay pensions. Unfortunately, migrants also get older. To maintain the present proportion of the population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants per year up to 2050. The population would double to 120 million. This is clearly not feasible.
8 What is the impact on our population?
From the mid 1980's the number of immigrants exceeded the number of emigrants. Migration is now adding to our population on a significant scale. The population of the UK, at 59 million, is already the highest it has ever been. The South East of England is one of the most crowded areas of Europe, yet two thirds of migrants now settle there. England, as a whole, is twice as crowded as Germany and four times as crowded as France.
9 What are the other implications?
It has long been regarded as axiomatic that firm and fair immigration control is essential to good community relations. It is surely unlikely that Britain can continue to absorb immigrants at the present rate of at least 2 million per decade without difficulties in this field.
10 What can be done?
The first requirement is to ensure the removal of those who have no right to be in Britain. They amount to at least several hundred thousand and are growing by 50 - 80,000 a year.
The main difficulty is that the legal framework is so complex that it takes many months, sometimes years, for an asylum application finally to be decided. At present asylum applicants are arriving at the rate of about 2,000 a week (including dependants). So it would be physically impossible to confine them. By the time their case is decided they can easily disappear into existing communities in the city centres.
Over the past 10 years, only 10% have been granted asylum, another 17% were granted "exceptional leave to remain". Some 10% have been removed. Most of the remainder have stayed on illegally. At present rates roughly 60,000 should be removed every year but the Home Office is only removing about 10,000, so about 50,000 failed asylum seekers remain in Britain. These are included in the 2 million referred to in para 1. However, those who enter clandestinely or overstay their visas are not included. There is no official estimate of these illegals; our guess (no more than that) is 50,000 a year.
This problem cannot be effectively tackled without a fundamental change in the legal framework to permit final decisions within weeks. Action is urgent. The Home Office has been swamped with appeals, partly stemming from the coming into force of Human Rights Act 1998. In 2001 they received an estimated 82,000 appeals, almost twice the total of the previous year and twelve times the total for 1999. They are now holding a backlog of 50,000 appeals - more than the number determined in the last twelve months. Some of the measures contained in the Asylum Immigration Act 2002 should reduce legal delays but they are very unlikely to be sufficient.
A range of additional measures will be essential to reduce the attractiveness of Britain as a target for asylum seekers and people traffickers. Some might argue that such measures would have a negative effect on community relations. However, we have a serious situation which requires serious measures - taken for the benefit of all sections of the community to ensure its continued harmony. There is clearly a difficult balance to be struck for which a wider understanding of the facts is essential. Indeed, the political will required is unlikely to be generated until the scale and nature of the problem is understood.
Ten questions and answers
1 What is the outlook?
If present trends continue we can expect a net inflow to Britain of at least 2 million people from outside the EU over the next 10 years. This includes those legally accepted for settlement, asylum seekers and others. (EU Citizens are, of course, free to come and go; in any case, the net flows are not significant). It does not include illegal immigrants.
2 Can this really be true? If so, why has it not been raised before?
The government have decided to accept the 2001 census figures as accurate, despite a great deal of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. As a result they have reduced net immigration by 76,000 a year for each of the past ten years. Even so the figure for 2001 was nearly 200,000.
The issues have not been raised in public because:
• migration has been a "taboo" subject for many years;
• Home Office statistics are confusing;
• the situation has become more acute over the past decade as asylum seekers and others have realised how easy it is to avoid immigration controls. Nearly 90% of asylum seekers succeed in staying in this country, legally or otherwise. Hence, for example, the serious difficulties over the Channel Tunnel.
3 How have the numbers grown so large?
In a debate in Parliament in June 1976 the then (Labour) Government left the clear impression that they expected immigration to decline (but not to zero). However, about 55,000 a year continued to be accepted for settlement for the next 20 years. There was no public discussion but there was reasonable racial harmony. Until 1991 official projections showed net inward migration declining to zero after some years - not because the statisticians necessarily believed this to be likely but because it was Government policy that it should. In 1996 the Office for National Statistics adopted a projection of 45,000 per year, no longer declining to zero. This was gradually revised upwards. The most recent projection stands at 135,000 per year but even this projection is still well below the actual figure of 183,000 in 1999.
4 Will the problem go away?
No. Unless there are major policy changes, the flow is more likely to increase.
5 Does it matter?
Yes, considerably. The scale of net migration is now such that it will have a significant impact on both the total size of our population and the nature of our society, especially in our major cities where most immigrants settle. Ethnic minorities now comprise 27% of London's population. In a democracy the public should be aware of the facts. It is for the political system to respond as appropriate.
6 Are we not, in any case, a "nation of immigrants".
This proposition is completely false. Until 1950 there had been no demographically significant migration into Britain for nearly a thousand years. About 100,000 Huguenots arrived from France in the 17th century and a similar number of Jews in the late 19th century, joining a population that had then reached 30 million. In the 1930s about 70,000 refugees from Nazi Germany were admitted to the UK.
The present large-scale immigration began in the 1950's. The ethnic minority population has grown, partly by natural increase, from one million in 1970 to 4 million in the year 2000 (or 7% of the population).
Whether this matters depends partly on a judgement of the consequences.
7 Are there not economic benefits?
Yes. Some. But there are also economic costs.
Immigration could be used to meet skill shortages but the work permit system is more effective for this purpose since it is employer driven and matches the job to the migrant. It has been greatly liberalised in recent years. In the year 2001, 104,000 permits and 33,000 extensions were issued, four times as many permits as in the early 90s. Such permits can now be issued within a week. The Government "target" for 2003 is 175,000 permits.
Immigrants can also supply unskilled labour, for example, in restaurants. However, in general, increasing the supply of unskilled labour is contrary to the thrust of Government economic policy which is to increase productivity (currently 40% below that of the US). As long as there is a supply of cheap labour, there will be less incentive to improve productivity. Immigration is no substitute for a properly functioning labour market.
The claim that migrants contribute more to the exchequer than they cost in benefits is misleading. It is based on a definition of migrants so wide that it includes anyone born abroad and their UK born dependant children. They amount to 5 million people and include, for example, American bankers, French entrepreneurs and the children of British expatriates - categories which tend to improve the outcome.
In addition, there are substantial infrastructure costs. A recent report on London, commissioned for the Mayor, predicted an increase in population of 700,000 over the next 15 years to 8.15 million, mainly driven by international immigration. This will require 400,000 new houses and 130 new schools.
It is also suggested that migration will improve the balance between old and young, thus helping to pay pensions. Unfortunately, migrants also get older. To maintain the present proportion of the population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants per year up to 2050. The population would double to 120 million. This is clearly not feasible.
8 What is the impact on our population?
From the mid 1980's the number of immigrants exceeded the number of emigrants. Migration is now adding to our population on a significant scale. The population of the UK, at 59 million, is already the highest it has ever been. The South East of England is one of the most crowded areas of Europe, yet two thirds of migrants now settle there. England, as a whole, is twice as crowded as Germany and four times as crowded as France.
9 What are the other implications?
It has long been regarded as axiomatic that firm and fair immigration control is essential to good community relations. It is surely unlikely that Britain can continue to absorb immigrants at the present rate of at least 2 million per decade without difficulties in this field.
10 What can be done?
The first requirement is to ensure the removal of those who have no right to be in Britain. They amount to at least several hundred thousand and are growing by 50 - 80,000 a year.
The main difficulty is that the legal framework is so complex that it takes many months, sometimes years, for an asylum application finally to be decided. At present asylum applicants are arriving at the rate of about 2,000 a week (including dependants). So it would be physically impossible to confine them. By the time their case is decided they can easily disappear into existing communities in the city centres.
Over the past 10 years, only 10% have been granted asylum, another 17% were granted "exceptional leave to remain". Some 10% have been removed. Most of the remainder have stayed on illegally. At present rates roughly 60,000 should be removed every year but the Home Office is only removing about 10,000, so about 50,000 failed asylum seekers remain in Britain. These are included in the 2 million referred to in para 1. However, those who enter clandestinely or overstay their visas are not included. There is no official estimate of these illegals; our guess (no more than that) is 50,000 a year.
This problem cannot be effectively tackled without a fundamental change in the legal framework to permit final decisions within weeks. Action is urgent. The Home Office has been swamped with appeals, partly stemming from the coming into force of Human Rights Act 1998. In 2001 they received an estimated 82,000 appeals, almost twice the total of the previous year and twelve times the total for 1999. They are now holding a backlog of 50,000 appeals - more than the number determined in the last twelve months. Some of the measures contained in the Asylum Immigration Act 2002 should reduce legal delays but they are very unlikely to be sufficient.
A range of additional measures will be essential to reduce the attractiveness of Britain as a target for asylum seekers and people traffickers. Some might argue that such measures would have a negative effect on community relations. However, we have a serious situation which requires serious measures - taken for the benefit of all sections of the community to ensure its continued harmony. There is clearly a difficult balance to be struck for which a wider understanding of the facts is essential. Indeed, the political will required is unlikely to be generated until the scale and nature of the problem is understood.
Migrant
