There is one implication of today’s immigration statistics that might see the TUC and the Government in agreement. The number of asylum applications in the second quarter of 2010 was down by nearly a third, from 6,110 in the same quarter of 2009 to 4,365. And the main reason was that the number of people from Zimbabwe applying for asylum fell from 1,560 between April and June 2009, to 405 in the second quarter of 2010.

Robert Mugabe’s ZANU regime was driving one person an hour to seek asylum in the UK – now it’s down to four or five people a day. The lesson which I suspect both the Government and the TUC would draw from this is that we need an active foreign and development policy that improves economic and political conditions in developing countries. A better Zimbabwe means fewer asylum seekers.

   Filed under: Human rights, Migration | No Comments »

The Government’s announcement today that they are “capping” migration from outside the EU at 24,000 before next April looks like being tough on immigration. But it’s probably truer to say that they’re simply giving an estimate of what migration would be likely to be anyway. At least that suggests they have decided to adopt the “do no harm” philosophy of Google, rather than anything worse! However, there could still be problems ahead. Read more »

   Filed under: Migration | Comments Off

Ed Balls is absolutely right when he lambasts Governments in other parts of Europe for cutting public spending, and it is a pity that that part of his article has been swept aside in the coverage by the other element of his argument, that too many workers from Eastern Europe were allowed to work in Britain, where he is wrong. Read more »

   Filed under: Europe, Migration, Vulnerable workers | 10 Comments »

Immigration has been addressed rather worryingly in the early stages of Labour’s leadership debate. It seems that the contestants are in danger of repeating or worse exaggerating the errors of New Labour’s capitulation to right-wing ideas on migration - being tough on migration rather than tough on the reasons that migration causes problems, like workplace exploitation and the scarcity of decent, cheap housing.

So it’s not surprising that the liberally-minded should claim that IPPR’s new research on global migration – Development on the Move – proves that tougher immigration controls won’t be effective in reducing migration (a claim which is only a minor point in IPPR’s own press release, but which has been the main finding to be promoted). I have only been able to access the summary so far, but it seems to me that, while it proves how useful migration is for migrants’ living standards (wealth, health and education – all good things in themselves), it doesn’t prove that tougher immigration controls will fail to control the scale of migration because it doesn’t distinguish between what is generally referred to as legal and illegal migration (albeit this is a rather crude distinction). Read more »

   Filed under: International development, Migration | 2 Comments »

There is a great deal on Europe in the agreement reached by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, suggesting that Europe still has the power to work a toxic effect on the Tories. And what the coalition agreement says is pretty much a Conservative walkover. Joining the Euro in this Parliament is ruled out in the document not once, but twice. And most of the rest is about refusing to let more powers be transferred to Europe, although there is no reference to repatriation of powers, which may be the one bit of ‘old liberalism’ in the Europe section.

But there is a bizarre commitment to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the UK, which is presumably mere window dressing – any reduction in what we have now (which is no more than the Directive demands) would almost certainly leave the Government open to infraction proceedings for failing to implement the Directive sufficiently. The only provision that exceeds the irreducible legal minimum is Labour’s extension of annual leave from the 4 weeks in the Directive to 5.6 weeks so that anyone who has to work bank holidays can take other days off in lieu. It would be illiberal in the extreme (and very unpopular with ordinary people) to take that extra annual leave away – so is that really what they mean? Read more »

   Filed under: Election, Europe, International development, Migration, Politics, Transactions tax, Working time | 1 Comment »

One of the quiet success stories of this election has been the way some academics have contributed their expertise to the debates. My favourite has been the series of analyses of key policy battlegrounds published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. CEP has now published the full set and if the subjects where I know something are anything to go by, they are fair, authoritative and expert. Read more »

   Filed under: Economics, Election, Equality, Labour market, Migration, Public spending, Recession, Unemployment | 1 Comment »

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has issued a report today (Monday) which shows that experience of immigrants does not cause an increase in support for the British National Party (BNP). BNP support is more closely correlated with alienation (lower turnouts at elections), low skills and low social cohesion. Read more »

   Filed under: Migration, Politics | 1 Comment »

Posting on Left Foot Forward, Richard and Nicola have undertaken an analysis of ONS statistics, refuting the Daily Express’ claim today that 98% of new jobs in the UK have been taken by migrant workers.

They show that when all jobs in the UK are considered, broken down by nationality not by country of birth, 50.3% of the jobs created since 1997 have been taken by UK nationals (around 1,375,000 positions) and that employment rates for UK nationals remain at the same level they were in 1997 – despite the sharpest global downturn since the 1920s.

You can read the full post on Left Foot Forward.

   Filed under: Labour market, Migration | 1 Comment »

There are many causes behind migration. One of the commonest cited is skill shortages. But as liberal economists argue, that’s often a misnomer. All that is in fact happening is a wage shortage: raise the wages and sufficient skilled workers will appear. Today, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and KPMG have issued a report today which suggests the liberal economists are right. They say that employers facing skill shortages would employ more British workers if they could pay them less (rather suggesting the skills are available, but at a price employers don’t want to pay).

Exploiting migrant workers to undercut the existing workforce simply sets worker against worker. And whilst employers may benefit in the short run from lower wage costs, the BNP are more likely to be the long term beneficiaries.

Instead, unions have been arguing that paying migrants the same as the existing workforce (and giving them all the other rights we have won over the years) is the best way to combat exploitation, undercutting and racial strife. The national minimum wage has had some effect in making undercutting less possible, but the CIPD take potshots at that, too. Read more »

   Filed under: Earnings, Migration, Minimum wage | 1 Comment »

The American TUC, the AFL-CIO, reports that progressive think tanks have produced a report which sets out how immigration can work for both the economy as a whole, existing workforces and the migrants themselves. In Raising the Floor for American Workers, the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center indicate that the current US system is unsustainable.

Attempts to close the border and crack down on illegal immigrants don’t work. What is needed, instead, is to ensure that everyone working in the US is treated fairly, and migrants should be offered a path to citizenship so that they don’t disappear into the informal economy. This is pretty much the same prescription as the TUC and others have advocated for the UK.

   Filed under: Migration | Comments Off

Last week, the Prime Minister, and before him, the Home Secretary, made major speeches on immigration. They both claimed to understand ‘the problem’ and be ready to address it. They gave the impression that this is a really new debate, and that they were ready, at last, to take action. Today the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) hit back in the Financial Times (on a page you have to pay to view, ironically enough) so I thought a TUC comment might provide some balance. However, mostly, we agree with the ASI: immigration policy is too tough already and is set to get worse, whichever party policy you read. Read more »

   Filed under: Migration, Vulnerable workers | 1 Comment »

The Migration Advisory Committee has published another report on reforms to the Points-Based System of migration, and the TUC’s response welcomes some of the steps proposed (we’ll issue a more detailed, considered response in due course) which could tighten up the protections against abuses of the migration system. As always, our concern is to prevent exploitation and undercutting, protecting both migrant and the existing workforce. But one thought nags at me. Throughout the MAC press release, there are references to measures which will protect jobs for “British” workers. That makes me nervous. I think it’s dangerous, inappropriate and misguided. Read more »

   Filed under: Migration | 1 Comment »