Dismantling Fortress Britain

 By etgeek

The UK Government’s recent decision to cap both the number of non-EEA Tier 1 and 2 immigrants, and to limit student entry, has attracted a great deal of adverse comment. Such critiques have rightly pointed out that the Home Office claim that these policies will reduce net immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ is intrinsically incoherent. EU citizens have a right to move freely within the region, and the level of net migration is essentially dependent upon these flows, and also upon the number of emigrants from the UK, which is currently falling.

In any case, it is clear that measures aimed to reduce immigrant numbers are economically inefficient. All available figures indicate that migrants bring a net positive economic gain to Britain, and that local and sectional problems could be dealt with by redistribution of these additional resources to areas where specific funding is needed. Moreover, many sections of the economy have serious skills shortages, and are critically dependent on migrant labour. Such considerations are vital to the economic and social welfare of the country, and underline the fact that UK Government policy is based on little more than the perceived political advantage of bowing to a populist anti-immigrant sentiment among the electorate.

The decision to sacrifice the short-term interests of the country in the pursuit of political gain is bad enough, but in fact there are several much broader long-term factors in the equation that make such policies even more regrettable. In the first place, immigration is by its very nature an international issue. Global inequality is one of its main drivers, and poverty and lack of opportunity are among the main push factors that threaten to make future migratory flows a ‘problem’ for the rich countries of the world.  Three decades of coercive Northern-led policies have seen the liberalisation of movements of capital and goods and services, but there has been no parallel liberalisation of labour markets. This asymmetry has skewed global wealth distribution in favour of the industrialised countries, and together with other exploitative policies (including inappropriate pressure to increase commodity exports, aggressive lending creating debt dependency, and unfair trade rules) has vastly increased inequality between the developed and the developing world. Rich country incomes have soared (the per capita income in the UK is now £28,000) while over half the world’s population live on under $3 a day – the level below which life expectancy abruptly plummets.

In addition, climate change, driven by the environmental impact of our productive and consumptive system, is taking an appalling toll on poor countries, with drought, flood, hurricanes and increased salination damage from rising sea levels, causing acute and often intolerable resource stress.  Until global economic policies are focused on achieving environmental and social objectives for all, the pressure to migrate from the poorer developing countries will not be alleviated – and a rhetoric that shirks our responsibility for this situation is profoundly distasteful.

From a purely self-interested perspective it is also extremely unwise.  The global balance of economic power and demographics is altering remarkably fast, and with it the needs and patterns of behaviour within both industrialised and developing countries. As detailed in a recent nef report, research has consistently found an inverted u-shaped relationship between country development stage and emigration levels – that is, as a country develops, emigration initially takes off until the difference in wages and living standards between home and source countries significantly shrinks.  Although this may lead to increased immigration to the UK in the very short-term, expected international development transitions will in all likelihood cause a decline in the emigrant stock from its current source countries after 2030, and these changes will have many repercussions. Among them, since the peak coincides with a projected peak in the UK dependency ratio (the ratio of children and those of state pension age to those of working age),  it may become very difficult to care for an aging population by 2040. In short, a restrictive migration regime that discourages migrants in the short term, may compromise the UK’s ability to attract them at a time when it is going to need them most.

Above all, the world of the 21^st century is a world of interdependence, in which the idea of ‘fortress Britain’ is long past its sell-by date.  Not only is the UK reliant on other countries for food, oil, raw materials and manufactures, we cannot possibly tackle the big problems that beset us –  climate change, environmental degradation, global poverty, international crime, security issues, energy provision, or the spread of disease, for instance – without co-operation on a global scale.  And such co-operation is not made easier by nationalistic mentalities, draconian border controls, or xenophobia. Rather, we need to build and retain good relations with other nations, their governments and their populations, and a rich global interchange of people is an absolutely critical building block in such a process.  The international student body, for example, does not simply finance 13% of our universities’ income, vital though that contribution may be. It also plays a uniquely important role in forging long-term bonds of friendship and understanding between the various nations and cultures that make up our very troubled world.

 If we wish to move forward as 21^st century citizens, and provide a future for our children that is marked by good global relations rather than bad, we must view immigration as a long-term international issue of extreme importance, rather than using it as a tool to further short-term party political advantage at the polls.