A poll for Migration Watch shows public support for a cap on net immigration. But a cap wouldn't work and deeper analysis shows the public want control not a cap.
An opinion poll conducted for Migration Watch in marginal seats has, according to the Times, shown that “David Cameron could clinch a general election victory by placing a cap of 50,000 on net immigration.”
Migration Watch must be delighted with the uncritical coverage of their poll, which is part of their campaign to convince the parties to include a pledge to cap immigration in their manifestos.
Politicians from all parties may find a cap on net immigration a tempting suggestion – a quick way to demonstrate that they are responding to public concerns. The public concerns are real enough – polling consistently shows that people in the UK are worried about immigration. In response, it’s tempting for politicians to talk tough and announce yet another tightening of the immigration system. But a promise to cap immigration won’t help, for at least two reasons.
First, a cap on net immigration of 50,000 (or zero, which is what the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, who were making the headlines last week, would prefer) would be next to impossible to deliver. Short of withdrawing from the EU, migration within the EU is outside government control, and the UK also has obligations to meet with respect to refugees and human rights that aren’t easily susceptible to numerical caps. Even in categories that can be limited, it’s hard to imagine the government telling Arsenal that they can’t sign another promising young player from outside the UK because this year’s immigration cap has been reached, or allowing vacancy rates in hospitals and care homes to rise further because the flows of foreign nurses have been stopped.
Secondly, and perhaps less intuitively, promising to cap immigration at a much lower level would be a political own goal, for any party. It would be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the public wants. New research from ippr has looked in detail at the views of those who are worried about migration. This research found that, when they are given the space to discuss the issues in detail, self-declared migration sceptics often have nuanced and moderate views on the issue. They are concerned about the scale of recent immigration, but they can also see the benefits of migration for the UK – they respect the hard work of migrants, and the contribution they make (for example to the NHS).
Crucially, people want the government to be in control of migration. But control does not mean a drastic limit on net migration – it’s perfectly possible for the government to be in control of a migration system that is flexible and responsive to the needs of the economy. In fact, what often gives the public the impression that migration is out of control is politicians making promises to ‘clamp down’ on immigration that they then cannot deliver. It might be tempting to promise a cap on immigration, but it isn’t necessarily what the public wants, and risks becoming a hostage to fortune.
The Government need to resist pressure from Migration Watch and others, and stand up for the systems that they have put in place; demonstrating that they are in control by being confident about their policies, not by constantly changing them in response to the vocal migration lobby groups.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “Public want immigration control, not a cap”
sevillista
(cont)
So what could a Government do to control immigration?
Controlling short-term flows of students seems dumb – they are clearly beneficial to our economy, both supporting jobs in the HE industry (HE is a very important export industry) and subsidising UK students. More care should perhaps be taken in preventing short-term students remaining here over the long-term, but doing so is tricky (
sevillista
Controlling work permits even further seems counter-productive – this is only high-skill immigration in areas where we have a shortage.
Family formation looks a red herring – would a Government that claims to be liberal (and a prospective Government that believes marriage as a crucial part of life) really force people onto a marriage waiting list? Or tell people they can’t get married? I can’t see the small gains as worth the hassle.
And asylum seekers make a small contribution to the total – maybe more bureaucracy around preventing visas from nationals of countries we think would claim asylum, but at 4% of total immigration would it really be worth the cost?
I think the answer for those who would restrict immigration must lie in looking at the mechanism by which long-term settlement visas are granted, to restrict the conversion rate of short-term immigration (which is always good) into long-term immigration (which may be too high) through residency requirements being met for ‘leave to remain’. But even then there is the problem that people partner up when they have been here a while…
Linky Love: 20th January 2010 « Left Outside
[…] Left Foot Forward – Do the public want a cap on migration: Crucially, people want the government to be in control of migration. But control does not mean a drastic limit on net migration – it’s perfectly possible for the government to be in control of a migration system that is flexible and responsive to the needs of the economy. In fact, what often gives the public the impression that migration is out of control is politicians making promises to ‘clamp down’ on immigration that they then cannot deliver. It might be tempting to promise a cap on immigration, but it isn’t necessarily what the public wants, and risks becoming a hostage to fortune. The Government need to resist pressure from Migration Watch and others, and stand up for the systems that they have put in place; demonstrating that they are in control by being confident about their policies, not by constantly changing them in response to the vocal migration lobby groups. […]
Anon E Mouse
Joe – So you’re not concerned about immigration then? Since we know:
“The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.”
Are you therefore claiming that Neather is wrong? No one else is. What do you know Joe that the rest of us don’t or are you simply making things up?
Do you really think that the election of two BNP MEP’s is not serious? Are you serious asking that or just joshing for fun?
Harriet Harman (can’t stand the dreadful woman – she’s a useless toff – can you imagine a countesses niece in the Labour Party…) disagrees with you as do most other MP’s from all parties unless of course you know something (again) we don’t Joe…
In fact are you “Joe” from here: https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/01/dave-from-the-block/#comments
Just wondered because that “Joe” seemed only able to attack peoples character and not the points they make in the usual tedious left wing manner of smearing and not debating.
And I happen to be from Manchester myself so I kind of do know about support for Labour in the North West…
Tony Stone
To say that “…and the UK also has obligations to meet with respect to refugees and human rights that aren’t easily susceptible to numerical caps” is rubbish
Genuine refugees submit claims in the first safe country they arrive in, so all those coming here from other EU countries are not genuine and should be refused entry