The government’s decision to impose an income requirement suggests that the true motivation is simply to reduce numbers, as every British family 'stuck' abroad, or separated, helps to reduce net migration.
Jenny Pennington is a Researcher at IPPR
New research published today lays bare the negative impact of the UK’s management of immigration on British people. The report, from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, shows that the government’s efforts to bear down on immigration numbers through tightening rules on family migration has led to hardship for many.
Examples include British families ‘stuck’ abroad, young British children growing up without a parent and in one case a breast-feeding mother separated from her British baby. According to calculations in the report, as many as 47 per cent of people in employment in the UK would fail to meet the income level needed (£18,600 p/a) to sponsor a non-EEA partner to come to the UK.
The report shows how the government’s target to reduce net migration is dominating policy making in this area. The stated aim of the rules is to ensure that migrants coming through the family route are not a ‘burden’ on the state.
However there are much more direct ways of doing this, for example restricting access to benefits or applying higher visa fees. The government’s decision to impose an income requirement (with entirely predictable consequences) instead suggests that the true motivation is simply to reduce numbers – every British family ‘stuck’ abroad, or separated, helps to reduce net migration.
In response to the research, Mark Reckless, a representative of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was keen to speak to the latter point. Speaking on the Today programme he argued that the limits on family migration are vindicated by their contribution to reducing overall ‘net migration’.
However falling migration doesn’t necessarily reduce public concerns. Polling figures released last week show that even though net migration has fallen by almost 40 per cent across the last year, almost two thirds of the population continue to believe that immigration is still rising
Instead of its single-minded focus on net migration, the government needs to confront the difficult trade-offs that migration policy raises, some of which have been clearly illustrated by today’s report. The government should take action to ensure that family migration contributes to life in the UK.
Rather than an arbitrary income test, the government should focus on ensuring that all family migrants come with a satisfactory level of English to be able to participate in and contribute to society, on making sure that the UK welfare system and labour market are fair for everyone, and on supporting integration in local communities.
The APPG report shows how we all lose when migration policy is led by blunt targets about migration numbers. The consequences of the government’s family migration policy may have been unintended, but they were predictable.
37 Responses to “Family Migration: Brits lose out when policy is led by blunt targets”
LB
Supply and demand.
If you increase supply, but keep demand constant, prices go down. Hence stagnation in wages.
The supply by pullling in loads of low skilled migrants, via Gang masters, or via Starbucks, or traffic wardens, you can take your pick there are millions has shafted the poor.
Likewise we have tax.
Income tax.
National insurance
Employer’s NI – tax on jobs – tax on fags – same effect less jobs.
Council tax
VAT
Road tax
Petrol tax
repeat there are lots more
All take money from the poor and make them poorer and makes it more difficult for them to find work.
Living wage? How about not taxing those in poverty?
The point remains. Why pull in more people who are poor, when as you correctly point out this
====
I have struggled on a low income and many in my family are low-skilled, low-paid workers.
====
So why have more people like this in the UK?
Why not curtail migration to just those who pay lots of tax?
roggy1
Perhaps not yet, but give them a chance and the the vast majority will. They just want to start to live here with a loving spouse.
If your concern is sham marriages, which your reply to Steven above suggests it is, then tackle that with directed legislation. Does this not seem to you to be the sledgehammer to break the nut?
Steven also raised the very valid point that you decided to sidestep completely: if your concern is recourse to public funds then why not take account of the full picture rather than just one member of the couple’s income?
steven
You are focussing your anger in the wrong places. Gangmasters often employ people who are illegal immigrants at illegal wage rates – crack down on that, not the relatively small amounts of people who have spouse visas. I fail to see how allowing in wealthy individuals whose wealth will likely be in tax havens advantages low earners. The wealthy people exempted from these rules will probably pay less tax than ordinary people who work.
The problem is the lack of enforcement of the minimum wage and the lack of adequate bargaining power for working people, that is a far more serious problem than a few more spouses adding to the labour supply. Income tax road tax etc. pay for infrastructure. Have you been to a GP? Do you use roads and public transport? That is why we have them. The real wages of working Britons will not increase by lowering taxes (which always advantages the wealthy) and curbing a few spouse visas and foreign students (who are net contributors to the UK through tuition fees etc. and are now going to the USA and Australia etc. instead due to these rules).
LB
No I’m not focussing on the wrong problem.
It’s very simple. No migrants unless you pay more tax than the government spends on you directly or indiectly. That way you are not being subsidised by others.
This deals with lots of problems.
1. Low wages. Wages are driven down by two mechanisms. The first is tax, the second is having to compete against migrants (including those employed by scum like gang masters).
2. The BNP. Most of the support comes from people seeing migrants taking resources. For example, jobs and council houses. At the low wage end, they are quite right. At the high wage end, it is different. Those jobs bring in work, rather than divide it up amongst more people. It’s a win at the top end.
=======
I fail to see how allowing in wealthy individuals whose wealth will likely be in tax havens advantages low earners.
=======
Because if you come in, you have to pay more tax than you consume. The difference benefits the poor. If you hide all your income in a tax haven and don’t pay tax, then you can’t come. See the tax test. Simples.
=======
The problem is the lack of enforcement of the minimum wage and the lack of adequate bargaining power for working people
=======
Why not start with
1. Income tax for those on low pay – get rid of it.
2. National insurance for those on low pay – get rid of it.
3. Council tax – yet another tax for the poor to pay
4. VAT – hits all including the poor.
5. Fuel duty – running a car to get to work because you live in they countryside – you are hit.
6. IPT – see the car again
7. VED – see the car again
8. Employer’s NI -a tax on jobs – like taxes on fags.
….
The real wages of the poor will increase if the government stops taxing them. You can’t claim otherwise. If you want to make sure the rich don’t benefit, say from an increase in the tax theshold, you have to change the rate of tax at the same time.
Students – no problem. Come and study. Make sure you aren’t working, have paid for health insurance and fees. Not one problem with that set up. [What has happened is they have made it difficult because of the past abuses – get student visa – come and work]
And, if you control low skilled low wage migration, you get a big bang for your buck for the poor.
Control of migration – down to the state
Taxation of the poor – down to the state.
The state can change it all, if it had the will.
it doesn’t, because its desperate for cash. The real problem.
steven
“Wages are driven down by two mechanisms. The first is tax.” That is complete BS. Tax is taken out of wage packets but it doesn’t drive down the prevailing wage rates in the labour market. Wages are driven down by a lack of bargaining power by forcing people to bargain individually against employers.
“5. Fuel duty – running a car to get to work because you live in they countryside – you are hit” Instead of starting with this, why not start with reversing the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which is going to cause more rural poverty than any fuel duty cut can alleviate?
Governments can address wage problems by either legislating for higher wages or empowering unions to organise & collectively bargain. Either of these would do far more for low pay than any of your suggestions. Taxes on cars can be looked at, sure, but they are tinkering around the edges of a huge structural problem, as are the spouse visa regulations.