Are immigration controls dysfunctional?
By
Contributing editor
Emily Hohler Nov 16, 2011
Print this article
A gap has opened between the government’s declared policy on immigration and what actually happens on our borders, says The Sunday Telegraph. The Tories promised to cut immigrant numbers from around 250,000 a year to less than 100,000. The coalition agreed that a migration cap would be put in place and the number of non-EU migrants reduced. “So far, immigration has remained at roughly the same level.”
It now appears civil servants have been “quietly sabotaging the government’s plans”. Brodie Clark, one of the most senior officials at the UK Border Agency (UKBA), has been suspended, along with two other managers, pending an investigation that an authorisation from the home secretary, Theresa May, to waive some of the more stringent border checks had been taken beyond what was intended. May insists it is not her fault, says The Daily Telegraph, but it remains to be seen whether the investigation will exonerate her.
Whatever the outcome, the problem of numbers remains. The latest projections from the Office for National Statistics (which have been accurate to within 2.5% over the past 50 years) show that our population will reach 70 million by 2027. Two-thirds of that increase will come from future immigrants and their children. So either we reduce immigration, or accept that our population will increase rapidly “in the teeth of strong and growing public opposition”. A recent YouGov poll found that 80% of people in England think this country is crowded. Migration Watch’s new e-petition ‘No to 70 million’ garnered 100,000 signatures within a week.
One of the major obstacles to action is the inefficiency and bureauracy of the UKBA, says former immigration officer Steve Moxon in the Daily Mail, whose whistleblowing over lax border controls in 2004 led to the resignation of the immigration officer, Beverley Hughes. Seven years on the service remains “dysfunctional”. “Perhaps the greatest problem is the mindset at the top of the agency, which holds that immigration is an insoluble problem. This has meant there is no faith in proper administration, no desire to embrace real reform.” Little wonder an “incredible” 586,000 immigrants were let into Britain last year. It is the politicians who are to blame. If only the will was there, “we could have an immigration system that was tough but fair”.
Lead indicators for Britain's economy
We shouldn’t ignore the reasons for high net immigration, says Danny Dorling in The Guardian. “It is demand for cheap labour in countries with wide income inequalities that pulls in migrants.” We need them because “for many of the natives the byzantine workings of the welfare system make idleness more attractive than the available work”, says Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times. We’re better off with Polish plumbers and Filipino nurses and, contrary to Migration Watch’s claims, they’re not about to make us “go pop”.
The latest UN figures show that we are the 39th most-populated country out of 196. To put this in perspective, if the population density of Jersey were applied to Britain, our population would be 180 million. Does Jersey strike you as a “society on the verge of starvation”?
Published in
UK economy
| More
articles
by
Emily Hohler
Related articles
-
By Matthew Partridge, May 24, 2012
-
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 22, 2012
-
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 21, 2012
-
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 21, 2012
FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment email
Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.