Return to: Home | Blogs | Conference blog

A humane solution to immigration?

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg explains his party's new policy on immigration saying he's not offering a blanket amnesty but an earned route to citizenship

On Tuesday, the Liberal Democrat conference passed a radical new immigration policy which will give us the policy tools to address this increasingly salient political issue.

Our party is refusing to be cowed into silence on immigration – instead we will vocally promote the benefits that immigration can bring, whilst arguing for the need for it to be sensibly managed. This requires a number of changes in the way the government works.

There is a clear need for our borders to be effectively controlled. Gordon Brown belatedly acknowledged the case for a fully integrated border force before the summer break - yet he failed to include police powers in the new force, raising the risk that it will be little more than a 'border force lite'.

A rigorously policed border is surely preferable to the government's strategy of imposing stringent controls on all of us through the intrusive use of ID cards.

The government must also address the administrative incompetence of the existing system which has led to erratic decisions, woeful delays in paperwork and inhumane outcomes as individuals are sent from pillar to post for months and sometimes years on end.

Equally, there is also a clear need to plan for the effects of large-scale immigration. The slow and centralised allocation of money to local authorities, and the inaccuracy of official statistics, have failed to keep up with the demands made on local services by immigration.

We must be more proactive in advocating integration, and ensuring immigrants can speak English is key to this. Government policy is all over the shop. Cutting public funding for English-language classes, when language barriers remain the biggest impediments to integration, is self-defeating. Immigrants that are able to speak English are both better able to stand up for themselves and to contribute more fully to community life.

Significantly, building on the pioneering work of the Stranger into Citizens campaign the Liberal Democrats are also proposing an earned route to citizenship for irregular migrants. We would set stringent criteria - this is not a blanket amnesty - namely that the applicant should have lived in the UK for many years; should have a clean criminal record; and should show a long-term commitment to the UK. The applicant would be subject to a public interest test and an English language and civics test, and would be required to pay a charge.

Deporting 600,000 people – as suggested by both the Tories and Labour - at vast expense is simply not a practical option. Academic studies show the cost of each deportation to average £11,000. Bringing such people in from the twilight world of exploitation and oppression and into our society is both humane and in our national interest.

We live in an age in which 191 million people live outside the country in which they were born. British politics needs a political party to offer serious and realistic proposals to deal with this global world. The Liberal Democrats are that party.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

Bruno Rodrigues
19 September 2007 at 17:05

Being an asylum and immigration solicitor it is refreshing to see a political party talk about the issue in a more reasoned way, avoiding the mechanical demonisation usually seen in the press and political debates.

I support the measure. However for real progress there needs to be institutional change. The Home Office needs to become much more efficient.

More importantly though it needs a culture change. It needs to switch from working on the basis that all immigrants are on a mission to strip the UK of it's resources and identity. To a basis that migration adds so much more than it detracts, and one more rooted in international law.

That however will require a level of politcal will that no party will meet. I applaud this move from the Lib Dems but it does nothing to address the institutional changes that are need for a more just immigration system.

Carl Jones
19 September 2007 at 22:32

Bruno,

I have nothing against immigration. I am 46, since I was a teenager, the UK has been the poor man in the "productivity" stakes. Nothing has changed.

If the UK were as productive at France...now accepted as the most productive developed nation on Earth....if the entire UK were as wealthy as France across its regions...then YOU could make a case for immigration.

The fact is Bruno, in context to developed nations, the UK is a sweat shop of poor jobs, poor conditions and low pay...in relation to the cost of living.

Not only that, we are a small Island. The only reason why we accept so many immigrants, is because while they are young, they are cost effective and supporting the property bubble....Mr Greenspan has just announced the show is going to end early.lol

gnuneo
20 September 2007 at 01:09

sorry for banging this drum again, but the 'problem' of immigration is usually seen in the context where 'workers' are seen to be competing for jobs, allowing 'employers' to drive down wages.

compare to one of the best models for massive integrated immigration in the 20th century, the kibbutz system in new-founded Israel.

every new worker was not a drain upon the economy of the kibbutz, there was not an economic logic that the kibbutz 'employers' could forcibly pay everyone else less because there was more competition for jobs, because all the kibbutz shared in the surplus created by the labour, thus every new worker was actually a benefit - especially as such an arrangement is the best guarantee for high productivity, simple selfishness, the invisible hand of adam smith at work in these capitalist partnerships.

it is exactly the same logic at work in our larger economies, the reason that our economies cannot absorb new workers is simply that workers do not share in the benefits of their labour - they receive their wages, which are by and large set by the 'employer', along with working hours, and conditions.

it is the illogic of the exploitative system that causes 'problems' with immigration (because the exploitation ensures that wages can be lowered, increasing profits for the employers), and can be cured simply by moving to a capitalist partnership economy, like the kibbutzes.

this is yet another benefit of the partnership system, which, like democracy, is far superior to all other forms of structure - except for those who are clinging to their privileged positions over others.

but we finally got rid of the notion that inherited political power was a 'good', and now we need to do it for inherited economic power.

a democratic, capitalist partnership economy awaits us, we only need to have the political will to put it into place, and then we will join the Scandinavians in their lifestyle and liberties.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Blears joins the Tories

01 October 2008 16:51

Sombre Tories

01 October 2008 09:10

Tackling homelessness

29 September 2008 18:34

Yet to seal the deal

27 September 2008 09:27

Brown's comeback

23 September 2008 18:21

The need for 'narrative'

23 September 2008 15:43

Time to rein in the wreckless

22 September 2008 20:04

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker