In the foreign policy debate, what was left unsaid was most important of all

More uses of "freedom" than "liberty", and none at all for "eurozone".

With the third and final presidential debate, what was unsaid is far more revealing than what was said. MSN's Tom Phillips suggests the rather depressing game of going to the transcript of the evening, hitting cmd+F, and typing in various keywords for important foreign policy areas.

It's a rough-and-ready form of statistical analysis, but some of the exclusions are terrifying.

No mention at all of "climate" or "environment" (used in the ecological sense) carries over a trend from the first two debates. Climate change is not something either of these candidates want to talk about: so they don't. That's not to say there aren't differences between them when it comes to policy to tackle the issue, but the one thing they both know is that saying anything concrete on it is likely to be political poison. 

There was also no mention at all of India or Brazil, and South Africa only got one mention when Romney declared that he would treat Ahmadinejad as though he was a member of the apartheid regime. The other two BRICS economies got far more airtime, though, with a "China" count of 32 and a Russia count of 10.

Of the three major macroeconomic crises the world could face in the coming year, just one - the US fiscal cliff - is domestic. The risk of a Chinese "hard landing" (that is, the risk that China's miraculous growth will end with a bang) got no discussion, but at least China itself was covered amply. The third is the Eurozone. Which got no mentions. No mentions either for the euro. And "Europe" was dropped just once, when Obama decided to show off about how much we love him:

Governor Romney, our alliances have never been stronger. In Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat. 

Despite the ongoing embargo, and the strong difference between the two candidate's stance on its continuation, "Cuba" was mentioned just once as the historical location of the missile crisis, while "Guantanamo" - one of Obama's most glaring failed promises - got no mention at all. There are still 167 detainees in the Guanatamo Bay camp.

The most telling distinction of all was that in the Middle East. "Palestine" wasn't said once, while "Palestinians" got its sole use in this passage from Romney:

Is — are Israel and the Palestinians closer to — to reaching a peace agreement? No, they haven’t had talks in two years.

Israel was mentioned a total of 34 times, more than any country other than America itself. (Although "China" and "Chinese" combined got 35 outings.)

One of Obama's strongest hits of the night may have been attacking Romney over the fact that the latter brought his donors with him on his trip to Israel, but it's clear that America's closest ally doesn't run much risk of losing that position any time soon.

The candidates. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Today's immigration figures show why the net migration target should be scrapped

We should measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact.

Today’s net migration figures show, once again, that the government has raised expectations of tackling migration and failed to deliver. This is a recipe for disaster. Today’s numbers run far in excess of 300,000 – three times over what was pledged. These figures don’t yet reflect the fallout from Brexit. But they do show the government needs to change from business as usual.

It has been the current strategy, after all, that led the British public to reject the European Union regardless of the economic risks. And in the process, it is leading the government to do things which err on the side of madness. Like kicking out international students with degrees in IT, engineering or as soon as they finish their degrees. Or doubling the threshold for investor visas, and in the process bringing down the number of people willing to come to Britain to set up business and create jobs by 82 per cent. Moreover, it has hampered the UK’s ability to step up during last year’s refugee crisis - last year Britain received 60 asylum applications per 1,000 people in contrast to Sweden’s 1,667, Germany’s 587 and an EU average of 260.

The EU referendum should mark the end for business as usual. The aim should be to transition to a system whose success is gauged not on the crude basis of whether overall migration comes down, irrespective of the repercussions, but on the basis of whether those who are coming are helping Britain achieve its strategic objectives. So if there is evidence that certain forms of migration are impacting on the wages of the low paid then it is perfectly legitimate for government to put in place controls. Conversely, where flows help build prosperity, then seeing greater numbers should surely be an option.

Approaching immigration policy in this way would go with the grain of public opinion. The evidence clearly tells us that the public holds diverse views on different types of migration. Very few people are concerned about investors coming from abroad to set up companies, create jobs and growth. Few are worried about students paying to study at British universities. On the other hand, low-skilled migration causes concerns of under-cutting among the low paid and pressure on public services in parts of the country that are already struggling.

The first step in a new approach to managing migration has to be to abolish the net migration target. Rather than looking at migration in the aggregate, the aim should be to measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact. In the first instance, this could be as simple as separating low and high skilled migration but in the long term it could involve looking at all different forms of migration. A more ambitious strategy would be to separate the different types of migration - not just those coming to work but also those arriving as refugees, to study or be reunited with their families.

Dividing different flows would not only create space for an immigration policy which was strategic. It would also enable a better national conversation, one which could take full account of the complex trade-offs involved in immigration policy: How do we attract talent to the UK without also letting conditions for British workers suffer? Should the right to a family life override concerns about poor integration? How do we avoiding choking off employers who struggle to recruit nationally? Ultimately, are we prepared to pay those costs?

Immigration is a tough issue for politicians. It involves huge trade-offs. But the net migration target obscures this fact. Separating out different types of immigration allows the government to sell the benefits of welcoming students, the highly skilled and those who wish to invest without having to tell those concerned about low skilled immigration that they are wrong.

Getting rid of the net migration target is politically possible but only if it is done alongside new and better targets for different areas of inward migration – particularly the low-skilled. If it is, then not only does it allow for better targeted policy that will help appease those most vocally against immigration, it also allows for a better national conversation. Now is the time for a new, honest and better approach to how we reduce immigration.

Phoebe Griffith is Associate Director for Migration, Integration and Communities at IPPR