FT: It's time to be honest about the challenge of immigration

[UndercoverElephant]

https://archive.is/JKOsW

I wish there was a word in the English language for the queasy feeling I get when an issue that matters is co-opted by people I can’t stand. I feel it every time I see the former home secretary Suella Braverman, whose parents came to Britain from Mauritius and Kenya, spouting bile about immigrants. I resent her ugly language, but also the fact that the right wing of the Conservative party, in its sound and fury over immigration, is letting establishment liberals off the hook.

We can all scoff at the Rwanda plan, which Rishi Sunak has bizarrely, and unwisely, made a test of his premiership. This cynical stunt by Boris Johnson would never take more than a few hundred failed asylum seekers, even if it were workable. We can all tut sombrely at the damage that would be done to our country’s reputation if we left the European Convention on Human Rights, which some Conservatives are arguing for. We can attack homeowners in the English countryside as “Nimbys” for worrying about the scale of housing needed to accommodate Britain’s burgeoning population. I have done all of these things, but I also know this is a cop out. Believing in democracy means acknowledging that Britain and Europe face a mismatch between the growing numbers of people seeking a home on our shores, and the scale of arrivals that voters will accept.

Across the Channel, the issue is tearing Europe apart. Centrist, moderate Sweden has been plagued with gang violence and the emergence of “no-go” areas, with its prime minister lamenting that integration has failed. The French government is split over an immigration bill that has already cost one ministerial resignation. The German chancellor is being urged to process asylum seekers offshore and to recognise more third countries as “safe” places to which irregular migrants can be returned.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because there aren’t many policy options available. In 2004, Tony Blair’s government tried to persuade Tanzania to let UK officials process asylum claims there, especially those claiming to be Somali refugees. (The Tanzanian government refused.) Blair also, according to newly released documents, considered creating “safe havens” for rejected migrants in Turkey and Kenya. These never came to pass — but his frustration at the hurdles in removing failed asylum seekers has been shared by politicians across parties for two decades.
Immigration is not a fringe matter. When asked to name the single most important issue facing the country, 30 per cent of UK voters last month said the economy and 20 per cent said immigration, with health and the environment trailing behind. The public don’t lack compassion for people in desperate plight: More In Common has found considerable sympathy for victims of modern slavery and for Afghans fleeing the Taliban, and a dislike of hardline ideas like stopping all refuges entering illegally.

Economically, the calculation is simple: falling birth rates and early retirements leave little option but to welcome more working-age migrants. The Poles who came to Britain after 2004 were some of the most talented and hard-working of their generation, and their retreat since Brexit is a huge loss. But a rapid influx of young men can create real tensions. In September, 200 people were arrested at a festival in Stuttgart after a fight broke out between Eritrean exiles. A moderate German friend who lives there told me that while he admired Angela Merkel’s sentiment, “Wir schaffen das” (we’ll cope), during the height of the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, he now feels she was naive. To portray such concerns as “far right” is to make the same mistake of patronising voters that the globalisers did before Brexit. The rise of Geert Wilders in Holland, the AfD in Germany and Marine Le Pen in France are rooted in the failure of democratic governments to reassure their citizens that they are in control of immigration.

The looming question is how western democracies can balance legal obligations with political imperatives. The desire to “offshore” migrants in third countries arises from the fact that signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol have a legal duty to hear asylum claims from anyone who enters their territory. But removing failed asylum seekers is hard, not least because many claim this would breach their human rights. The current inquest into the murder of three people in Reading by a Libyan jihadi who claimed asylum in 2012 and was never returned to Libya lest he came to harm is the kind of case that makes ministers tear their hair out.

Eventually, Europe may have to reconsider how its courts balance the rights of refugees versus citizens. The meeting last year between Giorgia Meloni of Italy and the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen in Lampedusa, where migrants outnumber residents, recognised the failure of the Brussels’s Dublin Regulation, which makes the country of first arrival responsible for feeding and housing migrants while their asylum application is being processed. But the EU is limited in what it can do. Its new “migration pact”, which aims to share new arrivals fairly between member states, has already been
undermined by some countries refusing to take any at all. Tory headbangers who trample on these sensitive and complex issues are not convincing the public or reassuring our international allies. But the issues they raise are ones that deserve the attention of everyone who would rather we did not sleepwalk into populism.

[northernmonkey]

The Overton window is shifting, as pathetically hand wringingly liberal as this article may be in its moral contortions, it is merely the forerunner of the political changes to come.

Changes that must all play out. And they will.

[Forever_Winter]

The main parties want unlimited immigration. End of. They are trying to rein in rampant inflation, which is happening anyway. Just look at China.... about to go down the toilet .

[BritDownUnder]

It's probably time for the UK to withdraw from the Refugee Convention citing national carry capacity being exceeded. Strictly on ecological grounds you understand - we would love to take more, even terrorists but we just can't feed and house them.

Deporting people in large numbers will be a hell of a job. I suspect most will probably want to die rather than go back to the hell holes they came from.

[UndercoverElephant]

The Overton window is shifting

Seems so. In response to this article, my reddit post below currently has 53 upvotes on r/ukpolitics. That is a left-leaning sub, but reasonable representative of mainstream UK politics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/com ... ?context=3

The truth is that the existing international treaties regarding asylum seekers are thoroughly out of date and unfit for purpose. The world has changed fundamentally since they were agreed. The sooner countries begin to withdraw from them, the better.

The bottom line is that the world is already massively overpopulated, climate change is basically unstoppable, the post-WW2 world order is breaking down and all of that means the migration crisis, globally, is only going to get worse. Much worse. There is going to be no justification in distinguishing between "economic migrants" and "genuine asylum seekers". The only question we need to ask is whether it is in the interest of the UK to let people in. And "generating economic growth" is no justification, because growth has to end.

I am saying our definition and understanding of "human rights" is going to have to change, and not just in this way. Should humans have the right to behave in an unsustainable manner, for example? I don't think so.

[clv101]

And "generating economic growth" is no justification, because growth has to end.

This is a 'collapse now and avoid the rush' argument on a national scale. Yes, indeed growth must end, globally, but as growth *ends* it becomes zero sum, with countries that give up on the international competition early experiencing far faster decline as their relative competitiveness collapses. Yes, the collapse is inevitable, but it would be a brave politician that opted for 'collapse now'. More likely, all nations will fight all the way down - and that needs a workforce, hence the Tories are welcoming record numbers.

[UndercoverElephant]

And "generating economic growth" is no justification, because growth has to end.

This is a 'collapse now and avoid the rush' argument on a national scale. Yes, indeed growth must end, globally, but as growth *ends* it becomes zero sum, with countries that give up on the international competition early experiencing far faster decline as their relative competitiveness collapses. Yes, the collapse is inevitable, but it would be a brave politician that opted for 'collapse now'. More likely, all nations will fight all the way down - and that needs a workforce, hence the Tories are welcoming record numbers.

I simply don't believe that the current growth-based argument -- that immigration is good for us because of a lack of workers and need for economic growth -- is going to wash with the electorate for very much longer. Throughout the entire western world the people who have defended that argument are losing it. And by that I mean they are losing it at elections and in the case of the UK at a referendum. If mainstream politicians fail to acknowledge this, then "right wing populists" will end up in power. That is pretty much what the article is saying, and I basically agree with it.

Maintaining high levels of immigration may stave off economic disaster for a while, but that will come at the price of increased political instability and a general shift rightwards, at least with respect to this issue.

[UndercoverElephant]

And "generating economic growth" is no justification, because growth has to end.

This is a 'collapse now and avoid the rush' argument on a national scale. Yes, indeed growth must end, globally, but as growth *ends* it becomes zero sum, with countries that give up on the international competition early experiencing far faster decline as their relative competitiveness collapses. Yes, the collapse is inevitable, but it would be a brave politician that opted for 'collapse now'. More likely, all nations will fight all the way down - and that needs a workforce, hence the Tories are welcoming record numbers.

The Torygraph replies....

https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fww ... britain%2F

Mass migration has been a disaster for Britain. It’s time to cut the numbers

Those who say the UK cannot function without mass immigration are simply scare-mongering.

Whenever it’s suggested that Britain could manage without importing 1.2 million people every year, out come the usual voices with the usual lines. The NHS would collapse overnight, care homes would go unstaffed, our best universities would implode into a financial black hole, the ravens would leave the Tower of London and the last trumpet would sound as Britain sank slowly, gracelessly into the frigid waters of the North Sea.

This is scaremongering. Britain would be fine with massively reduced immigration; the only thing standing in the way is the Government.

It really does look to me like the Overton Window is shifting.

And:

The social care sector, too, could probably function without massive immigration. It’s true that large numbers are recruited from overseas - 101,000 last year. But this isn’t because British workers aren’t capable of doing the job. It’s because it doesn’t pay enough.The median care home worker earned just £10.11 an hour in March. Aldi and Lidl pay £11.40, and DODGY TAX AVOIDERS warehouses around £13. It’s no wonder people are leaving.

The primary issue, again, is the government. Local authorities are responsible for publicly funded care; their real terms budgets have fallen 29 per cent between 2010 and 2022. The Treasury could dig into its pockets, and let wages rise. It wouldn’t cost that much; the full time equivalent social care workforce is about 1.2 million people, so giving every single worker a £2/hour pay rise would cost about £5 billion.

The Telegraph arguing that £5bn should be spent on raising pay for care workers? Something is shifting.

[clv101]

And "generating economic growth" is no justification, because growth has to end.

This is a 'collapse now and avoid the rush' argument on a national scale. Yes, indeed growth must end, globally, but as growth *ends* it becomes zero sum, with countries that give up on the international competition early experiencing far faster decline as their relative competitiveness collapses. Yes, the collapse is inevitable, but it would be a brave politician that opted for 'collapse now'. More likely, all nations will fight all the way down - and that needs a workforce, hence the Tories are welcoming record numbers.

I simply don't believe that the current growth-based argument -- that immigration is good for us because of a lack of workers and need for economic growth -- is going to wash with the electorate for very much longer. Throughout the entire western world the people who have defended that argument are losing it. And by that I mean they are losing it at elections and in the case of the UK at a referendum. If mainstream politicians fail to acknowledge this, then "right wing populists" will end up in power. That is pretty much what the article is saying, and I basically agree with it.

Maintaining high levels of immigration may stave off economic disaster for a while, but that will come at the price of increased political instability and a general shift rightwards, at least with respect to this issue.

Yep, I agree with most of that. Especially "Maintaining high levels of immigration may stave off economic disaster for a while", for the politically classes that's basically the beginning and the end of the debate as once 'economic disaster' occurs all bets are off, especially their careers. Importing cheap labour is simply an economic can kicking exercise. We *will* reach the end of the road sooner or later, but, the Tories hope, not before the next election hence they keep the doors open. The policy is certain to cost them votes, especially to reform, but they've calculated this is the lesser risk. We'll see at election day!

The failure mode may well be increased political instability and a general shift rightwards, that seems a pretty universal response. But just because the public want something doesn't mean we'll be happy when we get there. What the VAST majority of commentators haven't accepted yet is that there is NO acceptable, happy solution. All we can do is debate and argue about the means of our collapse. Cutting all inward migration and kicking out a million foreign born - will leave us in a much worse state than today in 5-10 years time. Likewise, continuing to accept over half a million a year will also leave us in us in a much worse state than today in 5-10 years time. The goal of being in a better state than today in 5-10 years time is basically impossible but that's the inconvenient truth that politics can't discuss. We can't expect good policies to be developed until we recognise and accept the bigger picture.

[northernmonkey]

I understand the argument about the political class being unwilling to be the ones to have to explain that, in order to limit the pain of what is, in any event, going to be a massively painful transition over the course of the next several decades as we slide down the other side of Hubbert's peak, we need to go through the lesser, but still very significant, pain of an economic collapse now on the back of limiting immigration, in turn limiting the capacity to grow the economy (which will necessitate the further explanation that future growth is impossible over the medium to long term and is not that certain even over the short term).

However, the social and economic pain being experienced right now by an ever growing portion of the population means that, in my opinion at least, the political class is quite a bit behind the curve of public opinion and what the public is becoming ever more ready to hear.

The range of choices available to the existing political class are rapidly diminishing to one of the following:

Keep insisting on pronouncing to an ever more skeptical population that BAU is doing just fine and all we need is more growth (but less freedom because, we've got to "save the planet" don't you know.) and that all that people need to do is stop believing their own lying eyes when they see their services and infrastructure disappear along with their communities and culture. The consequence of all of the above being that someone with a mustache is going to come along at some point and simply acknowledge that pain and will be swept to power with all that entails. Which then forces the present ruling class to either accept the above or turn our societies into overt tyrannies by dispensing with even the sham of democracy we currently have with all that entails.

Or, come clean and tell, you know, the actual truth that we are in the foothills of a Long Emergency of resource depletion and so immigration must stop. But, that this halt to immigration will not reduce the pain. But, will at least give us a fighting chance of being able to manage it on our own terms and maybe, just maybe, avoid a civil war down the line.

I'm betting on the former of those two choices being the one that wins the day. So, the next few years and decades are going to be interesting to say the least.