UK Fears of Immigration

By E. Hughes

Is it possible to get a balanced and thoroughly objective view of immigration into the UK? It seems not. It is of such a nature that the mere mention brings out the worst of any number of sides political and not, and a hoard of often dubious statistics, scare-mongering, sensational headlines and distorted ‘facts’. What are the facts, what are the fears, genuine or otherwise, and why is immigration such a hot topic at the moment?

In a statement on 9th February 04, David Blunkett said Britain desperately needed workers from East Europe, from amongst those new countries joining the European Union on 1st May. He said there was no likelihood of the United Kingdom copying France and other Western democracies in preventing people from ‘accession countries’ working legally in Britain. Blunkett said: “We need it, not just in London and the South-east but Scotland are crying out for labour. There are demographic and population reasons for this. The growth in our economy has been so much more substantial than other parts of Europe. That's a positive thing.” Mr Blunkett however criticised the ‘scare mongering’ that claims large amounts of immigrants, including impoverished Gypsies, will come to Britain when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta become full members of the EU on 1st May.

According to Migrationwatch, the issue is not whether Eastern Europeans should be allowed to work in Britain but whether they should be required to have work permits as is required everywhere else in the EU except Ireland. They also question Mr Blunkett’s claim that immigrants contribute more tax than they receive in benefits, and accuse the government of issuing a ‘dodgy dossier’ on the economic contribution of immigrants. Migrationwatch however, far from being objective, have right-wing agendas and are often used by the British National Party to justify BNP policy. Is it likely that any genuine truth can come from such agendas?

The Home Affairs Committee says there has been considerable controversy over these issues. Chairman John Denham says his committee wants to look into how many people are likely to arrive, and the effects this will have on jobs and the benefits system. Britain and Ireland are the only existing EU members who have decided not to impose transitional arrangements after EU enlargement, prompting suggestions there will be an influx when the poorer new states join.

Beverly Hughes, Minister for Immigration and Asylum, says the fact illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system fuel insecurity in communities make them important issues to tackle. “That isn't pandering to right-wing agendas. Unless you deal with the abuse (of the asylum system) you can not build a political case for the other aspects of the policy: the legal migration and the resettlement programme that we want to do.” While the government is under attack for not being tough enough, it is also criticised for some of its harsher measures. In particular Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act which limits the time within which people arriving in the UK can claim asylum. If they try to claim after three days, they cannot get help with benefits. The issues surrounding this ill-thought out and ill-administered act are myriad; how will a prospective immigrant know about these conditions?; where exactly do they go to apply for any type of help?; how do they find out?; what about those immigrants traumatised, hungry, disorientated who have been travelling for many months? And of course, if a person is turned away because they didn’t apply in the absurdly short 3-day requirement, what happens then? Are we bereft of any common humanity simply because a draconian law says we now don’t need to care?

Very recently, On Feb 18th 2004, Tony Blair gave the go-ahead for thousands of migrants from the 10 new European Union countries to come to Britain to find work but he banned the job seekers from claiming benefits for two years. A Government source said at the time: “It is a question of practicality. We have shortages of workers in many jobs and would welcome them being filled by people from these countries. We would also prefer as many as possible to be working here legally, paying their taxes and national insurance like anyone else.”

There seem to be many strands of conflicting objectives from the government; one, that we need people to come in, ironically against the harsh rules that now seems virtually set to be brought in to penalise unjustly people who do get in. It is hard to fathom out why conflicting objectives and laws are treated with equal aplomb.