You can't promote immigrant integration by making it harder

“We will have to question some of the assumptions and legal constraints that have lasted for a generation and more,” said newly appointed Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood in September.

“The old ways have been tried, and they have failed”, agreed Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp in October. “That’s why a new approach is needed.”

These are not empty promises. After decades of relatively minor tweaks to asylum and immigration policy we are seeing some genuinely radical proposals from the major political parties.

Let us start with asylum. The United Kingdom’s historic approach has been to try to stop all asylum seekers from entering but, if they do manage to get in, to assess their protection claims under the Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1993, an independent judiciary has acted as a check on government decision-making. Those who are recognised as refugees are helped to integrate and build new lives. Those whose claims fail are, at least in theory, removed.

The tearing up of the old order began with the Conservative government closing the asylum system and attempting to remove all refugees to Rwanda. Both the Conservative and Reform parties now propose withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Conservatives go further, proposing abolition of legal aid in asylum cases and the end of judicial scrutiny. People “just need to tell the truth,” claims Chris Philp, the shadow Home Secretary, “and their claim will be fairly decided.”

Not to be outdone, Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer has disparagingly described refugee status as a “golden ticket”. These are, remember, recognised refugees who have fled sometimes unimaginable suffering in warn torn countries. They are hardly willing participants in a competition or game show. The right for refugees to be joined by their pre-existing spouses or children has already been scrapped and in future refugees themselves will no longer be entitled to settle. The immigration tribunal is, apparently, going to be abolished, albeit then replaced with something new.

The questioning of long-established conventions extends to immigration policy. The traditional British approach, going back to the 1970s, has been to offer a chance of settlement after a probationary period of up to five years during which the person must stick to the rules under which they entered and keep their nose clean. Because of Britain’s colonial past and then exit from the EU, settled migrants have been treated similarly to citizens. Both these policy pillars are now under threat.

The Reform Party propose the abolition of settled status entirely, including for migrants who are already here in the United Kingdom. The Conservative Party would not completely abolish settled status but they would make it a lot less settled. Residency would be revoked where a person accesses state support, no matter how long they have lived here. Katie Lam, a Conservative shadow Home Office minister complains that there are “a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so … They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.” Applying this policy retrospectively has apparently been ruled out but the policy might well still be applied to future entrants.

And this is not so very far from government policy. The probationary period will be extended to 10 years and made more onerous. Settlement will be made harder to get. And the government has contemplated applying these new rules even to migrants who left their old homes and jobs to move here under the old rules, with a government source telling The Times Mahmood was looking for a “mechanism to prevent this cohort of migrants being granted permanent settlement after only five years.”

The supposed problem identified by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform is either explicitly or implicitly a failure by past and existing migrants adequately to integrate or contribute. Let’s not beat around the bush: it’s criticism of past generations of migrants. It is a statement — an “admission” according to many on the right — that the British model of immigration and integration has failed.

Personally, I think that is untrue. But setting that aside, the common thread running through all these supposed solutions is that they would make it even harder for future — and perhaps even current — migrants to integrate or contribute. Temporary status makes it hard to plan ahead, settle down and get a good job. Employers are reluctant to offer training or skilled jobs to a person with short term status who may therefore need to be replaced. Repeatedly checking their status is a faff, with the added disincentive of a potential fine of £60,000 if one screws up. Absence of close family members leaves the migrant adrift and miserable. The lack of a social safety net increases the risks of destitution, marginalisation and exploitation.

There were good reasons why contemporary asylum and immigration policy looks as it does. It didn’t happen by accident but by design, with cross-party support. Tearing it all down will destroy what many of us consider an incredibly successful British model of immigration and integration. We face a future in which migrants and their children are not future neighbours and fellow citizens but rather mere guest workers, a permanently precarious servant class.

That Dubai-like future is one that Reform and the modern Conservative Party positively embrace and pursue. They want to exclude migrants from society, not integrate them. Labour should not follow their lead.

Adapted from a forthcoming article I’ve written for the Legal Action Group.