Myths about Immigration #1 – “Britain is a ’soft touch’”

By Barry Curtis|Bazza Online

This is the first in a series of blogs to be published over the next few weeks questioning commonly held assumptions with regard to immigration. The provisional outline for this series confronting ‘myths about immigration’ runs as follows: (1) “Britain is a soft touch” (2) “Immigrants take jobs away from native Britons” (3) “Immigrants are a drain on the welfare state” (4) “Britain is overpopulated” (5) “Immigrants lower wages for the rest of us” (6) “Immigration controls need tightening”.Ultimately this series will be arguing for an ‘open door’ approach to immigration, showing that the numbers coming to the UK are not strongly influenced by government policy on immigration controls. Nevertheless such controls cause immense suffering and cost more than the ‘problem’ they’re trying to prevent.

Now to begin with the first myth: “Britain is a soft touch”…

Last year, the net migration to the UK was 163,000 people. Of these, most are coming to Britain in search of work (economic migrants). Others are coming to study here. Others are fleeing persecution (asylum seekers). A lesser number are staying in order to marry a British citizen. Every year many thousands migrate to the UK and many thousands emigrate away from the UK. Last year the total amount of newcomers was 590,000 whilst those that left totalled 427,000. This gives us a figure for net migration to the UK of 163,000.

This figure seems high to some people, and they believe people come here because “Britain is a soft touch”. By this, they mean we apparently let anyone in, give them housing and benefits, and generally let them undermine ‘our way of life’.

However this is a misleading picture of the reality of the situation. In truth restrictions are only minimal with regard to economic migrants from EU countries. This is the case across the EU. If you are from a non-EU country, you have to demonstrate you have certain skills that are needed by the British economy. Recently the list of desired skills has narrowed, and employers are obliged to seek out native Britons to hire first before they cast the net out to include economic migrants. If you are from a non-EU country and are rich, then you can stay. But if you are poor and unskilled, you will have a difficult time convincing the authorities of your worthiness.

For the best part of the past two decades, the government has been designing policies to try and deter people from coming to the UK. The most recent device with regard to economic migrants wishing to settle is New Labour’s points-based system for citizenship. (If the Tories get in next year, they will add to this a physical cap on numbers). Under the points-based criteria for citizenship, immigrants can earn points by joining an Establishment political party, doing voluntary work, and joining ‘neighbourhood watch’. They lose points if they show an active disregard for ‘British values’ such as going on a heated anti-war demo, or questioning the ‘British way of life’. Just as you earn Clubcard points at Tesco, now you can earn citizenship points by being docile, supporting all wars, and never mocking the Queen.

The citizenship test demands you are able to speak English, and answer questions such as ‘according to British custom, where does Father Christmas come from?’ and ‘what should you do if you accidentally spill someone’s pint in a pub?’

Unfortunately the problem with all this is that it involves an impoverished conception of citizenship. Rather than it meaning you are a free and equal member of a body politic with every right to steer it in a way you choose, New Labour’s understanding of citizenship only involves obedience and conformity.

Because the rules on who is a worthy economic migrant are quite strict, many would-be immigrants try and claim asylum instead. However the processing of asylum claims is also very strict and if you are not a ‘real’ asylum seeker you will be labelled ‘bogus’ and deported. Thus some would-be immigrants try to enter the country illegally such as the case a couple of days ago where three immigrants jumped off a ferry bound for England in gale conditions. Sometimes illegal immigrants are found dead in the back of a lorry. Even if they make it safely inside the country, they can be targets for ruthless exploitation such as the 18 Chinese cockle pickers who died in 2004 when the tide came in. These are all examples of the desperate lengths people go to in order to live in Britain and they confirm that official policy does not make Britain a ’soft touch’ for economic migrants.

With regard to coming here to study, PM Gordon Brown recently announced he wants to make it tougher to get a student visa, and restrict any part-time work you can do while you are here, thus making it even less appealing for would-be students. A Russian student quoted in a left-wing newspaper said “We say it’s like jumping on the last carriage of the train – it’s getting harder all the time.” So Britain is not a ’soft touch’ for students.

With regard to migrating to Britain in order to join your spouse, the Government makes this awkward. In 2007, they raised the age you can do this from 18 to 21. In addition to checks on whether your marriage is really ‘genuine’ not ‘bogus’ and the bureaucracy this entails, an application for indefinite leave to remain costs £800. So Britain is not a ’soft touch’ for migrating spouses.

Finally is Britain a ’soft touch’ for asylum seekers? Definitely not. There are three main ways the authorities deal with you if you are an asylum seeker: detention, destitution, and deportation. Many asylum seekers get locked up in prisons or concentrated in camps such as Campsfield House in Oxforshire. Here, some have risked life and limb trying to escape. Internees have been quoted as saying things like “I came here to escape persecution, but it’s no different here”. If you are let loose, you are not allowed to work for twelve months. And even after this time, the Government has attempted to block people’s right to work in case after case. Asylum seekers also do not get the full amount of benefits that native Britons are entitled to. Instead they have to subsist on 70% of the value, paid in the form of vouchers that are only redeemable on food at the Co-op. The vouchers come in £5 denominations and you do not get change. Given that the Co-op can often be miles away from where you are staying (you don’t get any option on where you live), this is grossly inconvenient. The situation is so bad that Comic Relief, without publicising its efforts for fear of a backlash from Middle England, has spent a proportion of the funds it raised to support destitute refugees within Britain. In 1997, the Red Cross started to distribute food parcels to asylum seekers in Britain, saying that without them they’d starve.

During the past five years some 77,000 people have been refused asylum from countries that the UK Foreign Office has described as “dangerous and unstable”. What amounts to an astonishing 40 refugees a day are facing a closed door when they arrive in the country which until recently provided refuge to those escaping terror and persecution. There is widespread sectarian violence, lawlessness and violent insurgency in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq. Yet destitute citizens fleeing the pandemonium are being denied safety and sanctuary, with as many as 13,131 Iraqi nationals having their applications for asylum turned down. Therefore Britain is not a ’soft touch’ with regard to asylum seekers.

So to conclude, next time you hear the phrase “Britain is a soft touch” clumsily bandied about, take it with a pinch of salt. Better still, challenge it.