An immanent critique of the UK government’s use of ‘net migration’ as a benchmark for immigration policy

In an interview to BBC Newsnight (25/8/2011) on the latest ONS figures on net migration in the UK, the Immigration minister, Damian Green, defending Cameron’s vision that the annual rate of net migration should be brought down to ‘the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands’, reiterates that the government will not lower its target on immigration. ‘It’s very important’ – he said – ‘we get immigration at a sustainable level, not just for our economy but for the wider health of society’. Pushing the medical metaphor even further, the minister also compares the dependency of the British economy on foreign workers to a drug addiction. This is nothing new. Elsewhere, he has blamed the previous Labour government for using taxpayer’s money on ineffective ‘palliatives’, instead of on preventive measures. What seems less clear is the diagnosis of the minister: what exactly is this alleged health threat faced by the country? From previous statements and speeches, it would seem that the threat consists of increasing public resentment, social stresses and strains, social conflict, and pressure on public services due to the mass arrival of immigrants in the UK.

If this is the case, can the ‘net migration’ policy deliver?

Let’s make a not-too-unrealistic hypothesis. As a result of the economic and financial downturn and of Osborne’s draconian cuts, the emigration of British workers towards countries which are adopting different economic responses to the global crisis reaches an unprecedented level. Moreover, due to the increase in university fees numerous British students decide to pursue their studies abroad.  As a result of these events, next year the number of people that leaves the UK doubles. If one follows the ‘net migration’ argument, the government should then welcome a larger number of foreigners in the country without this causing social stresses and strains, social conflicts and pressure on public services. Obviously this wouldn’t be the case.

The problem, it seems to me, is that the way the government employs the ‘net migration’ indicator is misleading as it assumes a symmetry that is not there, failing to acknowledge the complexity of in- and out- migration flows and ultimately treating in- and out- migrants as passive goods which can be moved in a out of a warehouse with limited capacity.

Controlling net migration? Nonsense

Despite the UK government pledge to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’, latest ONS figures show that net migration rose by 21% last year. While ministers struggle to come up with explanations and justifications, I would like to take this opportunity to answer a more general question: why it is wrong for the UK government to base its immigration policy on the indicator of ‘net migration’.

By definition, net migration is the difference between in-migration and out-migration. The reasons for moving in and out of a country are far too complex for any immigration policy to grasp if not control for a number of reasons which I briefly explain below.

First of all, both in- and out- migrants are not necessarly foreigners as most seem to believe in the government and outside.

Second, both flows include UK citizens; EU citizens and non-EU citizens.

Third, of the three in-migration flows, the UK government can currently only exercise (almost) full control over non-EU citizens migrating to the UK for non-asylum reasons (although, of course, they have attempted in many ways to make access to asylum difficult too). 

Forth, the government has little to no control of out-migration flows. UK citizen emigration is left to the free market and we all know what the current economic and financial situation is; as for the EU citizens leaving the UK, we hear occasionally of Polish plumbers moving back and forth from Poland, again what instruments has the government to regulate this mobility and that of hundreds of thousands of other EU citizens (e.g. French, Italians, Germans, etc)? And, finally, as for the non-EU out-migration, we are led to believe that deportation and destitution are viable tools for inducing ‘unwanted’ immigrants to leave the country. In reality this may work well as a tool of symbolic politics but is not very effective if we look at the actual figures.

So, to conclude, the life of the government would be much easier if it just drops the net migration target altogether, accepting that it was a mistake to pick it in the first instance and approach immigration and emigration in a more sensible and pragmatic way.