If a politician ever feels like a quick sauna, just mention the words immigration and asylum in a speech or a press release. The heat of the media and outraged constituents will soon leave you quite flushed.
Certainly I will be the first to admit that being the government minister responsible for immigration and asylum was the hardest job that I have done. One moment I was perceived as soft on asylum, the next as far too tough. Indeed, on the Today programme I was once accused as being too soft and too tough in the same five-minute interview. You just can’t win.
Yet should that be the case? Clearly not. The debate around immigration and asylum has got into a demotic rut. A major reason for that is the common understanding of the terms ‘asylum seeker’, ‘refugee’, ‘migrant’ and ‘illegal immigrant’ as synonymous, with no attempt to understand the distinctions between them. When it is argued that we need more immigration into this country as part of a high economic growth strategy, the image conjured up by the media will be one of hordes of ragged human beings clambering off lorries in Kent. Asylum seekers can also be well-dressed, highly skilled human beings flying into Heathrow.
Immigration has always faced a political backlash, especially what JK Galbraith describes as ‘the tendency to see a poorer immigrant as an intruder… rather than an opportunity’. MORI research indicates that 91 percent of those they define as the ‘traditional poor’ feel there are too many immigrants in Britain, compared to eleven percent among certain higher socio-economic groups. Racism and support for the BNP play off this perception and with that background it is hard for the Labour party to open up the space for a properly informed, calm debate.
The challenge for those of us who want to promote a positive vision of managed migration comes in three forms. It means tackling head on the exaggerations of ‘independent’ anti-immigration groups such as MigrationwatchUK. For example, I vehemently disagree with the view of one of their advisors, Dr David Coleman, that it is hard to find any benefits from large-scale migration ‘beyond a wider range of ethnic restaurants for the middle classes and new kinds of pop music for youth’. What about the net contribution of £2.5 billion to the economy that immigrants made in 2000/01?
The second challenge is to provide better mechanisms to welcome, settle and integrate those who are allowed into this country. The government has already recognised the need to invest in teaching English as a second language in schools. Yet, provision of English as a second language for adults is much patchier, and the quality variable. With the potential benefits to be unlocked from skilled immigrants, greater investment in language provision is a must.
A third challenge is to embrace our past as a nation of immigrants. History should not be all about kings and queens, dates and battles, but should look at how immigration is firmly entwined with any notion of what it is to be British. Artistic, architectural and scientific legacies owe much to immigration. My view is that we need a national museum of migration. Whereas America has Ellis Island as a cultural beacon, we lack anything as significant.
With globalisation, better communications, cheaper travel, and rising individual aspirations, the 21st century will be another century of migration. The challenge for politicians, policy-makers and commentators is to regard these realities as opportunities for economic productivity and the enrichment of our culture, rather than sink into a short-term populist discourse.