Labour is again running scared on migration. At the party’s conference yesterday, Shabana Mahmood made a clear pitch to middle Britain on the subject. ‘You may not always like what I do,’ she said, addressing Labour’s left, but as regards migration we had to ‘question some of the assumptions and legal constraints that have lasted for a generation and more’. She would, she added, be tightening the rules on indefinite leave to remain (ILR). From now on, migrants would have to wait ten years rather than five to apply to settle permanently, though they could apply earlier if they spoke good English, volunteered in their local communities, were net contributors to the economy and had a ‘spotless’ criminal record.
Has Labour, which two years ago was happily doing its best to sabotage any efforts to control a growing influx, now seen sense on immigration? Or is this merely tough-guy talk aimed at reassuring White Van Man?
What the Home Secretary said is remarkably thin gruel
Unfortunately the indications are that not much will change. Mahmood’s speech encountered little enthusiasm from delegates, many of whom found talk of immigration embarrassing and, one suspects, wistfully looked back to the days of European free movement when government could airily deny responsibility for the problems it caused. Furthermore, if you look at it closely, what the Home Secretary said is remarkably thin gruel for an electorate that desperately and overwhelmingly wants to see a commitment to serious control over our borders.
The government quickly emphasised that this new scheme would not apply to anyone already here. The million and more who arrived under the Boriswave post-2020 are thus subject to the old rules. The vague suggestion that some mechanism may be found to limit their rights can be discounted, if only because the EU would undoubtedly kick up a fuss and, as we know, Labour’s commitment to a reset of its relations with Europe amounts to a disinclination to do anything that might upset Brussels.
There’s also an interesting omission. Allowing early application by deserving migrants who speak perfect English, take part in the community and so on before ten years are up seems to imply that once ten years have passed, the entirely undeserving – the petty criminals, those who refuse to integrate and are a net drain on public funds – will get ILR anyway. There is a good case for saying that this should not be so, that the right to live here needs to be earned and that if someone has not shown in ten years that they are a net contributor to our society and willing to play a full part in it, they should be politely asked to leave. True, Mahmood did say that some people ‘in some cases’ would be barred entirely from ILR. But she did not say what those cases were, or whether they would actually be deported. Don’t hold your breath.
There are also some interesting questions about what will actually allow someone to make the coveted early application. Who is to say what ‘learning English to a high standard’ is? Getting a good mark in the standard IELTS English language test is not very difficult: many who do well in it are remarkably halting when it comes to actual speaking. Being a net contributor apparently means not taking a penny in benefits at the time they apply – but if someone is earning a relatively low wage, the betting must be that they will still be a large net drain on the taxpayer in future. And volunteering would, one suspects, be a tick-box exercise. Forget turning out every week for the Royal Volunteer Service or the Samaritans – there is every chance it will be a more flimsy barrier than that.
And, of course, all this is without the almost certain prospect of legal sniping and repeated lawfare. Endless arguments over indeterminate matters like, say, the Home Office’s estimation of a person’s ability to speak English or their status as a net contributor to the economy will have an activist immigration and human rights bar licking its lips. And even apparently black-and-white issues like the requirement for a spotless criminal record may well be diluted. Whatever Mahmood says now, attempts to hold a traffic offence, or perhaps a minor shoplifting conviction some years ago, against an applicant may well crumble before a threat of judicial review.
Possibly this is all wrong: possibly Labour will indeed take convincing steps to secure the borders. But I’m not betting on it – and more importantly, one suspects that exasperated voters thinking of jumping ship from Labour to Reform will not be either. The one person laughing up his sleeve at Mahmood’s seemingly tough but ultimately non-committal remarks is likely to be Nigel Farage. And with good reason.
Comments