QUESTIONS? CALL: 01582 262 070 (London & South) 0121 655 2400 (Midlands & North) info@morganwiseman.co.uk

Morgan Wiseman

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Services
  • Contact
  • News & Events
MAKE A REFERRAL
  • Home
  • Immigration
  • What history tells us about the challenges of post-Brexit immigration policy
January 17, 2021

What history tells us about the challenges of post-Brexit immigration policy

What history tells us about the challenges of post-Brexit immigration policy

by a9jcbgg / Tuesday, 18 June 2019 / Published in Immigration

Jonathan Thomas outlines four key lessons from recent history to illuminate the potential consequences of the government’s proposed immigration system. He concludes that the ending of freedom of movement represents the start of a significant new challenge for the UK in managing not only immigration, but also the public’s concerns over it.

With the ending of freedom of movement to the UK, the government’s White Paper proposals for the post-Brexit immigration system look to take back control – and to the future. But looking backward can be instructive. Taking a historical approach to the potential consequences of ending freedom of movement can help to illuminate the challenges, and indeed risks, of the UK’s plotted course.

The UK has its own history with ending freedom of movement, with the case of Commonwealth citizens in the 1960s. And examples abound of countries that, as the UK is now proposing, have tried to manage immigration through temporary stay regimes. Most instructive of all though may be the United States’ experience in seeking to regulate immigration from Mexico. Across a 70-year period US immigration policy has ranged from allowing relatively free, but temporary, movement for work, to total prohibition of such, accompanied throughout by a fluctuating enforcement approach. Across these examples, the consequences were often unexpected, sometimes counterintuitive, but all instructive as to how immigration policies can have a profound and lasting impact on a nation. From these experiences one can identify four key lessons for UK policymakers.

First is that greater immigration restrictions on well-established existing immigration flows can lead to an increased permanent lawful immigrant population, even if immigration flows themselves reduce. For those immigrants already in-country, increased immigration restrictions combined with a one-time offer to stay to those already here can convert some of what would have been circular migration into permanent stay. And for those immigrants not yet here, the UK’s current proposals pair greater restrictions on EU immigrants with easing of restrictions on non-EU immigrants, who compared with EU citizens have tended towards greater permanence once in the UK. So, while new flows from the EU will be curtailed, placing immigration restrictions on an existing labour immigration route, which many used on a circulatory basis, may cause migrants to switch into other routes into the UK which may actually favour more permanent settlement.

Second is that greater immigration restrictions applied to well-established existing immigration flows can lead to increased irregular migrant (overseas citizens who enter, stay and/or work without lawful permission) entry. The UK will remain open to visitors, tourists, workers and students from the EU. EU migrants will not be irregular as such on entry, but may become so through overstaying. This cannot therefore be effectively controlled at the border. The White Paper proposes temporary immigration routes to help business adjust to living without EU lower-skilled labour without resorting to irregular workers. But history suggests that temporary routes, unless rigorously enforced, themselves incentivise irregularity.

Third is that greater immigration restrictions applied to well-established existing immigration flows can lead to increased irregular immigrant stay, and therefore an increased irregular immigrant population. Immigration enforcement dynamics pose a particular challenge for the UK, seeking to restrict a long-established migration flow in circumstances where it will not meaningfully be able to control that flow on initial entry at the border, and reliant instead on in-country controls. The ‘hostile environment’ approach has significant limitations on the extent to which migrants no longer permitted to be in the UK can be practically controlled, in the sense of identified and tracked. The UK’s increasingly effective border control regime might actually compound the problem, incentivising migrants who become irregular to stay put, knowing their chances of re-entry, should they depart for a period, are increasingly slim.

The size of the irregular migrant population in the UK will also be more directly impacted by the consequences of Brexit. In the laissez-faire form applied in the UK, EU freedom of movement allowed a fluid immigration status, with few questions asked. No more. The one-off Settlement Scheme for those EU citizens already in the UK will instead set in stone their immigration status. And for those who for whatever reason are not able to access settled status, the status of being irregular in the UK will become more impactful to the migrant, more visible to society; greater immigration control may therefore paradoxically give the impression of the opposite.

Finally, an increasingly visible irregular immigrant population, accompanied by increased immigration enforcement, can give rise to greater public concern over immigration even where immigrant flows are reducing. Look at the US. Largely due to EU freedom of movement, the UK has had the luxury of not having to seriously grapple with irregular immigration. This is now coming to an end. Given UK public attitudes towards irregular migration, any spike in concern over this will likely be a deeply uncomfortable experience for politicians and the public alike. Media interest in irregular migration that has largely lain dormant during the EU immigration debate may well be reawakened.

This will focus attention on the practical challenges in the UK of achieving realistic and scalable in-country immigration controls. An even more hostile environment? A local area registration regime? A population-wide ID card scheme? Periodic ‘earned regularisations’ of status? Will any such measures assuage public concern over immigration or have quite the opposite effect?

The ending of EU freedom of movement thus heralds a challenging new era for the UK in managing immigration and the public’s reaction to it. And the White Paper only sets out the baseline; the policy which the UK will adopt in isolation, but with the possibility that trade deals may result in less controlled access to the UK for certain countries’ citizens.

The government needs to design its policy inputs accordingly, but also think about how to best manage the outputs. It should inject a dose of honest realism, coming clean about the complexities and unintended consequences of immigration policy, about the control that it does have, but also the practical limits to that control. It must also be honest about the trade-offs: it may not be realistic to have the degree of control over immigration that many people in the UK say they want, while at the same time keeping other aspects of society as those same people say they would like them.

_______________

Note: read the full report on which the above draws here.

Original Article available here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/immigration-policy-history-lessons/

  • Tweet

About a9jcbgg

What you can read next

MPs and lawyers call for investigation into privatised visa system which allows firms to make millions
Unskilled Workers To Be Denied Visas, But What Does Unskilled Mean Anyway?
Unqualified Immigration Adviser Sentenced

Recent Posts

  • DCD Isn’t all of me

    Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) or Dy...
  • Unskilled Workers To Be Denied Visas, But What Does Unskilled Mean Anyway?

    Today it has been reported that under new plans...
  • #Jamaica50 The Immigration Injustice Continues

    I recently wrote an article on the current situ...
  • Cyprus rape case: a miscarriage of justice as old as time

    When a woman is raped, why should it be the fir...
  • Migration: A human rights issue.

    Article three of the Universal Declaration of H...

Archives

  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • July 2014

Categories

  • Children
  • Divorce
  • Domestic Abuse
  • Immigration

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Featured Posts

  • DCD Isn’t all of me

    0 comments
  • Unskilled Workers To Be Denied Visas, But What Does Unskilled Mean Anyway?

    0 comments
  • #Jamaica50 The Immigration Injustice Continues

    0 comments
  • Cyprus rape case: a miscarriage of justice as old as time

    0 comments
  • Migration: A human rights issue.

    0 comments

Make a referral

Please fill this form and we'll get a specialist in contact as soon as possible!

Referrer Details
Client Details

Privacy Policy

Legal Notices

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints Procedure
  • Enquiry Form Notice
  • GET SOCIAL
Morgan Wiseman

© 2019 All rights reserved.

Morgan Wiseman Solicitors Limited, company Registered in England and Wales Under Number 10731548. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Registered office: 66-68 Alma Street, Luton, Bedfordshire LU1 2PL (SRA No: 638355). Branches: 1142 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, West Midlands B27 6BL (SRA No: 648071); 618-620 Bearwood Road, Smethwick, Birmingham, B66 4BW (SRA No: 661078). A list of Directors and their respective specialist accreditation is available for inspection at its registered office.

TOP
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.