LABOUR IMMIGRATION WHITE PAPER

Sir Kier Starmer presented the Labour government’s new immigration White Paper as being a strategy to ‘finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country’. He sounded as someone who understood the problem:

‘“Take back control.” Everyone knows that slogan and what it meant for immigration, or at least that’s what people thought. Because what followed from the previous Government, starting with the people who used that slogan, was the complete opposite. Between 2019 and 2023, even as they were going around our country telling people, with a straight face, they would get immigration down, net migration quadrupled. Until in 2023, it reached nearly 1 million, which is about the population of Birmingham, our second largest city. That’s not control – it’s chaos … they must answer for themselves, but I don’t think you can do something like that by accident. It was a choice … made even as they told you, told the country, they were doing the opposite. A one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that voted for control. Well …this Government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over … and we will take back control of our borders.’

Starmer sounded determined:

‘So, as this White Paper sets out, every area of the immigration system – work, family, and study – will be tightened up so we have more control. Skill requirements raised to degree level. English language requirements across all routes – including for dependents. The time it takes to acquire settled status extended from five years to ten. And enforcement tougher than ever because fair rules must be followed. Now, make no mistake – this plan means migration will fall.’

Starmer rejected those who ‘think controlling immigration is reigning in a sort of natural freedom rather than a basic and reasonable responsibility of government’ and also asserted that ‘settlement’ should be ‘a privilege that is earned, not a right’. He assured that his White Paper ‘will deliver: lower net migration’.

Therein lies the trick: the assumption that net migration is permanent and that mass immigration is desirable if controlled. Citizenship can be expected – it is only the timing that needs to be changed. Those who are already here can stay, the changes only apply to the future. Importantly, there is no ‘or else’. There is no mechanism to remove those immigrants who do not integrate, contribute or abide by the law.

Further, Starmer ignored the economic, social and political consequences of what has already happened. The damage is baked in and the trajectory of the English becoming a minority in England stays the same. This is a stance shared by ALL the Westminster political parties.

The White Paper contains not only a Foreword from Sir Kier Starmer, but also one from the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. She rightly pointed out: ‘the previous Government lost control not just of the number of people arriving, but of the entire immigration system, with serious consequences for public confidence, the working of our economy, public services, the housing market and community cohesion’. She recognised that: ‘the growing complexity and chaos of the immigration framework has meant that too much of the system has developed based on decisions by the courts on individual cases rather than deliberate principles and rules endorsed by Parliament’. Yvette Cooper identified ‘five core principles’:

‘First, net migration must come down so the system is properly managed and controlled.

Second, the immigration system must be linked to skills and training requirements here in the UK, so that no industry is allowed to rely solely on immigration to fill its skills shortages.

Third, the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules agreed by Parliament in areas like respect for family life, to prevent confusion or perverse outcomes.

Fourth, the rules must be respected and enforced – from our crackdown on illegal working to the deportation of foreign criminals.

And finally, the system must support integration and community cohesion, including new rules on the ability to speak English and the contribution that people bring to the UK.’

The third principle is an expression of the need to end judicial activism. It is parliament’s responsibility to legislate when the law, as a result of judges setting precedents that become increasingly detached from justice, common sense and the national interest. That responsibility has been neglected in recent years.

The fifth principle sounds all very nice, but ignores the power of culture. It ignores the need to defend the national culture. The word ‘English’ occurs 50 times in the White Paper – always in reference to the English language. Never once is the English nation referred to. The English people and their interests are ignored. This is despite the fact that it is England where the overwhelming majority of immigrants settle. It is English culture that is the national culture and into which the immigrants need to assimilate.

Three angles need to be considered in assessing a policy. First, is the policy doable? Is it possible to implement the proposals as set out? If not, then the policy is not viable. Second, are those advocating the policy genuine and competent, or are they acting in bad faith? Is the policy a con job and are its advocates treating the public to be fools? Third, most important of all, if every measure of the policy was implemented in good faith and competently, then would the policy solve the problem as promised? Would the policy’s proposals work even if everything goes as intended? If not, then the policy is a waste of time.

Obviously, a lot depends upon the definition of the problem. That the English are not even mentioned in the White Paper speaks volumes. Labour do not regard the reduction of the English to being a minority in England as an existential problem. Nothing more needs to be said.