Front and centre in today’s Queen’s Speech was the announcement that the government will be limiting the ability for certain migrants to use the Human Rights Act – and its provision for the right to a private and family life – to avoid deportation.
It’s increasingly becoming accepted, even on the left, that immigration to Britain under the previous government had some negative consequences, one of which was to depress wages and increase job scarcity for the indigenous population.
Over the last two weeks in Eastleigh, UKIP forced home the message that uncontrolled immigration is an inevitable consequence of the UK’s membership of the EU. It’s time for progressives to leave the bunker, stop sounding weak, introspective and contrite and get out there and argue the case for migration.
The financial stressed put on the welfare state by Britain’s ageing population could be assuaged by higher levels of immigration.
Arbitrary targets to reduce migration are unlikely to work, argues Sarah Mulley of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Following this week’s IPPR paper on the subject, Jill Rutter looks at the principles of migration policy.
Theresa May yesterday said house prices could be “10 per cent lower over a 20-year period” if net migration was cut to zero – claims which don’t quite add up.
The latest migration statistics show the UK Border Agency is still not fit for purpose; where there are failings, the home secretary must be held to account.
We need for an honest debate about migration – a debate which must include the long-term fiscal effects of migration and the UK’s demographics.
Don Flynn, director of the Migrants’ Rights Network, rebuts the population myths being pedalled by anti-immigration MPs like Nicholas Soames and Frank Field.