How the government wants you to see family migrants

Official discourse on family migration sees certain words crop up time again. This use of language plays a significant role in justifying the family reunification rules and shaping public opinion, and consequently, in framing the wider immigration debate.

Conservative policy maintains the party is, “… restoring order to our immigration system,” and in doing so, they have implemented a number of reforms to the family route.

Those familiar with the amended rules will have heard the mantra frequently:

“We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution but a family life must not be established here at the taxpayer's expense. To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to integrate – that means they must speak our language and pay their way. This is fair to applicants, but also fair to the public.”

Yet the July 2012 introduction of an earning threshold of £18,600 for anyone wanting to bring a non-EEA spouse to settle in the UK has been anything but fair, to both ‘sponsors’ and ‘taxpayers’ – often one and the same.

Many contributors earn below the threshold and are therefore excluded and unable to enjoy family life in the UK.   

Government discourse assesses migrants seeking to settle in the UK with their British family in terms of whether they are hard-working, can make a contribution, will become a burden or are able to integrate. Protecting the ‘taxpayer’ is paramount.

Family migrants have no access to social benefits during the compulsory five-year probationary period towards settlement and plans are already in place to charge them for use of health services.

Low earners are not necessarily lazy; indeed many are parents with childcare commitments, and as for marriage to a Brit, it is arguably one of the most effective means of integrating into British society besides learning English.

This is not to say family-class immigrants should be allowed to come here at the expense of those already settled in the UK. Even the old rules effectively protected against this.

The repetitive use of ‘our’, such as ‘our immigration system’, ‘our values’, ‘our communities’ and ‘our language’, reveals an intentional distinction between citizen and migrant. There is no emphasis on tolerance or respect for different cultures as a means towards social cohesion and harmony. 

Then there are the distinctions between the ‘high value’ and ‘low-skilled’ migrant, and the ‘hard-working’ and ‘without means’ migrant. But these terms are misleading, not least because all can apply to both citizen and migrant.

The government fixation with protecting the taxpayer through limiting migrants’ access to benefits ignores the fact there is no evidence to suggest family-class migrants come to the UK with the primary purpose of abusing the welfare system. They are here to establish family life with a British partner.

Furthermore, there is no real risk of a ‘flood’ of family migrants since the number of Brits marrying non-EEA partners is unlikely to change significantly within a short space of time, so this category of immigration presents little in the way of a threat of unmanageable burden on public services.

Family migrants who are unable to meet the spouse visa criteria are deemed undesirable regardless of their family ties in the UK, their knowledge of British life or their ability to pay their own way or rely on third-party support.

The unqualified sponsor, on the other hand, quickly goes from taxpayer to burden, contributor to abuser, citizen to exile. In many cases, British children are driven out of the UK as a result of one parent not qualifying.

Is this what ‘restoring order’ looks like? Dividing families, forcing Brits to become single parents and making British children grow up minus one parent simply because that parent is not British? These policies are not fair to applicants or the public, as the Conservatives claim.

Recent studies reveal family migrants make a positive fiscal contribution on public finances. Yet their value goes beyond the economic price tag the government has awarded them. They are part of the very building blocks of a stable society and community, as Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, pointed out in December 2013. 

The sooner the public stops seeing family immigrants in the government’s terms, the sooner we can put an end to these shameful, un-British policies which are causing devastation to genuine families.

Looking beyond the economic value of family migrants

The UK government’s move towards placing increasingly harder-to-meet restrictions on British nationals who want to bring their non-EEA partner to the UK emphasises a global pattern of equating the value of migrants with their economic benefit.

July 2012 saw the introduction of significant amendments to the UK’s family migration rules, including the introduction of an annual income threshold of GBP 18,600 for British sponsors seeking to bring their non-EEA partner to settle in the UK.

Other changes included a considerable extension on the previous probationary period, bringing the period in which a family migrant has no recourse to public funds to five years.  

Rather than being compatible with the Conservatives’ goal to strengthen families and the Liberal Democrats’ passion for protecting civil liberties, the rules have resulted in hundreds of families being torn apart indefinitely and many British citizens being unable to avail of their right to respect for family life.

By judging family migrants on their economic benefits only, we render those who don’t meet the financial requirement as undesirable.

This false notion is problematic since determining migrants on their fiscal value alone ignores their non-economic qualities and marginalises their, albeit uncertain, future and potential contributions.

When family migration policy is motivated solely by a desire for economically desirable migrants, the results are not just economic but social, too.

What is the price of forcing British children to grow up without one parent due to their economic value being deemed as insufficient to qualify for settlement? 

Or the price of making a British parent grow old and die alone as their British child cannot gain access to the UK as a family unit with their non-EEA spouse?

The inevitable collapse in the family, and consequently the community, which is sure to follow is certain to have profound, long-term effects on society in general.

The value of family life cannot be measured in terms of a financial threshold. If we want to create a society which supports family reunion and consequently, stable families and communities, it is time we moved beyond focusing on economic rationales when formulating family migration policies.

Family migrants impact positively on public finances

A research paper on recent immigration to the UK has found migrants make a positive financial contribution to the UK economy, rendering the government’s target to reduce net migration useless. 

The study, produced by academics at University College London using official government data, claims migrants made a net contribution of GBP 25bn from 2001 to 2011.

Furthermore, it says migrants are less likely to use social housing or to claim social benefits than people who are already resident in the UK, and they are better educated, with nearly 40 per cent of non-EEA nationals who come to the UK holding a degree compared with just over 20 per cent of UK natives.

While EEA nationals have made the largest financial contribution according to the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) paper, paying more than 30 per cent more in taxes than received in benefits over the course of the 10 years, non-EEA nationals paid around two per cent more than they received, equating to a net contribution of close to 3bn.

Recent immigrants were 45 per cent less likely to receive social benefits than British natives but just three per cent less likely to make use of social housing.

The remarkable findings in Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini’s report complement those of another recently published discussion paper by Professor John Salt and Dr Janet Dobson, also from CReAM.

The paper, which looks at the government’s progress in reducing net migration, says the government’s aim to cut net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015 is, “neither a useful tool nor a measure of policy effectiveness”.

"It is not clear what happens next – where further cuts would come from, what policies would be needed to maintain a net inflow below 100,000 or what happens if an improving economy requires more skilled labour," adds the paper.

In striving to reduce net migration, the government has almost exclusively targeted non-EEA nationals, in particular highly skilled migrants, students and family members of British nationals - separate groups which are often lumped together under the label: ‘immigrants’.

As part of its aim to slash net migration, the government ushered in amended family migration rules in July 2012. The rules stipulate that a British national who wishes to bring a non-EEA spouse to the UK must have an annual income of at least GBP 18,600, or more to sponsor each non-EEA child.

One of the primary goals of the rules is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, with this economic issue probably the most significant in the current immigration debate. Despite the fact family migrants have no recourse to public funds during their initial five-year probationary period, they are often portrayed as arriving for the sole purpose of abusing the social benefits and health systems, which in turn has fueled public demand for further restrictions on immigration.

Yet the recently published CReAM papers suggest the aim of the rules to protect the public purse is not embedded in evidence.

While we are unlikely to see the government accepting the analysis that migrants are in fact not a drain on the economy but rather substantial contributors, this monumental shifting of the goal posts in the debate may eventually serves to shape future family migration policy and to end the scapegoating of family migrants by the government.

Yet family migrants, partly due to their unique relationship with British nationals, should not be looked at purely in terms of economic productivity. Their worth, and their very humanity, stretches far beyond simply their economic contribution, with many family migrants not just spouses or partners to UK nationals, but mothers and fathers to British children - the UK’s future taxpayers.

TheFiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK

Jeremy Hunt raises red alert on loneliness

Rose-tinted views of the Asian model for caring for the elderly aside, when Jeremy Hunt highlighted the problem of loneliness among the UK’s ageing population last Friday, the one thing that most people could agree on is that loneliness presents a threat to one’s health.

The results of the BBC survey which triggered the Tory politician, himself married to a Chinese national from Xian, to wage war on loneliness among Britain’s elderly were branded by him as a source of “national shame”.

The health secretary controversially said we should follow the Chinese in looking after our elderly relatives at home. Furthermore, we should only use residential care as, “… a last rather than a first option”, something we could be forgiven in thinking is already the case.

The idea that the Chinese, or nationals of any other Asian nation, care for their elderly in a superior manner to the way we do in the UK is rather assumptive.

China, like the rest of the world, has seen rapid urbanisation and a decline in the number of people looking after their ageing relatives in the same household; so much so, in fact, that a much ridiculed law was enacted in July this year to enforce visits by children to their ageing parents.

The UK, like China, faces the challenge of an increasing older population which requires support. Yet under Theresa May’s amended family migration rules, introduced in July 2012, we have seen the erosion of the family’s ability to care for the elderly.

Under the rules, the visa criteria for adult dependents of British citizens who wish to come to the UK have been tightened to the point they are virtually impossible to meet. The rules require the dependent to be in need of care to perform everyday tasks and for no person in their country of residence to be able to provide such care.

The rules also prevent many Brits who are married to non-EEA nationals from returning to the UK to care for their elderly relatives since sponsors must now be able to demonstrate an annual income of GBP 18,600 a year in order to qualify as a sponsor. But, alas, Hunt, himself a millionaire, has overlooked this financial hurdle.

As a result of the rules, we are certain to see many more elderly abandoned by their children, either abroad or in the UK, not to mention a possible increase in the bill of state care as isolated old people are forced to resort to welfare. One of the many sad things about this abandonment is that it will not be through choice.

Grandparents will continue to be denied the pleasure of witnessing their grandchildren grow up and the elderly will continue to battle through sickness without the support of their children. Yet Hunt thinks we should learn from Asian cultures that supposedly have “reverence and respect for older people”. 

When cherry-picking issues to highlight, Hunt conveniently ignored the fact that loneliness affects people of all ages. A recent study on age and loneliness in Europe found only a two percent difference in the number of elderly people having reported feelings of loneliness compared with the young, while the Mental Health Foundation has found old people to be less likely to feel lonely than young people.

If these studies are accurate, we should be as concerned about the loneliness of people of all ages as we are with the loneliness of older generations. So what about Brits married to non-EEA partners who are forced into singledom due to visa restrictions? Many who fall into this category haven’t seen their spouses or children for months, even years, often for financial or language reasons alone.

So we see a conflict of interests: as Hunt tries to reduce loneliness, May is intent on increasing it, not just by keeping families from living together in the same household, but by keeping them from living in the same country. Now that is a shocker to top even Hunt’s distorted view of China’s traditionally family-centred culture.

Perhaps before rushing to follow a questionable social model for caring for the elderly from abroad, a few minor domestic modifications would go a long way in reducing the UK’s loneliness ranking.

Norman Baker: friend or foe to family migrants?

Yesterday’s cabinet reshuffle, which saw Liberal Democrat Norman Baker appointed to the Home Office, came as a surprise to many and as an outrage to others, including Home Secretary Theresa May herself who, according to the Guardian, was said to be ‘furious’ over the appointment.

As the minister of state, Baker will replace fellow Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne in overseeing issues relating to crime prevention, national security, and organised crime. It is thought he will make a more vocal opponent to May than his predecessor, considered by some to have been used by the home secretary as a doormat.

So what does this change in composition mean for family migrants? Well, while Baker will not be directly responsible for immigration issues, early signs reveal he is set to be a proponent of fair Home Office decisions, with the London Evening Standard reporting his belief that Home Office decisions should not be “too harsh, unfeeling or unsympathetic” to those affected by them.

Indeed, the injection of a “dose of liberalism” into the Home Office which Baker looks set to bring with him could be just the sort of ‘refresh’ that the department needs.

Campaigners for change in the UK’s family migration rules remain hopeful that Baker’s past membership to the Joint Committee on Human Rights will prove to be a powerful force against May’s relentless push for a reduction in net migration, the curtailment of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

Baker, who until yesterday had served as Shadow Secretary of State for Transport since May 2010, is perhaps best known for uncovering, or at least trying to uncover, scandals, most notably the 2003 death of Ministry of Defence expert in biological warfare Dr David Kelly.

The outspoken left-wing politician, described by the Daily Mail as a “thorn in the Government’s side”, has previously shown support for issues such as animal rights, a climate change bill and Tibetan human rights cases; however, his backing of the raising of tuition fees and his failure to support marriage equality and a reduction in rail fares have been less popular.

If anything, the reshuffle looks set to be an interesting change for those negatively affected by the new immigration rules, if only to punish Theresa May with his rhetoric, which was compared with “root canal surgery without anesthetic” by Labour MP Stephen Pound in 2002.