Migration Management
My other obsession

This is what needs to be done.

Government policy should first acknowledge that the majority of citizens, in all societies, may from time to time be concerned about the rate of population-change proceeding within their communities. The changing social character of localities, changing patterns of culture and mores, can generate apprehension, even fear and real aggression.  That is the value judgment from which policy formulation should, in my view, proceed.

Policy formation should concentrate on the total number of people, in any
one year, who are authorized to settle permanently in the UK. That ought to be the key control concept.  This broad "Category A" falls into three divisions, each with radically different characteristics -

1. Those granted UK citizenship by the Home Office, in formal
   naturalization proceedings, whether or not they retain the citizenship of
   any other state; those moving from A2 to A1 status would be statistically
   excluded.
2. Those granted "unconditional leave to remain in the UK", because they
   are fleeing persecution in their state-of-origin, without necessarily
   triggering any change in their underlying citizenship status - these are the
   "asylum-seekers", who are technically only those whose have made applications for "leave to remain" and whose applications are still being processed;  many of those with such leave-to-remain do in practice proceed to A1 naturalization in later years;
    
3. Those arriving and remaining in the UK, as citizens of other EU
   countries, who as a matter of EU-treaty entitlement, require no special
   permit or visa to come and live and work in the UK.

In considering the rate at which any society can adapt to different rates of inward migration, it is principally upon Category A that policy attention should be focused.

Category B  All other people (tourists, family visitors, University  students,
short-course students, work-permit holders) are subject to varying forms of
Home Office and Police regulation, some formal, some informal, some
permit-based, some not.  They constitute "Category B", and their
administrative regulation leaves much to be desired - but they do not
constitute a distinctive political "problem", precisely because of their
very limited claims of right.  No Category B resident has any right to
remain indefinitely in the UK, and they are at all times subject to the
possibility of deportation or other expulsion by "the Authorities".- they
remain in the UK only "on terms", with no legal security. Greater precision is needed, in the definition of their benefit entitlements, while remaining in any B category.

The first political challenge is to set an acceptable "annual quota" for
Category A as a whole.  It would not be enough to fix a quota for
asylum-seekers (Category A2), as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud
Lubbers, has suggested - that would not meet the concerns of the host
population. The quota should honestly relate to the number of newcomers
who in any one year are admitted for potential permanent residence in the
UK, enjoying an unqualified legal right to remain.  By way of international treaty, international agreement should be sought upon a common percentage figure, thus giving all host citizens the assurance of a common obligation to accommodate migration change.

What  should that quota be?  I argue for a quota equal to one-half of one-percent of the prior resident population, which would currently put the figure at 300,000.  Over the years, as population change accelerates, I suspect that the figure would rise to 1% of prior population.

That quota reasoning should be qualified in three significant ways. 

First:   It presupposes  accurate "prior population" data to which the
quota is to be applied - and in the UK, we certainly do not have that.  A
major overhaul of Census methodology would have to be included, as part of any reform package; 

Second: The immigration statistics should be qualified by information
about emigration.  I do not argue that "net population data" carry weight with the ordinary citizen, who sees only the phenomenon of immigration and resulting social change.  Nevertheless, such "net" data should be taken into account in adjusting quota figures over the years. 

Third:  Any national quota policy would have to be supplemented by local data, available to inform local citizens and illuminate local political and social issues.  It would be for each country, in the exercise of its Government's sovereign discretion, to resolve any issues of internal settlement.  For example, some form of informal "percentage quota" is already operated by the Home Office in the administration of its dispersal policies, for asylum-seekers.

I argue that the regular population statistics should identify, for each
year, all three status options  separately - A1, A2, and A3.  For it is
conceivable, for example, that an increase of A3 residents (EU citizens,
who require no administrative consent to settle) could squeeze out all A1
and A2 applicants - and if so, the quota would have to be adjusted
accordingly.

Government policy should seek, by way of international treaty negotiation, to assign the responsibility for adjudicating upon all A2 asylum claims to the UN High Commission for Refugees.  This jurisdiction should be located "off-shore", in constitutional terms; for those claims upheld, UNHCR would be responsible for their assignment to participating States, in accordance with their agreed Treaty quotas.
Ideally, all participating States should accept the same minimum percentage quota, representing the percentage change for which its Government is legally committed to make provision.  In practice, above-quota rates might be negotiated on an ad hoc basis, but the contractual foundation would be firm.

Finally, the opportunity should be taken to create a new "right to
citizenship" not only for any A2 or A3 resident who has lived for five
continuous years within the UK, but also for Category B temporary residents
who have actually lived for five years in the UK, without having been
challenged for any breach of immigration control.  Within that five year
period, it would of course at all times be open to the Authorities to take
appropriate expulsive action - but if they did not do so, a new right to
citizenship (not merely a right to apply...) should arise.  This would introduce a new certainty, a new individual right of sanctuary, into international migration management.

Footnote This framework is incomplete, in that poses, I accept, further issues for political decision. Should A2 applicants (i.e."asylum-seekers") be allowed to work while their applications are being heard?  I say they should be, although I recognise the political contentiousness of that principle. Should they be locked up in special reception centres, as in Australia?  I say No - but I would be open to a much tighter reporting system, even electronic tagging as an option, in order to give appropriate assurances to the host population.  Should we introduce a system of host sponsorship, as practised in Canada, where host-communities undertake to meet the interim costs of Category B applicants seeking naturalization, work-permits or other leave to remain? I think we should.  Should we continue to extend the work-permit system, taking further pressure off the "asylum" system?  Yes, I think we should.
 

These are all issues of great political importance.  The time has come for Labour to embark upon a great, humane and radical process of reform.