Blog

Here comes the new Lib Dem policy on immigration - It's the same as the Tories'

Something moved the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister to make a speech on immigration this morning, and we can only assume it was the heat he is feeling from the result of the Eastleigh by-election. His party might have won on the occasion, but the message he seems to have taken from the tightness of the race, with very anti-immigration UKIP and Tory candidates coming second and third, is that the Lib Dems need to swing to the right on the pressing issue of people movement.

Mr Clegg opened his contribution by saying that his mission was to maintain the UK as an open and tolerant country. Without any hint of irony he then said that the way to do this was by maintaining ‘zero tolerance’ of immigration ‘abuse.’

His speech reviewed all the standard paradoxes of modern British society: leading politicians who are themselves the children of immigrant parents; an economy that depends on people crossing borders for so much of its vitality; and NHS that would “fall over” without its migrant workers; and a university system that depends on international students for a big slice of its finance.

But still the British people show signs of discomfort at having to live with these realities. It would have been interesting to explore some of the reasons why this is undoubtedly the case but Mr Clegg is in too much of a hurry to unpack these rather complicated issues. Instead he rushed straight to his politician’s explanation, which was to say that ordinary people don’t like it because the other pack of politicians screwed up.

“The previous government left us an immigration system in disarray. I cannot stress enough just how chaotic it was”, he said. (He then went on to make the incorrect statement that Labour had “got rid of exit controls”, revealing that he isn’t entirely au fait with all the facts about exactly what it was the previous government had been doing.)
 

Hurray for Tory policies

He then went on to identify the Lib Dems with the claims that his Tory colleagues have been making for the success of their policies.

“Since we came into government, net migration has fallen by a third. We’ve limited immigration from outside Europe. And within the EU, we have kept the transitional limits on Romania and Bulgaria, until the point where every member state has to remove them.”

But there is still a need to push further in this direction if the British people are to be provided with all the assurances they seem to crave for a type of immigration which is ‘under control’.

Mr Clegg said that these assurances could be divided into three parts:

“One: that we are getting a grip on who’s coming in and who’s going out.

“Two: that we can deal with people staying here illegally.

“Three: that the system as a whole benefits the UK and doesn’t put too much pressure on our state – particularly in these straitened times.”

With regard to assurance one, this was being provided in the form of strict controls at the borders, checking everyone coming in and going out.

On assurance two, he promised he would get tough on “people staying here illegally”.

This involved a considerable backtrack on the policy he argued for during the general election campaign in 2010, when he advocated an ‘earned route to citizenship’ for people who had breached the immigration rules but who had nevertheless proved hardworking and law-abiding. His view is that this approach now risks undermining confidence in the rigour of the immigration control system and it was time to do a complete turnaround on the proposal.
 

Tougher fines, and bring on bonds

He announced that he had asked one of his leading Lib Dem MPs, Andrew Stunnell, to lead a review of this and our other immigration policies in the run up to 2015. Now that they are in office the Lib Dems wanted to to restore people’s faith in the system. This meant: 

“confronting illegal activity with a vigour never seen from Labour.” By 2015 be wanted people to know that “a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for an immigration system they can believe in.”

It also seems to be a vote for the policies forged by Conservative Party, hook line and sinker. Indeed, to show he really means business, Mr Clegg said he’d be calling on the government to double the fines levied on business found to be employing people in breach of the rules from the current level of £10,000 to £20,000 per worker. 

He said he wanted to deal with people overstaying visas by introducing a bond system, directed at specific groups, which would require unspecified sums of money to be set out up front which would be forfeited in event of an individual overstaying. His plan is that this possibility will be investigated through a pilot test of the proposal. 

In response to questions which pointed out that proposals of this sort had been considered and rejected in the past on the grounds of the level of discrimination that would necessarily be involved, he said that he would not only make it work, but also that it would have the effect of providing an improved service to visa applicants who currently get a raw deal out the system. Exactly how this will be achieved will presumably emerge from the pilot scheme he intends to push ahead with.

But if stiffer fines and discriminatory bonds all seem to be measures which to mark the closure of a distinct liberal approach to the management of migration, a truly jaw-dropping moment arrived when he implied Lib Dem support for the £18,600-plus income requirement now imposed on people want to sponsor spouses, partners and children to join them in the UK.
 

RIP decent liberalism?

When Mr Clegg finally finished, there didn’t seem to be much left of the liberal voice which had once stood out in the mainstream of British politics which was prepared to appeal for greater fairness and a stronger element of justice for migrants. If the policy outline here remains unchallenged the Lib Dems seemed to be fated to merge their once independent stance on this issue with that of their Conservative partners in the coalition.

The reality is that the three mainstream Parliamentary parties are increasingly clumping together in support of positions which they justify to voters on the grounds that they truly are necessary in order to meet the supposed dangers of abuse and irregularity.

The effect of this is to shift the entire centre of politics sharply to the right, making the job much harder for those sections of British society who continue to speak out in favour of the genuinely open and tolerant approach which Mr Clegg is now deserting. 

There are many in the Lib Dems who will be as dismayed by this turn of events as those who remain the staunch supporters of the rights of migrants. Some of them remain influential in the leadership councils of the party. Perhaps we need to put together a quick campaign to urge a reconsider of this overt and unbidden lurch to the right on the party of the third party in the UK political mainstream, before even more damage is done to the cause of decent and fair treatment for migrant communities in this country.

You can find the the speech in full here.

Other users went on to read:


Comments

Here here Don.
I am gutted by the Labour and Lib Dem leadership's approach to migration. It's sold out an entire ethos of liberalism, and underlines the death of social democracy in the UK. It's a race to the bottom, and under FPTP we there is no one left to vote against it. I wish at the least Green's could stand more candidates.

Clegg has said one thing and Vince Cable another.
VC was reported in the Huffigton Post online - that Immigration Plans: Reducing Numbers 'Would Do Enormous Damage to the UK'.
VC also said that 'It isn't Government policy , it is Conservative policy'. A division in the camp.

But on 21 March the Daily Mail stepped out of line and reported on a British Welsman who is married to a Canadian lady who has visa trouble getting her into the UK.
Also in the same report they mentioned a British man with a South African wife who is having to bring up his two Brit sons alnoe because she cannot get a visa.
There was 339 responses to this story a 98% of them speaking out against May's rules.
I managed to get a blog printed on the story which got 169 green arrows and no red ones.

I 'congratulated' the DM for printing the story on the basis you 'catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.
But it just shows how the general public are totally ignorant of May's rules and when they are brought to their attention the general public,the Brit people, are appalled.

I wondered if the DM printed the report because they are miffed about Camerons' Leveson' Royal Charter? It seems to me if we could get more publicity out there we could make headway.

I think what Mr Clegg said in his speech was inflammatory and discriminatory on the basis of national origin. I am saddened that Pakistanis do not have enough political clout for Mr Clegg to be prosecuted for his hate-speech.

Since the 'I'm sorry' fiasco I think he has become an apology for a politician.

Clegg's speech really questioned the midset of the man and what he's made of! During the last election his popularity and that of his party soared to incredible level that was never seen before and many people who have never voted for the Lib Dems before voted for the party. This was despite the fact that the party promised amnesty for both legal and illegal immigrants if it comes to power. He was even tagged as 'the kingmaker'.
As many reasonable people have repeatedly said elsewhere, immigrants are not the problem of this country but has been made so by reactionary and racists elements and groups like some newspaper and think-thanks like Migration watch and politicians who delight in brainwashing their own people to serve their own twisted and selfish interests. You only need to ask some citizens of this country the meaning of 'immigration' or 'immigrant' to know how low their mentality have sunk due to the effect of brainwashing. Some don't even have any clue or know the meaning of what they are saying! It's really pathetic.
If immigration is such a big issue how can a party that promised amnesty as did the Lib Dem soared in ratings shortly before that general election.
Any intelligent man in Clegg's position would have sat down to think deep on this before opening his mouth to say what he recently said regarding the immigration issue.

So Clegg the puppet is saying what Cameron the puppetmaster tells him. How many LibDem policies have they backtracked on since the election? Nobody will vote for LibDems at the next election because the people have seen how unreliable they are.

It is worth reading today's open letter from some of the senior Lib Dem members driving the party's internal review of immigration policy, regarding Nick Clegg's speech last week. There is clearly plenty more internal debate on Lib Dem immigration policy ahead.

Extracts from this letter read:

As members of the body setting up a review of Liberal Democrat policy on immigration and identity under Andrew Stunell MP, or members of the review itself, we feel the need to put a few facts in the public domain following Nick Clegg’s speech on Friday.

It would have been helpful had we been made aware of the contents in advance.  It would have been very helpful if members of the Policy Working Group had been sent an embargoed copy of the speech the night before.

...

The policy of an earned amnesty to speed up the regularisation of the immigration status of those here illegally who have abided by the law, and want to contribute to our society by paying taxes and taking part in the democratic process – a policy championed by Nick himself – remains Liberal Democrat policy until our Conference decides otherwise.  Unlike the other two parties, we do not believe in top-down policymaking by diktat.

By contrast, the suggestion – it has no more formal status – of Liberal Democrat policy being changed to feature the requirement of a bond payment for visa applications from certain countries is unproven, and will need further development before our party supports it.

There's no votes in supporting illegal immigrants! If the parties are going to convince the public that some legal immigration is necessary, then they are going to have to restore their faith in it. Even the progressive parties are focussing on good migrant / bad migrant as the way forward. The good news is Keith Vaz is still on your side.

"remains Liberal Democrat policy until our Conference decides otherwise. Unlike the other two parties, we do not believe in top-down policymaking by diktat."

Have to agree with that, he may not get it past his party.

"By contrast, the suggestion – it has no more formal status – of Liberal Democrat policy being changed to feature the requirement of a bond payment for visa applications from certain countries is unproven, and will need further development before our party supports it."

I don't agree with Keith Vaz that it doesn't work. Vaz is notorious for his representation of the Asian community and using his power to represent their needs only.

A note on commenting

Due to recent increased commenting activity we have taken the decision to disable commenting on old blogs. As we are a small office it is simply impossible to fight spam and keep removing comments that don’t comply with our house rules on what is now an archive of over 800 pieces.

We have also decided to take a more proactive role in enforcing our blog house rules on the blogs where comments are open. The rules are there for a good reason and we want to make sure we are consistent and apply them across the board. 

This is not in any shape or form meant to stifle debate, but to make sure that it remains civil and on topic.

Thanks and best regards,

--MRN Team

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/about/blog-rules

MRN blogging and comments – Policy and House Rules

Your comments

1. Please be civil– we will remove anything that:

  • Is considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
  • Is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
  • Contains swear words or other language likely to offend
  • Breaks the law, condones or encourage unlawful activity or which could endanger the safety or well-being of others
  • Impersonates someone else
  • advertises products or services

2. Comments that could damage the reputation of a person or organisation, that risk prejudicing on-going or forthcoming court proceedings or that could place MRN in contravention of its legal and/or regulatory obligations will be removed.

3. Please make comments relevant to the subject of the article. We may remove comments that we consider to be spam or which are unrelated to the article content against which they are posted.

4. Please keep the number of comments you make on a topic reasonable. Too many posts from an individual or small group can discourage other readers from joining the conversation.

5. In exceptional cases we may get a high volume of similar comments on a post. In these cases we may close comments for that post, adding a note letting you know that further comments will not be published.

6. By submitting comments to this site, you warrant that such comments are not defamatory nor infringe any law. You agree to indemnify MRN against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by MRN as a result of your breach of the above warranty.