To What Extent is a British Immigration Policy a Product of a Hollowing Out the State - Essay Example

To what extent is a British immigration policy a product of a hollowing out the To what extent is a British immigration policy a product of a hollowing out the state? Immigration is the act of entering a country that is not of one’s origin with the intention of living there permanently (Black and Kniveton 2008). Britain like many other colonial powers has immigration policies that reflect in a very complex manner the colonialism legacy. Britain has been a country of emigration but not immigration with its citizens laying foundations for the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Britain has had to redefine itself as a nation-state and to create for the first time a national citizenship. The confused and bitter politics of immigration during the last quarter-century have been due to the absence of a strong identity as a nation-state and a well established national citizenship until 1981. Thus Britain lacked a criterion for deciding whom to admit to its territory. The government later drew distinctions in the immigration law between persons of Britain and its colonies; it the created a special second-class citizenship status, without the right of immigration for the residents of Hong Kong and others (Black and Kniveton 2008). With the continued influx of persons, Britain had to change the immigration policies, aiming to integrate and assimilate those immigrants who had already settled and being closing its borders to any further immigration. The concerns of the British government were not only social, cultural and political, they were also economical in that unemployment and other risks had started to crop up (Ian and Spencer 2007). With reference to the discussion question given, this paper assess the hollowing out the state Rhode’s theory has an effect on the main British policies in the case of immigration. The paper will also assess to what extent a British immigration policy a product of hollowing out the state. To the economy of Britain, immigration has become highly significant in that immigrants comprise more than 12% of the total workforce in Britain with the biggest portion of these immigrants being based in London. However, it was found that the argument that was being made by the British government that net immigration – immigration minus emigration – generates significant economic benefits for the existing British population had no backing evidence. The GDP, which the government uses in making its argument, was found to be an irrelevant and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration of the British population. It was suggested that the focus of analysis should rather be based on the effects of immigration on income per head of the current population (Ian and Spencer, 2007). The economic impacts if immigration depends critically on the skills acquired by the immigrants. Immigrants with different qualifications and levels of education can have different impacts of the economy of a country. It was found out that many business and public services at the present in Britain make use of the skills and hard work of the immigrants. Sind the implementation of successive immigration acts since 1962, Britain successfully managed to keep the net migration levels low heading into the 1980s. This was by accepting and overall number of migrants at a rate which was lower than the other European countries. In addition to that it allowed Britain to successfully control and channel migration which is the strength that the core executive enjoys within the immigration policy making process (England 2009). In the 1970s for example, the British immigration office began allowing male immigrants to bring their wives and children into the country from other countries but discouraged women from bringing their husbands into the country from other countries. The 197 Immigration act was the only piece of legislation in Britain which gave the resettlement rights to the immediate family members of the immigrant residence. This was a policy that had been changed five times in one and a half decades to maintain or increase those restrictions and was supported by both the Labour and Conservative governments. In 1985, the rule was eventually changed and found its way to the European Court of Human Rights (England 2009). In 1994, Rhodes presented the Hollowing out of the state. He was concerned about the wearing down of the British public sector within the government through the processes of delegation, decentralization and privatization. In his argument, Rhodes provided four different trends that will be characterized if the process of hollowing out of the state took place (Phelan and Gillespie, 2011). He argued that there will be privatization hence limiting the scope which forms the basis for public intervention. He also argued that there will be loss of functions by both the local and central governments leading to alternative service delivery measures. In addition to that he also argued that there will be loss of functions by the British government to the European Union institutions. He also argued that there will be the limiting of the discretion of public servants through new public management policies (Black and Kniveton 2008). In 2008, the government started phasing in a new partial system known as point-based system that will be used in managing the migration of non-EEA citizens to Britain. Immediate family members and asylum seekers/refugees were not included in the new point-based system. Students were also included in the new system (Phelan and Gillespie 2011). The new system was to have five tiers: a) Tier 1: Highly skilled migrants b) Tier 2: Skilled migrant workers c) Tier 3: Low-skilled workers d) Tier 4: Students e) Tier 5: Youth mobility and temporary workers Tier 1 is the only part of the new system that resembled the point system in Canada and Australia. The migration policy institute endorsed the use of a point based system for regulating the immigration of highly skilled migrants from outside the EEA. However, there was a significant problem that Tier 1 needed to address which included finding an effective way in which they were to check and certify the skills and educational qualifications of the applicants and also assessing the applicant’s earnings outside Britain. With the example of the Canadian experience it was found that it cannot be simply assumed that these skilled immigrants will be able to get jobs in Britain that corresponds to their academic qualifications. In the case of Canada, it was noted that the highly skilled workers could not get high skilled jobs mainly because the employers could not accept work experience from abroad and placed more emphasis on work experience in that country (England 2009). It was suggested that Tier 2 would essentially remain as a work permit system that was not too dissimilar from the then current policies for the skilled migrants (Travers 2009). However, there were some important changes in the point based system in particular the requirement for an English language test and the establishment of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) that was mandated with the task of recommending the list of shortage occupations. Tier 2 provided for four different distinct routes for getting a working permit: i. Shortage occupation ii. Intra-company transfer iii. Labour market test In addition to that there was a criterion that regarded the applicant’s qualifications and prospective earnings in Britain. For Tier 2 constitute a rational immigration programme that benefits Britain, the British government needed to ensure that these different routes in Tier 2 were consistent with each other and effectively implemented. The British government began to enforce more strictly the labour market test – where employers had to show that they tried to recruit skilled workers from with the EEA but were unable to do so and so explained how this was to be achieved. The main concern of analysts was that the government did not explain how it was to decide on the minimum earning threshold under entry route (iii) with Tier 2. It was also not clear how this entry route related to other routes which included the list of shortage occupations that was to be drawn up by the MAC. There was inconsistencies and overlaps between the various routes of entry that were to be implemented within Tier 2. In drawing up the list of shortage occupations, the MAC was to ensure that that the employers had made serious efforts to recruit British or other EEA citizens and seriously considered other alternatives for filling vacancies before claiming that there was a shortage of skilled workers. The MAC was also mandated with seriously scrutinizing the employers’ claims of shortage of skilled workers and ensures that the employment and training opportunities of British and other EEA workers were not adversely affected by granting employers fast and easy access to non-EEA migrants through the shortage occupation list (England 2009). Tier 1 and Tier 2 contained some new and potentially effective elements of immigration policy. However, it was not clear whether the new system was in fact to constitute the radical overhaul of the British’s immigration system suggested by the government. In addition to that some of the plans were still vague (especially for Tier 2) and it was unclear how they will be put into practice (Phelan and Gillespie 2011). The public needed to be informed about the effectiveness and consequences of the new immigration system. To achieve this, the government was to publish immigration reports periodically which included the latest data on non-EEA immigrants who were entering the country under the various Tier of the new system and on immigrants entering as immediate family members or as asylum seeker/refugees (Black and Kniveton 2008). In Tier 3, the House of Lords endorsed the government’s view that all low skilled vacancies should be met from within the EEA. One of the main issues was which channel of immigration was to lead to settlement and citizenship and which ones were to be strictly temporary. It was argued that most countries operated temporary routes for low skilled migrants and permanent routes for skilled and highly skilled migrants. Highly skilled migrants were not to come to Britain if they were not offered adequate rights (Travers 2009). There was an international debate about the desirability and feasibility of temporary immigration programmes. The principal objections were: i. Guest workers programmes did not work as there was no effective mechanisms that could ensure that immigrants went home after their work permits expire, ii. It was unethical to restrict the length of immigrants stay unless they stayed for very short periods of time. Many people argued that the longer the immigrants stayed in the country, the stronger their claims for permanent residence or citizenship but all this was a subject of a very lively international debate. The government was to give further consideration to which channels of immigration should have led to settlement and which ones, if practicable, should have been strictly temporary (Maxwell 2011). The government policy was to help immigrants raise the productivity and outcomes in the British labour market. In particular, in the British labour market given that language proficiency could have been a major factor to the success of the economy (Ian and Spencer 2007). Immigration in Britain affects different policies and analysts have stressed that immigration critically depend on the characteristics of the immigrants and of the economy of the migrant-receiving country. They also note that the impacts of immigration can vary with and depend on: the skills of the migrants and the native population. Most economic analyses of immigration distinguish the impacts of low skilled and high skilled immigration, and between short term and long term effects of immigration (Black and Kniveton 2008). In the short term effects of immigration, it is assumed that the capital and technology of the migrants-receiving country are fixed or at least not fully adjusted, so the primary effect of immigration is to increase the supply of workers in the economy. In the short term effects of immigration, it also increases the profit of capital owners and employers who benefit from the increase in the supply of labour. Most importantly, immigration creates a positive income effect for the migrants-receiving country in aggregate. In addition to that immigration also increases the total income of the resident population only if the relative earnings of some residents, that is, those with similar skills in the migrants-receiving country and compete with immigrants, decline. In the long term effects of immigration, it is assumed that the capital and technology of the migrants-receiving country may partially or fully adjust to immigration. This is because immigration increases the returns to capital in the short term effects; investment is likely to increase in the long term effects, in the end driving the profit margins down. If the economy does not adjust significantly or fully, immigration will have little or no impact to the economy of the migrants-receiving country in the long run. The more similar immigrants become to resident workers in terms of their skills and employment, the smaller will be their impacts on the incomes of resident workers. An economic analyst pointed out that monetary policy plays an important role in responding to any short-term impacts of immigration on wages and/or unemployment (Maxwell 2011). Most economists suggested that the likely long-term effects of immigration are to expand employment and the economy, with small or no impacts of the per capita income of the migrants-receiving country. They also argued that a greater population density, urban sprawl and congestion could reduce the productivity of the resident population. Other, which includes the government, insists that there are good reasons to expect significant positive, dynamic and spillover effects from immigration (Maxwell 2011). In conclusion, immigration creates significant benefits for immigrants and their families, and, in some cases, also for immigrants’ countries of origin. An objective analysis of the economic impacts of immigration in Britain should focus on the impacts on the resident population in Britain. There is a clear and urgent need to improve the data and information about gross and net migration flows to and from Britain, and about the size, geographical distribution and characteristics of the immigrant stock. It is not normal to expect the government can have data that is complete on the migration (Packer 2009). The government should make a clear commitment to improving migration statistics and facilitating more comprehensive assessments of the scale, characteristics and impacts of immigration. In addition to that, effect means must be found for enforcing the law against employers who illegally employ immigrants or who employ immigrants at wages and employment conditions that do not meet minimum standards according to the employment act. Also in short term, immigration creates winners and losers in economic terms. The immigrants and their employers in Britain are among the biggest gainers. Consumers may also benefit from immigration through lower prices of products (Packer 2009). The losers in the short term may include those employed in low paid jobs and directly competing with new immigrant workers. In addition to that, in the short term, immigration may put more pressure on the employment opportunities of young people. In the long term, the economic impacts of immigration of the migrants-receiving country’s population are likely to be fairly small. The key question will remain how quick the economy adjusts to immigration. Much more empirical work might usefully be done on the labour market and macroeconomic impacts of immigration in Britain. Also ready access to cheap migrant labour may reduce employers’ incentives to consider other options, including changing production methods. References Black, R. and Kniveton, D., 2008. Migration policy implications. Oklahoma, OK: Cengage learning England, R., 2009. British immigration. London UK: John Wiley and Sons Ian, R. and Spencer, G., 2007. British immigration policy since 1939. London, UK: Routledge Maxwell, J., 2011. Immigration laws. London, UK: John Wiley and Sons Packer, S., 2009. Simplifying immigration laws. New York, NY: Penguin Books Phelan, M. and Gillespie, J., 2011. Immigration Law Handbook 2011. London, UK: John Wiley and Sons Travers, M., 2009. The British Immigration. Oklahoma, OK: Cengage Learning Read More