When it comes to immigration, it is amazing how the individual perception differs from the “mob mentality” stirred by media frenzy. If one was asked if there was hostility in the general public in Britain after Brexit one would be inclined to say yes, there is undoubtedly a closing of ranks.
This is especially so since the migration from the Middle East war zones was the predominant issue in the referendum. But now comes a revelation that completely stands the surmise on its head. Only about a third of the public think the government will meet its net migration target in the next 5 years, even after Brexit, according to polling for a new British Future report, What’s next after Brexit? Immigration and integration in post-referendum Britain.
The study shows immigration ranking alongside the economy and the NHS as the issues that they care about the most, it’s an indicator of just how low public trust has fallen in governments’ competence to manage immigration. Only 12 percent of people would like to see a reduction in the numbers of highly skilled workers migrating to Britain; nearly four times as many (46 percent) would like to see more of it, with 42 percent saying that it should stay the same. Among people who voted Leave in the referendum these numbers remain broadly the same: 45 percent would like to see an increase, 40 percent say that the numbers should stay as they are and just 15 percent would like to see them reduced.
Only a fifth of people (22 percent) would like the number of international students coming to study at Britain’s universities to be reduced, less than the 24 percent who would be happy for them to increase. People are less positive about low-skilled workers moving to the UK, however, while four in ten would be happy for numbers to stay the same or increase, six in 10 would prefer the numbers to be reduced.
Consulting the public should form part of a comprehensive immigration review that takes a 360-degree look at all aspects of immigration policy — different types of immigration, policy options and their impacts, the staffing needs of business and public services and the pressures that rapid population change can place on local communities. More effective measures are needed to ease some of those pressures — on housing, school places and health services — through a migration impacts fund that is well-resourced and is seen to make a difference to frontline services in the areas that need some help.
The only unspoken part in this survey is the ethnicity woven into the welcoming map. Unless immigration largesse is open to all regardless of color or religion or region the exercise becomes pointless. Paradoxically, the skilled workers are from Asian countries and the less skilled are from the poorer parts of Europe and the former border states of the erstwhile Soviet Union. UK’s office of national statistics indicates the trend has been downward these past few years.
South Asian work force does not go to the UK, not even through the underground. The flow of migrants from Syria is a war casualty and an anomaly in the present times, not an integral element in migration.
That the British sense of tolerance has survived the battering it has been given by the extreme right hard-liners about “outsider menace” is a blessing. Will it stay that way is the question that needs to be asked as Brexit unravels across indistinct milestones.
This is especially so since the migration from the Middle East war zones was the predominant issue in the referendum. But now comes a revelation that completely stands the surmise on its head. Only about a third of the public think the government will meet its net migration target in the next 5 years, even after Brexit, according to polling for a new British Future report, What’s next after Brexit? Immigration and integration in post-referendum Britain.
The study shows immigration ranking alongside the economy and the NHS as the issues that they care about the most, it’s an indicator of just how low public trust has fallen in governments’ competence to manage immigration. Only 12 percent of people would like to see a reduction in the numbers of highly skilled workers migrating to Britain; nearly four times as many (46 percent) would like to see more of it, with 42 percent saying that it should stay the same. Among people who voted Leave in the referendum these numbers remain broadly the same: 45 percent would like to see an increase, 40 percent say that the numbers should stay as they are and just 15 percent would like to see them reduced.
Only a fifth of people (22 percent) would like the number of international students coming to study at Britain’s universities to be reduced, less than the 24 percent who would be happy for them to increase. People are less positive about low-skilled workers moving to the UK, however, while four in ten would be happy for numbers to stay the same or increase, six in 10 would prefer the numbers to be reduced.
Consulting the public should form part of a comprehensive immigration review that takes a 360-degree look at all aspects of immigration policy — different types of immigration, policy options and their impacts, the staffing needs of business and public services and the pressures that rapid population change can place on local communities. More effective measures are needed to ease some of those pressures — on housing, school places and health services — through a migration impacts fund that is well-resourced and is seen to make a difference to frontline services in the areas that need some help.
The only unspoken part in this survey is the ethnicity woven into the welcoming map. Unless immigration largesse is open to all regardless of color or religion or region the exercise becomes pointless. Paradoxically, the skilled workers are from Asian countries and the less skilled are from the poorer parts of Europe and the former border states of the erstwhile Soviet Union. UK’s office of national statistics indicates the trend has been downward these past few years.
South Asian work force does not go to the UK, not even through the underground. The flow of migrants from Syria is a war casualty and an anomaly in the present times, not an integral element in migration.
That the British sense of tolerance has survived the battering it has been given by the extreme right hard-liners about “outsider menace” is a blessing. Will it stay that way is the question that needs to be asked as Brexit unravels across indistinct milestones.
