Irrationality of Labour’s plans for migrant workers

• By Frances Ryan / The Guardian

• • Add TT as Preferred Source

  • 

  • 

  • 

If you want to see the senselessness of Britain’s immigration debate play out in real time, look no further than the crackdown on care workers’ visas that came to a head last week.

As part of its plans to force low-paid migrant workers to wait 15 years before settlement in the UK, the British Home Office has been in a battle behind the scenes for the past six months to controversially include care workers in the policy. That is despite the social care system already facing critical staff shortages and the number of British citizens and immigrants taking the jobs dwindling.

After a fierce backlash from health unions and Labour Cabinet members, last week British Secretary of State for the Home Department Shabana Mahmood announced a partial U-turn: An estimated 280,000 care workers and their dependents would be exempt and allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years.

It is a welcome reprieve from a policy that should never have been on the table, but check the fine print and this “watering down” will not protect every care worker. Only carers who earn ￡25,000 (US$33,548) a year and entered or switched on to the care staff visa route before the white paper’s publication last year will be eligible.

Those who do not meet the strict requirements will have to get another five-year “health and social care” visa before applying for ILR — a move campaigners are warning would leave vulnerable workers open to exploitation from unscrupulous employers.

Ministers have not established what benefit any of this is meant to bestow on the British people, millions of whom rely on migrant carers to help them or their elderly parents wash and dress. Nor has anyone explained how Labour’s upcoming care reforms would work while alienating — rather than actively recruiting — more international staff, as tightened immigration rules already have.

Or, to put it another way: The British government has simultaneously pledged to fix social care while creating a hostile environment for the migrant staff who keep the system afloat. It sums up not only the nastiness of it all, but the deep-seated irrationality that now plagues almost any mainstream conversation about immigration, with politicians across the spectrum seemingly contractually obliged to ignore basic common sense as well as decency.

Few things demonstrate that more than the obsession with the “contribution v cost” framing that dominates these debates and which Labour has now threaded through its visa policy. On paper, it appears to many a fair and logical way to allocate visa rights. In practice, it rewards the wealthy and dismisses the value of working-class and predominantly female labour: While care workers will have to wait five or 15 years for ILR, a solicitor on ￡125,000 can get fast-tracked in only three. It is blatant classism, sure, but also fundamentally misses the very obvious tenet of capitalism that a worker’s “contribution” to a society and economy is not necessarily reflected in their wage packet.

That Mahmood has been doing the rounds in the past few months using disputed figures to claim that granting ILR to care staff and their families for the next few years would cost the public purse ￡10 billion over a lifetime suggests how unreliable — and outright ludicrous — the cost v contribution binary is. Those are the people keeping their loved ones alive for the minimum wage, and British are still debating whether they are a burden on the taxpayer.

Of course, evidence shows care workers are, to use that favored phrase, “net contributors.” The Institute for Public Policy Research last week found that skilled migrants — including care workers — and their families due to settle in the UK under current rules are expected to boost the public purse by a staggering ￡115 billion through taxes.

Such a figure does not even include the many other ways care workers save the country money: by enabling family members to keep paying income tax rather than quitting their jobs to be an unpaid carer; supporting younger disabled people to get to the office and stay in work; or keeping older people out of expensive hospital beds by reducing their risk of falls.

However, we are losing something if we accept the idea that a migrant’s “contribution” is only in economic terms, as if the Home Office can scan a human being at the border and put a price tag round their neck. Anyone who has ever relied on a good carer knows there is value that cannot be measured on a spreadsheet: the security of knowing there is someone to help you get out of bed in the morning; the dignity of having a regular shower; the laughter that comes with a shared joke as you write the shopping list together.

One would not see many of these people on front pages or hear their voices on radio call-ins, but the people providing care and those who rely on it will “contribute” considerably more to the debate than the non-disabled white contrarians who so persistently dominate it.

If it is a “legitimate concern” for the public to worry about immigration, it is legitimate for a disabled person to be afraid there will be no one to help them cook dinner, or for a migrant to worry about where they will live next year.

Because here is the thing about fears: Some are irrational, and others are not. Labour would do well to remember which ones it should listen to and which it should challenge.