We know that we can point out the benefits of migration to this country, adducing statistics and surveys endlessly, but an angry red rash on the rump of this society will not die down. Until this recession, when the booming economy could only be sustained by high levels of migration, the government did a reasonable job of presenting an evidence-based case for the increase in economic growth that was attributable to the presence of migrants, the need to fill the skills gap and the low rate of inflation (achieved partly by the scandalously low wages paid to migrants). Some surveys of public opinion seemed to indicate that "economic" migrant was no longer a dirty word.
Those minute gains have evaporated now. For all those who arrived here when they were desperately needed and who could have applied for citizenship after working legally for five years, the government wants to slow down their route to citizenship by placing a number of obstacles in their path. It wants to maintain the expendability of the migrant workforce so they can be squeezed till the pips squeak. While some of the required attributes are pragmatic, though unethical, one is a naked attempt at social control – Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, suggested that even if it is legal to protest, it could slow down the path to citizenship: that it was right to set different and higher standards for those aspiring to be British. Hitherto, the problem was that migrants were not British enough in terms of language, culture and liberal values – now docility must be part of the mix.
Social control is also exercised at the other end of the spectrum, where unskilled migrants are doing jobs that locals will not do, but in this case with clear economic gains for profiteering companies. A number of recent workplace victories by the Justice for Cleaners campaign for the London living wage have been followed up by immigration raids. Cleaners were asked to come in on a false pretext such as training and found immigration officials waiting for them. Some of them were subsequently deported.
Some of the deportees had worked for their companies for years and their immigration status was well-known but conveniently overlooked. While they were prepared to work for low wages, the companies were happy to continue employing them. As soon as they flexed their muscles, the employers blew the whistle.
Employers everywhere are using the recession as an excuse to cut or freeze wages, even as they continue to remain profitable. The advantage of outsourcing cleaning contracts is that private contractors are unaccountable and the exploitation happens at one remove. Institutions can maintain a clear conscience until political action attracts support for the cleaners and with it, negative publicity.
In fact the last thing we should be doing is making it difficult for migrants to stay. According to a new IPPR report, international competition for highly skilled migrants is set to increase and a band of "super-mobile" migrants will move from country to country to secure the best wages and conditions. Temporary migrants certainly boost the pension, welfare and tax take for Britain as a whole without drawing on the benefits later but, when they're gone, will there be enough workers left to provide the sweat, blood and toil that keep the fat cats fat, the services running and the pension funds topped up?