| Immigration: It’s politics, not the economy |
Scris de: David Webster
 The interview in today’s Guardian with Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, included a rather revealing passage:“Woolas defines the "prime purpose" of the government's immigration policy as "reassuring the public" by showing that the state is in control. "You can only stop it being seen as a problem when you can convince the public you're in control of it, and that's my goal." At the moment, he says, "the public recognise that we don't know the exact numbers." He is fully behind the reforms he has inherited: the new points-based visa system and biometric passports and visas. "We have to be able to show that we can count people in and count people out," he says. Reintroducing checks on people as they leave the country will be rolled out next year. "Within 12 months we will be able to show the public what we're doing, and that is what the Conservative party are frightened of. That's why they are attacking me." The message here is that perception of the immigration issue is fundamental to the government’s policy approach. The Home Office needs to be seen doing things that suggest to voters it is in control of the UK’s borders. Symbolism matters. Politics were behind the introduction of restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian workers, and political considerations will be the reason these restrictions are retained. Their retention in 2009 seems virtually inevitable. The government’s coming announcement will no doubt claim that the economic downturn provides a reason not to lift the restrictions on A2s. It will also point to Ireland, and any other countries retaining their restrictions, as additional justification for the UK to maintain its controls. But in framing its decision this way the government is simply spinning the issue in a manner it thinks will play best with the voters. Romanians should not let this distract them from understanding the main reason behind the restrictions - A2 immigration controls are about political symbolism, not economics. The economic narrative, if it takes hold, will also make it easy for others to claim that their efforts to overturn the restrictions on Romanian workers were negated by the recession. This seems a similar sleight of hand. There have been few efforts to campaign against the restrictions, and little evidence of a strategy behind these actions. The recession is not responsible for this. It is for the Romanian community itself to take the lead in building a campaign against the restrictions, not leave it to others to do. The Embassy does have a role to play here, but it is not set up to be a campaigning organisation. The community has to take the initiative, and build its own agenda and support, if it wants to see an end to worker restrictions. |