The rotten foundations of 'Earned Settlement'
Labour’s immigration policies often have a ring of logic to them initially, heavily framed as ‘common sense’ approaches, which all reasonable people would support. Earned Settlement continues this trend, with the narrative that access to the benefits of settlement should be based on contribution. However, this (and most other restrictive immigration policies) has rotten foundations.
Although the concept of legality/illegality is still present here, it is less prominent than in recent policies from both Labour and the Tories. Instead, ‘fairness’ is the overwhelming emphasis of Labour’s Earned Settlement policy; the word ‘fair’ appearing 20 times in Mahmood’s speech to parliament and 51 times in the government’s consultation response.
Problematisation
Labour’s new policy clearly frames migrants as an urgent societal problem to be solved. Imagined freeloading foreigners who abuse the kindness and compassion of the British people are squarely the target of this policy. Capitalising on the outrage of those who believe immigration is a significant threat to the UK, the policy portrays migrants seeking to settle in the UK as a net cost to society, ‘takers’ and consumers who don’t naturally ‘play their part’ but need to be forced to comply or else be weeded out. Even worse, they are painted as criminals unworthy of our trust, who abuse our systems, don’t speak English and will forever be indebted to the British people. The victim/perpetrator nexus is still being wheeled out by Labour, simultaneously describing migrants as vulnerable, in need of ‘humane bordering’ AND dangerous, subversive ‘illegals’; both lacking and holding agency in the government’s dizzying border performance. Sustained reference to safety/danger, death and dying further raises the question; who is most at risk from migration - ‘us’ or ‘them’? The Border Spectacle also remains part of Labour’s rhetorical repertoire on migration, as Mahmood claims that criminals rather than the government are in control of our borders. The pearl-clutching about lost and lamented British sovereignty is impressively dramatic for a throwaway comment. Mahmood’s use of the term ‘genuine refugees’ also echoes late ‘90s / early ‘00s political and media refrain of ‘bogus asylum seekers’, used to stoke a moral panic.
A secondary focus of the policy’s problematisation are broken immigration systems which have allowed the ‘British people’ to be subjugated by migrants for many years. Mahmood describes unthinking ‘automatic’ settlement mechanisms (supposedly propped up by braindead liberals who welcome all without any due process), which risk undermining the social contract of the UK’s whole tax / welfare system.
One of the most impactful phrases used in the policy is about people being able to ‘live in this country forever’ - a term serving at least 2 purposes here; what a wonderful benefit of settlement which really should be earnt vs. you’re never getting rid of ‘them’ so be very careful who you let in.
By contrast, rich, privileged people are firmly re-established as ‘not a problem’ - OF COURSE the richest immigrants will be exempted from such rationales, as they continue to be fastracked, in a squarely utilitarian approach to the ‘use’ of migrants for economic benefit. And so, wealth and opportunity continues to compound (as does poverty and marginalisation).
Rhetorical devices
Of the last 7 Home Secretaries, it’s no coincidence that 5 have been from ethnic minorities (4 South Asian, 1 Black). And, as ever, the white men are getting a brown woman to do their dirty work on immigration policy. Mahmood dutifully continues our minoritised Home Secretaries’ ‘proud tradition’ of instrumentalising lived experience of migration and racial inequity to justify restrictive, punitive immigration controls which undermine the UK’s stated commitment to human rights.
British values are also invoked to support Labour’s new policy, with colonially-coded talk of ‘we do things differently (better) here’, social contracts based on fairness, hard work, and contribution to society. And if you can manage to keep your nose clean for up to 30 years, you win the opportunity to pay lots of money and become part of ‘our national life’; what a moving framing of welcome and belonging..
The government are also using this policy update to try to further align a restrictive approach to immigration with ‘Labour values’, in an attempt to beat Reform and the Tories at their own game. Mahmood emphasises her ‘Labour motivations’ for advancing this policy (a belief in free education, the NHS & welfare benefits), interestingly reframing ‘solidarity’ as the expectation that migrants and citizens’ will enthusiastically comply with this reinforced ‘social contract’.
Fact checking
Some quick thoughts on Labour’s policy assertions and why they are on ropey foundations:
Settlement is far from automatic - there are huge costs involved in settlement, not least the constant renewal of visas beforehand. The government has been shown to be making a tidy profit from these shenanigans.
Aside from eye-watering costs of visa renewal prior to eligibility for settlement applications, routes to regularisation are incredibly scarce in the UK and overly complicated. In contrast, there are MANY routes into irregularisation, making it all too easy to fall foul of immigration rules, leading to precarity and exploitation as you try to navigate a 20-30 year route to settlement without support.
These disparities are not incidental; the government directly benefits from retaining a population of subjugated, migrant labour to keep the wheels of the economy and daily life turning at discount rates..
The asylum route (i.e. travelling to the UK without permission to seek asylum - protected under international human rights law the UK has committed to) is the only one open to most people fleeing persecution, with the majority of UK asylum claims made following such a journey. Less than 1.5% of people in need of resettlement globally are ever resettled through such schemes. So, despite people fleeing persecution and travelling to the UK in a way permitted by humanitarian law that the UK is committed to, those doing so will now receive a punitive 30-year wait for settlement, compared to the tiny and privileged minority who are able to do so via. resettlement and other regularised routes.
I’ve seen firsthand the horrific exploitation of migrants through social care providers (and those who purported to be) with routine breaches of human rights, causing immense harm. So, I would agree that greater consideration of this group is important. However, with 1.7 million people in the UK unemployed, and over 96,000 social care vacancies, why is it not a higher priority for the government to get British citizens into care worker jobs? Plus, I’m not sure a policy carve out can be described as generous if it’s essentially motivated by “but who will wipe our arses when we’re old?!”. What a ‘proud history’ of self-protection we have.. If more time were spent making adult social care a more attractive, professionalised and rewarding career than was spent villifying migrants, we might be a little closer to solving the UK’s actual problems..
Conclusion
Net migration has fallen to 171,000 - aside from the pandemic and immediate aftermath, it’s not been this low since 2013 (and 2002 before that), and just 18% of its peak under the Tories. And yet, Labour continue to insist on reinvigorating the Border Spectacle to encourage further obsession over the ‘threat’ of migration, in an attempt to fend off political challenges from Reform and the Tories, etc.
Despite a semblance of rationality and reasonableness to the title of this new, heavily restrictive immigration policy from Labour, these proposals are inequitable and significantly punitive towards those who lack high levels of privilege and opportunity. As is usually the case, if you win the lottery of life, you tend to continue winning. Whereas, if you’re dealt a poor hand and have the bad luck of being born in a country that doesn’t respect your right to life, your poverty will likely entrench, leading to greater vulnerability and exploitation, all while states and elites consolidate their power and financial gain. And so, Labour’s ‘Earned Settlement’ policy is predicated on contribution, fairness and deservingness, whilst it actually unfairly favours people who have experienced less inequity and barriers to belonging in their lives.
Labour’s ‘Earned Settlement’ also highlights how ‘exceptional’ times of ‘crisis’ allow incoherent migration policies to be implemented, justifying the suspension of our normal rules and values.
I find it fascinating that this ‘reform’ and the system in general are predicated on ‘how long you’ve been here’. However, in reality, if you go back far enough, we’re all migrants here, none of us being naturally ‘from’ the UK and so the temporal nature of deservingness/belonging are clearly politically constructed and therefore pretty arbitrary. And, similarly to the ridiculousness of the ‘Life in the UK’ test, if we hadn’t been born here, I wonder how many of us would manage to successfully navigate these new ‘fair’ rules if we wished to stay.
