In what may be a harbinger for our trends in US Immigration policy, a UK plan denies entry to ‘low-skilled’ foreign workers. As a result, industries expect labor shortages. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, wants immigrants to meet requirements for skills, qualifications and English-speaking ability. I have special interest in this as a former UK resident.
So, if you are in your local Starbucks in England, the plan would exclude your “low-skilled” immigrant barista. This has ignited a nationwide outcry from business groups and employers who warned that the restrictions could cripple a broad swath of industries.
Here in the US, we are familiar with the aggressive policies of our government. I have podcasted on, for example, on the crisis that led federal immigration authorities to bus nearly 2,000 unaccompanied children from shelters around the country to a “tent city” in the desert of Texas. And the Trump administration had proposal that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare.
Likewise, the UK immigration policy would make it far more difficult for nationals of European Union countries to live and work in Britain beginning next year, when last month’s formal departure from the European Union takes effect. Critics have predicted many of those will be to Britain’s long-term detriment.
As Britain leaves it’s membership in the EU, partly based on anti-immigrant sentiment this reminds me of the populism and xenophobia that have swept other European countries over the last several years. This also mirrors that of President Trump, who favors an immigration system that would essentially exclude the poor and unskilled.
The new rules demand that immigrant workers speak English; many currently do not. It is reasonable to expect this, assistance to learn to become bilingual or even a polyglot.
If you came from the EU to Britain over the last 15 years you would not qualify for a work visa under the new standards, which require a well-paying job offer from an approved employer.
Then there is the jobs that could be freed up by these rules for native Brits. Care workers looking after aging Brits, construction workers out in all weather, getting the job done. Will these jobs be taken up by others?
Here in the US we have some background on this approach, and it is mostly myth. 7.6% of immigrants are self-employed compared to 5.6% of native-born Americans and they founded more than 40% of Fortune 500 companies, according to the Bush Center.
Likewise, the average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK, and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero. This is according to Oxford Economics, is a leader in global forecasting and quantitative analysis.
Also, according to the Center and Budget and Policy Priorities, immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy in many ways.
They work at high rates and make up more than a third of the workforce in some industries. Their geographic mobility helps local economies respond to worker shortages, smoothing out bumps that could otherwise weaken the economy. Immigrant workers help support the aging native-born population, increasing the number of workers as compared to retirees and bolstering the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And children born to immigrant families are upwardly mobile, promising future benefits not only to their families, but to the U.S. economy overall.
Back in the UK, Johnson’s government said the new rules would “open the U.K. to the brightest and the best from around the world” while ending reliance on “cheap, low-skilled labor coming into the country.”
The government may allow certain exceptions to stem labor shortages in some fields. But the policy makes clear that Johnson’s government is determined to make fundamental changes in the composition of the country’s low-skilled immigrant workforce.
The move is meant to encourage people with the “right talent” to come to the country, and the new system was meant to encourage employers to retain staff, employ more British nationals and move toward automation where possible.
Sounds familiar? Here in the US, the non partisan American Immigration Council proposes that “America’s strength lies in its openness and dynamic character. Current concerns about the U.S. economy should not distract from an understanding that in the long term America’s economic success requires the nation to attract
1) skilled professionals from across the globe to increase the competitiveness of American companies and 2) workers at the lower end of the skill spectrum to fuel the growth of the U.S. labor force, filling jobs created by the aging of the population”.
This leads me to ponder on the issue of Health Care and Immigration, both in the UK and the US. Recently, I fell sick in the UK and benefited from excellent care provided by, in part, immigrant care workers. Healthcare executives in the UK have expressed particular alarm on the new proposals. saying employers needed time to adapt to the end of free movement from elsewhere in the EU.
Johnson’s government hopes to put this new points-based system in place in 10 months, as part of an overall new agreement governing trade and other matters with the EU. In the US, Trump is preparing to unilaterally and fundamentally change the U.S. system for legal immigration in ways that would restrict immigration to the wealthiest and most privileged applicants.
The Center for American Progress notes that under a new policy a federal immigration provision known as the “public charge” test would be reinterpreted to limit both family-unity and diversity-based immigration in ways that are a radical departure from current immigration law.
Under the rewritten test, people would generally fail if they had income and resources of less than 250 percent of the federal poverty guidelines ($30,00),or had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance.
The authors estimate what would happen if all people in the United States—U.S.-born citizens and immigrants alike—had to take this test, more than 100 million people—about one-third of the U.S. population—would fail if they were required to take it today.
The UK home secretary, the labor shortfall could be made up for with the 8 million Britons currently deemed “economically inactive.” Experts said that figure includes people unlikely to look for jobs — students, the recently retired, the long-term sick and those providing care to family members.
The UK building industry is very reliant on immigrant labor, with 14% of the workforce coming from outside the U.K. That figure is 54% in London.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2021, the new rules arriving workers skills, qualifications, English-speaking ability, salary and profession will be checked for EU and non-EU citizens alike, though not to the more than 3 million EU citizens already living or working in the U.K.
Coincidently, under the new rules, those wanting to work in Britain will need an offer from a known employer for a salary of at least $25,600 pounds, which is $33,000 a year, with some exceptions in certain fields. This mirrors the US situation. Under the plan, UK immigration would be slashed from its current level of more than 200,000 people a year,
All of these harsh moves across both sides of the Atlantic fly in the face of the NABWMT values. We are committed to fostering respect, honesty, and communication among people of different races and cultural backgrounds. We are a gay, multi-racial, multi-cultural organization for all people.
______
Source: Christina Boyle and Laura King, LA Times
