The debate around the UK’s immigration system is like a broken record. Each time the country goes to election and politicians swarm the doorsteps with terminologies around “capped migration”, skilled migrants, and taking back control of our borders. Tory governments have introduced in vain hostile environment policy which does little to curb illegal immigration and instead clamps down on legislations around the highly skilled migrants.
In the latest Brexit spin-off both Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel appear to have conceded to the Migration Advisory Committee report. They are now expected to accept the government-appointed organisation’s recommendation around lowering the salary threshold of the skilled migrants coming to the UK with a job offer to £25,600 per annum. This is in contrast to Tory’s earlier benchmark of £30,000.
The details of the new system are expected to be formally unveiled by Patel next Friday. But it is yet to be understood if the proposed Australian points-based immigration system is going to facilitate in attracting skilled professionals from across the world, especially to plug the gaps in NHS with more nurses and doctors.
But at a time when it appears that the UK seems to be making avenues for skilled professionals from countries such as India, there is a flip side to the story as well. The UK’s immigration regime for people from the European Regime. The so-called Australian-style points-based system will effectively curb unskilled migrants' access to the UK from January 1, 2021, when the free movement of people from within the European Union (EU) will end under a pre-agreed transition period after Britain formally left the economic bloc on January 31. Whilst the mayor of London may campaign heavily around #LondonIsOpen, the dogged question remains if London is really welcome and open? If the recent deportation of the convicted offenders from London to Jamaica against Home Office’s ruling is considered then the answer to the above question remains no.
In the meantime perhaps, it is both redundant yet realistic to note the benefits that migrants bring to any country regardless of their ethnic profile. These are possibly best illustrated by Nobel Laurette Abhijeet Banerjee’s latest book Good Economics for Hard Times which tackles issues in both poor and rich countries. It focuses on the impact of immigration, automation, and trade on workers; the rise of nativism and xenophobia; and universal basic income and how all these concepts are intricately inter-related. He argues that large numbers of low-skill people suddenly showing up in some country’s labor market does not depress the wages or hurt other low-skilled counterparts. These workers also buy things and that creates demand and they are also often entrepreneurial and they create jobs. It’s a triumph of bad economics that no one wants to believe that a large number of low-skill immigrants are not depressing wages. Interestingly, high-skilled immigrants, who are welcome in most countries, do depress wages. Low-skilled immigrants only seem to add to the GDP. That this concept (that low-skill immigrants depress wages) is so appealing is the failure of our profession.
Perhaps, the Tory government ought to take note of economists and immigration specialists as opposed to their own polarised opinions around migrants.
A giant leap for the history of mankind
University museums are repatriating overseas relics, that were stolen during Britain’s colonial rule, after students pressurised that they are perceived of historical injustices. This act of kindness has been applauded by many, especially by the younger generation- but criticised by others. The critics who now fear that the UK will be pushed to return many of such stolen goods- displayed in various museums- as their colonial conquers, are perhaps in fear of losing their colonial hangover.
It is evidential even in simple things like school curriculum. The British children are never taught about the colonial destruction that The Empire carried on in the name of trade, and today there have been movements to include colonial history in school text books. Pupils at a school in East Dulwich believe it is essential for the history of the British Empire be taught in classes. The Department for Education said that there is flexibility within the curriculum for children to be taught about colonial history. Such history should be mandatory and not flexible. When acclaimed writer and historian William Dalrymple commented at last year’s Dhaka Literature Festival that the UK authorities do not teach British schools the history of the colonial enterprise, many seemed unaware that the East India Company was the original corporate raider.
“The British Empire does not figure on the syllabus in textbooks,” Dalrymple had reportedly exclaimed.
British children read about the great explorers but do not speak about those colonial officers punished for plunder, corruption, and other atrocities.
It is ironical how on one hand Britain is ashamed of its colonial past, that killed thousands in the name of ‘Raj’. On the other they refuse to return what they took from countries they ever wrongfully ruled, claiming as their own- in the name of Parliamentary law. Laws change every day, if the people they represent believe it’s not reflective of what they believe in. Brexit is the biggest example of how power rest with the people. Arts Council England is embarking on a project to update its advice to museums and galleries on how to deal with the repatriation of artefacts that are suspected of being looted during the colonial era.
It said that given the increasing focus on the subject its last guidance, from 2000, was “very out of date”. According to documents obtained under freedom of information legislation only one in seven requests made since 2009 to institutions linked to Oxford University have been denied.
Of course returning such goods may lead to complex issues and question may arise about the rightful owner. For example if something was taken from an area in India in 1897, which is currently in Pakistan, who is then the rightful owner? That a UK court could decide of course. The history of the object of course is not only of imperial aggression- as The Times said in its comment, but multifaceted. Yet it remains important- who it belonged to originally.
Imperialism and colonialism did more harm than one knows. Neither incidents like Jallianwala Bagh or the Bengal famine can be erased from our past. Nor these sins can be eradicated just by a reflexive gesture of regret. But the sins perhaps could be reduced by the willingness to return objects to its rightful, undisputed owner. Charity always begins at home. These small steps could indeed be equivalent to a giant leap for the history of mankind- example of true grit shown by Britain, that has finally come of age and its sense.
No fundamental right to claim quota in government jobs, promotion
In a major verdict, the Supreme Court in India has ruled that the states are not bound to provide quota for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) or Other Backward Class (OBC) in government jobs and that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions. There is no fundamental right which confers an individual to claim reservations in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court directing the state government to provide reservations,” said a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
The ruling came in a case where the question was on validity of Uttarakhand government’s September 5, 2012 decision to fill up all posts in government services in the state without providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Uttarakhand HC had struck down the notification and had directed the government to provide reservation as per law. The SC bench upheld the September 5notification and reversed the HC judgment. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice L Nageswara Rao said, “It is settled law that the state government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointments in public posts. Similarly, the state is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotions. However, if they (the states) wish to exercise their discretion and make such a provision, the state has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.”
In reality, the logic of reservations demands that they have a self-cancelling character. If it is contended that they institute equality of opportunity then they cannot continue in perpetuity, as the goal will have to be attained at some point. Surely it should be up to governments to determine if and when intended policy goals are achieved, and if it cannot be achieved then to shift to some other strategy. Making reservations itself a fundamental right denies governments any flexibility and amounts to a subversion of equality of opportunity.
In practice the actual cause for reservations in India have been turned upside down as more powerful castes muscle into this space brandishing their street power. The desperation for jobs as millions of youth enter the workforce in a slumping economy, combined with the comfort and perks of government jobs, have caused the latter to be coveted and led to intense caste wars to divide up the pie. This is not good for merit, for equality of opportunity, or for fostering a modern sense of citizenship transcending caste divides. It is high time Centre as well as state governments shifted to a different strategy for ensuring equality of opportunity: by offering high quality public education to all
