POLITICAL scientists use the “Overton window” to measure how ideas move in and out of fashion. At its centre is the current political consensus. Outside the window, either to the left or the right, policies move through a spectrum: popular, sensible, acceptable, radical, or unthinkable. With time, ideas can shift, so that what was unthinkable moves closer to the centre of political gravity.
The Overton window is shifting on immigration. The Labour Party, which once saw immigration as a net benefit to Britain, has introduced a raft of measures to curb it: a Border Security Command; treating people-smugglers like terrorists; accelerating decisions on asylum applications; deals with France and Germany. But none of this is working as fast as critics demand.
With demonstrations outside hotels housing asylum-seekers in 33 different locations across the country, the prospect of civil disorder has become very real. Nigel Farage has set out a package of draconian “Send Them Back” policies, which would be introduced if, as polls suggest, he became our next Prime Minister.
Most significant, though, is the shift in thinking among influential figures within Labour. A former Home Secretary, Lord Blunkett, has called for tighter controls. Polly Toynbee, for decades one of the most influential thinkers within the moderate wing of the Labour Party, has now spoken of the need for the international community to reconsider the refugee conventions that came in after the Second World War. In the 1950s, the influx of refugees largely comprised Caucasians from Eastern Europe in the aftermath of Nazi and Soviet tyranny. Nowadays, in contrast, she says, the whole world sees Britain as a desirable destination. Ms Toynbee is a bellwether; for her to shift is massively significant.
Before the nation embraces Faragism, there is one other measure that could be tried.
The sump of resentment against asylum-seekers lies primarily in the idea that they are a drain on the British taxpayer, with their free housing, healthcare, dentistry, and many other benefits that members of the white working class feel that they are denied.
One answer to that would be in allowing, or perhaps even requiring, asylum-seekers to work in sectors where there are labour shortages. They would then contribute to tax revenue, instead of being a cost to the State. Work, as Pope John Paul II insisted, is essential to human dignity: it gives purpose, structure, and self-respect. Denying it often leads to depression and poor mental health — or pushes people into the illegal job market, where they risk being exploited. It is particularly unjust to refuse people work when legal processes on asylum take months or years.
Opponents will argue that allowing asylum-seekers to work could encourage more to come to the UK. That argument might apply in the case of economic migrants. But research suggests that most asylum-seekers are fleeing persecution or violence, and are not abandoning their home countries for economic gain. Evidence from Sweden and Germany shows that allowing asylum-seekers to work improves integration and reduces costs. There is no evidence that it is a “pull factor”.
Allowing asylum-seekers to work will not address all the complaints against them. But, if they are paying tax and rent, the argument that they are a drain on the public purse will lose some of its purchase.
