A policy of mass deporting legal immigrants was once solely the preserve of fringe racist groups such as the National Front in Britain. Now it is the position not only of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which leads the nation’s polls, but also the Conservatives, the governing party for 14 of the past 15 years. The mainstreaming of such xenophobic radicalism does nothing for Britain’s reputation as a bastion of reliability, tolerance and decency.
Katie Lam, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc vice president who became a member of the British Parliament for the Conservative opposition last year, caused a furor after telling the Sunday Times there were a large number of people in the country “who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to” and that they would need to “go home.”
Lam, a shadow home office minister, said their departures would leave a “culturally coherent” group of people.
Her comments were broadly in line with Conservative policy, the Guardian reported on Wednesday last year, citing party leader Kemi Badenoch’s spokesperson.
Retroactively changing the rules on people in the UK legally undermines long-established principles of fairness and predictability, and would not be cost-free. Such caprice would send a bad signal to the high-skilled, high-value migrants that Britain still needs to attract. Combined with anti-immigrant rhetoric, it might persuade them that other destinations are a better bet. Politicians should speak on such issues carefully and with moderation.
The backdrop is a surge in small-boat arrivals across the English Channel since British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government came to power last year, along with figures showing legal migration peaked at a yearly net influx of 906,000 under the preceding Conservative administration. This has elevated immigration to the No. 1 concern of voters, overshadowing a flatlining economy. Parties have sought to outdo each other this year in looking tough. The Conservatives in February proposed to double to 10 years the time needed to attain settled status, known in Britain as indefinite leave to remain, or ILR; Labour matched that in May; Farage now promises to scrap ILR altogether.
The rash of attention to ILR reflects a belief that too many lower-earning migrants and their dependents arrived in the wave that followed the UK’s exit from the EU, and they would become a burden on the welfare state once they are eligible for benefits (usually after five years under current rules). However, projections about the future economic contributions or costs of migrants are highly uncertain. Legal migrants are not destitute spongers; they have paid thousands of dollars in visa fees to be here. In my case, visa fees and associated costs for my spouse and one dependent have totaled about ￡15,000 (US$19,825) so far, after our decision to move from Hong Kong three years ago. ILR would cost another ￡6,000, if we are eligible to apply by then.
Imagine the reaction of migrants who, having stumped up the cash on the promise of a five-year pathway, are now being told they can double what they have already put in as part of Labour’s proposal — or, under Farage’s plan, just keep paying for visa renewals indefinitely until a Reform government deigns to grant them citizenship (if ever). On the plus side, a depleted Treasury might net an extra few billion pounds, based on the more than 1 million post-Brexit migrants who had become eligible for ILR over the coming years.
Lam’s views are not new. A video posted on the conservativehome.com Web site in July shows her pouring colored beads representing migrants into overflowing glass jars.
“Most of these people didn’t come to work and are paying no tax,” Lam says, before stating, without evidence or attribution, that if post-2021 migrants gain ILR, “it’s going to cost us hundreds of billions of pounds.”
Her Sunday Times interview helped draw attention to an immigration bill the Conservatives introduced in May, which would revoke ILR for anyone whose income falls below ￡38,700 for six months or more (that is higher than the UK median wage) — or if they or their dependents have received any form of “social protection” (including pensions, an entitlement that is earned). With the Conservatives in opposition, the bill has zero chance of becoming law — but it is draconian.
A belated backlash has arrived, including from people in Lam’s own party. With Labour compromised by having played to the same anti-immigrant gallery, it was left to Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey to claim the moral mantle.
Such rhetoric from a member of the Conservative front bench was “deeply concerning and unpatriotic,” Davey wrote to Badenoch. “This shows just how far your party has moved away from the fundamental values of decency, tolerance and respect for the rule of law that the vast majority of people in our country hold dear.”
Lam, 34, is from a family that fled Nazi Germany for England. In her interview she described debating immigration as a teenager with her 90-year-old grandfather, whose extended family included Holocaust victims and who favored open borders. The international rules-based order was “based on the idea that everyone would want to be nice to each other postwar,” she told the Sunday Times. The reality was this was “not true” and people would exploit that generosity unless we stand up for ourselves.
Another interpretation might be that the postwar system reflected a knowledge that, once governments start to separate out certain groups of people and look at them as unworthy of the rights and protections afforded to others, it can lead quickly to a very dark place. Britain should not go there.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure. Formerly, he was an editor for Bloomberg News and the South China Morning Post. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS