If you think an Australian points-based system would keep the Calais Jungle inhabitants out of the UK, you're wrong

Most people who end up in the Calais Jungle have paid a large amount of money to human traffickers, often because they have high salaries and good professions in their home countries. They would pass a points-based assessment with flying colours

Many of the refugees in The Jungle would be allowed entry into a UK immigration policy based on the Australian points system (Getty)

“If we adopted an Australian points-based system (PBS), we wouldn’t be having this problem with migrants,” goes the refrain to pretty much every conversation about migration, as if a points-based system measuring the ability of a migrant to contribute to society would be the panacea for all of our immigration woes. No Polish workers stealing much-needed jobs from Britons and no feckless Syrian refugees determined to rinse the welfare state.

As a result, there was a collective throwing up of arms and cries of “backsliding” from enthusiastic Brexiteers this week, who had been promised this one-size-fits-all solution to “taking back control”, as Theresa May quashed their Little Englander dreams by saying that a PBS was “not an option”.

They may not be outraged for too long, however, as the former Home Secretary’s vague roadmap for Britain’s post-Brexit immigration system is far more restrictive than any PBS they could have dreamed of. Number 10 has come out against the system on the grounds that PBS allows a set criteria, rather than a fixed number, to determine who can and cannot enter the UK. In other words, PBS concentrates on quality – and doesn’t restrict quantity. If you are a highly educated, upstanding citizen of the world, you’re in.

Tories quote the fact that under Labour and its British version of PBS, currently applicable to non-EU nationals, immigration numbers went up. Australia is cited not as an exemplar of a rational migration policy, but rather as having higher immigration per capita than Britain.

This goes to show how far advocates of lower immigration really researched their views on the topic. Then again, there is nothing new about those who voted out not thinking something all the way through.

Indeed, if they are so keen on the PBS system on the basis that it allows the UK to sift through migrants and refugees based on their merit, then they would have to admit that they disagree with Theresa May’s new plans and that we should let more non-UK nationals take up residence in the country.

Under the Australian system, any applicant between 25 and 32 automatically starts with half of the required points and those between the ages of 45 and 49 start at zero; all applicants are given points for their level of English; and the rest of the points are allocated based upon the applicants’ qualifications, employment history and occupations. The country also has a “character test” designed to weed out anyone with a criminal record or who is deemed a risk to the community.

Such a PBS would negatively affect a lot of EU workers on the basis of occupation. According to research carried out by Oxford university’s Migration Observatory, 96 per cent of EU workers employed on farms, 94 per cent in hotels and restaurants, 66 per cent in the financial service sector, and two thirds of the workers in construction, manufacturing, energy and transport would not be eligible for a visa under such a system. Only 11 per cent in skilled trades and professional occupations would be able to stay.

This sounds like a success for those advocating for the tighter immigration controls. However, the picture isn’t the same when we turn to non-EU nationals, especially those refugees who are out there in Calais apparently causing havoc for French farmers and truckers.

According to a census carried out by Help Refugees and L’Auberge des Migrants, out of the 5,188 people living in the refugee camp, 10 per cent are high-skilled workers and 8 per cent specialised workers. The Jungle holds 55 professions in total, including doctors, nurses, lawyers, architects and carpenters.

When I visited the camp just over 12 months ago with several other volunteers, we met one doctor, two lawyers and three engineers. All of these professions are included in the Australian immigration Skilled Occupation List. Each of these refugees spoke impeccable English, was between the ages of 25 and 49 and had a university education – all eligible for UK visas under a PBS. This is not an unusual cross section: most people who reach Europe have paid a large amount of money to human traffickers to do so, often because they are middle class, high salaried people in their home countries with good professions.

And when it comes to character? During our visit, heavy rains flooded my friends’ tents, and despite coming to the camp with the aim of providing aid, in an ironic twist they found themselves being supported by a group of refugees who took them in for the night.

If coming to the rescue of some well-meaning but ill-prepared aid workers isn’t community spirit, I don’t know what is.

If these aren’t the people advocates of such a system want in our country, who is eligible? An Australian style points-based system won’t keep people out – and if that stops you supporting it, then maybe the reason you’re really calling for “stricter immigration controls” is because of plain old prejudice.