Immigration is a great British success story – politicians should tell the truth about it

Editorial: The Conservatives ‘took back control’ of immigration policy but they will not take responsibility for the decisions they made

Anti-immigrant rhetoric undermines confidence in politicians and politics generally (PA)

Record net immigration is good news for Britain. Successful countries attract people, and successful economies need immigration to thrive. The estimates for last year in addition reflect the humanitarian generosity of the British people towards the Ukrainians as they fight for their national survival, and towards those residents of Hong Kong to whom we owe a postcolonial obligation.

In some respects, the figure for net immigration is not high enough. We have fallen short of our responsibility towards those Afghans who stood by us during our ultimately unsuccessful attempt to defend their people from reactionary theocrats. We should have wished that the figure for net immigration last year to have been at least 606,001. The heroic Afghan pilot who fought alongside our troops, and for whom The Independent is campaigning, should have been given permission to settle here.

Overall, though, the figures reflect well on the UK. Apart from the humanitarian schemes, the economy has bounced back from coronavirus, and we have filled nursing and social care vacancies from new sources outside the EU.

However, some elements of the record-breaking figure are less welcome. The asylum backlog has also hit a record high, rising above the level reached in the early days of the last Labour government. This is mainly because the Home Office has been overwhelmed by the number arriving in small boats, to which it has failed miserably to respond after three years. The backlog has been made worse by another record, the historically low number (excluding the pandemic years) of removals from the UK of criminals and failed asylum seekers.

The Independent agrees that it is right to debate whether Britain’s immigration system is fit for purpose. There is a case to be made that removing more people who are not entitled to be in the UK is critical to gaining a grip on the asylum system – and to regaining public confidence in immigration policy as a whole.

We also agree that the figures for students and their dependents is “too high”. While higher education is a priceless British success story, and a striking feature of the new figures is the huge number of students leaving the country after their courses are over, it is apparent that some visas for short courses have been abused as an immigration route.

Rishi Sunak belatedly admitted as much by this week when his home secretary Suella Braverman announced a ban on most students bringing family members with them – reversing a decision that was taken by the same government to which Sunak belonged.

Indeed, what is extraordinary is that these figures are the results of decisions taken by the Conservative government at a time when its rhetoric has consistently held that immigration is too high. The fact is that Britain did “take back control” of its immigration policy as a result of leaving the EU, and these figures reflect what Boris Johnson did with that control.

The Independent agrees with what Mr Johnson did but disagrees with what he said. His points-based system allowed Britain to recruit the workers that our economy and our public services needed. That we applaud. Yet what he said, and what he allowed his home secretary Priti Patel to say, was something altogether different. They spoke as if immigrants were a threat and often used such toxic language about asylum seekers that it cut against this country’s obligations to some of the world’s most desperate people.

For the Conservative Party to have said for so long that it wants to restrict immigration to the “tens of thousands”, while presiding over higher figures than the New Labour years, is not just bad for the Tories’ prospects at the next election but bad for democracy. It is quite possible to have a border policy that is both humane and which meets the public’s expectations. This government has achieved neither. Not only do we disagree with anti-immigrant rhetoric, but we fear that it undermines confidence in politicians and politics generally.

Let us hope that, when the immigration figures subside to more normal levels, as they are almost certain to do, the leaders of all parties will be more honest about the economic and social advantages conferred by moderate levels of immigration.