Our immigration system is broken – and Javid’s announcement shows he’s hell bent on making it worse

The home secretary has refused to consult migrants on his plans for changes to the system. This evidence-free approach will only lead to more damage

As home secretary Sajid Javid battles on to remain in the Tory leadership race, we've seen two announcements on immigration. The first is Javid's promise to drop the net migration target if he gets to 10 Downing Street. The second revealed only on Monday concerns the means by which Javid plans to create a 'skills-based' immigration system for post-Brexit Britain.

Both are broadly welcome. The commitment to a net migration target that was not being met only kept eroding public confidence that the government could take back control of our borders in any meaningful sense.

If Britain does leave the EU in October, then a new immigration system that could adapt to an end to freedom of movement will become necessary. A full consultation is longer overdue and public engagement much needed. Unfortunately, Javid's plans fall down at every hurdle.

The one key task for any post-Brexit system is how to address the different immigration status that EU citizens will have. It is estimated there are three million currently in the UK. EU migration accounts for about a third of all net migration each year.

Yet the Home Office has already closed its doors to hearing from those affected. Crucial groups like 3million are locked out of discussions with no representation at all. In fact, none of the five advisory groups address EU citizens specifically. Javid's review has failed this important litmus test at the start.

The five different groups launched - employers, the education sector, "crossing the border", the national advisory group (ensuring a UK-wide system) and vulnerable groups – all speak to a system that sees the integration of migrants as a one-way street. There are few, if any, voices of migrants themselves or of naturalised citizens. The employer is engaged, but not the employee. This is a London-centric programme that is neither joined up or evidence-based.

When I became a UK citizen in 2011, I uncovered the many failings behind the Life in the UK citizenship test, which was like a bad pub quiz that few, if any, British citizens can pass. Part of the problem has been the test once justified as a means of testing integration has never been reviewed comprehensively until my report to see if met its purpose. The voices of migrants and new citizens didn't matter - and as a result the test remains unfit for purpose.

Such issues were identified a year ago by a parliamentary select committee on citizenship – yet none of its proposals for improving a broken system are being taken seriously, such as the need for a UK-wide citizenship advisory group.

In continuing to ignore the views of EU citizens or indeed of families, the Home Office's engagement programme isn't addressing most of the migrants who come and live in Britain each year. This oversight seems intentional, but it could be addressed if new advisory groups on EU citizens and families is launched. Yet further fundamental problems will remain.

The overall programme promises a skills-based system, but yet only speaks to salary thresholds. Higher salaries are an inaccurate proxy of the skills we're in short supply of. It's an odd skills-based approach that makes no mention of any of the skills it claims drive it. Instead of a push for higher skilled migration, the raised salary cap appears more likely to see migrants barred from many highly skilled jobs – in what has been described as a "sucker punch" to business.

This view of migrants only as workers makes no mention of the families to which they belong or their positive contributions to their local communities.

Finally, the system is not what it says on the tin. The system does not actually treat EU and non-EU citizens alike, but will in fact treat individuals differently by their country of origin. Instead of being nationality-blind, the new system will be nationality-sensitive.

This means instead of a binary EU and non-EU system that already leads to a significant number of errors – most appeals against Home Office decisions are successful – we will instead have a far more complex system of several different streams by nationality accounting for each new trade deal. If the Home Office can't handle non-EU citizens as a single category, how can this improve if divided into a dozen or more without a huge increase in staffing?

A new immigration system built on consultation and evidence is needed. Unfortunately, this exercise is flawed at the start and likely to make a badly run system far worse.

Thom Brooks is dean of Durham Law School and advised the Electoral Commission on the EU Referendum