Governments miss the point on immigrants
Saturday, 1 December 2007
Michael Skapinker
THE UK is next year introducing a points-based immigration system to attract the world's most skilled migrants. Had either the young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decided to set up in Britain rather than the US, they would not have qualified for entry.
Neither would Michael Marks, the Russian immigrant who started with a stall in Leeds market and built it into Marks and Spencer. Nor would Sir Montague Burton (originally Meshe David Osinsky), whose Burton clothing chain is now part of Sir Philip Green's Arcadia empire.
It is fortunate for Sir Philip that he was born in the UK, because he would not have qualified under the points system. Neither would other leading British-born entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar.
The new points set-up, which replaces the existing Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, is meant to be transparent and clear.
It is: the Home Office website explains how it will work. You will need 75 points to qualify as a skilled immigrant. The points are based on education, previous earnings (the higher the better) and age (the lower the better).
The problem is that no matter how you add them up, you cannot get to 75 points without a university degree -- which none of the entrepreneurs mentioned above achieved. (Mr Gates and Mr Jobs both started university but dropped out.)
Britain is not the first country to introduce a points system. It is following Australia and Canada, whose systems also mix educational qualifications, age and experience.
Canada allows you to assess yourself online to see whether you would be a suitable immigrant: you answer questions about what degrees you have, how well you speak English and French and whether you have family in Canada.
You then click on a button to learn whether you qualify or not. It is great fun, even if you have no intention of emigrating to Canada. (You can find the web address and all other references at www.ft.com/skapinker.)
It is easy to laugh; far harder to come up with something better. Immigration is a fraught topic everywhere: witness the collapse of the US immigration bill in the Senate in June, or the row over DNA-testing of immigrants to France to determine whether they really are related to the family members they are joining.
Large-scale movements of people are unsettling at the best of times. The fear that countries may be importing terrorists alongside genuine migrants makes it worse.
Even if uncontrolled immigration were desirable, no government that hoped to stay in power could allow it. Hence the need to persuade the settled population that arriving immigrants are worth having.
Highly educated, skilled incomers are a relatively easy sell. They are part of the perceived "war for talent": if your country does not grab them, someone else's will. They also pose no threat to the jobs of the vast majority.
The City of London has clearly benefited from the influx of experienced bankers, lawyers and money traders - as Silicon Valley has from (generally highly educated) Asian tech entrepreneurs.
A 2005 World Bank research paper said that international graduate students and skilled immigrants had a significant impact on the number of patents granted in the US.
The problem is not the people skilled-migrant programmes let in. It is the potential business creators they keep out - all those entrepreneurial types who were unsuited to university.
The UK Home Office says its points system is based on "attributes which predict a migrant's success" but I doubt British governments are any better at picking winning immigrants than they were at picking winning car or computer companies.
The Home Office says it has plans for potential entrepreneurs but cannot yet say what they are.
There will be other routes into the UK under the new system. Immigrants will be allowed in if they have job offers, as long as the UK is short of their skills - a matter to be decided by a Skills Advisory Body.
Alternatively, would-be immigrants can try to prove they are not displacing workers in the UK or European Union labour markets.
It all sounds impossibly bureaucratic, but then immigration systems are. The mark of many successful immigrants is that they manage to evade the barriers put in their way. Whatever system the UK government puts in place, it will probably have only limited success enforcing it.
Recently it admitted that thousands of illegal immigrants had been working in the UK as security guards, some of them guarding sensitive locations including the garage where the prime minister's car was repaired.
The Office for National Statistics said on November 15, 2007 that a record 591,000 people came to live in the UK in 2006. Let us hope a future Michael Marks has slipped in among them, with or without the required points.
THE UK is next year introducing a points-based immigration system to attract the world's most skilled migrants. Had either the young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decided to set up in Britain rather than the US, they would not have qualified for entry.
Neither would Michael Marks, the Russian immigrant who started with a stall in Leeds market and built it into Marks and Spencer. Nor would Sir Montague Burton (originally Meshe David Osinsky), whose Burton clothing chain is now part of Sir Philip Green's Arcadia empire.
It is fortunate for Sir Philip that he was born in the UK, because he would not have qualified under the points system. Neither would other leading British-born entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar.
The new points set-up, which replaces the existing Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, is meant to be transparent and clear.
It is: the Home Office website explains how it will work. You will need 75 points to qualify as a skilled immigrant. The points are based on education, previous earnings (the higher the better) and age (the lower the better).
The problem is that no matter how you add them up, you cannot get to 75 points without a university degree -- which none of the entrepreneurs mentioned above achieved. (Mr Gates and Mr Jobs both started university but dropped out.)
Britain is not the first country to introduce a points system. It is following Australia and Canada, whose systems also mix educational qualifications, age and experience.
Canada allows you to assess yourself online to see whether you would be a suitable immigrant: you answer questions about what degrees you have, how well you speak English and French and whether you have family in Canada.
You then click on a button to learn whether you qualify or not. It is great fun, even if you have no intention of emigrating to Canada. (You can find the web address and all other references at www.ft.com/skapinker.)
It is easy to laugh; far harder to come up with something better. Immigration is a fraught topic everywhere: witness the collapse of the US immigration bill in the Senate in June, or the row over DNA-testing of immigrants to France to determine whether they really are related to the family members they are joining.
Large-scale movements of people are unsettling at the best of times. The fear that countries may be importing terrorists alongside genuine migrants makes it worse.
Even if uncontrolled immigration were desirable, no government that hoped to stay in power could allow it. Hence the need to persuade the settled population that arriving immigrants are worth having.
Highly educated, skilled incomers are a relatively easy sell. They are part of the perceived "war for talent": if your country does not grab them, someone else's will. They also pose no threat to the jobs of the vast majority.
The City of London has clearly benefited from the influx of experienced bankers, lawyers and money traders - as Silicon Valley has from (generally highly educated) Asian tech entrepreneurs.
A 2005 World Bank research paper said that international graduate students and skilled immigrants had a significant impact on the number of patents granted in the US.
The problem is not the people skilled-migrant programmes let in. It is the potential business creators they keep out - all those entrepreneurial types who were unsuited to university.
The UK Home Office says its points system is based on "attributes which predict a migrant's success" but I doubt British governments are any better at picking winning immigrants than they were at picking winning car or computer companies.
The Home Office says it has plans for potential entrepreneurs but cannot yet say what they are.
There will be other routes into the UK under the new system. Immigrants will be allowed in if they have job offers, as long as the UK is short of their skills - a matter to be decided by a Skills Advisory Body.
Alternatively, would-be immigrants can try to prove they are not displacing workers in the UK or European Union labour markets.
It all sounds impossibly bureaucratic, but then immigration systems are. The mark of many successful immigrants is that they manage to evade the barriers put in their way. Whatever system the UK government puts in place, it will probably have only limited success enforcing it.
Recently it admitted that thousands of illegal immigrants had been working in the UK as security guards, some of them guarding sensitive locations including the garage where the prime minister's car was repaired.
The Office for National Statistics said on November 15, 2007 that a record 591,000 people came to live in the UK in 2006. Let us hope a future Michael Marks has slipped in among them, with or without the required points.