Keeping the wrong kind out: a closer look at the inequities caused by points-based immigration policies
Often touted as the answer to the problems that arise with more liberal immigration policies such as large numbers of low-skilled immigrants, lowering of wages and a failure to integrate, countries like Australia and Canada promote their points-based immigration systems as being egalitarian and free from bias however the truth may not be quite so simple.
How it works
In a points-based system, potential migrants are allocated a score based on certain criteria seen as valuable by the target country such as wealth, education, good health and language skills. The attraction of such a system is easy to see: it appears to offer a more even playing field and is supposedly colour- and ethnicity-blind as potential migrants are judged solely on their talent and skill. In reality, various biases exist which mean many of the lowest paid jobs in jurisdictions with points-based immigration systems are still disproportionately held by migrants who in many cases are overqualified for their positions.
Australia, for example, has what is known as a general skilled migration programme, where immigrants applying for a visa are typically selected based on “economically relevant characteristics” such as education, language skills and work experience. The exact manner in which points are allocated varies depend on policy and the labour market, but typically an applicant picks a “skilled occupation” from a list and needs to score a minimum number of points.
Why the uneven playing field?
Using Australia as an example, a 2019 study showed that of skilled migrants from non-English speaking countries who came to Australia between 2011 and 2016, fewer than one third had found a professional or managerial job. Another study revealed that migrants were 25% more likely to be in the bottom income quintile than either migrants from English-speaking countries or those born in Australia. The unemployment rate for recent migrants on a permanent visa is more than 50% higher than it is for Australians in general.
The results appear skewed because a system such as this often ignores the skills that are actually required by the economy even though the definition of skilled occupation may be reassessed on an annual basis. Discrepancies occur because the process is designed to cater for political as much as economic needs of a country. And of course inherent biases still exist, none more evident than racism and xenophobia.
Some countries are now moving their immigration policy away from a strictly points-based system towards the granting of temporary work visas. This can also create problems because temporary workers have fewer rights and may denied access to healthcare, social payments or a pathway to citizenship. Temporary workers are usually not unionised and so are required to work long hours in poor conditions for little pay. According to reports, such workers now make up 11% of Australia’s workforce.
All this begins to explain why a country that boasts of welcoming only skilled workers ends up with so many Indian cabbies and Filipino cleaners and why a policy of tying immigration to jobs ends up exploiting them instead.
A blended option
For months the introduction of an Australian-style points-based immigration system has been bandied about in the UK as a political panacea for a more controlled immigration system, but a recently issued report by the migration advisory committee (“MAC”) does not support this. Instead it recommends a mixed system which would rely on a minimum salary threshold for those people coming to the UK with a job offer and a points-based system for skilled workers coming to the UK without an arranged job.
MAC further recommended that the minimum salary acquirement for a skilled migrant should be reduced from £30,000 to £25,600 for those coming to the UK with a job offer as this could make it easier for teachers, NHS employees and people at the start of their careers to qualify. The committee recommended higher thresholds for more highly-paid occupations.
Whilst some of these policies may have the effect of reducing the level of immigration, the size of the population, total GDP, and pressure on the NHS, schools and social housing in the UK, they may in fact increase pressure on social care.
Critics of liberal immigration policies often argue for the necessity of tighter controls that permit the entry of only the “right kind” of migrant. What some of these jurisdictions with point-based policies show is that the obsession with having the “right kind” often blinds people to the fact that many of the problems attributed to migrants are more likely to have been caused by the attitudes and policies of governments, employers and the public, rather than any particular form of immigration.
It is unlikely that the UK government will do more than merely note the committee’s recommendations.
