Pro-Low
Pro-Low is in favour of low levels of non-EU immigration into the UK

What is Pro-Low?

Pro-Low is in favour of low levels of non-EU immigration. Low compared to the period to 2009.

How much Immigration is that?

Until 2009 around 120,000 non-EU migrants entered each year on work permits. Many came without a job offer to look for work. Many who came with a job offer filled vacancies that were not of vital importance to the UK.

Pro-Low's view is that 20,000 non-EU migrants per year are required to fill vital jobs, jobs that would not be filled by UK workers. 20,000 a year seems low compared to the years up to 2009. But looking back from 2011 onwards 20,000 will be viewed as the norm.

What about Immigrants other than those seeking work?

In 2008 36,000 entered the UK as spouses from outside the EU - 24,000 wives and 12,000 husbands - mainly Asians arranging marriages with "home-country" spouses. This practice is damaging to social cohesion: these communities tend to retain their home country language and not to integrate with the wider UK community. Separateness is perpetuated by the constant influx of people who have little or no knowledge of the UK or its customs.

Pro-Low's view is that the number of incoming spouses should, and can, be reduced very significantly.

Aren't there lots of Asylum seekers too?

By 2008 the number of asylum seekers had dropped to around 30,000 and in 2008 10,000 were removed. So 20,000 stayed in UK, legally or not. Policies have been progressively put in place to curb the numbers seeking asylum and to remove failed asylum seekers. Whilst more needs to be done, the asylum route is no longer the open door it once was.

Illegal Immigrants

Pro-Low supports Government moves to biometric passports, exit checks and border controls, all of which will contribute to reductions in illegal immigration. However, it is scandalous that so few illegal immigrants are removed. This has to change - there has to be a real disincentive for people to try and come here illegally. A high probability of being returned home is the strongest disincentive of all.

What about immigration from other parts of the EU?

The UK experienced high levels of immigration in the period to 2007 from new EU countries, notably Poland. However, EU immigration is now roughly in balance: as many go home as come here. There may be another influx when restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria are lifted, but these will be one-off phenomena. And frankly the UK has no power to do anything about it.

In the medium term, given that the combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria are under 30 million the number of potential immigrants is limited. By contrast, the combined populations of the Indian sub-continent and Africa exceed 2,500 million.

What are Pro-Low's specific proposals?

The Pro-Low view is that specific changes to the work permit regime and the rules governing spouses will result in the desired levels of non-EU immigration.

Work permit migration:

• immigration only allowed for migrants with a job offer.
• employers to pay a fee of £10,000 to bring in a non-EU migrant worker. Now there's an incentive to find a British worker to fill the job.
• the occupations for which entry is allowed to be restricted to vital jobs where there is a shortage of skill.
• work permits granted for maximum 4 years after which migrant returns home. Indefinite Leave to Remain becomes an exception rather than the rule.

These measures would reduce work permit immigration to around 20,000 per annum.

Spouse Immigration:

• Raise to 24 the age at which a UK resident can bring in a non-EU spouse. By 24 an individual's decision is more likely to be their own rather than their family's. By 24 most will have found a UK spouse.

This measure will reduce spouse immigration to below 10,000 a year.

Is there a downside?

Work permit migration at 20,000 implies 100,000 fewer non-EU migrants coming here each year. Many of these would have been highly skilled graduates. The UK is forgoing the contribution they might have made to the UK economy. Over a 20 year period, how much richer would these 2 million migrants and their children have made each of us? Who can say. We give up this potential economic benefit in furtherance of the desire for less overcrowding, less social tension, slower population growth and in furtherance of the generally expressed desire simply for there to be less immigration.

Pro-Low does not believe there is a disadvantage to the UK in reducing spouse immigration by 25,000 a year.

What are Pro-Low's views on Race, Diversity and Multiculturalism?

On race. It's irrelevant. People in UK legally are British.

On Diversity. It's here to stay - even zero immigration won't change that. If you like Indian restaurants, you like diversity. Either way, it is more relevant to academic discussion of past levels of immigration than to future levels of immigration.

On Multiculturalism. Whether you feel this adds to the richness of life or threatens British culture it too is here to stay. Again it is not of great relevance to a discussion on future levels of immigration.

And in one sense immigration reduces diversity. A Yorkshire city and a Welsh city used to feel very different: that diversity is being lost as exactly the same ethnic mix is increasingly found everywhere. Until 2009 high levels of immigration from outside the EU became the norm and that level of immigration seemed unchangeable. The economic case for immigration held sway: immigration is good for "the economy", it increases the UK's "human capital" and so on. Regretably, economists' models did not take into account the negative effects: overcrowding, social tension, green spaces disappearing for housing, areas of towns being colonised by those not wishing to integrate and many more disadvantages actual and perceived. Most of all, economists' models took no account of the majority's view that there was too much immigration.

A belief grew that it would always be so and could not be changed. The case for significantly lower levels of immigration even became the preserve of extremist parties such as the BNP.

What are Pro-Low's views?

Pro-Low is in favour of immigration from outside the EU in these conditions: into highly skilled jobs that are critical to the proper functioning of the public services or critical to the UK's economic health where:

• the prospective immigrant must have a firm job offer before applying to come to UK
• the occupation must be one where there are significant shortages in UK as a whole
• the occupation is one in which leaving jobs unfilled would result in serious incapacity in public services or significant economic damage to the UK
• the job must be one for which it would take more than 6 weeks to train a British worker from a non-shortage occupation
• the job must first have been advertised in UK
• the job must pay a salary such that the tax paid by the migrant will at least pay for the "free" services they and dependants use - £25,000pa or more.