Labour should honestly acknowledge that immigration benefits Britain rather than pursue restrictionist cuts that harm the economy and integration
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/gabyhinsliff. "Imagine if, for once, Labour decided to tell the truth about immigration | Gaby Hinsliff | The Guardian." October 23, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that immigration is good for Britain's finances and public services, and that cutting it further will cost the country money and make migrants feel unwelcome. She says Labour should be honest about this rather than chasing ever-lower numbers that won't satisfy anti-immigration voters anyway.
Conclusion
Labour should stop pursuing ever-tighter immigration restrictions, including the home secretary's 15-year settlement rule, and instead honestly tell the public that immigration is economically and socially beneficial and that cutting it carries real costs.
Premises
- Immigration is a net fiscal positive: the IFS says falling immigration would cut tax revenues and shrink budget headroom by about £4bn, and the OBR calculated that the Johnson-era surge would reduce projected borrowing by over £7bn by 2028-29.
- Migrants pay about £2.5bn a year in NHS surcharges and on average pay in around 60% more than they take out in healthcare services, so cutting immigration also cuts NHS income.
- Public services, particularly social care, depend on migrant workers, who are disproportionately represented in an undervalued care workforce.
- Making settlement take up to 15 years, backdated to 2021, reneges on the deal made with workers who came here, creates fear of job loss, forces some to leave, and signals that migrants are here only on sufferance, which undermines integration and social cohesion.
- Successive governments have pretended there is no trade-off, but reducing immigration requires higher taxes, lower spending or more borrowing to fill the fiscal hole.
- Sharply cutting immigration has not worked politically: legal migration is at historic lows and boat crossings have halved, yet anti-migrant anger and Reform's appeal persist, so no level of reduction will satisfy some people.
Assumptions
- Aggregate fiscal studies (IFS, OBR, Nuffield Trust) fairly represent the net long-term contribution of the migrants affected by the policy, including low-paid care workers.
- The public can be persuaded by honest economic arguments rather than being fixed in its hostility to immigration.
- Economic and fiscal benefits should weigh heavily against public desire for lower immigration numbers.
- Migrants who came under earlier rules had a legitimate expectation of settlement after five years.
- Longer settlement periods reduce integration and social cohesion.
- Appeasing anti-immigration sentiment by cutting numbers will not reduce support for the populist right.