Latest news with #Boriswave
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Immigration is the reason our police seem more incompetent than ever
There are all sorts of downsides to an ageing society, but one of the upsides is supposed to be that it is a safer, quieter, more orderly society. But modern Britain doesn't really feel that way, does it? Yes, many forms of crime are down – although there is surely some ambiguity there. If you live in the jurisdiction of one of the many police forces which solves zero burglaries a year, how long before you no longer bother reporting such things? What about lower-level crime, such as shoplifting? So what happened? Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner, has part of the answer: 'We're carrying the scar tissue of austerity cuts, and the effects of that. Forces are much smaller when you compare the population they're policing than they were a decade or 15 years ago.' Credit where credit is due: it's too rare for figures of authority to acknowledge when a problem is rooted (as so many are) in the Conservative party's last period in office. Rowley is quite correct that we'll be feeling the impact of short-sighted policing cuts under the Coalition for a long time. Too often, such comments are seized on by the Left as somehow conceding that any form of austerity was a bad idea. It wasn't, at least if you don't think that public spending can just increase forever. But George Osborne's strategy – avoid making any decisions and salami-slice every budget – was a disaster for the justice system. Not only did he cut thousands of police officers, but the Treasury also paid off thousands of our most experienced prison officers to retire early, with entirely predictable consequences. Rowley is, however, only acknowledging half the problem. The police-to-population ratio depends on two numbers, and officer strength is just one. The other reason that per-capita police numbers are so much lower than they were twenty years ago is the Conservatives' continual failure to get a grip on mass immigration. Actually, that sentence flatters the Tories a bit, because it implies they tried to grip it. Yet their record tells a different story. David Cameron fought two elections talking tough about bringing net immigration down to the 'tens of thousands', but in office was happy to let his home secretaries talk tough whilst the departments of Business, Education, and the Treasury continually bid up the numbers. As for Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, well, surely nothing need be said that googling the term 'Boriswave' doesn't cover. The impact of this is two-fold. A lower ratio of police to residents obviously has an impact on law enforcement (compounded by the courts backlog and prisons crisis). But a more atomised society with a high proportion of new arrivals – an 'island of strangers', as Sir Keir Starmer put it – also simply needs more police, as 'hard' policing has to compensate for the dilution of social norms which play a larger role in a more homogenous, higher-trust society. Sadly, it doesn't look as if the Government has learned any lessons. Rachel Reeves is reportedly locked in battle with colleagues over more police cuts, even as chiefs warn that it will make it impossible to hit Labour's vaunted crime targets. Just how hollowed out do forces need to get before ministers will accept the need to cut entitlement spending? I really don't want to find out the hard way. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Spectator
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
How Labour ended up taking on the Boriswave
Sir Keir Starmer, remarkably, has launched an immigration crackdown. Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers' after the Tory 'one-nation experiment in open borders', he said on Monday. A Home Office white paper has introduced several measures which will supposedly bring the sky-high numbers down. Most interestingly, the government will extend the required qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) – which grants migrants access to the welfare state and the ability to bring dependents – from five years residency in the UK to ten. On Wednesday it confirmed that this would apply retroactively. Which means that should this go through – there will be a public consultation – it can be expected to prevent the post-2021 migration surge known as the 'Boriswave' from automatically being granted permanent settlement in the next few years. This is a hugely welcome and sensible move: if the Boriswave was a mistake, as it is widely agreed to be, there is no reason we should let it become permanent.
Telegraph
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Boriswave Indefinite-Leave-to-Remain time bomb is about to go off
This week, the Telegraph is running a series of essays on immigration, one of the great issues of our times. The full list of published essays appears at the bottom of this article Those concerned about immigration often focus on the number of people coming to Britain, and rightly so. Incoming migration is far too high, and has been for many years. In 2022, 2023, and 2024, gross migration ran at more than 1 million – a population the size of Birmingham, each year. But quantity is not the only consideration. We must also think about the terms on which immigrants come to Britain, the rights that they have once they are here – and what, if anything, we can do to remove those migrants who do not contribute to our society. Under the current system, most migrants on work or family visas will be eligible for Indefinite Leave To Remain (ILR) after just five years in the UK. After ten years here, almost all migrants are eligible to apply for ILR – an eligibility period which includes time spent on a student or graduate visa. Once they have ILR, migrants can access Universal Credit, social housing, and other benefits. It also puts them on the path to citizenship, and entitles them to surcharge-free access to the NHS. The number of people receiving ILR is already ticking up, as the long-term impact of Britain's migration failure filters through the system. In 2024, 147,053 people were granted ILR, up 31 percent on the 2023 figure. But a much bigger threat now looms, which could permanently damage our economy, our public services, and our society as a whole. Those who came to Britain in the migration explosion of the last few years – dubbed the 'Boriswave' by some commentators – will soon become eligible for ILR. Those who arrived in 2021's record-breaking migration wave will start to become eligible from 2026, with the number of eligible migrants growing with each passing day. This will, in effect, bake in the 'Boriswave', making it much harder to reverse the damage of our immigration failure over the past few years. These newly-minted ILR recipients will be able to access our already-stretched public services, and will begin to receive taxpayer-funded welfare. With just five per cent of migrants from the 2022-23 cohort expected to be high earners, the vast majority of these new ILR holders will not be net lifetime contributors. In other words, we will be adding enormous strain to our public services, and paying for the privilege. How many migrants from the Boriswave will actually claim ILR? Incredibly, we don't know. The Government has issued no official prediction about the number of people who could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, nor any prediction of the impact that these people will have on public services over their lifetimes. As such, we must rely on estimates. According to research from the Centre for Policy Studies, more than 800,000 migrants could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, at a lifetime cost of £234 billion. That's equivalent to £8,200 per household, or six times our annual defence budget. This represents an enormous opportunity cost, and will be financed by either increased taxes or borrowing. Why should working people, already squeezed by historically high tax rates, be forced to pay more in order to cover the costs of an immigration wave that they did not consent to? We must act now, and act decisively. The eligibility period for ILR must be extended, to at least 10 years – and ideally longer. As I argued in December, a 15-year eligibility period would be preferable, giving a future Government more time to decide whether or not to issue new visas to those who arrived in the past few years. Extending the eligibility period for ILR would make it possible to withhold visas from those who have come to the UK legally, but have not contributed enough. Those who are not expected to be net lifetime contributors should simply be refused a visa extension and compelled to leave. We should not add more pressure to an already-strained public purse. As Nick Timothy MP has so rightly argued, the future of immigration policy must not only be about who comes here, but about who we decide must leave. There is precedent for such a change. In 2006, then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke extended the qualifying period for ILR, a change which applied retroactively to those already moving through the settlement process. Since 2006 our activist judiciary has expanded its scope significantly, but this is not an insurmountable hurdle by any means. Cleverly-drafted legislation, and a well-placed ouster clause, can thwart even the most skilful judicial meddling. Like it or not, Parliament is still sovereign. But times have changed, and our present situation is significantly more precarious than it was in 2006. We can, and should, go further. We should expand the conditions under which ILR can be revoked, allowing us to exclude criminals, low-earners, and welfare claimants from permanent settlement. We should also tighten eligibility rules for future migrants, restricting ILR status to high earners, with an in-built preference for those from culturally compatible societies. Settled status must work, and continue to work, in the interests of Britain. These are not radical steps. They would simply reflect the expressed wishes of the British people, who have, at every election in living memory, voted for an immigration system which is selective, limited, and tailored to our needs. Time and time again, politicians have failed to deliver such a system – but it is not too late to do so. If, as the Prime Minister himself has said, our 'open borders experiment' was a mistake, then we should endeavour to reverse that mistake.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indefinite Leave to Remain is wrecking the UK
What is the British disease? In the 1970s it was the stagflation that crippled the economy and seemed to defy treatment, in the 1980s, football hooliganism. In the 1600s it was sweating sickness. In his comic masterpiece Porterhouse Blue, Tom Sharpe had the odious Sir Godber Evans identify it as nostalgia. If only. The British disease today is something even more potentially destructive of civil society than these ailments. In 2025, the British disease is naivety. It is visible in the insane Chagos 'deal': viewing non-binding guidance from a dubious overseas court as grounds for surrendering billions to another country can only be explained by either wilful self-hatred or catastrophic naivety. In this Government's case it's probably both. Few policies are more symptomatic of this malady than UK policy on indefinite leave to remain (ILR). In an object lesson in his claim to be the most thoughtless man in Britain, Boris Johnson liberalised the rules on migration, opening up the country as never before. As a result, annual net migration rose to a high of above 900,000; an unprecedented figure for which there was no democratic consent. He even removed requirements for firms to advertise jobs domestically before recruiting abroad. Under our current immigration rules, almost all migrants on work and family visas will qualify for ILR status in just five years; meaning they and their dependants will also become eligible for a range of additional benefits; social housing, healthcare, state pension etc. Their children automatically become citizens, too, if they are born in Britain. Few countries can boast such a clear absence of any social contract to qualify for entitlements. Few places are so naive. If left unchecked, combined with the 'Boriswave', ILR will prove a ticking time-bomb on the public finances. In an alarming briefing paper, Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies places the lifetime net fiscal cost to the state of leaving ILR unchanged at £234 billion; equivalent to £8,200 for every UK household, spread across several decades. It equates to almost five times the defence budget, more than double education. This is not to suggest that migrants working in the care sector aren't performing vital work; and I mean no shade on the individuals concerned, who are merely reacting to incentives established by foolish politicians. But the long-term financial consequences are more than our indebted country can bear. Already, more people have come as dependants on the health and social care visa than through the visa itself (another Boris decision). The NHS hardly asks tough questions about entitlement as it is: my local GPs' office has a sign telling patients not to worry, their immigration status won't affect their eligibility. There are already more people registered at surgeries than there are legally registered people in England; this is before you add the extra million who might receive ILR over the next parliament. As few as five years of poorly paid work in exchange for a lifetime of costs is, quite simply, a terrible deal for the taxpayer. We must tighten our policy on ILR. This could simply mean extending the eligibility period or setting benchmarks for integration like language proficiency, marriage status, engagement in civic life and so on. Penalties should be tightened up, too. ILR eligibility is rarely removed even in extreme cases. Even being a terrorist or explicitly lying may not be enough. This should broaden to include criminals and anyone expressing support for proscribed terror groups, and also to those who fall below median earnings. We would soon find ourselves attracting mostly migrants able to support themselves and their families for a significant length of time. There could, correspondingly, be carve-outs in line with public opinion; people do not feel the same way about English-speaking migrants from culturally compatible countries who will be net contributors. As ever, we have alighted on the worst of all possible worlds: an immigration system that makes it extremely difficult to come here if you could make a contribution, but all too easy if you are going to be a drain on the state. Despite the 'original sin' of the Boriswave, nowadays it is mostly Conservative backbenchers like Nick Timothy and Katie Lam who champion ILR reform in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch recently changed her party's policy. Labour has yet to discuss the idea at all; indeed Yvette Cooper's Home Office often gives short shrift to MPs trying to access basic data on welfare, migration and visa overstays. Yet for many voters, the Boriswave will prove impossible to forgive; so the political opportunity for Labour is obvious. From a Left-wing perspective, the cost implications of unreformed ILR will fall on the poorest through increased competition for social housing, NHS waiting lists, even universal credit. Government might be forced to cut welfare across the board to meet ILR-associated costs. The obvious panic in the PM's voice as he accused Reform UK of 'dangerous Right-wing politics', suggests he is at least beginning to grasp the threat. Curing the latest iteration of the British disease will take time. It cannot be achieved overnight. But fixing indefinite leave to remain would be a simple step on that road to recovery. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Indefinite Leave to Remain is wrecking the UK
What is the British disease? In the 1970s it was the stagflation that crippled the economy and seemed to defy treatment, in the 1980s, football hooliganism. In the 1600s it was sweating sickness. In his comic masterpiece Porterhouse Blue, Tom Sharpe had the odious Sir Godber Evans identify it as nostalgia. If only. The British disease today is something even more potentially destructive of civil society than these ailments. In 2025, the British disease is naivety. It is visible in the insane Chagos 'deal': viewing non-binding guidance from a dubious overseas court as grounds for surrendering billions to another country can only be explained by either wilful self-hatred or catastrophic naivety. In this Government's case it's probably both. Few policies are more symptomatic of this malady than UK policy on indefinite leave to remain (ILR). In an object lesson in his claim to be the most thoughtless man in Britain, Boris Johnson liberalised the rules on migration, opening up the country as never before. As a result, annual net migration rose to a high of above 900,000; an unprecedented figure for which there was no democratic consent. He even removed requirements for firms to advertise jobs domestically before recruiting abroad. Under our current immigration rules, almost all migrants on work and family visas will qualify for ILR status in just five years; meaning they and their dependants will also become eligible for a range of additional benefits; social housing, healthcare, state pension etc. Their children automatically become citizens, too, if they are born in Britain. Few countries can boast such a clear absence of any social contract to qualify for entitlements. Few places are so naive. If left unchecked, combined with the 'Boriswave', ILR will prove a ticking time-bomb on the public finances. In an alarming briefing paper, Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies places the lifetime net fiscal cost to the state of leaving ILR unchanged at £234 billion; equivalent to £8,200 for every UK household, spread across several decades. It equates to almost five times the defence budget, more than double education. This is not to suggest that migrants working in the care sector aren't performing vital work; and I mean no shade on the individuals concerned, who are merely reacting to incentives established by foolish politicians. But the long-term financial consequences are more than our indebted country can bear. Already, more people have come as dependants on the health and social care visa than through the visa itself (another Boris decision). The NHS hardly asks tough questions about entitlement as it is: my local GPs' office has a sign telling patients not to worry, their immigration status won't affect their eligibility. There are already more people registered at surgeries than there are legally registered people in England; this is before you add the extra million who might receive ILR over the next parliament. As few as five years of poorly paid work in exchange for a lifetime of costs is, quite simply, a terrible deal for the taxpayer. We must tighten our policy on ILR. This could simply mean extending the eligibility period or setting benchmarks for integration like language proficiency, marriage status, engagement in civic life and so on. Penalties should be tightened up, too. ILR eligibility is rarely removed even in extreme cases. Even being a terrorist or explicitly lying may not be enough. This should broaden to include criminals and anyone expressing support for proscribed terror groups, and also to those who fall below median earnings. We would soon find ourselves attracting mostly migrants able to support themselves and their families for a significant length of time. There could, correspondingly, be carve-outs in line with public opinion; people do not feel the same way about English-speaking migrants from culturally compatible countries who will be net contributors. As ever, we have alighted on the worst of all possible worlds: an immigration system that makes it extremely difficult to come here if you could make a contribution, but all too easy if you are going to be a drain on the state. Despite the 'original sin' of the Boriswave, nowadays it is mostly Conservative backbenchers like Nick Timothy and Katie Lam who champion ILR reform in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch recently changed her party's policy. Labour has yet to discuss the idea at all; indeed Yvette Cooper's Home Office often gives short shrift to MPs trying to access basic data on welfare, migration and visa overstays. Yet for many voters, the Boriswave will prove impossible to forgive; so the political opportunity for Labour is obvious. From a Left-wing perspective, the cost implications of unreformed ILR will fall on the poorest through increased competition for social housing, NHS waiting lists, even universal credit. Government might be forced to cut welfare across the board to meet ILR-associated costs. The obvious panic in the PM's voice as he accused Reform UK of 'dangerous Right-wing politics', suggests he is at least beginning to grasp the threat. Curing the latest iteration of the British disease will take time. It cannot be achieved overnight. But fixing indefinite leave to remain would be a simple step on that road to recovery.
