UK minister flags visa ‘abuse’ as student asylum claims surge

Similar dynamics as Canada:

…UK’s Indo-Pacific Minister Seema Malhotra has defended her government’s immigration proposals during a visit to India, while expressing concern about a rise in foreign students seeking asylum at the end of their studies.

Under the new plans, some migrants could have to wait up to 20 years before they can settle permanently in the UK and the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain will be extended from five to 10 years.

The proposals will apply to an estimated 2.6 million people who arrived in the country since 2021. They have drawn criticism from some quarters, including a few Labour MPs, even though the Conservatives gave the measures a cautious welcome.

The reforms are “in line with what countries around the world do” to stop the abuse of their immigration systems, Malhotra told the BBC in the southern Indian city of Chennai, adding that there was a “very strong message we also send, which is that we welcome those coming legally”.

According to Malhotra some16,000 international students from across the world had applied for asylum in the UK last year after completing their courses, which she said was evidence of abuse of legal migration routes.

A further 14,800 students sought asylum this year to June 2025, latest Home Office figures show. It is unclear how many of them are Indian nationals.

“We’ve seen visa abuse in the case of legal routes, where people have gone legally and then sought to overstay when their visas weren’t extended,” Malhotra said.

“If you see that level of abuse, it undermines your immigration system. It undermines public confidence, and the fairness and control people expect.”…

Source: UK minister flags visa ‘abuse’ as student asylum claims surge

Illegal migration tearing UK apart, Mahmood says

Will see what today’s announcement and details reveals:

Illegal migration is “tearing the country apart”, the home secretary has said, as she prepares to unveil major plans to overhaul asylum policy.

New measures set to be announced by Shabana Mahmood on Monday will include people granted asylum needing to wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently.

The plans will also see those granted asylum have their refugee status regularly reviewed and those whose home countries are then deemed safe told to return.

Mahmood told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme she saw tackling illegal migration as a “moral mission”.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the Conservatives would deport illegal migrants “within a week”, while Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called for asylum seekers to have the right to work.

The changes are aimed at making the UK a less attractive destination for illegal migrants, leading to reduced small boat crossings and asylum claims.

Mahmood is also to announce the UK will stop granting visas to people from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo if their governments do not rapidly improve co-operation on removals.

A Home Office source said the countries were being targeted “for their unacceptably low co-operation and obstructive returns processes”.

As first reported in the Times the threat of the visa ban for certain countries comes after thousands of illegal migrants and criminals from the three nations were said to be in the UK.

Many specific details and practicalities of the sweeping changes to asylum policy are yet to be made clear, and will be set out by Mahmood on Monday…..

Source: Illegal migration tearing UK apart, Mahmood says

UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Not sure how that will withstand legal challenges but we shall see:

The government has toughened up rules making it almost impossible for a refugee who arrives in the UK on a small boat to become a British citizen.

New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.

In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.

But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs – including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.

Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.

The changes mean that anyone deemed to have entered the country illegally – including those already here – will not be able to apply for citizenship.

Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of “good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”

Another new entry to the same guidance says: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.

Under international law, people are allowed to seek asylum, but the government’s move to strengthen its border control and laws on entry, will prevent some people from doing so.

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

The Home Office also published footage of enforcement teams raiding 828 premises, including nail bars, car washes, and restaurants, as part of a UK-wide crackdown on illegal working earlier this week.

The Refugee Council estimates the guidance will prevent at least 71,000 refugees from obtaining British citizenship.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the charity, said the government’s move “flies in the face of reason”.

“The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.

“We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

Meanwhile, immigration barrister Colin Yeo claimed on social media that it is a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.

Although the Conservatives have yet to respond to the government’s decision, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC last week that she believes the right to citizenship and permanent residency “should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK”.

Badenoch spoke about her proposals to toughen up citizenship rules by making it more difficult for new immigrants to be able to permanently settle in the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is understood.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Source: UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Sullivan: The Price Of Orthodoxies

While I often find his commentaries somewhat unbalanced to my ears, nevertheless worth reading as he is frank about his previous orthodoxies but perhaps less so with his current ones. Nevertheless, a good column:

…I think it’s the accumulated frustration at these things that has led to the new outburst of attention. Musk’s rescue of Twitter from woke control and censorship has allowed the story to gain new oxygen. Trump’s re-election and the collapse of woke credibility (if not power) has disinhibited many. The “racist” accusations have lost their power to silence dissenters, as the consequences of that silence have played out. 

And this is a good thing for two reasons.

The first is that we haven’t had real accountability at the top for any of these atrocities. No one in the police or local government has faced legal consequences for their enabling of the gang-rapes. Many have gone on to have new careers in government. Just as the entire Catholic hierarchy escaped any legal punishment for their crimes of negligence and complicity in child abuse, so too did Dick Cheney and George W Bush bust open the Geneva Conventions only to be protected by Obama. One of the key architects of the torture regime, Gina Haspel, even became CIA director.

The second is that in all these cases, the victims were among the least powerful in the world: dark-skinned prisoners accused of terrorism, young boys whose word was usually dismissed in favor of the priest’s, and white, uncouth girls of the British underclass. I also cannot stop thinking of the countless gay and lesbian children with gender dysphoria who have been recklessly experimented on these past several years, fed lies by their doctors, and abandoned by gay and lesbian adults: all to sustain the orthodoxy of critical queer and gender theory. And you know full well that none of these cowards and quislings will ever be held to account. 

So let it rip. Expose it all. After all, 76 percent of the British public want the new, more focused inquiry that Starmer just denied them: 91 percent of Reform voters, 84 percent of Tories, 71 percent of Liberal Democrats, and 65 percent of Labour voters. And don’t balk at legal prosecution of the enablers. It takes time to absorb horror, and hold it properly to account. 

Orthodoxies are not without their legitimate uses. We need them to make sense of the world at times. But they need to be held loosely, and be capable of adjusting to new facts. When they become ways to deny reality, to exculpate criminals, to censor dissent, and to take the souls and bodies of the least of our fellow humans, we need to re-examine them too. Before they consume more victims.

Source: The Price Of Orthodoxies

The Muslim Choice: Integration or Confrontation

Could also be written for many religions, the fundamentalist vs moderate:

…Two narratives about Islam have developed in western European countries, where Muslims are now a substantial minority presence. The first is of people from various countries settling into their new homes determined to live in peace with (if often at a distance from) their neighbours and the state. In several cases, these newcomers make a considerable contribution to public life: 25 Muslims were elected to the UK parliament in the July general election. The second narrative is of a group aggressively insisting upon their religious rights while they assert that they are the victims of comprehensive Western racism. Occasionally, atrocities are committed, usually by young Muslim men invoking Allah and at the deliberate cost of their own lives.

Likewise, parallel narratives have developed among the Muslim communities themselves. The first understands the West as a place in which they can live relatively well, practise their religion (or not) with little or no opposition, and enjoy freedoms often not available in their own—or their parents’—birth countries. A quite separate view sees relations with state authorities and native citizens in adversarial terms—a constant struggle against a colonial legacy of Islamophobic prejudice, hostility, suspicion, and barriers to freedom of expression and female dress that demand a militant response.

The attacks on mosques and individual Muslims during the August riots demonstrate that bigotry is still a problem among some cohorts of the UK population. But Islamophobia is also a much-abused and hotly contested term. Long before the summer riots, accusations of Islamophobia were used by those eager to deflect—or even reverse—blame for Muslim violence, and amplified by sympathetic parts of the media and some public figures. 

Yet polling does suggest that moderate British Muslim attitudes and communities are not a myth. In 2020, the Crest consultancy launched a research project that compared polls and focus groups of Muslims in eight towns and cities with a comparative group of the general population. The project concluded that

We found majorities of British Muslims trust the police, are concerned about Islamist extremism, support the aims of the [government’s counter-extremism] Prevent programme and would refer someone to it if they suspected that they were being radicalised. We found that the views of British Muslims frequently mirror those of the general population and even where they differ they rarely do so dramatically. 

Crest also found that British Muslims have a “broader range of views than is commonly acknowledged by politicians, the media and other participants in the debate on extremism.” The authors do not use the phrase “Muslim community,” since they believe the Muslim population is too diverse to make such a term useful. Instead, Muslims are seen as members of a common faith with differing backgrounds, ideas, and customs who have largely adapted to life in a new country.

As the August riots died down, another poll was conducted by More in Common, a think tank established in 2016 after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, and named after a House of Commons speech in which she said, “We have far more in common than that which divides us.” Its findings underlined the moderation of the British population as a whole and appeared to show that we do indeed have much in common in our views on extremism. Between 87 and 97 percent of respondents said, “The riots do not speak for me.” The outlier was Reform Party supporters, 41 percent of whom said that the riots did, in some measure, speak for them….

John Lloyd was a domestic and foreign correspondent for the Financial Times and a co-founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Source: The Muslim Choice: Integration or Confrontation

After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik

Notable rant:

Far-right thuggery. Marauding mobs. The prime minister’s descriptions of those who brought one of the worst episodes of violence on to the country’s streets captured their actions, but not their motivations or origins. Where did the rioters come from? Why now? Why are they attacking those they are attacking? If many people in this country are now, in Keir Starmer’s words feeling “targeted because of the colour of your skin, or your faith”, how does such a colossal violation come about, and how will it be addressed? The only answers we have been given treat the problem as one of security, of a troublesome minority who “do not represent” the country, and which will be stamped out by a heavy security response and prison sentences. A freak event triggered by the Southport stabbings. And that’s that.

But it will not be that. Because that minority reflects, and draws on, decades of racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigration rhetoric and policy broadcast by parts of the rightwing media, the Conservative party and the Labour party itself. Those years will not be swept aside by a policing crackdown. And their legacy will not, more importantly, be dismantled without its narratives being taken on and confronted.

“What Keir Starmer should do now” has been a preoccupation since the violence erupted. And yes, this is a moment – clearly presented, desperately needed, ripe for the taking – in which Starmer could, on the back of a large majority and fresh in government, mount a campaign against the notions that precipitated this month’s events. The things he should say are obvious, but he will not say them.

What he should say is that immigration is not “out of control”. That we do, in fact, have control of our borders, and that the vast majority who come to the country are allowed in after meeting an extremely high visa threshold. That we do in fact, invite many of them in, to fill gaps in our health and care sectors, and that those who come as students, or to work in the private sector, pay hefty residence permit fees and pay twice for the NHS, in taxes and in NHS surcharge.

He will not say this, because the illusion that immigration is something that a government can fully “control”, that is not subject to economic dynamics and the needs of public infrastructure, is important to maintain. Shattering this illusion makes it difficult for a government to present itself as having a “solution” to the problem of a country that, as Starmer previously said, needs to be “weaned” off immigration.

What he should say is that those who are not allowed or invited in constitute a tiny fraction of overall immigration. That asylum seekers are not merely an administrative processing concern, but a human rights one. That the UK has obligations, and moreover, values and convictions, that necessitate looking fairly and humanely upon the resettlement needs of those fleeing war, persecution and the devastation of their countries. He will not, because, well, it feels like heresy just to have typed the above. The Tory party’s Rwanda scheme, its “stop the boats” sloganeering, Nigel Farage’s jaunts to Kent to witness the “invasion”, and an almost total failure by the media and politicians to humanise asylum seekers, makes pointing out their needs and real numbers forbidden.

What he should say is that people have been fed lies. That he is going to finally tell us the truth. That immigration is not responsible for the housing crisis, or for the one in the NHS. That asylum seekers being housed in a hotel is not the reason your high street is empty, your industries mothballed, your public spaces scorched, your councils bankrupt, and your community spaces shuttered. That we have laid at the door of immigrants the consequences of an entire economic model that has defunded the state and privileged big businesses and private capital, and concentrated asset accumulation in the south of the country with no foresight or plan. That immigration is not the biggest problem we face; that would be the disgrace of inequality and rising child poverty in the sixth wealthiest economy in the world. He will not say any of this, because Labour cannot be seen to threaten higher taxes or higher spending. Better to blame a lack of growth, and then be muzzled by the implicit cosigning of austerity when immigration is blamed for its consequences.

And what he should say is that this is a country that for too long has allowed the most small-minded, parochial, cynical and mendacious parties to dictate who we are allowed to be. That there is another country, exemplified by those who turned up against far-right violence spontaneously, that has been forbidden from expressing its truth and texture in our politics, policies and discourse. That immigration is in fact a quotidian reality, a question already settled through the peaceful merging, blending and cross-pollination of millions of people over not just the past century, but throughout Britain’s history as a territory. That “concerns” about immigration are not to be pandered to, that promises to reduce it, and even actually reducing it, will never be enough. That even Brexit and the end of free movement did not mollify those in search of perpetual grievance. And yes, that racism is behind many of those concerns, an undeniable fact now that they have been manifested in attacks on Muslims and people of colour. That Islamophobia is a real, powerful threat to social cohesion, one that has passed without condemnation or consequence in the highest offices of the land, and which now must finally be confronted.

He will not say it, because Starmer’s weakest feature is his inability to paint a rousing vision of our modern country. One that isn’t just about safe streets and working hard and paying the bills and getting on, but that appeals to a fundamental need for belonging and belief in a higher quality that binds us in nationhood.

We don’t live in Gotham City, waiting for a mayor to clean the streets of villains. We are not just atomised individuals running our own public limited companies, but part of something bigger, part of a nation that has miraculously expanded, absorbed and assimilated people from all over the world, one that has manifested the best and most natural of human impulses – to get along and make a common home.

This truth must be said not just by Starmer, but the entire senior ranks of our government, consistently and unflinchingly, without fear of what that will unleash. Because what is the cost of saying it? Will it, maybe, bring angry thugs on to our streets? Will it provoke people so much that they will, perhaps, attack the police, mosques, businesses and individuals? Will it trigger even more invective from the rightwing media and claims of treachery and “two-tier policing” on the part of the Labour government? No – that is the cost of silence. We are already there. And we will remain there, because of all the things our leaders are afraid to say.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Source: After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik

Explained: How UK’s long-running Islamophobia problem led to far-right riots

One of the better explainers:

More ugly scenes have unfolded on the UK’s streets on Saturday, as police continue to grapple with a wave of far-right disorder across the country.

Cities in England and Northern Ireland saw violent clashes involving anti-immigration demonstrators and counter-protesters, with police officers injured as objects such as bricks, chairs and bottles were thrown at them.

The far-right has drawn condemnation from MPs across the political spectrum after disorder in London, Manchester, Southport, Hartlepool and Sunderland over the past week, many of which have seen mosques and other Muslim religious buildings targeted.

With more marches planned in the coming days, experts have warned such demonstrations are being driven by deep rooted Islamophobic sentiment among some sections of the population.

The catalyst for the wave of unrest was the killings of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, Merseyside, on Monday.

Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, 17, who was born in Cardiff and lived near Southport, is accused of the attack, but false claims spread online the suspect was named “Ali al-Shakati” and was asylum seeker of Muslim faith who had arrived in the UK by boat in 2023.

Racial equality and civil rights think tank the Runnymede Trust warned that this “violent racism has long been simmering under the surface” of society.

“What is happening is the direct result of years of normalised racism and Islamophobia, enabled by politicians and the British media,” a spokesperson said.

There has been an upsurge in Islamophobic incidents and rhetoric in recent years. According to Home Office data, religious hate crime is at an all-time high and Muslims are the most targeted religious group.

There was a nine per cent increase in religious hate crime offences in the year ending March 2023 – where the victim’s religion was recorded, 2 in 5 of these offences were targeted against Muslims.

Yet, authorities stand accused of doing nothing to address this spike; it recently emerged that the previous Conservative government’s anti-Muslim hatred working group (AMHWG) was “on pause” for more than four years, from 2020 until the party’s general election loss, despite repeated promises from officials and an increase in hate crime.

The new Labour government’s strategy for tackling Islamophobia remains unclear and Sir Keir Starmer has been criticised for failing to engage enough with Muslim communities in the wake of disorder.

Writing on X/Twitter, the Muslim Association of Britain said: “@Keir_Starmer had no problem meeting @MuslimCouncil when he was in opposition.

“Now that he is in government, and Muslims are being attacked and Mosques have become targets, his government have no plans to meet the largest body representing Muslims in the UK. What changed?”

Recently, The Independent revealed that a Muslim political group was “inundated” with racist abuse and violent threats during the general election, resulting in a report being made to the police.

In March, Muslims in Britain reported that they are too scared to leave their homes after dark, as new figures from a London charity, Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), showed the number of Islamophobic incidents skyrocketed by 365 per cent since the 7 October attack on Israel by Hamas.

Political discourse and dynamics have also fuelled anti-Muslim sentiment, campaigners have said.

In response to the unrest, Qari Asim, chairman of Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, said Muslims around the country are “deeply worried and anxious about the planned riots by the far-right groups across the country”.

He said: “This intimidation and violence is the inevitable, devastating, outcome of rising Islamophobia that has been enabled to fester on social media, in parts of the mainstream media and by some populist leaders.”

Earlier this year, former Tory MP Lee Anderson’s remarks about the Muslim Mayor of London Sadiq Khan being “controlled” by “Islamists” led to his suspension from the party.

Despite this, Mr Anderson remained unapologetic about his comments, defected to Reform UK, and doubled down by saying “most of the public agree with him”.

A independent review led by Professor Swaran Singh in 20121 found that “anti-Muslim sentiment remains a problem” within the Conservatives and although an updated report in 2023 found the party had made progress, it also warned it had been slow to implement some of his recommendations.

A report by the Labour Muslim Network (2020) highlighted consistent experiences of Islamophobia among Muslim members and supporters and a number of MPs, including Zarah Sultana, have called for the party to launch an inquiry into the issue.

Sections of the media have also been accused of peddling Islamophobia and risking the safety of Muslims around the country in the process.

Examining over 10,000 articles and clips referring to Muslims and Islam in the winter period of 2018, a 2021 report from the Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) found that the majority (59 per cent) of all articles associated Muslim people with negative behaviour, over a third of all articles misrepresented or generalised about Muslim people and terrorism was the most common theme.

Source: Explained: How UK’s long-running Islamophobia problem led to far-right riots

Fears of new Windrush as thousands of UK immigrants face ‘cliff edge’ visa change

Of note, more an implementation issue than policy (where governments often fall short):

Lawyers and migrant rights campaigners have warned that the government is heading for a repeat of the Windrush scandal after imposing a “cliff edge” deadline for immigrants to switch to new digital visas.

By the end of this year an estimated 500,000 or more non-EU immigrants with leave to remain in the UK will need to replace their physical biometric residence permits (BRPs) – which demonstrate proof of their right to reside, rent, work and claim benefits – with digital e-visas.

In order to access their e-visa, people will need to open a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) digital account. The Home Office has recently emailed invitations for a trial group of BRP holders to open digital accounts, but as many migrants used their solicitors’ email address as their Home Office contact, many have gone to lawyers rather than the immigrants themselves.

In addition, because personal details were excluded from the invitations for data security reasons, the lawyers would have no idea which of their potentially thousands of clients the emails were meant for, meaning they could not forward them on.

“After 31 December, a person without access to their e-visa will be un­able to prove their status in the UK,” said Zoe Bantleman, legal director at the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. “The Home Office has placed them in a similar situation to members of the Windrush generation. They have status, but they cannot prove it.

“Given the poor reach of Home Office communications on the issue, it is fair to assume that there will be thousands of people who do not apply for an e-visa before the end of 2024.”

From this summer any BRP holder can open a UKVI digital account without an invitation. But immigration lawyers fear the government’s planned publicity drive will miss many older or poorer people who may not speak English as their first language or do not have ready access to the internet.

Zoe Dexter, housing and welfare manager at human rights charity the Helen Bamber Foundation, described the government’s plans as chaotic. She said: “The Home Office’s move to digitise proof of identity is bound to take a huge financial toll on hundreds of thousands of people, including refugees and survivors of trafficking and torture, whose proof of ID is linked to the benefits they receive.”

Critics warn the Home Office does not have measures in place to deal with possible technical failures, and that it has created a cliff edge with its deadline. People can still apply for a UKVI digital account after 31 December, but if they are not aware of the new rules they may only discover this when they are unable to prove their right to return from holiday or claim benefits, leading to disruption.

“This is a recipe for disaster,” said Bethan Lant of migrant rights charity Praxis. “People will be un­able to evidence their status through no fault of their own, because the Home Office has not communicated well and has given them a cliff edge after which they are going to struggle to access even the basics. We’re not saying don’t go digital, we’re not saying ‘don’t do this’. We’re saying engage better, do it carefully, do it softly, do it over a period of time.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “E-visas provide secure confirmation of someone’s UK immigration status, enhance security and bring cost savings for the UK public. They also offer greater convenience for customers and status checkers, using tried and tested technology. Our April phased launch marked an important step towards replacing physical documents with e-visas by 2025, a key part of the transformation and digitisation of the UK’s border and immigration system.

Source: Fears of new Windrush as thousands of UK immigrants face ‘cliff edge’ visa change

Saunders: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

Valid critique, and not helping the Conservatives much in the polls:

…Mr. Sunak’s scheme is faring even worse. Without having managed to deport a single migrant, his government has already paid $412-million to the government of Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who has an appalling human-rights record. Britain’s National Audit Office recently estimated that it will cost more than $900-million to deport the first 300 people – more than $3-million per migrant – though it seems unlikely that as many as 300 will ever be deported.

This vast cost, extraordinary inefficiency, policy pointlessness, unnecessary cruelty and general stupidity could all have been avoided if Mr. Sunak just paid attention to the very rational decision-making processes that guide those migrants. As experts have repeatedly pointed out, Channel crossings would all but disappear if it were easily possible to apply for British humanitarian and labour visas and family-reunification admissions en route, in Europe and elsewhere, creating safe legal paths for applicants.

That would increase his country’s refugee intake by a small, manageable margin (and would require some old-style deportations of those rejected), but it would all but end deadly illegal migration and its political consequences, at far lower cost. This would allow a politician to say “I ended this terrible problem” – something no number of flights to the middle of Africa will accomplish.

Source: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

Global Housing Shortages Are Crushing Immigration-Fueled Growth

Of note, Canada not alone (but doesn’t excuse the policy and program mistakes….). Money quote: “Canada’s experience shows there’s a limit to immigration-fueled growth:”

For decades, the rapid inflow of migrants helped countries including Canada, Australia and the UK stave off the demographic drag from aging populations and falling birth rates. That’s now breaking down as a surge of arrivals since borders reopened after the pandemic runs headlong into a chronic shortage of homes to accommodate them.

Canada and Australia have escaped recession since their Covid contractions, but their people haven’t with deep per-capita downturns eroding standards of living. The UK’s recession last year looked mild on raw numbers but was deeper and longer when measured on a per-person basis.

All up, thirteen economies across the developed world were in per-capita recessions at the end of last year, according to exclusive analysis by Bloomberg Economics. While there are other factors — such as the shift to less-productive service jobs and the fact that new arrivals typically earn less — housing shortages and associated cost-of-living strains are a common thread.

So is the immigration-fueled economic growth model doomed? Not quite.

In Australia, for instance, the inflow of roughly one million people, or 3.7% of the population, since June 2022 helped plug a chronic shortages of workers in industries such as hospitality, aged care and agriculture. And in the UK — an economy near full employment — arrivals from Ukraine, Hong Kong and elsewhere have made up for a lack of workers after Brexit.

Skills shortages across much of the developed world mean more, not fewer, workers are needed. Indeed, the US jobs market and economy are running hotter than many thought possible as an influx of people across the southern border expands the labor pool — even as immigration shapes up as a defining issue in the November presidential election.

While the US has seen a widely-covered surge in authorized and irregular migration, the scale of the increase actually pales in comparison to Canada’s growth rate. For every 1,000 residents, the northern nation brought in 32 people last year, compared with fewer than 10 in the US.

Put another way: Over the past two years, 2.4 million people arrived in Canada, more than New Mexico’s population, yet Canada barely added enough housing for the residents of Albuquerque.

Canada’s experience shows there’s a limit to immigration-fueled growth: Once new arrivals exceed a country’s capacity to absorb them, standards of living decline even if top-line numbers are inflated. The Bank of Nova Scotia estimates a productivity-neutral rate of population growth is less than a third of what Canada saw last year, which would be more in line with the US pace.

So even as that record population growth keeps Canada’s GDP growing, life is getting tougher, especially for younger generations and for immigrants such as 29-year-old Akanksha Biswas.

Biswas arrived in Canada in the middle of 2022, just as per-capita GDP started plunging amid the start of the post-pandemic immigration boom and the Bank of Canada’s aggressive interest-rate tightening cycle.

The former Sydneysider moved to Toronto for what she believed would be a better life with a lower cost of living and greater career prospects. Instead, she faced higher rent, lower pay and limited job opportunities.

“I actually had a completely different picture in my mind about what life would be like in Toronto,” said Biswas, who works in advertising. “Prices were almost similar, but there’s a lot more competition in the job market.”

Canada’s working-age population grew by a million over the past year but the labor market only created 324,000 jobs. The upshot: The unemployment rate rose by more than a full percentage point, with young people and newcomers again the worst hit.

Biswas spends more than a third of her income on the monthly rent bill of C$2,800 ($2,050), splitting the cost with her partner. She’s dining out less and making coffee at home instead of going to the cafe. She’s also pushing back plans to have children or buy a home.

“I don’t see my future here if I want to raise a family,” she says.

While millions of Americans also face a housing affordability crisis, their real disposable income growth has stayed above the rise in home prices over much of the past two decades. Not so in Canada. The median price for homes in Toronto is now C$1.3 million, nearly three times that of Chicago, a comparable US city.

The chronic underbuilding of homes and decades of continuous rises in prices has drained funds from other parts of the economy toward housing. That lack of investment in capital — combined with firms’ focusing instead on expanding workforces due to cheaper labor costs — has driven down productivity, which the Bank of Canada says is at “emergency” levels.

Growing anxiety around the housing crunch forced Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to scale back on its immigration ambitions, halting the increase of permanent resident targets and putting a limit on the growth of temporary residents for the first time.

Canada’s goal is now to cut the population of temporary foreign workers, international students and asylum claimants by 20%, or roughly by half a million people, over the next three years. That’s expected to slash the annual population growth rate by more than half to an average of 1% in 2025 and 2026.

Meantime, Biswas and her partner are calling it quits on their Canada experiment and moving to Melbourne, where they reckon they can afford a two-bedroom apartment for less than what they paid for a one-bedroom space in Toronto.

But life won’t be easy Down Under either as many of the same strains are playing out, with Australia facing its worst housing crisis in living memory.

Building permits for apartments and town houses are near a 12-year low and there remains a sizable backlog of construction work, largely due to a lack of skilled workers. The government has tried to plug the labor supply gap by boosting the number of migrants, only to find that’s making the problem even worse.

Just like Canada’s experience, the ballooning population is not only exacerbating housing demand, it’s also masking the underlying weakness in the economy.

GDP has expanded every quarter since a short Covid-induced recession in 2020, yet on a per-capita basis, GDP contracted for a third consecutive quarter in the final three months of 2023 — the deepest decline since the early 1990s economic slump.

In absolute terms, Australia’s per-capita GDP is now at a two-year low — a “material under-performance” versus the US and an outcome that could spur higher unemployment, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Angst about the lack of housing, soaring rents and surging home prices has prompted Anthony Albanese’s ruling Labor government to crack down on student visas.

“It has been proven over many many years that there’s a positive to Australia from a high migration intake,” said Stephen Halmarick, chief economist at the nation’s biggest lender Commonwealth Bank of Australia. “But in the very near term, you can see that it’s putting upward pressure on rents, house prices and clearly that’s a concern for many and the demand for some services is seeing sticky inflation.”

Neighboring New Zealand is grappling with a similar headache.

The government there last month made immediate changes to an employment visa program, introducing an English-language requirement and reducing the maximum continuous stay for a range of lower-skilled roles, citing “unsustainable” net migration. The changes were part of a plan to “create a smarter immigration” that is “self-funding, sustainable and better manages risk,” Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said in the statement at the time.

Calvin Jurnatan, 30, moved to Sydney from Indonesia in December to study construction design as a gateway to becoming a permanent resident. Months later, he still doesn’t have a job. One reason is that migrants face long and expensive processes to get their qualifications recognized.

Jurnatan’s failure to find a part-time role in construction comes despite the sector being high on the skills shortage list, especially after the government set an ambitious goal of building 1.2 million new homes by 2029. That target looks increasingly unachievable, industry players say.

Frustrated, Jurnatan has stopped looking for construction jobs and is instead scouting the retail sector where roles are easier to find. He’s doing some freelance photography to eke out a living and says he wouldn’t recommend Australia to his family and friends back home.

“People are struggling,” he said. “I’m struggling. It’s not cheap and everyone needs to work really, really hard here. So, when people call me and ask, ‘hey, how is living in Sydney right now?’ I tell them the truth.”

Independent think tank the Committee for Economic Development of Australia found in a recent report that the hourly wage gap between recent migrants and Australian-born workers increased between 2011 and 2021. On average, migrants who have been in Australia for 2 to 6 years earn more than 10% less than similar Australian-born workers.

“There are big costs from not making the best use of migrants’ skills,” according to CEDA’s senior economist Andrew Barker.

Over in Europe, its largest economy, Germany, also saw a per-capita recession that comes against a backdrop of rising political tensions over a large number of asylum seekers, housing shortages and a misfiring economy. Bloomberg Economics analysis shows that France, Austria and Sweden are also among those who have suffered per-capita recessions.

In Britain, too, record levels of migration have begun to weigh on the economy. A technical recession in the second half of last year saw headline GDP slip 0.4%, yet the slump was longer and deeper when adjusted for population. Per-capita GDP has contracted 1.7% since the start of 2022, falling in six out of the seven quarters and stagnating in the other.

With Britain close to full employment and over 850,000 dropping out of its workforce since the pandemic, immigration has helped employers fill widespread worker shortages, not least in the health and social care sectors.

“A very good bit of the growth that we saw through the 2010s was down to net migration,” said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. “In terms of the overall size of the economy, it’s been really important. What’s really hard to say is what impact the net immigration has had on the per-capita numbers.”

UK GDP has expanded 23% since the start of 2010. On a per-person basis, growth in output has been far less impressive at 12%.

Over the same period, the population has surged, growing an estimated 11%, or almost 7 million, to 69 million. The Office for National Statistics expects it to hit close to 74 million in 2036 in updated population projections that now predict faster growth. Over 90% of the increase in the population expected between 2021 and 2036 will come from migrants, it said in January.

“If we hadn’t had such high immigration, housing would be cheaper than it is at the moment, possibly quite significantly,” Johnson said. “But the converse of that is that the problem has been that we simply haven’t built enough houses, given what we know is happening to the size of the population.”

The UK’s post-Brexit immigration system aimed to stop cheap labor from Europe and prioritize high-skilled workers. However, the government allows some foreign workers easier access if they are in shortage-hit sectors.

“Those shortages really are pretty much always caused by poor paying conditions, although the employers will tell you it’s all skills,” said Alan Manning, labor market economist at the London School of Economics. “Then they start complaining about ‘we can’t afford higher wages and so we have to have migrants so we can keep our existing wages.’”

The growing pressures on housing and stretched public services are prompting a backlash among voters against Rishi Sunak’s ruling Conservative government ahead of a general election expected later this year. It has hemorrhaged support to the right-wing populist Reform UK party, which is promising “net zero immigration,” while the Tories are polling in single digits among 18- to 24-year-olds who put housing as their second-most important issue.

The opposition Labour party has promised a “blitz” of planning reforms to unlock construction, as well as restraint on immigration as it heads toward what’s widely anticipated to be a sweeping election victory.

A shortage of properties for the bigger population has sent house prices to over eight times average earnings in England and Wales, and 12 times in London. In 1997, they were 3.5 times earnings and four times, respectively. A lack of supply has also caused rental costs to rocket at a record pace in the last 12 months, worsening a cost-of-living crisis for young Britons especially.

Official figures show that 234,400 homes were added to the UK housing supply in 2022-23, well below the levels needed to meet huge demand and the 300,000-a-year target the Tories promised to reach by the mid-2020s at the last election.

“If we’re looking to grow GDP by throwing more people at it, then we need more housing,” said Peter Truscott, chief executive of FTSE 250 housebuilder Crest Nicholson.

However, UK housebuilders and the government have struggled to boost construction of new homes to the levels needed. A restrictive planning system has been used by Nimbys — “not in my back yard” — to block local developments and efforts to overhaul the system by the ruling Conservatives were scuppered by concerns of a backlash in their rural southern heartlands.

“We have a completely utterly dysfunctional planning system in the UK,” said Truscott. “Forty years in house building, it’s never been so bad, and the rate of decline in planning has been quite incredible over the last couple of years.”

While encouraged by Labour plans, he cautions that it will take two parliamentary terms to make a difference as supply chain constraints will prevent an instant “flood” of new homes.

The longer voters in the UK, Australia, Canada and similar economies see their living standards go backwards, the more their opposition to rapid immigration programs will harden. A lasting fix requires government policies, especially in housing, that convince both would-be migrants and the existing populations of the benefits of immigration-led economic growth.

Source: Global Housing Shortages Are Crushing Immigration-Fueled Growth