“ THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DISCUSSIONS ON THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF IMMIGRATION AND THE PORTRAYAL OF THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF IMMIGRATION. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL OR FURTHERS THE DEBATE ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF TALENT SHORTAGES OR DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGES.”


ANTONIO LAM, UK DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION PLATFORM ENVOY GLOBAL


so far been unsuccessful. Now the government is easing strict immigration policies to help offset the shrinking labour pool in key industries, such as manufacturing, with the aim of tripling the foreign workforce by 2040.


ONS DATA REINFORCES NEGATIVE IMPACT Tim Dyson, a demographer at the London School of Economics, says governments’ efforts to encourage people to have more children are futile. “Considering the societal shifts, including the significant reduction in gender disparities as women’s lives have become increasingly similar to those of men, this (downward trend in fertility) is unlikely to reverse,” he said in a BBC interview. Mr Dyson also pointed out that while a fertility rate


of 1.8 led to a slow, manageable population decline, a rate of 1.6 or lower could trigger “rapid, unmanageable population decline”. The current rate in the UK is 1.44 but a projection from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggested in January that the nation’s population could actually increase by almost five million to 72.5 in the decade mid-2032. And with indigenous births equalling indigenous deaths over this period, the rise would be entirely attributable to immigration.


Predictably, the projection prompted howls of


outrage from right-wing politicians and a Downing Street spokesman said the government was “going to publish a white paper to set out a comprehensive plan to end these staggeringly high migration numbers”. But such political pronouncements appear to ignore


the fact – demographics aside – that Britain needs to attract the ‘brightest and best’ to fill shortages in professions from medicine, tech and engineering to social care, agricultural and construction. Ironically, the ONS report (which the organisation


insists was a “projection” based on previous data, not a “forecast”) coincided with a letter to the government from the House of Lords’ Science and Technology Committee whose investigation had raised significant concerns regarding the UK’s current immigration and visa policies for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent. The investigation highlighted the detrimental impact


of current immigration policies on the UK’s ability to attract and retain highly skilled individuals in the fields of science and technology, with the committee describing the government’s current approach as an act of national self-harm. It said the UK needed to adopt a far more holistic and adaptive approach if it wanted to compete in the global race for talent, with high visa costs and the Immigration Health Surcharge being particularly criticised.


IMMIGRATION SOLUTION TO DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGES Antonio Lam, UK director of immigration at immigration platform Envoy Global, believes there has been a significant watering down of the skills- based immigration system that successive governments have sought to introduce. “Dilution of its immigration programme and the lack of transparency of how the Immigration Skills Charges are used, results in the continued negative light shown of ‘over immigration’ and the negative portrayal of global mobility,” he says. “Immigration is one of the most straightforward


methods of addressing the demographic challenges many Western countries face today. The declining birth


24


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116