Why immigration policy is hard and how to make it better

Alan Manning argues that the UK needs to move away from the current divisive debate on immigration that portrays immigration as either wholly good or wholly bad in order to create more effective immigration policy. 

Disagreements about migration policy are some of the most divisive, heated parts of our current politics. Debate often seems to be between two tribes, one that thinks of itself as pro-immigration the other anti-immigration. In a YouGov poll in May 2025, 28% of respondents described themselves as pro-immigration and 41% as anti-, both above the 24% who said neither (probably the answer I would have given). And the claims from both tribes are sometimes extreme: the anti- tribe dehumanises migrants when describing them as a swarm or an invasion, but so too does the pro- tribe (though in a nicer way) when, for example, Zack Polanski claims that “Migration is Britain’s superpower”

My recent book “Why Immigration Policy Is Hard And How To Make It Better” argues this binary, polarised, adversarial style of discussing migration serves us badly. We are going to have immigration and we are also going to have controls on immigration. Those controls say ‘yes’ to some people who want to move to the UK, and ‘no’ to others.  We will have policies that say ‘yes’ to some who want to stay long-term in the UK, ‘no’ to others. We should be discussing who we say ‘yes’ to and who we say ‘no’ to, ditching simplistic views that frame immigration as either wholly good or wholly bad.

To set the immigration rules, we need reliable evidence on the many ways immigration affects people’s lives, including effects on their jobs and incomes, their taxes and public services, and their communities. In a short blog its hard to summarise all of this and the ways in which many parts of the political debate cherry-pick, misrepresent, exaggerate and (sometimes) make up evidence (if you want to know more you will have to get hold of a copy of the book!).  But the bottom line is that the impacts of migration are rarely as bad as the critics claim nor as good as supporters say.  And the impacts of migration often depend on who the migrants are.  It makes no sense to talk about the impact of immigration as whole on the public finances when there are clear fiscal benefits from some migrants (those who are likely to be in work with high earnings) and equally clear fiscal costs from others.

How can we improve migration policy?  First, by understanding that immigration changes the size of the population and its mix (in terms of skill, age etc). In thinking about any migration policy, think about how it is likely to affect the size and mix of the population – this may be boring but sometimes that’s a good thing. Second, give less power in setting policy to lobbies in business, universities and governments. We want to hear their views, but don’t automatically equate what is best for them with what is best for Britain. Third, think more about the long-term and less about the short-term.  For example, increased immigration has a much more powerful effect on reducing the dependency ratio in the short-term (migrants are relatively young when they arrive) than the longer-run (migrants age at the same rate as everyone else).

Finally, recognise that immigration policy is hard even if we make more of a mess of it than we need to. Our world is so unequal that there are far more people who want to move to high-income countries like the UK than residents will want to admit. For some, choosing who to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to involves trade-offs that are so difficult and uncomfortable that they pretend we do not have to. Some who want to migrate but cannot seek to avoid or evade controls on migration, leading locals to fear loss of control leading to more attempts to avoid those controls, what I call the infernal circle of migration policy.

The infernal circle is clearest in asylum and refugee flows as they are hardest for governments to control. Opinion polls for the UK suggest that most people support the principle of providing humanitarian protection for the persecuted.  But they know the UK cannot help all those in need and want to be able to choose how many and who to help, something the the current refugee regime does not deliver.  With UK asylum claims at record levels in 2025 (though not especially high compared to some other countries), greater control over asylum and refugee flows is key to making migration policy better but is not easy and certainly won’t be accomplished by the slogans of ‘detain and deport’, ‘leave the ECHR’ or ‘safe and legal routes’ that appeal to members of the two tribes.

It is not inevitable that immigration is seen as one of the most important issues facing Britain.  It wasn’t always thus and need not be again. We can – and need – to do better.

By Professor Alan Manning, Professor of Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science.