‘IImmigration is damaging British workers. We need to restrict immigration to improve working-class lives.” That is the subtext – and often the explicit text – of the argument of those who oppose immigration or want to drastically reduce the number of immigrants. That argument was brought into sharper relief by the riots, which have vented much anger against immigrants and asylum seekers, and which have taken place in the poorest regions of England.

I want to put aside the question of whether immigration harms British workers, or more importantly, in what context such a claim might be true, and ask a different question instead. What other policies could – or should – we expect from immigration critics if they genuinely believe they are concerned with defending the interests of the working class?

There is arguably nothing that serves the interests of the working class more than their ability to organize collectively. As individuals, workers have little power, while employers have myriad ways to impose their will on their workforce, from cutting wages and laying off workers to withdrawing investment and calling on the state to police workers’ behavior. Any power workers have comes primarily from their ability to act collectively, through unions and other labor movement organizations, and to collectively walk out of work—to strike. Many studies show the importance of unionization in raising wages, improving working conditions, and reducing inequality.

Over the past half century, a succession of governments, starting with Margaret Thatcher, have passed a raft of laws restricting the right to form unions and act collectively. They have banned second strikes, legalised the dismissal of workers who stage unofficial strikes and introduced minimum notice periods for strikes. The outgoing Tory government’s latest attack on unions, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, forces employees in sectors such as health education and transport to continue working even during a legal strike – effectively using the law to force them to become strikebreakers.

The cumulative effect of these laws has been to make it almost impossible for workers to defend their interests. Not only have they depressed wages and worsened conditions, but they have helped to create what is euphemistically called a “flexible” labour market. In reality, it is a labour market in which there are fewer protections for workers and employers have greater incentives not to provide full-time or regular jobs or basic needs such as sick pay. “Insecurity,” as one study put it, “has become an endemic part of British working life.” Those who need union protection most are the least unionised.

Yet many of those who want to restrict immigration to protect the interests of the working class – from Suella Braverman to Nigel Farage – support both the curtailment of trade union rights and the development of a flexible labour market. The chorus of condemnation of the collective bargaining agreements for junior doctors and train drivers shows that many are happy to defend the working class when it is useful for restrictive immigration policies, but not when workers raise their collective voice to defend their interests.

A good example of the interplay between low pay, poor conditions, flexible labour markets and immigration is the social care sector, which has more than 100,000 vacancies and relies on migrant workers. Last year, the Home Office issued 350,000 “health and care” visas, accounting for almost three-quarters of all skilled visas issued in 2023. Ben Brindle, of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, said: “The government has opened up the immigration system to social care workers without addressing the underlying cause of the shortage, which is poor pay and conditions in a largely publicly funded sector.” In doing so, it has made it easier to exploit workers and continue to deny them a living wage.

The solution to the social care crisis is not hard to see: adequate government funding for decent wages and a sector-wide system that does not allow employers to exploit workforce fragmentation. Yet no politician – including those critical of immigration who claim to be committed to British workers – has been willing to implement this obvious solution.

In a fragmented sector where workers are easily pressured and intimidated by management, unionisation levels are inevitably low. Only 20% of frontline care workers and 15% in the private sector are unionised. As in many other labour market sectors, unionisation to end the exploitation of migrant workers is also essential to protect the interests of non-migrant workers. And a lack of solidarity with migrant workers can undermine the rights of all workers.

Those who claim to defend British workers on immigration do so not only in relation to trade union rights or labour market flexibility, but in other contexts too. Whether it is housing, education, welfare or childcare, critics of immigration often support policies that are deeply damaging to the working class.

Consider welfare payments. The real welfare base is at its lowest level in nearly 40 years. Universal Credit is well below what is needed to cover essentials such as food, utilities and essential household items. This stinginess not only exacerbates poverty, but also creates obstacles for those seeking work. And yet many who oppose immigration are also hostile to welfare recipients and support welfare austerity. This should come as no surprise, given the long history of popular disdain for migrants and the poor.

Questions about the relationship between immigration and the interests of the working class remain contentious. Many dispute the idea that immigration is bad for workers. Others combine arguments for more restrictive immigration with the classic defense of union rights and welfare. All too often, however, when the conversation turns to broader social policies, immigration critics suddenly lose interest in improving the lives of the working class.

So the next time someone says that mass immigration must end to protect British workers, we should question them not on immigration but on trade union rights, the flexible labour market, the welfare state and austerity. If the working class is only of interest in justifying particular immigration policies, then that interest is more than just performative.

Kenan Malik is a columnist at the Observer

• Do you have a view on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words for publication, email it to [email protected]