Britain is a nation of immigrants, with a migrant-built economy. Many people now claimed as its own – from Huguenots and Jews to refugees of Amin’s Uganda - have faced inevitable short-term integration challenges and longer-term, low-level establishment xenophobia.

Despite continued abuses in human rights and working conditions that shame the modern state, the economic contribution of migrants is remarkable, thrown into sharp relief by news of an impending strike by Polish workers in Britain.



Agricultural labour is one area where migration is mostly tolerated – maybe because it remains beyond the average day-view of the London commentariat but principally because it reflects the fact that business models – “flexible” contracts, low wages, transient commitments - are hugely dependent on it.



In a recent government report, a representative from The Co-Operative group argued that non-EEA countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova represent good potential sources of the candidates needed for the agricultural sector. Ukraine alone has about 250,000 agricultural students – rich pickings.



The UK position is not unusual. Most developed and high-income countries remain dependent on migrant labour for seasonal agricultural work. Canada has run its Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programme since 1966. The US has a specific visa category for seasonal work. In Spain, despite unemployment levels of over 22%, there is a dependency on north African labour. Poland is itself dependent on Ukrainian migrant horticulture workers.



The truth of a mobile global economy is not what politicians want to hear, despite the fact that UK plc’s wider business model is heavily dependent on migrant labour. Nor can politicians conceive that migrants might actually be able to plug the skills gaps, beyond agriculture, that they complain about elsewhere. British fruit producers happily speak to exceptionally high skills levels among workforces, one noting recently that a worker boasted a degree in astrophysics.

Why not welcome new waves of Syrian doctors, Eritrean nurses or Afghan labourers into Britain to help overcome significant skill shortages in the NHS or the current London construction crunch? The latter sees thousands of construction worker vacancies in a city desperate to build to remain affordable and inclusive. Is it just too difficult to confront internal political prejudice and pressure – or even to invest in the retraining required?

While George Osborne steals soft left clothing on the living wage or northern localism, his prime minister and cabinet colleagues happily deploy terms like “swamped” and “swarms” on immigration. This government speaks with forked tongues and the opposition, given its laissez-faire stance of the early millennium, did little better.

Home secretary Theresa May said: “New [immigration] rules will see us exercising control, ensuring that only the best and the brightest remain in Britain permanently.” This is at odds with pleas from the Royal College of Nursing who fear that the new rules will deprive the NHS of experienced nurses when demand for them is greater than ever before. Selecting only the “best and the brightest” is a digestible soundbite but maybe not the right answer.



Data challenges the political zeitgeist. According to a recent UCL report, European immigrants who arrived in the UK after 2000 contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances in the subsequent decade. Furthermore, the report states: “they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education”.



Business voices are often surprisingly pro-immigration. The director of an educational publisher in the Midlands declared his entire workforce is Polish and all from the same village. The firm’s recruiters target Polish communities on this basis: team spirit is high; absenteeism remarkably low. It is a business model that works.



“Seeking to reduce net migration with draconian limits on skilled migrants from non-EU countries will be seen as one of this government’s greatest mistakes,” observes the Institute of Directors’ Simon Walker in a press release calling for the loosening of immigration controls. “The OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] is absolutely right that now is the time to raise the limit of 20,700 visas that can be issued to non-EU workers each year.”

Corporate elites may trumpet a new era of social responsibility in business. But this needs to extend beyond tick-box compliance on supply chains, sanitised diversity policies or over-simplistic environmental programmes. Social responsibility in good businesses demands vision, compassion and a willingness to stand up to bad politics – while understanding human capital must apply to a more fundamental humanity. A socially inclusive, responsible, sustainable economy cannot be trusted to the politicians.