View this post on the web at [link removed]
Ted Grainger can be found writing at Voices for a Free Future [ [link removed] ]
We have an immigration problem. I’m sure upon reading that first sentence you gasped at my ability to be insightful, but I doubt you read it in the way I intended. I do not mean that we, as Brits, have a problem with immigration. I do not mean that the country is collapsing under the strain of uncontrolled mass migration. Of course, that might be a valid claim, but it is hardly an original one.
When I say that we have an immigration problem, I mean we as classical liberals. We have always been fairly sceptical of the claims that immigration is something to be concerned with. Through the eyes of the market, we have always treated immigration as merely an extension of trade. In the same way that we do not wish there to be government-imposed regulations on the trade of goods, we do not wish there to be regulations on the trade of labour.
Economic Affairs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts daily, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The problem for us now is that the public, as well as public policy, has shifted massively away from us on this matter. According to [ [link removed] ] the most recent YouGov polling on voters’ priorities, 46 per cent put immigration in their top three concerns, meaning it is running neck-and-neck with the economy for the top spot.
It appears that our strategy has been simply not to talk about immigration. We neither confirm nor deny whether we want to see more restrictions on the number of people entering the country. Instead, we prefer to talk about the economy and the lack of growth that has come as a direct result of government fiscal policy. This tactic can only get us so far. If our aim is for classical liberalism to be successful at the ballot box, then we must engage in this pressing debate without betraying our principles.
I believe there is a way to do this. Whilst the struggle to integrate hundreds of thousands of newcomers into British society is something that clearly angers many voters, the cost to the taxpayer of providing assistance to these same immigrants is equally concerning. It is this second part of the issue where we have an opportunity to tap into the zeitgeist by making clear that we support removing all access to the state for non-British citizens.
The core reason for this policy is simply principle. Whilst we are not in favour of anyone, citizen or not, relying on the state, this is at least a starting point that is likely to receive broad public support. It would, of course, also come with much-needed savings for the Exchequer.
According to [ [link removed] ] the Migration Observatory, 1.1 million non-British or Irish nationals were claiming Universal Credit at the end of 2025, representing 13 per cent of all claimants. Foreign nationals can claim Universal Credit if they have settled or refugee status, EU settled or pre-settled status with a right to reside, or specific humanitarian visas. They must also live in the UK and pass the Habitual Residence Test, and they cannot have a "no recourse to public funds" restriction.
The latest OBR forecast projects that Universal Credit expenditure will hit [ [link removed] ]£71.7 billion in this financial year. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that, if foreign-national claimants receive roughly the average Universal Credit award, excluding them could save around £9.3 billion annually.
The actual figure could be significantly higher or lower depending on the characteristics of claimants. There is also the chance that those with Indefinite Leave to Remain would apply for citizenship, in order to retain access to Universal Credit. Nonetheless, it is an illustration it demonstrates the scale of the potential savings. On this rough calculation alone, the savings would be large enough to cover the defence funding shortfall that caused the resignation of the new Chancellor, and that is before taking into account other areas of expenditure such as social housing, Personal Independence Payments, and the NHS itself.
There is a rather convenient secondary benefit to this policy. We make the country less attractive to less economically productive migrants while keeping it attractive to skilled workers. The high levels of immigration that concern the public would decline, but due to natural market incentives rather than a state-imposed cap. It would be the unskilled workers who stop coming here, not the skilled ones. It would also incentivise those who contribute little to the economy to leave.
This matter is also urgent. This policy would, in effect, be an extension of the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) policy, which prohibits many temporary migrants from accessing the welfare state. It should be rolled out further to cover all non-citizens, including those on indefinite leave to remain, before an explosion in claims inevitably occurs as those who arrived in 2020 and 2021 become eligible.
I must give a warning about this policy. It will not achieve our aims if we simply redistribute the savings into other forms of welfare for British citizens. It is probably wise to commit some of the savings towards defence, as mentioned, but given the scale of the deficit it may well be that all of them have to be absorbed by the public finances. There may, of course, also be scope for targeted tax cuts that increase revenue in the long run.
Ultimately, we cannot allow this debate, which is consuming so much of the political conversation, to pass us by without contributing. Instead, we must see it as an opportunity to advocate for a smaller state and avoid the trap of allowing immigration to become merely another argument for greater state intervention. If classical liberals are to find a distinctive voice in this debate, it should be by making the case that immigration policy can, and should, be used to advance the cause of a smaller welfare state.
Thanks for reading Economic Affairs! Spread the word.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
