Econ_May_05

14 Leaders

The Economist

May 5th 2018

used any excuse to notch up ejections. Claiming to crack down

on illegal migrants, they even broke the law themselves.

For all its shortcomings, Mrs May’s approach does contain

one idea that isworthpreserving: enforcement shouldhappen

inland, not just at the border. Most of Britain’s half-million or

so illegal immigrants didnot enter the country illicitlybut have

overstayed their visas. Furthermore, from the camps of Calais

to theMediterranean sea, there is plenty of evidence that forti-

fying borders does not stop lots of people continuing to try to

cross them. The result is migrants’ suffering, extra cost to tax-

payers and a bonanza for people-smugglers.

The Windrush debacle highlighted that Britain has no easy

way of carrying out this inland enforcement. The govern-

ment’s guide for landlords who need to verify tenants’ migra-

tion status is 35 pages long. If landlords get it wrong they risk a

fine or even imprisonment. Researchers have shown that, un-

surprisingly, they tend to err on the side of caution, rejecting

those without passports (and especially those who are not

white). The result is pressure against all migrants, and also

against ethnic minorities, British or otherwise. After Brexit the

problemwill beworse, as 3mEuropeanswill be allowed to re-

main permanently but without passports.

The scandal has rightly provoked calls for an overhaul of

migration enforcement. Any rethinkmust get to the root of the

problem. This is not that Britain checks the status of migrants,

as any country must if it values the rule of law. The real short-

coming is that Britain, rarely among advanced countries, lacks

a simple, non-discriminatory way to check the identity of its

population. UnderMr Javid it should get one.

Liberals, including this newspaper, have argued against na-

tional identity registers on the basis that they invade privacy

and aid oppression by the state. But the balance of this trade-

offhas changed. In a globalisedworldmore people spend time

travelling, studying or working abroad, and access to labour

markets and public services depends on their exact status.

Proving identity thus matters more than ever. Countries like

Britain that lack an

ments, tax records, phone bills—that are even more intrusive.

As for the risk of oppression, theWindrush affair shows that it

is not just all-knowing states that have the power to persecute

their citizens. It was precisely the opacity of information that

the Home Office exploited in order to pursuemany thousands

of peoplewho had a right to be in Britain.

Papers please

Setting up an identity register would not be cheap or easy. A

previous, abortive effort to roll out

cards a decade ago was

priced at about £5bn ($7bn). It would probably have to involve

an element of amnesty for those caught up in a Windrush-

style trap ofmissing paperwork. But Brexit is forcing Britain to

think hard about matters of migration and citizenship. Taking

back control of who enters the country is one of the biggest

prizes advertised by Brexiteers. To do that, Britain must first

have a better idea ofwho is already there.

“L

IKE organising a shipwreck

in order to find out who

can swim,” is how Alain Peyre-

fitte, then France’s education

minister, described his coun-

try’s non-selective system of re-

cruiting university students half

a century ago. Peyrefitte hoped

to transform the system by introducing selective admissions.

He failed, and instead triggered the student uprising of May

1968. Now President Emmanuel Macron, attempting a similar

reform, has also brought students out on the streets (see Eu-

rope section), and the French hear echoes of

soixante-huit

. But

he is right to try to reformawasteful higher-education system,

just as Peyrefitte was. France’s model is inefficient, inequitable

and allows toomany young people to sinkwithout a chance.

Napoleonwho?

That model traces its roots to 1808, when Napoleon Bonaparte

introduced the

baccalauréat

and decreed that anybody who

passed it was entitled to a place at university. For many years,

keeping that promise was easy because so few held what was

then an elite qualification. In1950 only 5% of pupils attempted

the

baccalauréat

. That has changed dramatically: these days al-

most everyone takes the bac and, in 2016, nearly 80% of pupils

passed it. Yet the entitlement has not changed. The bac’s hold-

ers still have the right to enter the university of their choice to

study the course of their choice. So youngsters with only rudi-

mentarymathsmay sign up for amaths degree and thosewho

have little acquaintancewith the past can read history.

Since the costs of public university are paid almost entirely

by the state and the fees are low—an average of €189 a year

($227) in 2017—the results are predictable. Universities are over-

whelmed. In the first year, thousands jam into lecture halls de-

signed for hundreds. Professors cannot offer the support that

laggards need. Most students drown: many drop out after a

year, but some struggle on, retaking exams again and again. In

all, over 70% fail to complete a degree within three years. The

same systemprevails in Italy and bits of LatinAmerica.

Odd as it may seem, this “republican” model of higher edu-

cation commands great support in France, so Mr Macron is

treading lightly in his attempts to reform it. He is not—heaven

forbid—saying explicitly that universities should “select” stu-

dents (the word is political dynamite). He is merely proposing

that they should be able to require those who wish to study a

particular degree tohave some basic knowledge ofthe subject.

But opponents of reform suspect (probably rightly) that any

conditions for admission will lead to more stringent rules—

which iswhy the students and the left aremarching.

The arguments for reform on efficiency grounds are obvi-

ous. Jamming up publicly financed universities with people

who are never going to finish their degrees is not a good use of

taxpayers’ money. But the system is also unfair. It promises stu-

dents a leg-up in life that most of them will not get, and it in-

French universities

Non-selective nonsense

Studentswith shakymaths shouldnot have a right to take a taxpayer-funded degree in the subject

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News"

VK.COM/WSNWS