The election of a president with hard-line immigration policies means more skilled workers could look to come to the UK instead, explains Yash Dubal
by Yash Dubal
The world will take some time to adjust to the reality of a Donald Trump victory in the US presidential election. In the UK, the government is cogitating on the geopolitical ramifications of Trump 2.0, where the guardrails are off and the victor will be largely left to follow his radical agenda.
The news of Trump’s win has been met with political trepidation this side of the pond, but the markets, on the other hand, showed positive signs, with the dollar rising against foreign currencies and stock markets making gains. Whether these positives were a result of relief that the uncertainty of the election was over, or a sign of confidence in Trump’s economic manifesto, remains to be seen.
The election of Trump a second time will have wide-ranging effects on the UK, and not all of them will be good. One area where businesses may benefit, however, is international talent acquisition, where we can make a few educated predictions as to what will happen next.
First, it must be borne in mind that Trump doesn’t move into the White House and assume power until 20 January next year, so there will be no immediate shifts in policy. Trump is also known as a man who sometimes says one thing and does another, so some of the promises he made on the campaign trail may not materialise. But it is safe to predict that his immigration agenda will focus on considerable reductions and restrictions. He has promised the mass deportation of around 11 million illegal and undocumented workers and an end to illegal migration.
He also advocates for reducing legal immigration and has proposed a merit-based visa system that gives preference to workers with skills that are needed by US firms. He has also promised stricter controls and enhanced vetting for certain immigrant groups.
Given the often crude and combative language used about immigrants on the campaign trail, and the Republican commitment to creating ‘American jobs for American workers’, it is hard to imagine that his policy on legal migration will be anything other than deterring. Indeed, his advisers may well use the UK’s relaxed post-Brexit immigration regime as a blueprint for how not to do things in the US, given that our more liberal regulations after the referendum contributed to record numbers of overseas workers. If this happened in the US, it would be a betrayal of one of the central promises of the Trump campaign.
What this effectively means is that migrants, both skilled and unskilled, will find the door to the US closed, or increasingly hard to get through. A Trump-led administration will likely lead to an increase in visa denials and reduced opportunities for family-based immigration.
The benefit of this for UK employers is that the most attractive country in the world for international migrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute, will largely be out of bounds. This will create a huge talent pool looking for other countries to relocate to. In the UK we still have acute skills shortages in many sectors and, despite increased restrictions on visas introduced earlier this year, UK visas will be seen as a much more achievable option for many, and the UK will be seen as a more welcoming nation, in contrast to the US under a Trump presidency.
Indeed, reports in the Indian press, for example, are already highlighting the difficulties skilled workers there are predicted to face in the coming years should they be interested in moving to America. This is good news for UK employers, who will have a better choice of educated and skilled talent with the biggest player out of the game.
The other possible benefit to British recruiters is less certain but could nevertheless prove significant. This is migration from within the US, both from undocumented workers who are deported or asked to leave the US, and from native workers.
In truth, many of the undocumented workers who face deportation will not meet the criteria for a UK skilled worker visa; most work in occupations where the British salary threshold will exclude them. For example, many work in unskilled roles in construction and agriculture or as maids and housekeeping cleaners where the average wage is below the £38,700 threshold for a skilled worker visa. Some, however, will meet the required criteria under our points-based system and will be qualified for a skilled role, and these people will be looking for English-speaking nations to move to.
One of the other possible consequences could be a small but significant migration of native US workers, particularly young college and degree-educated professional women who feel disenfranchised by the direction the US has taken. The country is undoubtedly deeply divided along ideological lines and, while there is no evidence yet that this demographic is looking to emigrate in any considerable numbers, in the hours after Trump’s victory was declared, people took to social media to ‘joke’ about moving to other countries and searches for ‘moving to Canada’ spiked.
In this regard, and given that younger, highly educated Americans are likely to feel particularly alienated by the election result, it will be interesting to see if uptake of the high potential individual (HPI) visa rises. The visa route is only open to graduates from a Home Office list of top global universities, many of which are in the US. Applicants do not need to be US citizens, only to have graduated from one of the listed institutions. The HPI visa is an unsponsored work visa, meaning applicants do not need to have a job to apply and, although it is temporary, once the applicant enters the UK on this visa, it is possible to later switch to another visa, such as a skilled worker sponsorship visa, if eligible.
Whether any disaffection felt in the aftermath of the election translates to real action or not remains to be seen, but certainly anyone in disenfranchised demographics who was seriously thinking about emigrating before the election will have even more reason to leave now. Because of this, smart recruiters looking overseas to fill highly skilled roles could do worse than look to the US for potential candidates and for motivated, skilled workers.
Yash Dubal is director and founder of A Y & J Solicitors