One of the few remaining privileges accorded to passengers arriving at London’s Gatwick airport from the Channel Islands is the discrete passage which bypasses the need to queue up with overseas passport holders at Immigration Control.

While we take it as read, easy entry for others into the UK by legal and other means has long been a ‘hot potato’. There’s no question that along with Westminster sleaze and fiscal downturn, it was the most talked about – though least addressed – issue during the last election campaign.

In the absence of convincing evidence, fears abound of an immigrant tide overwhelming indigenous communities, fuelled by intemperate comment from politicians, extremists and newspapers alike. Now David Cameron has gone on the offensive. In a speech last week, he championed ‘good immigration, not mass immigration’, which sparked bluster and confusion among those disciples of denial, quick to label any restraint on the country’s porous borders as racist or anti-democratic.

Immigration figures for the UK make interesting reading. Net immigration between 1997 and 2009 reached 2.2 million, while in the last year of the previous Labour government, near on 200,000 new immigrants arrived from outside the EU. While these are figures for known individuals, there can be no account of those who slip in under cover, fail to leave when they should or boomerang back when they are expelled.

So the Prime Minister’s desire to cut numbers to ‘tens of thousands’, which is about all the government is prepared to consider, still seems somewhat generous, though is probably less than achievable.

Political sceptics have seized on the fact that local council elections are due on May 5th and immigration has certainly not gone away as a voting issue. Furthermore, anti-immigration critics have already pointed out that next month, the UK government will have even less room to manoeuvre as EU rules will release yet more migrants from Eastern Europe. So, prepare for more headlines predicting the approach of a potential crime-wave of undesirables.

There’s no question that a sudden influx of people from wherever exerts pressure on infrastructure. County Councils on the UK’s east coast are struggling to provide extra facilities – particularly in schools and social housing. It’s an issue which has long faced city authorities where migrants have traditionally arrived to swell existing communities.

There is undoubtedly a cultural element involved, since newcomers will most likely gravitate to areas they can identify with and where they can feel comfortable. There is also an underlying economic aspect to immigration – short and long-term – which creates benefits and problems by turn. According to the pressure group, Migration Watch, 75% of all new jobs created under Labour were snapped up by immigrants, though it doesn’t report how many opportunities were turned down by local applicants.

Unlike the position in this island where – as in the case of the selection of senior police officers, there is deemed a paucity of local qualified takers, the bulk of jobs available for migrant workers are those which the resident population neither wants to undertake nor can afford, since they pay out less than benefits available on the ‘social’.

Since the arrival of MV Empire Windrush at Tilbury in 1948, carrying aspiring workers from Jamaica, big institutions like the NHS, London Transport and the building industry, have depended on a vital ready supply of imported labour. Migrants have been prepared to accept hours and conditions locals won’t consider. And as council budgets are cut, the care sector increasingly depends on individuals driven more by compassion than avarice to keep services running.

That’s not to say that specialists aren’t also in demand. The construction industry, IT and high-tech research are always on the lookout for overseas talent, and serious questions have been raised over the current plan to cap the number of skilled workers entering the UK. Reducing this stream, it’s argued, might damage the economy and reduce growth. There are also serious fears about the effects on the increasing need to support an ageing population.

Now, you can’t just cherry-pick whom you want to let in. It’s just as unacceptable to decimate the nursing establishments of Africa, as to refuse every boatload of migrants on the grounds they might contain a toxic mix of extremists, thugs and spongers.

But, in order to ensure a credible and just migration policy, it is essential to close gaps which allow bogus colleges, make-believe students, dodgy work permits and sham marriages. So along with the rhetoric, there is an obvious need for a radical rethink in the areas of remuneration, tax & benefits and training. Lifting people off dependence means creating the opportunities to improve local skills-base.

Encouraging existing workers back into jobs will reduce the need for the foreign migrants who inflame the prejudices in the immigration debate.

Given the entrenched, broadly negative attitudes to immigration, and the inevitable howls of racism he provoked, David Cameron was probably brave to raise the issue. But, immigration has less to do with racism than pragmatism. There are systems in operation across the globe to combat the pressures exerted by undue population movement. America has its Green cards; you can’t emigrate to Australia unless you have a skill they require, or family connections.

In short, it’s all tied up with access to jobs and housing. In June the States are due to debate the latest mechanisms to establish residential status and regulate the size of this Island’s population via the rights to lease and own property. It may be seen as a crude method, but with European economies going ‘belly-up’, and the Island obliged to accept EU nationals seeking work, it’s probably the best insurance we’re likely to get.