It’s a funny thing isn’t it, that when we feel depressed and hard done by, we waste little time in blaming external influences and those we feel are out to exploit us, steal our jobs, take advantage of our generosity, as if we were constantly surrounded by preying wolves.

Well, maybe we are, but it wasn’t altogether surprising to hear the subject of immigration raised frequently at the hustings and on radio phone-ins during our election campaign. Indeed, evidence from the JEP survey of candidates confirmed that 46 of the 65 who responded, felt it was simply too easy for people to come here.

It is natural that an island community with a finite footprint and resources should be concerned about our ability to sustain an ever-growing population. It is understandable too, that those who feel they have a greater stake in the community by virtue of birth, longevity and input, should not be disadvantaged by incomers who may appear to be reaping where they have not sown. It would not be popular to suggest that, in fact, the history of our small island shows that our current population owes its enterprise to immigrants.

But before we start beating ourselves up for being unwelcoming, workshy or xenophobic, we aren’t alone in being wary. One of the most eagerly anticipated podium ‘turns’ at the recent Conservative Party Conference was that of the Home Secretary, Teresa May, on Human Rights and Immigration.

The stage had already been set for ritual rising of hackles across the Shires as a result of the cost to the exchequer of the previous government’s record on inward migration which was at best sloppy, and at worst, mendacious.

But raw nerves had been further inflamed by threats from the European Commission on the eve of the conference, to take the UK to court over the thorny issue of eligibility of foreign nationals not in possession of the’ right to reside’ to claim automatic benefits.

So, there was an eager expectation that she would announce strong measures to stop the wrong people entering the UK while making it easier to kick out those who’d wilfully abused local hospitality. In the end, it fizzled like a damp squib on bonfire-night over confusion about the family-life status of a pet cat.

The overall cry is for ‘managed immigration’ – a seemingly simple device to regulate who comes in, who goes out, and what they are coming in for. Historically, the UK has made convenient use of Commonwealth labour to man the buses, weave cloth in the mills and nurse the sick. Here, we’ve welcomed first Breton, then Madeiran and Polish workers to toil in our fields, serve in the hospitality and service industries and generally undertake tasks shunned by locals.

It is when competition for housing, schools and benefits occurs that the dialogue turns to accusation of ‘them’ taking ‘our’ jobs. Nothing bridles more in the UK than the belief that asylum seekers and migrants, whether political and economic, appear to jump the queue. It’s a favourite ‘hobby horse’, eagerly goaded by the more sensationalist elements of the national press. Nevertheless, it hurts when ‘outsiders’ are seen to benefit, particularly if they have profited illegally or demonstrate little appetite for putting anything back into the community.

Here, our overriding bugbear is the anomaly of the European Common Travel Area which gives EU citizens the right to work in the Island while restricting a reciprocal privilege for native Islanders. We may indeed be victims of our own success.

Foreign workers want to come here. The UK and Jersey are undoubtedly attractive places to live. We’ve created a caring, supportive society that many of them have never known. And, yes, that can easily be exploited.

Nevertheless, it remains difficult to impose rules that say one person can, but another can’t profit from the pluses we’ve created. That’s not to say that the notion of raising draw-bridges on ‘Fortress UK’ or even ‘Castle Jersey’, doesn’t occasionally feel a seductive policy. Too bad we’re not, and could never be, self- sufficient!

Yet alongside the election candidates’ general agreement for prioritising inward migration in order to preserve the welfare of the local workforce, there is an acknowledged need for fresh talent. We’ve heard the call for the introduction of work permits.

There are certainly well– established examples in other jurisdictions. But we can’t just freeze inward migration. The hospital, for example currently has 51 vacancies for qualified nurses, which it can’t fill from the local pool. Garages, plumbers and electrical contractors tell you they’d love to employ local labour, but it’s not available. Yet with 1,300 people – many of them, youngsters – unemployed in the island, there is an obvious priority to address the local skills shortage with on-island training and for strategic succession-planning so that local candidates can compete on a level playing-field.

We know that the population has grown from 87,400 in 2001 to 92,500 in 2009, but the major growth has been in the qualified housing area. So it’s unrealistic simply to point to an unbridled tide of unrestricted labour.

It offers an interesting comparison with the UK, which has just posted the highest unemployment figures since 1994. Unlike us, the mainland has indeed seen huge inward migration along with a decline in manufacturing industries, so it’s not surprising that it can’t create enough jobs to satisfy demand.

Now in recession, many of the part-time jobs traditionally taken by immigrant and non-registered labour are being cut too. Small wonder, there’s little appetite across the water to take a balanced or even sympathetic view of anything that smacks of competition and fulfilment.