All over Europe, immigration is moving in from the political fringes Immigration, from being the great unmentionable of British politics, is turning into the issue that dominates the political agenda. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, admitted last week that his party had failed to heed voters" concerns about the impact of immigration on employment, and on the provision to native Britons of services such as housing, health and education. He promised to do something to address those worries, although he did not say exactly what. But given that New Labour, for most of its 12 years in power, dismissed anyone who raised concerns about its dismantling of barriers to immigration as a closet racist, Mr Miliband's apology constitutes a major U-turn. A similarly agonised reappraisal is happening across Europe. A couple of weeks ago, EU governments adopted a measure that would allow them to reintroduce border controls, "when the control of an external border is no longer assured due to external circumstances" - a vague phrase which allows countries to impose controls more or less whenever they like. To appreciate what a major change in policy this represents, you merely have to remind yourself that to allow individual countries to control their own borders has always been anathema to the EU. The whole point of the Schengen agreement, from which Britain secured an opt-out, was to ensure that there were no border controls within the EU. But voters in France and Germany have been increasingly alarmed by the fact that, once migrants from outside the EU manage to get to, say, Greece, they are free to move anywhere in the EU. Migrants could enter France and Germany, and there was nothing that those countries" governments could do to stop them. The new measure was pushed through by the French and German governments to assure their people that there is something they can do: they can impose border controls, and they will do if necessary. The European Commission fiercely opposed the change, arguing that it violates the basic principle of freedom of movement within the EU - which of course it does. But it couldn't prevent it: the issue was too important to the elected governments. What has caused the new sensitivity to voters" opinions on this issue? Mass immigration has never been popular. But until now, governments have been happy to defy popular opinion over it. It may be that the alarming success of Golden Dawn, the neo-Nazi party, in the Greek elections, has reminded the political class that ignoring their electorates" feelings about immigration does not make them disappear: it just ensures that they mutate into very unpleasant forms. It might also be that migration is starting to have detrimental effects on the lives of the well-off and well-educated, from whose ranks politicians are predominantly drawn. In the past, it has only been those at the bottom end of society who have suffered from immigration, the poor and uneducated who have been competing for jobs with migrants. It is they who see the dramatic effects of the surge in new arrivals on services. Now, however, the better-off, or at least their children, may be feeling some of the downside of immigration. Migration Watch UK, a body that studies this issue, looked at the career paths of non-EU graduates competing for jobs in Britain. The number of these students who, having completed their studies, have been given permission to stay and take up jobs increased from 870 in 2004 to 40,000 last year. That must have some impact on the unemployment rate for British graduates, which now stands at 20 per cent. A similar increase in foreign graduates securing graduate jobs has probably happened in France and Germany. This may explain why politicians are finally starting to think that "something must be done about immigration." Whether they will be able to "do anything" effective is a different matter.