No subject provokes such confusion and consternation as asylum and immigration. This is the one issue on which today’s Times/Populus poll finds the Tories well ahead of Labour (on crime and taxation, they are virtually level-pegging). Which may help to explain why Michael Howard has made so much of immigration and why Tony Blair is so keen to wrestle this issue, too, to a political draw.

To some extent, the Government’s new proposals continue the direction of previous policy. Asylum applications have fallen since reaching a record high in 2002, partly as a result of Home Office action in, for example, closing the Sangatte refugee camp. But yesterday’s announcement also signals a distinct change in step. The Home Secretary’s proposals would clarify and simplify what is currently an unnecessarily complex system. Yet he will need stamina to see through controversial measures such as limits on the number of dependants who are allowed to join their relatives. Some of his meatiest proposals, such as the points system favouring migrants with sought-after skills, will require legislation. So the Government’s political will is to be tested, but, conveniently, not until after the next election.

This country has benefited and continues to benefit enormously from immigration. It is both a more prosperous and a more attractive place to live because of the contribution migrants have made to a continuously evolving society. But there are natural concerns about those coming here under false pretences. In a borderless world, Britain cannot exist in splendid isolation, but nor can aggressive queue-jumpers compromise the safety of those genuine asylum-seekers who need a haven. A progressive foreign policy can free countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan from persecution, but there will always be tough choices. To be credible, the system must be seen to be fair.

If the Home Secretary sticks to his guns, one effect of his policies should be to make legal immigration more acceptable. His attempts to deter would-be economic migrants from abusing the asylum system should help to de-couple asylum from immigration. The proposed points system will also make the value of many migrants more visible, by more clearly defining what skills are needed. Most people welcome doctors and teachers coming from abroad; they are suspicious of the invisible and the uncategorised. The proposal to fingerprint all visa applicants may feel like an unwelcome intrusion, but it will smooth the path of the legitimate traveller.

While the Home Secretary was making his announcements in Parliament yesterday, a group of concerned citizens was meeting four miles away to share concerns about the Kafkaesque chaos reigning at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Lunar House. The Home Secretary talks eloquently about the difficulties of dealing with the people who destroy their papers en route to Britain. But he must also make sure that his immigration officials do not continue to add to the difficulties by losing the papers of those who seek to enter legitimately. Unless the machinery works, the best-intentioned rule changes will not succeed.

There will no doubt be more point-scoring between the parties on immigration in the coming weeks. A draw is by no means certain. But the Government’s apparent desire to make the immigration system transparent will also make the benefits more obvious.