Immigration: what are the questions?

Immigration can no longer be ignored, writes Martin Wolf in today's Financial Times. Who would disagree?

Immigration is the most contentious of all the challenges confronting today’s high-income countries. Decent people do not want to confront the issue, not only for fear of being labelled racist, but ...this is a vital issue for the future of a country. It must be confronted.

That the British agree is evident. According to an Ipsos Mori poll conducted in June, they regarded immigration and race relations as the second most important issue facing the country today, after crime. This is not surprising. Between 1995 and 2004 alone, net immigration by non-British people was a fraction under 2m, or 3 per cent of the population. It was 342,000 in 2004.

...Not only is the inflow substantial, but it is also having significant impact on the size and composition of the population. Net immigration generated two-thirds of the increase in the UK’s population between 2001 and 2004. By 2001, ethnic minorities made up close to 10 per cent of the population. More recently, there also has been a very large immigration from new members of the European Union.

Nobody planned this level of immigration. On the contrary, both the country and the government avoided serious debate on the subject. Suppose, however, that they were to confront it seriously: what questions should they ask? I suggest the following: first, whose welfare counts? Second, is it possible to control immigration? Third, what are its economic consequences? Fourth, does the cultural impact matter? Finally, what policies should the UK have?

Let me at least suggest some answers. The first is that the welfare of existing citizens has priority. This does not mean that the benefits to potential immigrants count for nothing. It means that political communities have a right to determine their own composition.

...The second is that controls are feasible. Indeed, the huge discrepancies in real wages across the globe demonstrate this. While unavoidably porous, controls are at least partially effective.

The answer to the third has one central element: immigration’s impact on an economy’s overall size must be carefully distinguished from that on incomes per head. Too much of the debate in the UK has focused, absurdly, on the former. China has a bigger economy than Switzerland. Most people would prefer to be Swiss.

Furthermore, the principal beneficiaries of immigration are migrants themselves. In addition, immigration of skilled people is likely to bring larger economic benefits (including fiscal benefits) than that of unskilled people. Immigration of the skilled is also likely to shift the distribution of earnings in favour of the domestic unskilled. Immigration of unskilled people is likely to do the reverse.

Businesses argue for immigration as a way of dealing with “labour shortages”. This is, however, no more than a statement of their desire to enjoy the benefit of cheap labour.

But the vast majority of citizens do not share this desire. On the contrary, those whose incomes depend on their earnings from work will want labour to be as expensive as possible, provided those who wish to do so can find employment.

Immigration must also have wider economic effects, particularly in a small country with tight restrictions on new development. The elevated recent rate of immigration must, for example, be one of the explanations for the soaring house prices of recent years.

Now consider the fourth and most explosive of questions. Until recently, I would have been unambiguously in favour of the diversity brought to the UK by large-scale immigration. This was, however, on the possibly naive assumption that a shared commitment to core common values – to democracy, equality of men and women, a single secular legal system and freedom of expression – would unite all citizens. When a small number of citizens wish to murder a random collection of their fellows and a far larger number sympathise with them, that belief begins to look very foolish.

What then is my bottom line? It is that a continuation of net immigration on the recent scale is hard to justify. It is that the assumption that all communities will integrate within the political and religious culture of the UK may be quite wrong. It is that the country must insist on the universality of its liberal values. It is that the focus now should be on bringing in skilled people who are most likely to make a big economic contribution to the country and to fit most comfortably within its norms and values. It is, above all, that the country must have this debate. The topic is too important to be ignored.

Comments

[RichB]

I wonder if the current approach to immigration in Britain is not, in an odd way, the counterpart to the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. Both situations started off with a strong humanitarian spirit (I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt). Over time, though, it becomes clear that it's not working, the negative consequences are appallingly apparent, a politically priveleged minority benefits while the majority suffers, and yet the policy continues because it agrees with the prevailing intellectual framework for understanding how the world works (reality be damned). Substitute either "the power of free markets and liberal economics to better people's lives" or "the power of American-style democracy to better people's lives", but the end result leaves an outsider scratching their head thinking how can these people be so stupid.

[RichB]

I wonder if the current approach to immigration in Britain is not, in an odd way, the counterpart to the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. Both situations started off with a strong humanitarian spirit (I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt). Over time, though, it becomes clear that it's not working, the negative consequences are appallingly apparent, a politically priveleged minority benefits while the majority suffers, and yet the policy continues because it agrees with the prevailing intellectual framework for understanding how the world works (reality be damned). Substitute either "the power of free markets and liberal economics to better people's lives" or "the power of American-style democracy to better people's lives", but the end result leaves an outsider scratching their head thinking how can these people be so stupid.

[shiva]

I am a recent migrant to Britain. I came to London recently to study, found a decent job and work here now. I am glad you have brought this topic up. First of all, I don't think a debate about immigration is necessarily racist. In fact, when sensible people avoid the subject for fear of being labelled racist, it tends to get hijacked by right-wingers, some of whom could be racist. I share your (fairly) gloomy outlook on the effects of unmanaged immigration on unskilled workers' wages and race relations. I think migration is like anything else, it can be good if managed properly, but can have harmful effects if left to get out of control.

In my opinion, there are two very different issues to be considered within this debate. There is very little Britain can do to indefinitely restrict immigration from within the European Union. The principle of free movement of labour within the EC will possibly bring hundreds of thousands of new migrants from these countries, and this will continue until standards of living converge. This cannot be stopped by Britain, unless the terms of membership of the Union are radically altered. The other issue in non-EC immigration. Here, Britain has a fair degree of control over who can come in, and who can stay here indefinitely. It is therefore imperative that a coherent, focussed strategy is developed to deal with this. This needs to be done by setting specific strict qualification criteria that meet the needs of the British economy. As long as these criteria are blind to race, religion or national origin, this cannot be considered racist and can only benefit Britain in the long term.

[A. PERLA]

shiva: "I think migration is like anything else, it can be good if managed properly, but can have harmful effects if left to get out of control."

And, how, pray tell, do you think it should be "managed", which is certainly NOT the term that could be applied today.

Immigration has two aspects, internal and external to the EU. Once they are inside the EU, the regulations are different.

So, illegal immigrants must be stopped at the frontier because, aside from Britain, nobody else can either employ or afford to keep the hordes arriving. These are not political refugees, but economic refugees risking their lives for what they think is a better life.

shiva: "There is very little Britain can do to indefinitely restrict immigration from within the European Union. The principle of free movement of labour within the EC will possibly bring hundreds of thousands of new migrants from these countries, and this will continue until standards of living converge."

That will work in time, which has been proven. The economic refugees from Portugal and Spain of the '50s & '60s have been assimilated into the rest of Europe. I live amongst many who are second generation now having third generation babies. They are doing as well or as badly as any other French person in an economy plagued with 10% unemployment for the past quarter of a century (sic!)

The French (unannounced) Presidential candidate and present Interior Minister, M. Sarkozy, proposes "selected" immigration, which simply means a list of skills posted in embassies around the world that would recruit such talents.

So, France needs C+++ programmers and Senegal is supposed to provide them? Yeah, right. If France needs such hi-tech talent, they are right to outsource the project to Senegal. That benefits the Senegalese the most.

What France needs, and the statistics show it, is not that much hi-tech talent, but brute force. It cannot recruit enough local talent to do the "dirty work" ... because the French youth want to sit behind a mindless computer taking customer calls all day long. Does anybody wonder why obesity (the American disease) is making inroads in not only France but Europe?

As regards unqualified and semi-qualified skills, the demand for such is fairly limited to the construction industry. The heavy industries of fabrication and assembly (equipments, cars, etc.) is going out of Europe to lower cost climates. This trend is inexorable.

So, the unskilled people that you hire today, these economic immigrants, are the unemployed of tomorrow. Europe simply does not have enough jobs for garbage workers. The Turks and Arabs that manned the production line at Peugeot and Volkswagon are now also unemployed as automobiles are increasingly designed in the high-cost EU states but manufactured in low-cost countries anywhere.

Europe wants potential "yuppies" (Young, UPwardly mobile), that is, skilled talent. It is getting riff-raff who join the second generation ethnics who are not schooled well-enough to find a job. This is kindling material that has already exploded, literally, in the UK and in France.

The only and inevitable solution is one that most of Europe does not approve, that of stopping them before they come. Europeans tend to think that the poor of this world have a right to "sanctuary" in Europe.

But, no one wants to invite them into THEIR house! (Curious, that, don't you think? ; ^ )

[Arthur Eckart]

RichB, Iraq is a relatively rich Middle Eastern country, given its vast oil reserves. Of course, the U.S. and U.N. placed economic sanctions after Iraq invaded and lost in Kuwait. So, Iraq has the capacity to greatly improve its living standards once stability is restored, which should be an improvement than under Saddam (and his family, including his two sons). Of course, the terrorists streaming into Iraq want the new Iraqi government to fail, in part, because they want Western influence out of the region. It's wrong to say Iraqi and U.S. efforts are not working. Progress is obviously being made. Also, it's obvious most don't understand the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, which includes "smoking-out" terrorists, creating a form of democracy in a region ruled by kings, shifting trillions of dollars of oil from a "madman" to a more responsible government, for the Iraqi people and global economy (which faces a future oil shortage), and I suspect placing a permanent U.S. force in Iraq to combat and control terrorism (similar to the permanent force in Germany, which guarded against the Soviet Union for over 40 years). Consequently, it's a long-term strategy rather than a quick effort.