Time to Reframe the UK Immigration Debate
I’ve been reading through the International Organisation for Migration’s recent “Fatal Journeys” report, which examines the lives lost during migration. The Mediterranean crossing from Africa to Europe saw more than 3,400 deaths this year alone. Men, women and children from the developing world are risking their lives — in some cases with tragic consequences — to come to Europe.
Meanwhile in the UK, a pro-immigration stance is the electoral equivalent of suicide. The UK Independence Party encapsulates Britons’ attitudes towards immigration, with their surge in popularity centred upon policies that tighten border controls. The major political parties are having to respond, and now the traditionally pro-migration Labour Party are following the Conservatives in addressing voter concerns around the issue.
The economic arguments for increasing immigration are well-worn, and there is evidence that spreading such empirical evidence changes the attitudes of some people. The British public may largely cite economic reasons for their opposition to immigration, but it is my suspicion that this is often backwards rationalising of cultural reasons.
A close friend of mine supports a crackdown on immigration to the UK, and chastises me for lacking experience of its negative impacts. In some cases, it is true that certain communities can experience declining social trust due to an influx of migrants. Though crime statistics are often misrepresented (especially for certain migrant groups), there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the profoundly illiberal attitudes of a minority of immigrants.
Advocates of open borders — myself included — often support keyhole solutions to the above problems; for example, restricting migrant voting rights for a set period of time after arriving in the UK. But focusing primarily upon migration’s impact in the host country ignores the most important reason to support immigration. It is the most effective tool for combating absolute poverty at our disposal.
Those on both sides of the debate are often guilty of ignoring situations outside their own personal experience. This is one of the reasons why stereotypes of the “out of touch metroliberal Londoner” and the “insular little Englander” exist. The solution, on the part of the pro-immigration lobby, is to accept that some negatives may arise from increased immigration. If we want to convince people of immigration’s benefits, we have to be forthright about its potential pitfalls. We must also continue to balance this with the astounding economic potential of open borders, but more importantly spread the individual human stories of migrants escaping poverty. The voices of those literally dying to create a better life must be heeded, and their stories must be told.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The main problem is that the whole idea of immigration into the UK has been deliberately corrupted on purpose. This has been done by Fully-White British leftist GramsciaNazis who want to use (in particular) mass “ethnic” immigration (by specifically people of “ethnic origin” (European Whites, the English specially, are not counted as “ethnic”) and its direct effects to destroy a civilisation that they hate and despise. They despise us because they think its adherents are poor, white, eat greasy food containing sugar and salt, want to go to pubs, smoke, want to drive cars a lot and have nice things sometimes, and smell.
There’s nothing wrong with immigration. But perhaps we ought to not allow in people who (a) just come for the money, (b) come because they are told that our ruling class wants them as catspaws to pretend to want to alter us, (c) have “attitude”.
Jock coats writes:
Three points…
First, I noticed the other day some research from 2011 that showed quite convincingly that Britain has a particular problem with immigration. Britons are two and a half times more likely than the average European, including in countries with higher proportions of immigrants and higher population density to answer that “immigration is the biggest problem facing the UK”. 26% of people say that against a European average of 10%. Many of these places who care much less have more generous welfare systems and such like. Why are we, of all of them a nation of mongrels, so much more likely to say immigration is a problem?
Second, when my family were ex-pats, admittedly in formerly British colonies all the time, we, along with most other nations’ expats, procured our own education and health care, usually in fairly national based schools (well at least the Brits and the Americans, whilst many other non-anglophile families sent their kids to the local “International School” – still private, and no Kenyans or Nigerians to be seen). And of course, there would be no welfare, other than, perhaps, mutually provided by firms or national ex-pat groups, but most likely if you lost/left your job without another one to go to you would be on an early flight back home. And, of course, most of these countries operated a policy of insisting on their own nationals being a majority of management of any firms.
Finally, whilst I don’t have a problem with open boarders (or rather no borders – and no welfare – for anyone), I also agree with H-HH that genuine free trade would enable many of these people to achieve their desired standard of living without having to travel half way around the world in dangerous conditions to do so, in the process depriving themselves of their home communities, and their home communities of their skills and enthusiasm for bettering themselves. It would be a better solution to promote this rather than build walls. And so I also have no problem, whilst we have governments taking our money from us, with carefully targeted foreign aid to help source countries get to a position where they might be able to create such jobs for their own without migrating.
The period around the time of the Windrush and later the 70s Uganda issue was different from today – in the first case we went actively looking for people to fill jobs in a booming economy, for which a reward (if that’s what it is), was the right to settle in the “motherland” and in the second we were largely housing people whose ancestors we had encouraged to move around the colonies and then had been made refugees by the monster Amin and his ilk. It was right we took them in, and very many of them have made a success out of being here. But the immigration legislation we put in place then made it difficult to have the sort of system that even many migrants want – flexible ex-patriate work with the ability to go home again – we kind of force people into asking to settle permanently and then wonder why when they actually do!
Apart from being dragged round 8 schools before I was 11 and I thankfully got a scholarship to a UK boarding school, the ex-pat life was great. We seen to do it less then complain when others want to do it more.
How many people would want to come to the United Kingdom in an even relatively free market situation? If there was not a de facto zero interest rate policy pushing house building? A vast credit bubble economy created by the Bank of England. And if there were not also direct government subsidies (on top of all the “cheap money” from the Bank of England – the credit bubble) for roads and drainage and so on? And if there were not “free” (taxpayer financed) education, health care and income support? And if there were no “anti discrimination” laws forcing private people and organisations to do things they do wish to do?
Probably not many people – probably no more than came to the United Kingdom in the 19th century (when there was “free migration”).
As for people who are actively hostile to the country they are in, any sane nation must have the right to kick such people out – a political philosophy that denies this is not a political philosophy, it is a suicide pact (there is a vast difference between a “stranger coming to the gates” and an ENEMY coming to the gates).
The present mass immigration crises is artificial – created by government policy.
There has always been starvation in the world (terrible poverty is the de fault, the natural, condition of humanity), there was mass death in Ireland in 1840s and around the world in every decade of the 19th century (someone in the world). There was no government barrier to immigration so why did this island not get overwhelmed by immigrants?
Because immigrants had to pay their own way – there was no artificial “housing policy” eating up the fields and woods at taxpayer expense (either at the expense of open taxation – or credit bubble “easy money” monetary policy) and only people who at least some people would welcome could live here – as there was no government law forcing people to employ or do business with people they disliked (as there has been since 1965).
“Oh you evil little Englander Paul”.
An odd charge considering that my great grandfather on my father’s side was a Russian Jew (a wrestler by trade – his first action on coming into London was to throw a docker into the river Thames for pulling his beard – which, given the state of the river in the 19th century, could be considered attempted murder). And the other side of my family came from County Waterford (and were Catholic Irish – although British army, which made their position somewhat problematic).
If you can not pay your own way, and if you will not accept being “discriminated against” (i.e. will not accept freedom of association – which must include the freedom NOT to associate) then STAY AWAY.
Unfortunately, this is a foolish article. The “economic arguments for immigration” are a backwards rationalisation from the élite’s support for cultural change to shift away from the nation state. You could hardly believe we coped over the past 1000 years without migration on this scale. We have plenty of unskilled labour (often “on the sick”) and to reduce welfare costs, they need to be encouraged into work. Unskilled migration from Eastern Europe has the characteristic of “privating the gains and nationalising the costs” – sure, business like motivated workers who will work for the minimum wage – but this is only feasible due to the availability of in-work benefits – which means taxation remains high, which exerts a cost on business in the end.
We have large numbers of university graduates in Poundland or on the dole. We don’t need “bog-standard” graduates, who are two a penny. We do have skills gaps for doctors, dentists, and so on – this relates to our education system and our preference to push people into low-quality degrees that offer no real skills. If we need doctors we should take them from Anglo-Saxon or European countries, likely to integrate better – but we should also plan to reform our education system to become self-reliant in this respect too. There is a strand of qualified labour that must be admitted because the people are irreplaceable – eg top-flight bankers, footballers, CEOs etc – people on six-figure salaries who can only be themselves and cannot be replaced by bog-standard graduates. But that relates to a tiny number of people (and I would argue they should not be put on a path to naturalisation).
We also need to point out that the breakdown by nationality is important. We read recently that EU migration “added £4bn to the economy” – ignoring that fact that if migrants settle permanently they will grow old and eventually be a drain on the public purse, and that it is quite wrong to calculate the impact of such large population movements based purely on the tax receipts received from a generation of people all of working age. A whole-life analysis needs to be made, to avoid producing intellectually foolish analysis of the sort presented here.
It was also revealed recently that non-EU migration subtracted £118bn from the economy. I wonder if Daniel Pryor can get out his calculator and punch in “4 minus 118” and tell us whether it is a positive or negative number. Non- EU migration is largely a net drain, with some nations, particulary refugees, eg from Somalia and Afghanistan, almost entirely on benefits in the UK – but Pryor would claim “they’re here to pay our pensions”. No, boyo, they’re not! They’re here so we can pay theirs. Even EU migration needs to be reanalysed by national origin: the movement of French middle-class people to London is such that London is the largest French-speaking city outside of France – these people are probably a net boon. But does that mean Romanian cashpoint thieves are “vital to the economy”?
This is all just stupidity – and in the end, the tired recitation of state propaganda. Pryor, you didn’t reference Ch16 of John Stuart Mill’s On Representative Government. I wonder why? Ever heard of it?
Well said.
Although generally in whole-hearted agreement, I would take serious exception to this sentence in Mr. Webb’s comment: “We have plenty of unskilled labour (often “on the sick”) and to reduce welfare costs, they need to be encouraged into work.”
Yes, encouraging them into work would reduce welfare costs. But, desirable as that may be for those who are net tax payers, it misses a couple important points and frames the argument in a quite unappealing way. We frame the argument better by stressing the value of work. Not merely the money, especially since modern welfare states are quite good at rewarding people more handsomely for no effort at all and often assure they are economically penalized for taking that first step off the dole.
A man or woman who works for a living, however grand or meager the remuneration, is a self-responsible adult member of society, a true citizen. One who is supported by charity (by whatever name in which we cloak it) is a ward and no true citizen, no matter how zealously his vote is courted. The recipient knows this, and his almost inevitable feelings of helplessness and hopelessness alienate him both from his better self and from the larger community. But the rot goes much deeper it also undermines the authority of the parent in the home, and this helps to fuel multi-generational dependency and even criminality.
So, let us speak of the value of work. And, follow this with a more persuasive argument that we owe that blessing to those who are already members of the society before importing others into a situation in which very few can succeed. If the economy were truly booming and all who wanted work could find it, there would be little controversy about immigration in economic terms.
I must, now, return to another benefit of work over welfare. That self-responsible citizen will have what we call over here “skin in the game.” He will not be a reflexive supporter of higher taxing and spending in the hope that little of the burden will be borne upon his shoulders and the crumbs that may fall to him from master’s table will more than compensate.
The problem of the unemployed graduates of college, universities, etc. is another instance of a problem created by government. The idea that higher education should be open to all is wonderful; the idea that government should pay for all or most of it is not. If what is needed are doctors, dentists, nurses, and engineers, it should be easy for those with the desire and the academic qualifications to find opportunities for such studies with government assistance. Those who want to pursue degrees in sociology or leisure management or basket weaving ought to face rather stiffer competition for a limited number of places.
By the way, as an example of how this immigration/employment thing is working out over here, a study was released in October of employment gains in the recovery from the 2007/08 dip in the state of North Carolina. NC has been cited as performing a bit above the national average. But the net gain in employed persons in NC was exactly matched by the increase in immigrant (both legal and otherwise) employment.
Oddly enough you say “time to reframe the immigration debate” – reframing it by… restating state propaganda! Hmm. Cameron or Clegg could have written this.
“Meanwhile in the UK, a pro-immigration stance is the electoral equivalent of suicide.”
No it isn’t.
“The British public may largely cite economic reasons for their opposition to immigration, but it is my suspicion that this is often backwards rationalising of cultural reasons.”
I want him to expand on this. The economic arguments in favour of immigration hold true under a system of invited immigration and where we have a free market. At present, we have a welfare state and the state claims to own much of Britain and very few immigrants come here on the invitation of a resident taxpayer/property owner.
“It is the most effective tool for combating absolute poverty at our disposal.”
I couldn’t care less. Also, isn’t it making the Third World Poorer by robbing these countries of their best and brightest?
His criticism of the Autumn Statement was decent. This is pathetic.
Open borders is the recipe for the genocide of the white race. I don’t know how the author of the article can live with himself for encouraging the racial replacement and ultimate eradication of European peoples in their own ancestral homelands by creating conditions in which they cannot survive intact.
I don’t know whether the author is a self titled libertarian or just some kind of international-socialist, but the result is just the same here – welcoming the replacement and eradication of Europeans whilst simultaneously wrecking any chances of any kind of working libertarian society emerging, and all for the sake of ‘money’ or aiming for the ‘reducing of poverty’.
That is where the author also takes leave of his senses and seems to fall into the same old liberal thinking that you can solve poverty of the rest of the world by shipping the rest of the world into the richer parts of the world. You can’t. You just make the richer parts of the world poorer.
Furthermore, it does not take into account the demographic trends. It is complete nonsense to hold onto some bleeding heart concept of how we should welcome those “dying to get here” for a “better life”.
We do not owe anybody, anywhere, a better life. Rather than welcome them to continue dying to get here, it needs to be stopped and reversed so that they do not even embark on such journeys or be put in the hands of unscrupulous people traffickers in the first place.
The deaths on the deserts and in the Mediterranean are not at the hands of the “far right”, “Conservatives” or “little Englanders”. The deaths are solely at the hands of pro-immigration lobbies and those hell bent on overturning border controls in order to facilitate this influx of people. They are the magnet which draws them here, other than the tales of riches to be had.
I’d like to know how the author expects the future to be in Europe, with open borders to “poverty” emanating from the third world and their populace, who have already cost this country around 120 BILLION in recent decades (and that won’t even be the half of it, if you include fraud, investigating grooming gangs, foreign criminal gangs, community cohesion programs, riots etc).
The population of Africa is set to double from the current 1.1 Billion to 2 Billion by 2050 – and then double again to 4 Billion by the end of the century. Does the author not realise that there will be a never ending flow of desperation and hard-luck stories from Africa alone – whilst actually turning Europe into an outpost of Africa, which will then fail just like everywhere else these people end up?
If you want to solve poverty, go and do it in the place of origin – don’t import it here.
The author may not care a jot about exterminating the white race, importing Islam to the West, or all the other problems it brings. That is for their own conscience to deal with. At the very least I suggest they watch “immigration gum balls” on you-tube.
The original video is only 13 minutes long
, the follow up video is an even shorter 6 minutes that is directly relating to the futility and stupidity of the “helping the poor and needy” premise put forward in the article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
Until they are watched, I want Daniel Pryor to personally house, clothe, feed and marry his daughters off to immigrants, to give them a better life out of his own pocket, to see his grandchildren look nothing like him in appearance, to try and sell libertarianism to the Muslims in Blackburn and Rochdale and then come back to me when he has some actual insight as to what the world is really like.
Until then, I ask for him to stop peddling the genocidal and nonsensical open borders rhetoric for the rest of us, whether “re-framed” or not.