The other day we were with some liberal-minded friends who were excoriating Prime Minister Cameron for not taking in many more Syrian refugees into the UK. Leaving aside for the moment the practical logistical problems facing the EU – the existing housing crisis, jobs and schools, the fears of culture change, and the less than stellar integration of some previous immigrants – their argument was that, along with countries like Japan, Western Europe faces an increase in the proportion of elderly people and an overall decline in population, and that this is bad for our economies.
My own feeling is that this too corporatist a point of view, that is, companies want ever-increasing populations to maintain and grow their profits. Whether there are the resources available matters less than growing numbers and, thus, sales. On the other hand, I think we should concentrate, not on gross national product but on gross national happiness (both inexact measures, I know). What is actually wrong with a static or even falling population as long as real people live in reasonable prosperity and are happy? It is the income per head that matters, and this requires jobs and a feeling of security and reasonable predictability.
Corporate interest meshes with religious teaching when it comes to population issues. Faced with a possible world population of 11.3 billion by the century’s end, we have to get used to migration, maybe massive, from Africa and the Middle East; too many babies, too little thought (and too little family planning). But can large numbers be absorbed? Will taxpayers be content to fund new homes and schools when their own needs are not being met? The British government estimates that each refugee currently costs £23,000 in benefits, education, health etc (£11,000 if they get a job) We all feel for the poor, battered and displaced Syrians and accept that many are educated, skilled and middle class, and could make contribution. But how do we handle the politics of it and why do sheer numbers of people in an economy really matter?
Your thoughts?
Firstly, I think its safe to say that regardless of the problem, the populist right are not the solution. Parties like UKIP, the Front Nationale, the Sweden Democrats, Jobbik, Donald Trump etc…, have all risen in popularity due to public angst over immigration. But the solutions they offer are lacking. They exploit the nostalgia of the older generation (the people that tend to support these groups), and tell them how everything was wonderful before the immigrants came. But in many cases, the opposite is true. For most of the 20th century, London was a declining city with a falling population. But at the turn of the century, immigration into the UK increased. London was the main benefactor of this- the new arrivals began to offset decades of net negative domestic migration. London’s diversity undoubtedly poses challenges. But without it, the city would be far less wealthy, exciting and dynamic. The same goes for New York: imagine what the city would be like today if impoverished immigrants from places like Ireland, Germany, Italy and the Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe had never came. Its also worth pointing out the huge contribution the African Americans migrating from the Deep South have made to the city, as well as the more recent arrivals of South Americans and Asians.
On the other hand, even if we shouldn’t listen to the populist right, we should certainly listen to the people as a whole. In Britain and most countries in Europe, pluralities if not majorities of people support considerable reductions in immigration. Regardless of the reasons of this, and whether they are right, immigration should be reduced anyway. Its not always right to dictate policy purely on the basis of public opinion, but immigration is an exception to that rule. This is because unlike other policies, immigration cannot be reversed (unless you want to deport legal immigrants, which would be wrong.) If you decide to let in 800 000 refugees a year, as Angela Merkel has done, the effects are permanent. It is wrong to force people to accept that kind of fundamental transformation of society, even if you think people are bigoted in refusing to do so. Just because you are comfortable with immigration, doesn’t give you the right to force others to be as comfortable as you are.
In the past you’ve expressed strong support for Britain’s EU membership. But this means that we have to accept the free movement of people within the EU (a policy that is non-negotiable.) By extension, this means we have to accept anyone who may originally have come from outside the EU, but has been given citizenship by any one of the EU member states. If you believe that the costs of EU withdrawal outweigh any benefits of more controlled immigration, than it is just something we will have to cope with. EU withdrawal may result in a more controlled border, but problems regarding trade, human rights and international policing will also emerge. Its also worth pointing out that the government is already very tough on non-EU migration, refugees included.
My own personal opinion is that immigration can work wonders for already-rich neighbourhoods. If you go to vast swathes of London- places like Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Belgravia and Mayfair especially- they are extremely wealthy, partly because they have so many rich immigrants living in them. Due to the lack of class division and the ability of these immigrants to speak good English, they are generally well-received in the neighbourhoods they move into. I think buying a property simply as an investment should be banned. But if they want to live there, let them come.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for poorer neighbourhoods, which generally do not become richer because of immigration. If you go to places like Malmo, Bradford, Tower Hamlets, the banlieues of Paris, parts of east Berlin; these places have been utterly transformed by immigration. Yet the country as a whole holds them in contempt. Not only have they failed to become richer, the culture and way of life there is so alien from the national culture. Places like that should be more mixed and genuinely multicultural.
Sorry for such a long comment, but those are all of my thoughts on the issue. But finally, it goes without saying that any kind of racism, xenophobia, or other kind of prejudice is completely unjustifiable. If you no longer like your neighbourhood because of immigration, then please move away, rather than take your anger out on those who simply want to succeed.
We’re in agreement on the issue and I share yours and Owen’s general view. I also think that the way the issue is framed may be perilous for us. In 19th Century Britain, men in Parliament with names chose to unleash policies that drove the Irish out of their communities and emigration, American presidents with names and men and women in Congress with names chose to unleash western arsenals and ATM machines. The violence destroys human communities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, (to say nothing of places like Gaza where even becoming a refugee isn’t a choice.)
What are the PR reasons for this? because bad men rule(d) these places? To stress this fundamental lack of accountability–hence my emphasis on “these people have names”– doesn’t amount to a solution but at least it nudges the discussion framework toward accountability and the origins of this incalculable human suffering and tsunami of immigrants.