There is supposed to be debate about immigration. It's certainly passed me
by. A debate pits one set of ideas against another. But when it comes to immigration,
all sides agree on the fundamentals: there are too many immigrants entering
Britain, many are feckless scroungers and we need more robust controls. The
only 'debate' appears to be about how best to keep them out.
The one question that could spark a proper debate is one that no one seems
willing to ask: why do we need to control immigration at all? The idea of
abandoning immigration posts and throwing open our borders would undoubtedly
strike most people as mad or reckless. That's only because no one has challenged
the myths of immigration that are used to justify controls.
Myth 1: 'If we have an open door the whole world would walk in'. It's obvious,
isn't it? Britain is rich, much of the world is desperately poor. Open the
borders and the hordes would descend upon us.
Well, actually, they wouldn't. Given the great global disparities of wealth
what is striking is not that so many people move to richer climes but that
so few do. Emigrating is not like going on holiday. You can't just pack your
bags and take the next easyJet flight out. You often have to abandon your
family, your friends, the life and culture that you know for an alien country
with strange habits and customs and where the people are often hostile. People
who emigrate tend to work for a period, earn money and return home. And generally
they're not the poorest, but those who are better off, speak a foreign language
and find it easier to make their way in an alien culture.
Ironically it is not an open border, but tight immigration controls, that
make people move in large numbers and settle. In the 1950s, when Britain had
a virtual open door, many of the initial immigrants were single men and women
who expected to return home after a short time working here. Once the government
began discussing the possibility of controls in the late 50s migrants started
arriving in larger numbers, to try and beat the closing door. And once the
1962 Immigration Act came into force they had no choice but to settle here
and bring their families over, because they knew that if they left they might
never get back in again. Open borders allow people to move in and out according
to need. Closed borders compel people to settle, even if they have no desire
to.
Myth 2: 'They take all our jobs'. OK, say the critics, even if the whole world
doesn't want to come here, those immigrants who do deprive indigenous workers
of jobs because they provide cheap labour. Wrong again. Migrants don't take
jobs from locals, they do jobs that locals won't do or can't do. Two years
ago the Home Office commissioned an independent report on the impact of immigration
on local workers. The report looked at numerous international surveys and
conducted its own study in Britain. 'The perception that immigrants take away
jobs from the existing population, or that immigrants depress the wages of
existing workers', it concluded, 'do not find confirmation in the analysis
of the data laid out in this report.'
Myth 3: 'They're a burden on the welfare state'. The people who make most
use of state services are the young and the old. Those aged between 18 and
60 generally have less need of hospitals, schools and benefits - but pay the
taxes necessary for their provision. Almost by definition, migrant workers
fall into this category. The 'benefit tourist' is largely to be found in the
imaginations of Middle England. Some ninety thousand East Europeans came to
Britain last year in the first five months following EU enlargement in May.
Just 15 claimed any form of benefit. Only someone who has never had to claim
benefit could suggest that Britain's social security system is an easy touch
for foreigners.
Perhaps the biggest myth of all is the idea that a government can control
immigration. Take, for instance, the Tory plan for an annual quota on economic
migrants. Will there be some bureaucrat sitting in a Ministry of Silly Numbers
deciding that we will let in 1417 strawberry pickers and 586 steel erectors
next year? And what happens when we need extra pickers and erectors? Will
the government say to employers, 'tough, you'll just have to sell less fruit
and build fewer houses'? Or will employers continue, as now, to rely on illegal
workers who are forced to labour in appalling conditions, for derisory wages
and with no legal protection?
I'm no free marketer. I believe that the introduction of market forces into
the NHS and education has had a disastrous impact. But the notion that governments
are best placed to predict labour demand and hence regulate labour flow is
a fairly tale. However, when it comes to the question of immigration, the
apostles of the free market on both sides of the political spectrum suddenly
become cheerleaders for the policies of a command economy.
For all the myths about immigration, what really drives the debate is not
concern about anything so tangible as jobs or benefits. Rather it is a sense
of fear - a fear that Britain is changing, identities are eroding, and communities
are disintegrating. And immigrants have become the scapegoats for this sense
of loss. Yet even if no immigrant had come to Britain, we would still be living
in a vastly different nation from half a century ago. Feminism, consumerism,
increased social mobility, greater individual freedom, the decline of traditional
institutions such as the Church - all have helped transform Britain, sometimes
for the better, sometimes for the worse. It's immigrants, however, who now
get the blame for all our social ills, but little credit for the benefits
they've brought us.