Politicians must engage with the social and cultural impact of migration flows, rather than endlessly debating economic issues.
Ipek Gencsu is a research intern at IPPR
Yesterday Viviane Reding, the vice president of the European Commission, criticised the UK government for its “populistic movements and populistic speech” and its immigration myths which were destroying the future of young people in Britain.
Her comments come at a time when the UK-EU dialogue on the issue of free movement is becoming increasingly tense, as evidenced by the new row between Poland and the UK over the issue of child benefits, and EU Commissioner Laszlo Andor’s previous warning that the UK was at risk of developing a “nasty” image because of its hysterical attitude to immigration.
In making her case, Reding stated that “the GDP of Britain rose by 3-4 per cent because of the input of these working Europeans who come to Great Britain”.
But these sorts of economic arguments about the benefits of immigration fail to speak to people’s concerns about the changing face of their neighbourhood, as well as strongly-held feelings about their cultural and national identity.
Many people in the UK who have concerns about migration simply will not be persuaded otherwise by economic arguments.
Instead, it is time for politicians both in the EU and the UK to come up with pragmatic responses that engage with the social and cultural impact of migration flows, rather than endlessly debating the economic upsides and downsides.
Nigel Farage recently stated that he wouldn’t mind being slightly poorer if it meant that we curb immigration. The UKIP leader is not alone in his view that “the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”
Such sentiments were echoed by members of the public in Nick Robinson’s documentary, The Truth About Immigration, which aired on BBC2 earlier this week.
Unfortunately, the documentary was a missed opportunity. It concluded that we need a more frank and open debate about immigration but didn’t suggest how best to achieve this. We have been debating immigration openly, but the discussion needs to go beyond focusing purely on the numbers.
Instead we need to investigate the really important questions about how the migrants who do arrive could be better integrated into communities in the UK.
The documentary could have asked about what is the best way to welcome newcomers and inform them about how to better to contribute to their neighbourhood, as well as how can we mobilise local funding when needed, for example for schools to be able to improve the levels of English of migrant pupils.
The focus for UK and EU politicians needs to be on how to reduce tensions between groups, how to promote integration and what can be done to support the development of thriving and cohesive communities.
A positive and pragmatic response to integration is much more likely to result in migrants succeeding and thriving in the UK and, in turn, local people responding more positively to migration in their area.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
9 Responses to “EU and UK politicians need to grasp the integration nettle”
Cole
So I guess those immigrants who founded M&S, Tesco, Shell, Harland and Wolff, Burtons, Moss Bros etc etc didn’t contribute to the economy. And funny that London, the city with most immigrants, is the motor of our economy.
LB
Some do, some don’t.
For every Cohen (asylum, rather than economic migrant), there are plenty working in Starbucks paying little tax, consuming resources. Starbucks aren’t paying are they?
So the left resort to trying to distort as you have just done. Use the BNP logic. It goes like this.
Because one migrant is good all must be good. – your argument
Because one muslim’s a paedophile, all must be paedophiles – the BNP.
Notice the logic? migrant/muslim and good/paedophile
Doesn’t work as logic for the obvious reasons. You’re generalising and the BNP are generalising too to come up with a distorted view, for the same reasons.
So you can argue on two grounds. Individual or general.
On the general ground, or averages, the average spend per person per year is 11.5K, and you need another 5K a year if they are earning pension rights for the state pension. Lots more if they work in the civil service. Way more.
Given that migrants are no different than Brits, they don’t pay enough tax to cover the costs. The average Brit doesn’t either, but that’s another problem.
So on average, they don’t pay their way. Now the bonkers argument is then to say no migrant should come.
Instead the correct approach is to pick and choose the migrants who do.
Those that pay a lot of tax, which means they are skilled. Those that aren’t paying a lot of tax, cost others money, and so we shouldn’t accept them.
However, a get out for you is on offer. You could always sponsor a migrant, where you guarantee to make up any shortfall in tax. Not an issue that you can see is there? However, unless you are very rich, you’re going to be impoverished by that.
Cole
Silly argument. Nearly all objective research shows that immigration helps the economy. And there’s plenty of evidence from many countries that immigrants tend to be entrepreneurial. People like you and the Daily Mail have been whining for at least 100 years about Jews, Italians, Asians, Poles etc coming to Britain and ruining the place. If we’d listened to the likes of you there would never have been a M&S or Tesco, but I guess you don’t care.
Cole
Did you know that Nigel Farage has a German wife? I thought he was against all these Europeans coming in. He’s even put her on the EU payroll (paid by we taxpayers of course).