Social capital and the problem with immigration - some thoughts

****

Immigration is a problem. OK, you can call it a challenge, a significant policy issue or some other 'slightly-dodging-the-issue' form of words but the truth is that people – voters – are bothered about immigration. We know this because they tell us so in polling and because, if any of us have any ears, we hear it every day. Whether it’s a casual racist remark in a queue to go through security at Leeds Bradford Airport or the comments that trail behind crime reports, stories about ‘multiculturalism’ and descriptions of events at mosques.

The problem is that, whatever people say, immigration really isn’t an economic problem. There really isn’t much – or indeed any – substantial research evidence showing that immigration has a negative impact on levels of employment, economic growth or other measures of economic performance. So when Jonathan Portes reports this he is right:

“The research found evidence of a positive and significant association between increases in employment of migrant workers and labour productivity. It found that recruiting from outside the UK had allowed employers to fill skilled and specialist roles and enabled some organisations to expand. Employers reported that migrants' skills are often complementary to, rather than substituting for, those of UK born employees.”

However, this really isn’t the problem (or challenge or significant policy issue) at all nor is this simply a case of people being fed misleading information by politicians and the media. A positive economic impact simply isn’t sufficient for people to accept the social changes that immigration implies. Yet much of what we might call ‘immigration-positive’ research and comment is dominated by economic considerations, arguments over statistics and accusations that opposition to immigration is essentially racist.

If we are to understand immigration and, more importantly, develop policies that respond to the genuine concerns of very many people, then we need to get a much better grip on the sociology of immigration. We need to get a better idea of how immigration affects existing communities, how those communities react to immigration and how we manage migration so as to give a greater chance of that community reaction being positive rather than negative. By focusing on the economics of migration we have missed completely the real driver behind those community concerns that some politicians exploit.

Indeed it is the need to reduce negative social impact that should drive immigration policies and controls rather than the prevailing preference for points-based systems based on a more-or-less arbitrary decision as to whether the ‘skills’ of the immigrant are ‘needed’. The evidence, both from polling and from qualitative studies, shows consistently that worries about immigration relate inversely to people’s exposure to immigrants. I would add that my personal view is that Britain’s current anti-immigrant feeling is substantially driven by the migration from EU accession countries being to parts of the UK that have had limited prior experience of immigration.

None of this gets us any closer to a basis for setting policy - assuming we’re going to plonk for somewhere on the continuum from totally closed borders to totally open borders. Regardless of the economic case for immigration, the potential social negatives (the cost of which may not be wholly contained in an economic model of migration) require some degree of control. And that will mean that some people will not be allowed to migrate into the UK.

And there is a good argument for striking a balance in terms of cultural and ethnic heterogeneity. I know we like to talk about how many different languages are spoken in our communities (this isn’t new – I remember the Principle of Bedford FE College saying just this in 1983) but the breakdown in social capital implicit in that heterogeneity damages both the immigrant andreceiving communities:

“People in ethnically fragmented communities have lower levels of interpersonal trust; lower levels of civic, social, and charitable engagement; less efficient provision of public goods; more sluggish economic growth; and lower levels of happiness and general satisfaction. It seems that the more diversity we experience, the lower our quality of life is.”

The risk we run with open borders is that they meet a short-term economic need but in doing so provide the seeds for more sluggish development in the communities where those ‘needed’ immigrants settle. Indeed, we should recognise that some degree of homogeneity is essential if a community is to develop the institutions, connections and structures essential to building social capital. Put more bluntly, the people within a neighbourhood have to share more than the fact of living in that neighbourhood if it is to become community rather than merely a place.

The unanswered question here is how we determine the point at which we set our migration policy. This has to be where the economic benefits of immigration exceed any negative impact on educational attainment, health or crime. Not just because those negatives carry a cost that isn’t necessarily picked up by the employers of immigrant labour (the prime beneficiaries of the economic benefit) but because poorer schools, health and community safety are reflections of a dysfunctional neighbourhood, of the breakdown in the social capital needed for the long-term.

Finally, there has to be some connection between the expectations of the current demos and the actions of government. In a democracy this should be a statement of the obvious but I fear it is not so – too often the response from public officialdom to concerns about immigration is to say ‘there, there - don’t worry’ or else to suggest that the person expressing concerns is simply a bigot. A further type of response is to flood the individual with (essentially meaningless) statistics accompanied with the implication that they are some kind of idiot.

We need to have immigration controls for the very simple reason that the public – the demos – demands that we control the arrival of culturally-distinct people into the neighbourhoods where they live. This can’t be dismissed as racism, bigotry or prejudice (although all those things may be present on occasion) but rather should be seen as articulating the collapse of social capital in many neighbours that large scale immigration brings about. People are not idiots but are reflecting concerns about the loss of community in their words and choices. And government too often fails to pick up those concerns in defining policies (locally and nationally).

I believe that immigration enhances our nations bringing new ideas, attitudes, food, drink, music and dance to pour into the English cultural melting-pot. We are a vastly better society for having welcomed generations of migrants to our shores. And I don’t want to live in a place where we push people away, where we don’t offer sanctuary and where there’s a preference for a sort of sclerotic monocultural numbness. But if we want migration to work for everyone, we’ve got to manage it, to try and mitigate how it can damage social capital and to direct our attentions to integrating all the wonderful, hard-working people who have come to make their lives in our great country.

...

Racism and the integration of immigrants

****

In matters of race, Sweden is one of the most tolerant nations on earth. Yet, for that country's significant immigrant population, the fact that the neighbours don't mind you being a foreigner probably doesn't make up for the poor economic outcomes. In a striking study, Nima Sanadaji looks at how good different places are at integrating immigrants with the concern that:

In particular, low-skilled immigrants from poor countries experience high unemployment and a range of related social problems. Much has been written about the extent of the problem. In many Western European cities, entire communities of migrants are living in social and economic exclusion. The state of poverty is often persists among their children.

We're not here considering whether those immigrants should be here in the first place - that's a very different debate - but how, when they get here (wherever 'here' might be) they get on in economic and social terms. What Sanadaji does is use the World Values Surveys to look at whether the barrier to integration is attitudes (essentially racism) or outcomes. And he concludes that:

...it is difficult to conclusively say what factors that favor integration and what obstacles that stand in the way of integration. It could, for example, be argued that the people in countries such as Sweden are giving politically correct responses. These responses do not necessarily have to translate to the discrimination actually faced by immigrants on a daily basis. At the same time, it is clear that the Anglo-Saxon countries are succeeding in integration. This could be attributed to having English as their main language. It could also be attributed to market-based systems with strong incentives for work and relatively free labor markets. In short, attitudes, at least as reported by the World Value Survey, do not seem to explain the differences in integration. Although all enlightened countries should strive for the tolerant views expressed in countries such as Sweden, this does not guarantee well‑functioning integration.

The lesson here is that, if we focus merely on reducing discrimination, we may still find that those immigrant communities sit outside the mainstream and struggle to integrate, at least economically. Sanadaji's observations about disincentives to work in European welfare systems and the significance of open, flexible labour markets are perhaps as important - put simply incentives and opportunities are critical to the successful integration of new communities. Without these factors, anti-discrimination alone does not work to integrate immigrants.

....

UKIP's cynical focus on immigration is handing victory in any in/out referendum to pro-Europeans

****

We were discussing anti-social behaviour at a Bradford Council scrutiny meeting. I forget whether this was in the context of us reviewing policies and strategies around alcohol and drugs or merely the periodic receiving of crime statistics from West Yorkshire police. Now, my views on these matters are pretty well-known - the idea of 'anti-social behaviour' was created to provide a means to criminalise behaviour that hitherto wasn't criminal and police crime statistics are a work of fiction.

Given that this is multicultural Bradford, matters related to ethnic minorities arose - from recollection on the back of a remark from a police officer that Roma families liked to gather together outside and drink. And that this caused a problem for the, largely South Asian, communities into which they had moved. This view was endorsed by the Committee chairman - a Labour councillor - in a set of remarks littered with "they" and "these people".

Now I don't for a second think Cllr Malik meant ill by his remarks - he was echoing genuine community disgruntlement. It isn't clear whether this is about the behaviour - a community that doesn't drink (or at least not openly) might understandably be disapproving of public drinking - or about the arrival of a new, culturally-distinct group into a mono-cultural place. But the reality is that the arrival of people for whom drinking beer sat on a town centre bench or walking down the street is normal behaviour proved a shock (as an aside, on a recent visit to Cologne I was struck by how many young - and not-so-young - people could be seen drinking in public).

It's easy for me, sat in a village ten miles from inner city Bradford, to dismiss such stereotyping - to clamber manfully up onto the moral high ground and shout "you racist" at people like Cllr Malik. But does that help? Should we not rather respond to the concerns themselves - not, as some seem to want, by heavy-handed policing targeted at these obviously criminal gangs (I mean they drink in the street and walk about in family groups - definitely criminal behaviour there) but by being clear about the boundaries for behaviour. Spending a bit of time talking to them about what's allowed and what isn't allowed - and suggesting that they try to respect their neighbours.

It won't be easy managing the integration of these new communities into the weird place that is Bradford - there'll be fights, there'll be misunderstandings, there'll be cries of racism galore - but at some point in the future, just as happened with the past arrivals from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States, these groups will be part of the place, will be talking with Yorkshire accents and cheering on English football teams. Young men whose families are from Slovakia, from Moldova and from Romania will be seen drinking lager in curry houses and chasing girls whose Mum was from Ireland or grandfather from Pakistan.

To get there we've got to stop calling people racist at the drop of a hat, we've got to stop pretending that everyone from a place is a criminal (or indeed, not a criminal) and we've got to recognise that it's a messy process littered with ignorance, assumption and the use of political power to prefer one group above another. At the end we'll be a better place - better for Polish sausage and beer, better for Romanian wine and better for another extension to Bradford's tapestry adding these latest arrivals to Germans, Jews, Pakistanis, Poles, Indians and Africans. Plus of course the immigrants from elsewhere in these isles - from Ireland, Scotland and, in my case, London.

The European Parliament elections have seen a set of national campaigns hi-jacked by this debate - instead of a discussion about the EU, we've had a series of staged rows about immigration with loud asides alleging racism in all directions. Or rather "I'm not calling it racism because racists might not vote for me but it's a bit off colour". Perhaps the most egregious was from the Green Party who seem to think it clever or cool to blame a minor (and alleged - remember that police crime statistics are a fiction) rise in 'hate crime' on another political party.  All this does precisely nothing to help us deal with the influx of immigrants - and dear reader, they're here and they're staying.

I don't win any political friends for saying that our attitude to immigration is antediluvian but I do think that this EU election campaign, by making out that opposition to the EU is somehow about racism, hasn't helped the campaign to leave. If the only reason for getting out of the EU is that we won't have those pesky foreigners coming here any more, then we can give up on any hope of leaving - the British people aren't so intolerant. And we now know that those of us who want a free trade nation looking to sell our genius wherever it is wanted, and know that the EU stops this from happening - we'll be painted as racist authoritarians by the enthusiasts for the European project.

I recall Ted Heath telling a story from the 1976 referendum about a well-known left-wing opponent of the Common Market. This socialist grandee arrived at a televised debate to see the pro- and anti- Europe speakers, his eyes scanned across the panel and he said something like: "the camera will pan across Heath, Callaghan and a man from the CBI speaking in favour and then the other side - Powell, and Teddy Taylor. I'm not appearing with those nutters."

This sums up the problem in any referendum campaign - because UKIP has made it, for reasons of cynical political expediency, a debate about immigration plenty of people will do what that socialist grandee did and sit the campaign out. With the result that the real debate, the one about free trade, free speech and free enterprise, won't happen. And the pro-Europeans will win.

...

Why there are so many poor people in London

****

 Or for that matter in New York, Los Angeles or Frankfurt.

Understanding why poverty persists in a place like London - now the richest place in Europe - is fundamental to how we think about the city. And indeed about the wider 'urban agenda' (if we want to describe it so pompously).

Here's a quote that helps - it's not about London but about cities in the developing world:

But though slums may not be desirable places to live, a billion people call them home for good reason. Rural poverty rates are much higher than urban ones, and people thus go to megacities seeking better lives. Slums are their gateways, quickly absorbing migrants by offering cheap housing and informal work in close proximity; this is especially true in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. As Edward Glaeser, author of Triumph of the City, puts it, "Cities aren't full of poor people because cities make people poor, but because cities attract poor people." 

We hear repeatedly that places like Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney are among the poorest boroughs in the country despite being a short bus ride from the City of London or Canary Wharf. And this is quite simply because these places are the equivalent of Sao Paulo or Mumbai's slums. Take a look at the population of these boroughs - you'll note that the old population (Jewish, Irish, Cockney) has largely gone and is replaced by a new population of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Somali origins - plus a load of other places. And this new population is there because it's a better life than where they started out.

The second reason for London being filled with relatively poor people is a migration we don't notice so much as the international migration. As a Londoner, I always bristle a little when people 'up North' go on about how unfriendly people are in London. It never seemed that way to me growing up. But there's a reason - the people doing those entry level jobs everywhere in the city, things like sitting bored to tears on a reception or serving on in some trendy boutique, these people are from everywhere. They are the definition of 'not from round here'. They've come to London because the city offers opportunity in a way that Barnsley, Tredegar or Honiton doesn't.

These migrants, whether from Sylhet or Sunderland, are crammed into tiny flats they can barely afford and fretting about making ends meet. But they still consider themselves better off than those still in the place they left - a place where if there is work it's dead end, backbreaking and low paid work. And for many there simply isn't that work. As one wag (a wise wag) commented when asked where the jobs were for kids from Doncaster: "probably Reading".

Poverty is relative and, when we see poverty in East London and the borough's leader hang out their begging bowl, talk of how poor the borough is and how it needs help from you rich folk - remember that for those poor people now in East London the poverty is mostly transient. As one study in Brazil showed:

...of the 36 percent of her original random sample group that she was able to locate, 67 percent, as well as 65 percent of their children, had moved out of the slums; 40 percent had become renters or owners of houses or apartments in other neighborhoods, and 27 percent were in improved public housing. 

The same is true of these new Londoners - they and their children won't be in Spitalfields or off Green Lane but will be in Hornchurch, Harrow or Hither Green. And a new set of poor people with their hopes and aspirations will have filled the space left behind. A new immigration that, like every immigration before has driven the growth and development of perhaps the world's greatest city.

....

Quote of the day: On London (and UKIP)

****

From a quite brilliant article by Alex Massie:

And of course in many respects Farage is right. Britain, and London especially, really is an unrecognisable place these days. It’s just that most of the changes have been for the better, not the worse. There is little comparison between London 2014 and London 1974. The latter was a tired and failing place, the clapped-out capital of a clapped-out country.

Forty years later and London, remarkably, is once again one of the world’s greatest cities. A place, as it has always been, for Britons to seek their future but also a global city in which what you did before you reached these shores  - and where you came from – matters vastly less than what you do now you’re here. A city, in fact, that rejects the idea of inevitable decline. A city that has the kind of dynamic optimism we more commonly associate with the United States than with little old Britain.

We want to spread that excitement, optimism and change across the rest of the nation. And we don't achieve that by stopping people moving around, by enforcing petty language rules or by playing cynically to xenophobia by talking about being "uncomfortable" around foreigners.

Moreover, if the rest of England wants to succeed it needs to be more like London and less like the land  Nigel Farage's grumpy old bloke party wants.

....

Do economists not read Christaller?

****

Andrew Lilico a very good and highly respected economist has written a piece about geography. I know he thinks he's writing about economics but he's wrong - and that's why the article is poor.

Here's the gist of the argument:

We could simply refuse to grant permission to build more houses or more factories or more offices in the higher population-density regions. Over the past two decades, for all the complaints about planning restrictions, the surpluses of dwellings over households in London and the South East has risen – we've built properties faster than the population of households has risen. We could, instead, build fewer houses. That wouldn't immediately prevent the population in these regions from growing, because existing properties could be used with more dwellers.  But it would result in property prices in London and the South East rising even faster, relative to the rest of the population, than they have done recently. The consequence would be, eventually, that it would become economically unattractive to live and work in the high-population density regions. That would drive more population and more business activity into lower-population-density regions.

I guess that, for an economist, it all makes sense - indeed Andrew Lilico points out that this is simply the price mechanism used to drive a regional policy. And this is where Walter Christaller comes in - where the matter becomes a question of geography rather than economics. Perhaps it's Walter's active involvement in the Nazi Party that puts economists off him or maybe his love of central planning.

Christaller developed a thing called central place theory:

Walter Christaller, a German geographer, originally proposed the Central Place Theory (CPT) in 1933 (trans. 1966). Christaller was studying the urban settlements in Southern Germany and advanced this theory as a means of understanding how urban settlements evolve and are spaced out in relation to each other. The question Christaller posed in his landmark book was "Are there rules that determine the size, number and distribution of towns?" He attempted to answer this question through a theory of central places that incorporated nodes and links in an idealistic situation.

The point is that successful (large) places are at the nexus of other settlements. That success is less a function of (as many earlier geographers argued) the location of resources but a consequence of trade, exchange and interaction. Andrew Lilico assumes that the economic success of London is contingent on financial investment rather than human interaction - it is the building of houses, offices and factories that precedes economic activity rather than these things (as Christaller's theory predicts) being a consequence of human activity.

Just as importantly, Andrew Lilico also assumes that immigration is to fulfil a specific demand for labour rather than movement to a place where the opportunity for higher wages exists (typically from rural to urban). In modern economies where, in the main, resource location is irrelevant - thus we get a development of CPT (from another German geographer called Losch):

Losch started from the "bottom" of the model by considering one "equivalent customer" or one unit of consumption and build up from there. In the Losch model, the ten smallest market areas, each with a different k-value are plotted with each network surrounding a central place. These networks were then laid over each other and positioned to produce the largest number of places for each k-value. This model produced wedges of city-rich and city-poor areas spread out around a major central place.

The real problem with Lilico's idea is not only that urban economic activity largely precedes the building of houses, offices and factories (especially in the modern economy) but also that, if you prevent investment in London, you cannot assume that this investment will automatically transfer to Newcastle or Belfast - it's as likely to go to Amsterdam, Indianapolis or Jakarta.

The 'empty places' Lilico refers to in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in in the North of England are empty because they lack economic value. And they lack that value because of geography.

....

Populism (or is it prejudice) du jour...

****

Ah yes, let's roll out an anecdote to justify our prejudice:

“I’m influenced by my time as MP for Stoke-on-Trent. I remember talking to a young, second-generation Pakistani British lad who was concerned about the speed of change in the community as a result of the failure to introduce controlled migration from the EU accession states last time,” 

So the child of immigrants doesn't like others doing what his parents did? And we should construct public poilicy on this basis?

....

Can we stop getting so hysterical about migration. Mostly it's a good thing.

****

It is the end of days. As the hangovers fade in the New Year it will be to witness the spectacle of vast hordes trooping off planes, trains and boats clasping evidence of EU citizenship as proof they can work in our fine nation.

Under “transitional” rules introduced when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, migrants from these two countries can only work in the UK in seasonal jobs such as fruit picking, or if they are self-employed.

These restrictions end on January 1, 2014, and all Romanians and Bulgarians will then have the same rights to work in the UK as British citizens.

The model predicts that over the next five years from January 1 at least 385,000 migrants will move from Bulgaria and Romania – more than the population of Coventry. 

Swamped! Swamped I tell you - the pressures on our creaking public services will be too great, the schools won't have the places, the hospitals will be filled with the grannies of Roma and Bulgar migrants and we'll spend our lives speaking some sort of pidgin English.

Even if I was to accept that there'll be 385,000 arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania, I really don't believe that a country with 70 million people - 200 times that number - can't welcome some new arrivals. For sure, I want to know who is coming in and that they're doing something constructive. I'm all for putting them on a plane back home if they misbehave. But can we have a little less hysteria please?

If we want to challenge in that big bad ugly world - to compete in that ghastly "global race" some folk want to believe in - then we need migration. We need Brits to go an work in France, in Dubai and in Hong Kong. And to retire to Spain, Ireland or Florida. These international connections, the British diaspora is a vital component in our economy, in creating the links with the rest of the world we'll need for future trade and prosperity.

This works both ways. Those Romanians, Bulgarians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Russians, Somalis - all those immigrants we're so rude about - their links home generate new economic activity and benefit our nation. Not because of cheap labour or a willingness to accept the bending of employment rules but because diversity is essential to economic growth:

It is important to note how this ‘[population] churn’ helps cities. Knowledge-based economies run on the quality of ideas. Ideas are not only a function of intelligence or education, but also the depth of information a person, or a city, receives.

London is successful because it is diverse. And it has always been diverse.

So I'm with Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute on this - more free movement is a benefit not a curse:

There are lots and lots of bad things governments do that ruin people’s lives. But few cause as much harm to the poorest people as the state controls of where people can work and live that we call ‘migration policy’. Even a marginal step towards a more liberal immigration policy would allow people to create an enormous amount of wealth, and probably do more good than almost any other possible policy. 

...

Immigration checks in housing - or how to create some more rich criminals

****

There are proposals afoot to make landlords check the immigration status of new tenants:

Private landlords will be required to check the immigration status of new tenants under government proposals being launched in a consultation today.

The government also plans to introduce proportionate penalties for those who make a single honest mistake, and much heavier penalties, up to £3,000 per tenant, for rogue landlords who repeatedly and deliberately break the law.

Just as requiring employers to conduct these sort of checks creates a cash-in-hand economy within immigrant communities, expecting the same of landlords will result in this:

‘UKALA (letting agents) is deeply concerned that the Bill’s requirements will further restrict access to housing for people from outside of the UK, or with non-standard requirements. Many areas of the UK have very competitive lettings markets and it is entirely conceivable that landlords will instruct agents to favour those tenants they perceive as ‘low risk’.

So where do those high risk tenants go? Here, from Ben Reeve Lewis is an indication:

A couple of weeks back a landlord came to me with a quandary. He had let his 3 bed, Deptford flat @ £1,600 per month to two guys. They have been there 2 years and never missed a penny in rent, so he doesn’t have a problem.

Total received? £38,400 and very nice too.

He decided to visit the property for a genial chat and catch up with his model tenants, only to find 11 other people living there. I went with him on a return visit for a chat and ascertained that each sub-tenant paid £350 per month to the landlord’s official tenants, giving a grand total income to them of £92,400

Deduct his lawful rent payments and his tenants had made, from the sub tenancy £54,400 in two years.

Add people renting out sheds and garages - even inaccessible basements - and you have a proposal that will do nothing to reduce immigration but will make life more miserable for thousands of those ordinary hard-working families (the ones who've travelled half way across the world to do the hard work). And lucrative for criminals.

....

Why Jonathan Portes should shut up about migration - from someone who agrees with him...

****

“These transitional places – arrival cities – are the places where the next great economic and cultural boom will be born, or where the next great explosion of violence will occur. The difference depends on our ability to notice and our willingness to engage” Doug Saunders

The problem with the discussion of migration is that the public debate is characterised by adherence to unquestioned and polemical positions – either migration is a bad thing that places undue pressures on jobs, culture and public institutions or else migration contributes to economic growth and underscores the idea of a free nation.

Now those who know me will know that I’m much closer to the second of these positions. Indeed, the idea that a nation is made up of people who want to be there (rather than who just happened to have been born there) is a far healthier idea than the sort of racially or culturally determined ideas of nationhood that are preferred by many opposed to immigration.

However, the comments from Jonathan Portes – a sort of “my carefully chosen facts are the only facts” commentary reveal a deep unpleasantness in the debate (an unpleasantness more usually associated with those who say we’re full up and call for ever more draconian restrictions on migration).

The real point here is that the presence of migrants in the UK – from wherever they come – must have an impact on the home communities. Portes presents statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be working than is the case for the population as a whole but doesn’t recognise that this is only part of the picture. And then, without presenting any facts, Portes then makes this sweeping statement:

So, once again, we are left with the conclusion that in the absence of immigration the public finances would be in an even worse state – we'd be spending somewhat less, but we'd lose even more than that on tax, both in the short and the long run, as the OBR has pointed out.

So we move from a very specific assessment – of migration from EU accession nations – to a general observation about the economic benefits of migration. A benefit that reflects every sort of migrant – everyone from billionaire Russian oligarchs to penniless refugees from Burma. The problem is further confused by this:

But since the non-activity rate is lower in the EU migrant population as a whole (and remember many non-active EU migrants will be family members of those who are active) overall this simply confirms the conclusion found by other studies – EU migrants, like migrants in general, pay in more than they take out on average.

This simply doesn’t prove the point that Portes is making, certainly not in the short run and absolutely not in the case of migrants from Eastern Europe. Given that most of these recent immigrants are in low paid work, the amount paid in is less and many will be receiving in-work benefits (tax credits, housing benefit) and universal benefits (child benefits). So the fact of them working does not mean that they are net contributors to the system.

And beyond the discussion about the NHS, we have to provide education for children – including for many the £900 per child pupil premium - we have costs falling on social services and other exceptional costs. It is unhelpful and misleading for Portes to dismiss the short-term effect of migration on public services with what amounts to ‘pah’.

What Jonathan Portes needs to learn is that, if we are to make the case for migration as a benefit, we need to do so positively. Treating those who are concerned about migration as if they are a bunch of pseudo-racist nutcases does not help at all – rather it reinforces the view that migration benefits middle-class professionals like Portes and me, so who cares about the impact on working class communities or the worries about schools, hospitals and social services.

I headed this comment with a quote from Doug Saunders, from the preface to Arrival City, the story of how migration is transforming the world for the better. That is the message we need to get across rather than the grubby and snide use of selected facts to make what is, ultimately, a petty point.

....

On the barriers to employment...

****

And something of a reminder. But first those barriers:

1. The workings of the welfare system (the ‘benefits trap’), where wages were lower than what could be received from out of work benefits.
2. The low status and low levels of pay of some jobs, making them ‘hard to fill’.
3. A ‘soft’ skills deficit amongst the local workforce ... particularly around motivation, punctuality, reliability and absenteeism

No real surprises there. We know this about employment and have known it for years. Anyone who has worked with people trying to help people into work knows all about these barriers.

So that reminder.

The report looked at the role of migrant workers in the labour markets of Bristol and Hull. It found that in these two cities the arrival of migrants had not created a barrier to the long term unemployed finding a job.

So will someone please tell me why we keep blaming immigrants for our employment problems?

....

Europe: the problem isn't immigration, it's government

****


I gather that today is Europe Day, the national day for the future super-state:

Today, 9 May has become Europe Day, which is the occasion for activities and festivities that bring Europe closer to its citizens and the peoples of the Union closer to one another.

Hang out the bunting, crack open the fizz and watch our overlords march by in a celebration of our glorious shared future!

Forgive me for not celebrating. There are many things that are good and right about Europe - open markets and borders being most of them. But any benefit gained from this has been destroyed by government, by the capture of the European bureaucracy by special interests and by a distorted view of the capitalist economy as being about producers and production rather than consumers and consumption.

As you know, dear reader, I concluded that the UK should leave the EU at the earliest opportunity. This isn't to embrace the cold closed economy favoured by protectionists but to open up our economy to all the world, to learn the lesson that John Cowperthwaite taught Hong Kong:

...in the long run, the aggregate of the decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is likely to do less harm than the centralized decisions of a Government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.

So, to disappoint my UKIP friends, the reason we should leave the EU is so as to be more free, more open, more able to become rich through free trade, free enterprise and free markets. And since we want to be clear, this doesn't mean some sort of stop on immigration or even some state-directed guesswork as to what makes for a good immigrant and what a bad immigrant.

The problem is too much government. And worse the view that only government can resolve the problems we face. Even when - as with today's currency crisis - the problem itself is almost wholly a consequence of government. Getting out from the EU is just a small step to breaking down government, to dragging it back to a human level where people can understand it and play some small part in making it work for everyone.

....

Sorry Frank & Nick, stopping immigration won't end unemployment

****

Frank Field and Nicholas Soames - in a sort of unfunny political version of Laurel and Hardy - have told us that the way to end unemployment is to stop immigration. Or rather, as is often the case with these observations, they've left the ordinary bloke to draw that conclusion from what they say:

“[An] area that needs to be considered is whether EU members should have powers, during periods of high unemployment, to restrict the free movement of labour, at present guaranteed in EU law,” the MPs say. 

Note the essential conceit here. We joined a union - a common market - that allowed for free movement. It means British workers can ply their trade in Rome and Berlin and that we can retire to the warmth and comfort of a Costa del Sol apartment. It also means that Italians and Spaniards, Slovaks and Romanians can come here. That's the deal.

And it's a deal that we benefit from - as Ms Raccoon reminds us:

They clean the toilets at Stanstead airport. They queue for mini-buses in the grim early morning British weather for the chance to pull carrots out of the East Anglian soil. They stand for hours gutting bloody chickens in Herefordshire warehouses. They collect together in windswept sidings in Swindon, anxious to be one of the chosen few given the chance to throw the occasional bucket of water at a British Rail train. Some of them stand at traffic lights, keen to earn a few bob by scraping the dead flies off your windscreen. They swab the floor after the Billingsgate fishmarket has finished for the day.

And this is entirely the point. Back in the 1950s and 1960s when there was a real labour shortage, when we had very little unemployment, immigrants came to do the jobs we wouldn't take - textile mill night shifts, cleaning hospitals, driving buses. The sad truth is that, despite high levels of youth unemployment, immigrants still come here to do the jobs we won't take - hard jobs that don't pay that well but that need doing.

And why is this? The answer is there plainly before our very eyes - emblazoned across the front page:

The Work and Pensions Secretary said that, unlike other European nations, the “reality is that this country is not cutting welfare”. He added that “all those on benefits will still see cash increases in every year of this Parliament”. 

That's the reason. Those immigrants aren't coming for the benefits, they're coming for the work that people on benefits in Britain won't do. And if we turf out the fruit-pickers and chicken killers, send them back to Eastern Europe, what will happen? Will those jobs get filled? Will out young folk step up to do them? Why on earth should they when a slightly poorer life (but less strenuous and demanding) is possible on benefits. A life filled with people rushing round campaigning on your behalf - campaigning for some proud fool who does take a low wage job to pay taxes to keep others in benefits.

Unemployment is our problem. Immigrants don't cause it and don't cure it. Perhaps we should stop trying to blame them?

.....

Immigration is (mostly) a good thing...

****

And perhaps politicians need to stop telling us how bad it is - not just the tinpot poujadist Farage but all the others too. Miliband, Clegg and Cameron all lined up to tell us how jolly awful immigration is, how something must be done, how (in Miliband's case) how sorry they were that they'd not said nasty things about immigrants before. All accompanied by a stream of lunatic policies and controls - designed less to do anything about those dreadful immigrants than to get the juices flowing in a certain sort of upper lower middle working class person that the focus groups have spotted.

Let's be clear folks, what Britain has gained from immigrants so vastly outweighs what it has lost that to start on some ghastly line of "they don't speak English" or "they take our jobs" is to entirely miss the point. A point that goes like this:

Immigration is good for us. With every major party now promising to ‘get tough’ on immigration, it’s easy to forget that immigrants bring new skills to the country, allow for more specialization, tend to be more entrepreneurial than average, pay more in to the welfare state than they take out, and make things cheaper by doing the jobs that Britons won't.

So a little bit of me despairs when the last generation of immigrants turns on the latest arrivals - here's Rashid Awan from Bradford Pakistan Society:
 

“If anyone is coming to this country, he or she should have a job to go to or study,” he said. “Students coming here should have their financial backing in place. In my view it does make sense.

“Maybe some people will be affected by this, but I think this policy has to be observed. To bring back the economic situation of this country to normality, these small steps are necessary.

“I am not here to say people who are here genuinely should be penalised, but I think these people coming here genuinely are taken care of. We are in a very acute economic situation and we need to make sure no abuse is created as far as benefits are concerned.” 

But I'm not surprised.

...

Immigrants, work and the deer cull

****

The most depressing thing I’ve heard in a long while came in a tweet or email read out by a Radio 5 Live presenter – in response to an item on managing deer population someone had commented that we need a “human cull”. And the presenter read this out with want sounded like (but might not have been) approval.

Which humans this respondent wanted to cull wasn’t clear – maybe every tenth person, perhaps just the disabled, the sick or the lame? Rather than think for a brief second about what they were saying, someone had pinged out a comment about killing a load of people because he’d decided there were too many. I guess it was a joke!

But then I listened to a debate – well more an exchange of sound bites – between John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and Graham Evans, Conservative MP for Weaver Vale. The subject was immigration and the two Northern MPs were in agreement on much of the discussion – there were too many immigrants, they were taking the jobs of British people and something should have been done earlier. Both MPs were adamant that there wasn’t the slightest hint of racism in what they were saying but equally keen to stress the idea that immigrants were taking British jobs, filling up British schools and costing a fortune in British hospitals.

Whatever the case about immigration – too much, too little, the wrong sort, the right sort – to blame our levels of unemployment and problems in our public services on folk who’ve arrived here from the other side of the world so as to work is what we expect from the BNP not the Labour and Conservative parties. Not only is it untrue but it’s wrong and dangerous as well.

The immigration debate has descended into a "who can be most damning of immigrants without actually being racist" contest. Currently the Labour Party is winning.

....

No. Immigrants aren't the NHS's problem either

****

Our ghastly obsession with blaming all our problems on immigrants is ridiculous and, more important, leading to these sort of decisions:

Britons could have to carry an ‘entitlement card’ to access free NHS care as part of a crackdown on health tourists, it emerged yesterday.

First I won't be carrying any sort of ID card. And second, the use of our health service by foreigners is not its biggest problem. Its biggest problem is the incompetents running the NHS. This is just another bit of chaff thrown up into the air to take attention away from the real crisis - the crisis revealed in the Francis Report. A problem that's killed hundreds, even thousands of people.

....

Why we need immigration...

This isn't a plea for no rules or no controls but a reminder that the "we're full, stop anyone coming here ever again" brigade want to cut their nose off to spite their face. Here's why:

Low-fertility societies don’t innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don’t invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. They cannot sustain social-security programs because they don’t have enough workers to pay for the retirees. They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces.

You have got that haven't you? Although the article is about us not having babies, it applies as well to us not letting people come to live here. If we are to suceed - to grow, to prosper, to keep up with the international Joneses then we need immigrants. Or more babies. Or both.

....

The immigration question - or how to spot a libertarian

****

Lots of people lay claim to being 'libertarian'. This credo is quite popular these days as people rant and rail against "statism" and "big government". Calls are made for more free speech, for the dismantling of the nanny state, for the troops to be brought home post haste, for fewer regulations and less government interference. Gay (or rather an ever lengthening string of letters - I think we're up to LGBT now but more may have been added while I wasn't watching) rights are extolled and encouraged and religions are condemned for their outmoded attitudes to all sorts of things - but mostly sex.

And then we get to immigration. At this point I watch as strange contortions go on while people explain how they really are libertarian but that this doesn't mean we can't have a ban on "permanent" immigration. Accompanying this almost Cardhousian contortion is a commitment to the nation state - to Britain or England.

Let me explain - firstly by quoting a pretty good liberal (in the days when liberal meant what we now mean by libertarian):

“The world is my country,
all mankind are my brethren,
and to do good is my religion.” 

Pretty good, eh! But it is a philosophy without boundaries - it's not just trade, speech and enterprise that should be free but movement. To call for tighter restrictions - even bans - on immigration is to reject the essence of this freedom. And that means you aren't a libertarian.

Nor can you hide behind statements about "level playing fields" or misconceptions about immigrants and benefits. These are no different from arguments for protectionism and managed trade - they block our goods so we block theirs, they protect their farmers so we protect ours.

You see folks, you're not libertarians at all really - what you are is conservatives. You like small government, you're a fan of voluntarism, you think business is important and you place great store in the old liberties of England - all that Magna Carta and killing the king stuff. But just as importantly you think place is important - nation, county, town, Your place, my place - a sense of belonging to somewhere that really matters.

A bit like Kipling - who certainly wasn't a libertarian:

 GOD gave all men all earth to love,
    But since our hearts are small,
Ordained for each one spot should prove
    Belovèd over all;
That, as He watched Creation’s birth,
    So we, in godlike mood,
May of our love create our earth
    And see that it is good.
So one shall Baltic pines content,
    As one some Surrey glade,
Or one the palm-grove’s droned lament
    Before Levuka’s Trade.
Each to his choice, and I rejoice
    The lot has fallen to me
In a fair ground—in a fair ground—
    Yea, Sussex by the sea! 

So, my friends, if you are a conservative, have the good grace to admit to it rather than pretend you're a sexy, trendy, Rothbard-quoting libertarian.

....

Why we're conservatives...

****

It's pretty simple really but sometimes someone captures the heart of it with a little story. Here's Marco Rubio:

Many nights growing up I would hear my father’s keys at the door as he came home after another 16-hour day. Many mornings, I woke up just as my mother got home from the overnight shift at Kmart. When you’re young and in a hurry, the meaning of moments like this escape you. Now, as my children get older, I understand it better. My dad used to tell us — (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) — ‘in this country, you’ll be able to accomplish all the things we never could’. A few years ago, I noticed a bartender behind the portable bar in the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father, who worked as many years as a banquet bartender. He was grateful for the work he had, but that’s not like he wanted for us. You see, he stood behind the ball all those years so that one day I could stand behind a podium, in the front of a room.

It's not about elites or privilege. It's not about government or administration. And it's not about banks or capitalism.

It's about people, about opportunity and a world where, if we take responsibility for our future, we have the chance to succeed. Even if that success is just seeing our children get a better start, a higher score on the dice. Rubio's little story doesn't mention the government, it doesn't weep about ill-luck or carp about poverty. Instead it tells of the human spirit and the pleasure of knowing that our achievement stands atop the broad shoulders of family and community.

It's why I am - and you should be - a conservative.

...