On humanitarian net impact of immigration, I haven’t yet met a person who has been able to sit back and take a completely cold look at the positive and negative consequences of their own behaviour, since conflicted opinions always remain. Because there are different classes of immigration and every individual places different weight on different aspects of their new lives it is also impossible to make a generalised statement.

The economic net impact of immigration is an entirely different matter as it can be measured (if informed by political bias) and should not be confused with the humanitarian aspects, as tends to be the case.

In fact the Gate Gourmet case does provide a good example of how issues are turned into causes celebres by those on the wings of the debate in a vain attempt to make political capital, but I’m guessing you don’t take the Morning Star!

The premise of taking positions on immigration is obviously motivated by your desire to draw contrasts with your opponents - so, when you simplify reactionary opinion against immigration and then automatically react yourself in order to create a counterweight opinion in favour of it I have to ask whether you are advancing the debate, or does this result in getting it bogged down?

Frankly (and this follows from the concept of freedom of movement) immigration (or trans-national migration) is a natural process and one to which I’d rather shrug my shoulders so that space is created for making adequate provision of services. Getting excited just doesn’t help matters.

And, yes, I do obsess over deconstructing the language people use (even if I’m not always so good at it) because I’m tired of the needless social and political failures that come with when contemporary debates are divided along artificially created lines in order to manipulate our emotions and overwhelm our good sense.

For campaigners who wish to build a political movement in public consciousness, I’d have thought this leads into the inevitably frustrating but highly necessary and fruitful discussion on the tactics more likely get proposals successfully implemented, as well as getting results that stand the test of time - or do you just wish to expand a dichotomy?

Here’s a proposal for a left of centre blog.

Apart from freedom of movement, which is enshrined in the EU, I’d ban any immigration to the UK that was not seen to be of immediate and massive benefit. So, if P Z Myers wanted to come here, the doors would be open. Otherwise, no.

On the other hand, I’d make the assumption that all asylum seekers were genuine, unless proven otherwise. And as the evil, ha, ha, Nick Cohen has pointed out, access to the UK is very much restricted for asylum seekers. Are we still concerned about the Iraqi translators case? Hmm…

On balance, if we allow in an immigrant or an asylum seeker frm a developing country, the humaniatrian net-impact to them is greater than the negative impact to society. You can probably work out at which point the net economical impact to the host population falls, but my point is that if you want a humanitarian immigration policy, then its logical to argue that there is more benefit to allow in a certain amount of people than cut borders off completely. The latter would have no humanitarian net benefit.

the Gate Gourmet case only highlights how attempts at turning immigration into a political issue and using it as a rallying point to build a sympathetic audience are a distraction from the real issues at stake (such as employment rights) for the people involved.

Erm, no. You’re the one getting obsessed with labels. I only come to that point later when I say the left or ‘progressives’ need to have a stance on immigration.. unlike the Tories which have a basic stance that immigration = bad.

The GG example simply illustrated that British Jobs for British workers would not automatically be racist.

Please concentrate on helping the vulnerable people
Which is exactly what I’m arging. In fact, I’m not even sure what your point here… you’re obsessed by trying to deconstruct labels rather than looking at what I’m saying.

Sunny, your presumption is to agree unconditionally with the political bias of the publishers of that data. Where are your caveats and qualifications?

It just isn’t safe to jump to their accumulated conclusions by making ‘left’ your default explanation where evidence is not forthcoming and questions remain unanswered (particularly regarding immigration which has had and continues to have, as we have seen, consequences for individuals generations after settlement and integration is assumed complete).

Best guesses don’t provide a foundation solid enough to form any sort of political analysis, and in attempting to do so you mirror the behaviour of those you oppose. The three points you advocate are depoliticised basic procedures and the Gate Gourmet case only highlights how attempts at turning immigration into a political issue and using it as a rallying point to build a sympathetic audience are a distraction from the real issues at stake (such as employment rights) for the people involved.

I tend to agree with you on the essential position to take, but I fundamentally disagree with allowing that position to be used as a campaigning tool to promote politicians of a particular stripe, which is automatic as soon as you start attaching political labels (ie ‘left’, ‘right’).

Please concentrate on helping the vulnerable people as you purport rather than making a present of your political support to the wealthy and invulnerable political classes.

Joe:
It would benefit some low-paid workers, certainly, but at the expense of others. The winners of course are more visible…

Well, the professions you’ve mentioned are nowhere near the minimum wage. In theory I don’t deny what you say, but then the CBI also predicted economic calamity when the minimum wage was going to be introduced.

Immigration has many consequences and it is impossible to state with any certainty whether the cumulative balance of the process is positive or negative, so anyone who suggests it is possible to do so (ie you, Gordon Brown, the Daily Mail) is guilty of politicised prejudice and gross simplification on the matter.

Yes, the professions have seen less wage erosion, certainly. But in accountancy and medicine, I’m near-certain that there are *more* non-native workers than in the population at large…

Sure, some people overcome these barriers, but I maintain that protected professions are suffering less wage competition than manufacturing, semi-skilled workers and unregulated professions. Arguably the same protectionism still works against working class natives too. The competition in IT doesn’t need to migrate to compete, so that is less comparable.

I had some plastering done cheap enough, but the accountant costs the same as ever. The city, I would guess, is fairly competitive for labour rather than protectionist, so that would support my point, although it is unusual in being both competitive and high-paying.

We are straying from the topic here. All I wanted to do was point out that it might be counterproductive to try to resist the comparative advantage of cheap labour by making your own labour more expensive. If this were to be the left’s answer, the left would be getting it wrong again. It would benefit some low-paid workers, certainly, but at the expense of others. The winners of course are more visible…

Often, I’m not sure what “integration” means in this context. Does it mean learning English? Socializing with English people? Participating in democracy? Paying tax? This idea of “monocultural” areas developing is particularly odd - it seems to me to be some kind of pejorative for places with Asian businesses in them. Even areas like Belgrave in Leicester are far from monocultural.

I’m saying re-framing the economic point is part of it, not all of it. I do have some suggestions on re-framing the cultural issue too, which I’ll explain soon enough!

Err, dude, before you make comments that are gibberingly mad, go to any hospital or accounting firm and note the nationalities of the people who work there. Non-native people are *massively* represented compared to their share of the population or of “normal” jobs. Ditto the City.

[nor have I encountered many foreign IT workers in the UK, come to that.]

I’m a big believer in the Melting Pot, but the US’s immigration issues are entirely cultural. Economically - especially in California - immigration is absolutely vital to the well-being of the state, but culturally the Mexican influx is a touchstone issue for the right as they see the rise in Spanish speakers as a problem.

But I can see how you want to frame this issue - on entirely economic grounds, and I think there is some merit in constructing an argument this way as it dislocates emotion from the issue and paralyses the right.

It doesn’t mean any argument should be taken to the extreme. And what evidence is there that it leads to Balkanisation? I have no problems with people signing up to ‘British values’, providing those values are clearly defined as citizen rights and responsibilities.

does tighten mean increase or reduce?

Increase.

Sorry, but I don’t see how one can seperate economics from immigration’s impact on societal cohesion.

You can, because the US does it quite effectively. Though I’m not saying the impact on community cohesion should be discarded completely - I think its a separate angle to the discussion.

If you feel your job is threatened because of competition from unregulated semi-legal gangs of immigrants, you would feel more secure with fewer rights. Right? But it’s hardly a reassurance is it?

High skilled workers - in law, medicine, accountancy, etc - meanwhile mostly have more effective protectionist barriers in place. (Unfortunately for me, my trade, IT does not.) So they get the gains of all the extra cheap labour, while suffering little of the competition.

Balkanisation (one possible consequence of immigration) doesn’t deliver better humanitarian outcomes in the end. If you want to take that line of argument, you would want to allow as much immigration as possible that permitted integration into mainstream British society. As some communities are not or are unable to integrate at the moment with monocultural areas developing, that could be an an alarm bell for slowing down immigration until the recent immigrants are integrated.

BTW, I reckon “Boris the Turk” on that centreright thread is a left-wing troll (either BNP or a deliberate facsimile of one): http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/on-immigration.html

Well, if you care so much for the humanitarian side, then presumably you’re for immigration in bigger numbers because it has a positive humanitarian iimpact.

Whatever you think of Powell’s speech, you have to admit this bit was prescient:

“Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.”

The problem is one of both speed (integration) and of the absolute numbers now here.
England is now the most densely populated country in the EU.
The infrastructure cannot take it - especially in London which is at bursting point.

I completely agree that the state’s failures in education/skills is appalling and demand for immigrant skills would be lower if we could do better ourselves.
I would support the carrot / stick approach - higher minimum wage, but time-limited benefits.

I don’t understand what you mean exactly by greater de-centralisation as a solution.
Could you expand?

Unless we improve skills amongst British workers then they will not be able to compete effectively in local jobs markets and may end up excluded all together.

I’m not comfortable with the slogan ‘British jobs for British workers.’ It can be intellectualised. But it is open to serious mis-interpretation. There needs to be a better way of expressing the same sentiment. However, it is absolutely right that the number of British people who are excluded from work (for a variety of reasons- immigration is in large part a response to this rather than a cause of it) is a serious concern.

http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

Left and right are as bad as each other on immigration, for there is no fundamental case that it has anything other than a neutral effect, at least in the short to medium terms, and an evolutionary effect over longer periods. Transhumance exhange has always occurred and it is silly to ignore the opportunities and challenges presented by reality.

It is ridiculous to try and create a ‘left narrative’ out of basic procedural norms and standards of universality. Yet it is worse to suddenly develop selective vision on rich man-poor man demographics - are you forgetting the Abramoviches, Mittals and Saxe-Coburg-Gothas who each form pillars of British society?

Immigration is a fundamentally humanitarian subject, so please don’t undermine the argument by making it a partisan issue about pedantic ideology. Employment is also of universal interest involving the factors of skills and enterprise together with economics and finance - doctrine plays no role whatsoever.

Playing politics with other peoples lives aggravates them, and me.