Read more: Iain Duncan Smith's free movement fig-leaf
Today’s immigration figures have been seized upon by Brexiteers as further evidence we should leave the EU. The figures are the second-highest on record and show that 333,000 migrants arrived here last year. That’s more than three times the “tens of thousands” the government said it wanted, and Boris Johnson has today argued that the government was "cynical" to make that promise while Britain remains a part of the EU (its membership means that it must allow the free movement of people from the EU).
For those of us who think that immigration is a good thing, the heated rhetoric poses a problem. Whatever the result of the referendum on our EU membership on 23rd June, making the case for immigration is about to become a lot more difficult. If we leave, the pressure will be to sever free movement across Europe. And if we stay, backbench pressure for tighter immigration controls against non-EU immigrants will be higher than ever.
Neither of these outcomes would be interests of the country. But it won’t stop the rhetoric becoming ever-more heated. Theresa May, who would cross several fields for the chance to speak out against immigration, has performed strongly throughout the referendum campaign and has undoubtedly strengthened her status within her party. She is likely to be even more influential after the vote next month—a headache for those who believe immigration is vital for the health of our economy.
Yes, there are challenges that come from immigration—not least ensuring that trains, schools and hospitals can meet demand. But despite hysteria about us running out of space, it’s worth noting that even London is not a very dense city when compared with other international cities. London has 5,100 people per square km, while Shanghai has 13,400 and Mumbai has 29,650.
The solution to the housing shortage in the capital has far less to do with reducing immigration, and far more to do with stopping nimbyism choking up supply. If we returned to the post-war house-building levels, we’d have no problem—an approach that seems distinctly on the cards under our new Mayor Sadiq Khan. And with new railway services such as Crossrail 2 proposed, it seems that London is finally taking infrastructure seriously after decades of underinvestment.
The caricature of immigrants as welfare dependents raiding the British taxpayer winds up plenty of people, but it isn’t actually true. In fact, recent migrants from the European Economic Area paid five times more in tax than they received in benefits in a recent government study. And research from University College London found that immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45 per cent less likely to receive benefits or tax credits than those born in the UK between 2000 and 2011.
Hostility to immigration is already denting economic growth. Companies are struggling to get visas for skilled workers because the economic recovery means we are hitting a government quota. And there are some curious consequences of immigration limits. For example, graduate schemes offered by our most successful companies are under threat. Professional services firms, in particular, like to train their international graduates in the capital. This increases our soft power around the world and helps foster a British view of business. But such schemes are in danger because firms are struggling to get the visas they need.
Meanwhile, Britain’s universities are being held back. Educating international students is one of our most valuable exports—even though it can take a moment to realise that this activity is actually an export. Yet because international students are included in the net migration figures, government rhetoric is discouraging them. The result is that the number of Indian students in Britain halved between 2011 and 2014 (and latest figures show they have almost dried up completely). At the same time, our competitors, such as America and Australia, have increased the numbers they attract. That’s bad for jobs here. Really, we should reclassify students as temporary visitors, like other countries do—after all, a ComRes poll for London First found that only 17 per cent of Londoners consider non-EU international students studying in Britain to be migrants.
The argument from some Brexiteers is that if we left Europe we could turn off the European tap and allow more immigrants from elsewhere. But given the government’s stated desire to cut net migration by more than two-thirds, that’s not likely to give our economy the labour it needs to keep delivering prosperity.
Migrants from Europe fill a need. Take Tech City, London’s greatest success story since the financial crisis. We have a shortage of software developers—and the software industry has a difficulty with skills because the technology is constantly changing. Having access to the best talent from across Europe means British companies can keep delivering world-beating products faster than our international competitors. Besides, blocking young Europeans from getting experience in Britain would likely have the effect, too, of taking away the ability of young British people to work on the continent—often something do for a year or two while they’re young.
In the coming months, economically rational immigration policy will be more vulnerable than it has been for decades. The opponents of immigration will be turning up the volume: we must not let them win.
Now read: Twelve things you need to know about Brexit
Today’s immigration figures have been seized upon by Brexiteers as further evidence we should leave the EU. The figures are the second-highest on record and show that 333,000 migrants arrived here last year. That’s more than three times the “tens of thousands” the government said it wanted, and Boris Johnson has today argued that the government was "cynical" to make that promise while Britain remains a part of the EU (its membership means that it must allow the free movement of people from the EU).
For those of us who think that immigration is a good thing, the heated rhetoric poses a problem. Whatever the result of the referendum on our EU membership on 23rd June, making the case for immigration is about to become a lot more difficult. If we leave, the pressure will be to sever free movement across Europe. And if we stay, backbench pressure for tighter immigration controls against non-EU immigrants will be higher than ever.
Neither of these outcomes would be interests of the country. But it won’t stop the rhetoric becoming ever-more heated. Theresa May, who would cross several fields for the chance to speak out against immigration, has performed strongly throughout the referendum campaign and has undoubtedly strengthened her status within her party. She is likely to be even more influential after the vote next month—a headache for those who believe immigration is vital for the health of our economy.
Yes, there are challenges that come from immigration—not least ensuring that trains, schools and hospitals can meet demand. But despite hysteria about us running out of space, it’s worth noting that even London is not a very dense city when compared with other international cities. London has 5,100 people per square km, while Shanghai has 13,400 and Mumbai has 29,650.
The solution to the housing shortage in the capital has far less to do with reducing immigration, and far more to do with stopping nimbyism choking up supply. If we returned to the post-war house-building levels, we’d have no problem—an approach that seems distinctly on the cards under our new Mayor Sadiq Khan. And with new railway services such as Crossrail 2 proposed, it seems that London is finally taking infrastructure seriously after decades of underinvestment.
The caricature of immigrants as welfare dependents raiding the British taxpayer winds up plenty of people, but it isn’t actually true. In fact, recent migrants from the European Economic Area paid five times more in tax than they received in benefits in a recent government study. And research from University College London found that immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45 per cent less likely to receive benefits or tax credits than those born in the UK between 2000 and 2011.
Hostility to immigration is already denting economic growth. Companies are struggling to get visas for skilled workers because the economic recovery means we are hitting a government quota. And there are some curious consequences of immigration limits. For example, graduate schemes offered by our most successful companies are under threat. Professional services firms, in particular, like to train their international graduates in the capital. This increases our soft power around the world and helps foster a British view of business. But such schemes are in danger because firms are struggling to get the visas they need.
Meanwhile, Britain’s universities are being held back. Educating international students is one of our most valuable exports—even though it can take a moment to realise that this activity is actually an export. Yet because international students are included in the net migration figures, government rhetoric is discouraging them. The result is that the number of Indian students in Britain halved between 2011 and 2014 (and latest figures show they have almost dried up completely). At the same time, our competitors, such as America and Australia, have increased the numbers they attract. That’s bad for jobs here. Really, we should reclassify students as temporary visitors, like other countries do—after all, a ComRes poll for London First found that only 17 per cent of Londoners consider non-EU international students studying in Britain to be migrants.
The argument from some Brexiteers is that if we left Europe we could turn off the European tap and allow more immigrants from elsewhere. But given the government’s stated desire to cut net migration by more than two-thirds, that’s not likely to give our economy the labour it needs to keep delivering prosperity.
Migrants from Europe fill a need. Take Tech City, London’s greatest success story since the financial crisis. We have a shortage of software developers—and the software industry has a difficulty with skills because the technology is constantly changing. Having access to the best talent from across Europe means British companies can keep delivering world-beating products faster than our international competitors. Besides, blocking young Europeans from getting experience in Britain would likely have the effect, too, of taking away the ability of young British people to work on the continent—often something do for a year or two while they’re young.
In the coming months, economically rational immigration policy will be more vulnerable than it has been for decades. The opponents of immigration will be turning up the volume: we must not let them win.
Now read: Twelve things you need to know about Brexit
