April Gay blogs on the political, economic and social complexity of Immigration.

On 23rd June 2016 the country voted for whether Britain would exit the European Union and gain back the sovereignty we lent to the EC when we joined in 1973. The EU has forever been a trigger for the downfall of many British Prime Ministers. Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher both tried to wrestle with the beast that is the EU. David Cameron and Theresa May have also since resigned due to the complexities of Brexit. However, what has been made evident that as 51.9% of the voters in 2016 wanted to leave; many did predominantly due to their hostility to immigration.

Although all eyes are currently on the UK as it struggles with Brexit, other parts of the world have similar problems with regards to immigration. The US, faces Trump attempting to stem the flow of poor Mexican migrants and in Europe there is increasing alarm and conflict on how to manage the influx of immigrants fleeing from countries with extreme political parties, breaches of human rights or famine. Green parties are worried about a detrimental effect on the environment, trade-unionists are concerned about the threat on domestic wages. Cultural conservatives fret over a fading national identity and tax payers worry about the strain on the welfare state. However, whilst the press and commentary surrounding immigration circulates I have found that the multitude of benefits that accompany immigration have been overlooked.

It has become so that perceptions and prejudice seem to matter more than reality. What must be remembered is that every immigrant is also an emigrant. It takes courage to uproot yourself to a foreign land and in the words of Philippe Legrain “Immigrants are individual human beings whose lives happen not to fit neatly within national borders.” In most cases, the determinant for whether you are successful, no matter your work ethic or talent, is where you’re born.

Immigrants are too readily blamed for unemployment, stretched public services and stagnant wages. On top of this, the idea that all migrants are often criminals or terrorists is a misconception. Allowing migrants into your country massively benefit the migrants country also. Allowing an aspiring Indian doctor to access education and training in the UK, will not only mean that the UK now has another doctor, but if that doctor was to return to their home country they take with them capital and skills, boosting the Indian economy. “A rising tide raises all ships”, so as Britain now specialises in its invisible trade in services it further benefits the global economy. Remittance payments dwarf foreign aid and the money is often better spent, again boosting the migrants economy. Professional migrants contribute more to tax revenue than they receive in benefits and services, they see doctors less often but are disproportionately doctors and nurses themselves. 13.1% of NHS staff say they their nationality is not British. As Philippe Legrain says: “It’s not Donald Trump who makes America great again, it’s the country’s openness to newcomers.” For the majority of time, it is immigrants who get the blame for decline in local areas or the lack of jobs. However, perhaps these underlying problems for which immigrants get blamed need be addressed by politicians instead.

Britons fuss over a fading British identity yet still want the choice of Chinese, Indian or Italian restaurants on their streets. These are second and third generation migrants who now identify as British. If the political pressure persists to cut migration then we expose ourselves to atrocities similar to the Windrush Scandal.

So, how do you strike the balance between the issue of overpopulation and allowing migrants seeking a better life to flourish.
Dean Baker, an American macroeconomist has suggested “The Best and the Brightest” system. His system would allow for a set number of visas per annum to be agreed. From there, reuniting families would be a priority allowing those with family in first. However, Baker would then say that visas should be given to those who will benefit the economy the most. Engineers, doctors, financial advisors would not be in short supply however this clearly discriminates against those who don’t have degrees and are not classed as ‘high-skilled’. Baker also suggested repatriation of a portion of immigrants earnings so that it also benefits their home country. This system is widely supported by economists, to let more highly skilled workers in is the general thesis amongst economists generally. However, the government still have to decide what professions ‘get in’ and what the economy needs. There is massive scope for government failure within this system due to the large value judgement that is to be put on workers value to the economy.

Italian-born, American economist Giovanni Peri who is known for his research into the economic impacts on immigration to the US suggests the system: “The Highest Bidder”. Whereby visas are auctioned off to the highest bidder and allocation of permits to workers is not determined by the government and certain figures, but by the market. Whichever employer is willing to pay more for the worker will receive the permit. However, the problem arises that a potato farmer is not going to outbid Apple for employees. Therefore, Peri suggest two auctions. One for low-skilled workers and one for high-skilled workers. Through market forces and the price mechanism each auction would be able to find the highest price. Additionally, the government receive revenue from each permit, not sizeable, but still revenue. These visas are short-term temporary visas that may provide a solution to immigration. Peri suggests that if it works out on the job, then the worker should be given the opportunity to gain citizenship.

A third system is thought up by Alex Nowrasteh, an American, libertarian analyst of immigration policy at the Cato Institute. He names his system the “Free for all”. Nowrasteh’s system allows anyone other than criminals, suspected terrorists and those with communicable diseases in. People who emigrate tend to be harder-working and are found to have a higher business ownership than non-immigrants, with one in seven UK companies set up by migrants. Allowing more immigration, increases entrepreneurship and in turn creates competition. The economy expands to accommodate the rise and allows citizens to flourish and do more for the world. By providing the opportunity and allowing the transfer of immigrants from their home country to a place where they can be three times more productive means not only the size of the economy they migrate to, but the size of the global economy expands. Perhaps this means less undocumented immigrants in a more accepting system and less immigration police. However, the US had a similar system from the 1790’s -1980’s which amounted to exclusion and racism. The American’s felt a threat from cheap Chinese labour which were easily identified as being different. Laws changed so European immigrants began to get blocked unless they came from a particular place in Europe or had family in residence. Resultantly, communities are fearful that non-natives will steal their jobs and impact their lifestyle, as migrants will be more willing to work for minimum wage in return for a better life than the one they have left.

Australian’s do not tend to make such a fuss over the country’s high immigration because it is mainly selective. Every developed country will have their immigration rules but the rules need to be flexible if the economic cost is to be minimised.  There may be demand for mechanics and make-up artists this year, but bricklayers and barristers the next. If the system of how we choose immigrants is based solely on how highly skilled they are, we will find ourselves burdened with an unbalanced social and economic dichotomy.