Why don't politicians tell the truth about immigration?

There is a moment in Dickens’s American Notes when the author comes to realise the greatness of immigrants. “It would be hard to keep your model republics going, without the countrymen and countrywomen of those two labourers,” he reflects, watching a pair of Irish émigrés. Modern Britain does not lack for such insight.  The evidence in favour of immigration is too compelling for political elites to misunderstand. Our problem is that today’s Dickenses are drowned out by a rhetorical conformity that says voters dislike immigrants.

Since the last election, a political consensus has emerged around the notion that immigration is out of control, unfair on British workers and damaging to the national identity. To the despair of businesses, the coalition has introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants despite an existing points system that ensured only skilled workers were eligible. This month, immigration minister Damian Green announced plans to make it harder for skilled immigrants to remain in the UK. Instead of challenging the government, Labour has convinced itself that it must talk tough on immigration to regain the working class vote.

Labour MPs are falling over each other to proffer unedifying soundbites. “England belongs to the English,” wrote Jon Cruddas recently. Opposition politicians may think they are being brave by articulating what they mistakenly believe ‘ordinary’ people think. Brave would have been Gordon Brown refusing to apologise when he condemned xenophobic comments about “flocking Eastern Europeans.” Yet with the exception of Vince Cable, not a single major British politician is willing to say what they all know to be true: that immigration is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary for Britain to thrive.

The data is clear. Research at UCL found that eastern European migrants pay into the exchequer far more than they receive in benefits and services. The net benefit they contribute of almost 40 per cent contrasts heavily with British born citizens, who pay in taxes 20 per cent less than they receive in public goods and benefits. A similar story of foreigners subsidizing Britons is apparent in universities. With their inflated fees, visitors and would-be citizens prop up an education system neither the government nor students appear willing to fund.

In their disproportionate entrepreneurialism, immigrants are vital engines of innovation and growth. Countries with more start-ups grow faster, and immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. This is particularly true in mainland Europe but also in the UK and the US, where foreign-born pioneers are responsible for Google, Yahoo! and eBay. Over half of Silicon Valley companies were founded by immigrants.

Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, has warned against “national suicide” as the American right pushes for greater border controls and emerging economies offer incentives to tempt home highly skilled workers. “We ship them home, where they can take what they learned here and use it to create companies and products that compete with ours.” We need more voices like Bloomberg in Britain.

Politicians must acknowledge that immigrants represent an important part of the solution to our demographic time bomb. The proportion of western Europe’s population aged 65 or older will almost double by 2050, according to UN projections. Increased immigration can mitigate an ageing population and ease the state burden. Success here is dependent on government action. To benefit we need to invest in long-term infrastructure development. The current absence of joined-up planning risks making immigration a problem it does not need to be.

In the face of such strong economic arguments for immigration, some oppose it on social grounds. They claim endless new arrivals corrode our national identity. But has that ship not sailed? The Britain of cucumber sandwiches and village cricket remains part of this country’s identity, but only one part. Each of the main immigrant groups is woven into Britain’s fabric. The Indian community alone has provided the UK’s richest man, an England cricket captain and a new national cuisine. In their leadership of organisations like Liberty and New Look, people of Indian descent have shaped both our values and our spending habits.

No one doubts that immigration poses challenges for communities. Of course integration is critical to social cohesion. But these are challenges we can and must meet. It is not good enough for David Cameron to criticise immigrants’ failure to integrate while his government slashes funding for their English lessons. Welcome immigrants warmly and most will respond in the spirit of our most famous literary import, TS Eliot: “remember I am a metic—a foreigner, and that I want to understand you, and all the background and tradition of you.”

Things would be more complicated if there was a direct conflict between our moral responsibility to immigrants and British well-being. Mercifully, no such dilemma currently exists. Politicians need not appeal to our better selves to support immigration—our self-interest will do. Their silence represents a regrettable absence of leadership.

For more on this topic:

Matt Cavanagh: Cameron wants all immigration to be temporary—but is he right?