UK immigration: why public opinion is at odds with reality

If the electorate continually vote for something (i.e., a reduction in immigration), does the government have a moral obligation to enact that?

Or can the government safely ignore the electorate in that regard? It’s an interesting question.

Of course the article in question here fails to address any cultural issues that can arise from high levels of immigration (which we have seen play out the past 20 years or so) nor does it mention anything about the possibility and importance of integration policy. The issue of immigration isn’t solely a numbers game.

Yes, any modern country needs a certain level of immigration to boost and fill holes in the economy, but the free-for-all that we’ve had under the Tories is not good as evidenced by our falling standards of living and rising cost of living. We also have an asylum system that isn’t fit for purpose, which constantly loses track of thousands of asylum applicants who enter the country.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of the British public think immigration has been too high. The British public have subsequently voted for parties and a referendum that promised to reduce immigration throughout the past 14 years – so why has no effort been made at starting to address this issue in that time?

After all, we are always told that if we want change we must vote for it. Or is it the case we only recieve the kind of change that is acceptable to the ruling class?

I think a lot of people just want less immigration (not none), more opportunities for British people rather than just relying on foreign workers and for people to understand that our asylum system is broken.

Immigrants to a country should mostly adopt the behaviours of the place they go to, including language. If not, why did they go there?

The fundamental problem with immigration since Windrush is, it’s always the poor, White Working class that immigrants get dumped on. We all know #twotierkier plan to “redistribute” will come to nothing. There’s no way these NIMBYs in charge will allow that. (I’d love to see it though – look on surburbia Jane’s face as she comes home from her anti-facist march, “refugees welcome here” banner in hand and there’s a building plan notice for a new mosque on the end of her road would be a priceless joy to witness).

I don’t want lots of migration and refugees because I don’t believe it is in my interest nor the interests of the average person in the uk.

From a financial perspective, those coming in are typically willing to work for less than a British worker and is simply indulging in a race to the bottom/ stagnant wages.

From a cultural perspective I believe that a lot of those entering do not share similar values to myself and I do not want to see the makeup of the country and it’s values change drastically through immigration over time.

I do not feel a moral obligation to take refugees in from here, there and everywhere just because their homeland is not a good place because it’s not in my interest. When people think about countries that aren’t signed up to all the human rights conventions they think of Saudi Arabia etc but they should be thinking of Australia too.

I don’t blame people for wanting to come because they will have a better life, it’s in their best interests but it isn’t in mine and I don’t want to be paying for them.

As for the rioters, they are all idiots and there is nothing less British than forming a mob and attacking the police.

I suppose a good test for the poorest in society is to ask yourself how much your rent has risen in the past 5 years and then feel secure in the knowledge that you’ve “only” lost 0.5p per hour due to immigration.

We produce 60% of the food we need as a nation. We’re a small island. This pyramid scheme cannot continue indefinitely so regardless of the economic argument which normally conflates EU and non-EU migrants where they’re a net drag on the economy, something needs to change.

God bless the FT, its healthy obsession with data, economics and finance. But it might be missing the point. It ignores, discounts, undervalues the irrational animal spirits that fuel anti immigration sentiment. It ignores the habit that people have of glossing over irrational, unpopular, unfashionable opinions with semi rational arguments.

A bit of an odd article which bases all it’s economic projections on studies on EU immigration only.

EU immigration has been consistently showing higher net contribution than native, whilst non-EU migration is overall lower throughout their entire lifetime regardless of which age they migrated to the UK.

More recent 2nd generation non-EU “migrates” also tend not to be net contributors across the boards with the exception of a few groups.

Yes and overall healthier, better educated and a population cohort that doesn’t tend to retire in the UK is overall a net positive. But Brexit aside this isn’t the cohort currently who those that take issue with what they see as unchecked immigration are talking, protesting or well rioting over.

Nurses and doctors form 2.6% of all legal immigration to the UK

I love when they use academic studies that lump all immigrants together to argue that immigration makes us all richer and safer by default.

Of course highly paid professionals who immigrate will be net contributors and not add to crime. We need to separate high-wage immigration from low wage economic migration from asylum/refugee policies, which are essentially charity immigration.