The Case For a Points Based System & Against Mass Immigration
Immigration policy has been hotly contested for at least the last 10 years, yet in poll after poll after poll during this time the electorate has been in favour of reducing levels of immigration. In particular, they’ve been in favour of reducing large scale, unskilled immigration. On a basic level, the conversation about immigration is distorted on all sides by the ideological shibboleths that dominate the cultural spaces in which those ideologies are prevalent. At it’s worst, the discourse is filled with particularly toxic modes of xenophobia, fetishism of ‘othered’ identities, a callousness towards concerns of the existing resident population. A points based system is one of the few things that can heal political fracture.
The case for immigration that is mostly commonly called upon is the economic benefits that immigration can bring. It is often portrayed by supporters of the status quo, or indeed those who wish to liberalise further, as the ultimate case. It is, they argue, in our own self-interest to support immigration. Thus, the only reason why people would support restricting immigration is a manipulation of the facts or a base racism, xenophobia that should not be listened to on the face of it. It is not so clear that immigration persay does have a particularly good track-record of providing economic benefits for most. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) estimated that immigration during the period 1998–2005 had a slightly negative impact on GDP per capita of the resident population. In the long term this was seen to have a slight benefit of 0.3% increase in GDP. However, the bulk of the dynamic long-term positive effects of immigration pertain to high-skilled immigration. They are not to be found in low skilled workers. The bulk of the economic benefits under a rightfully tuned points based system would remain. Moreover, the kind of mass immigration of low skilled labour adds to a host of spill over costs. The increase in population density brought by immigration brings with it increased costs with regards to maintaining and improving all forms of infrastructure.
What of cultural concerns? These arguments are often made into racist caricatures or opposed by the cries of the virtues of diversity. It has almost become a truism that ‘diversity is our strength’. It has got to the level that ‘diversity’ itself has been transplanted into the British mythos as one of the new values that defines British values. Yet, there is much to be said about the cost of this diversity. Politics is rarely a matter of pure unadulterated gains, but a matter of trade-offs. Diversity brings with it trade offs. Whilst it would appear that immigration brings with it a certain dynamism, it also brings with it a multitude of social problems. The social bonds that sustain us are disrupted by large scale of immigration. Social norms and participation in civic society are often deeply harmed. Diversity alienates people in general and in his words pushes them towards isolating themselves from the societal whole. Ironically, the immigration that brings diversity to the nation can often lead to fractured lines of mono-cultural ghettos. Having a mechanism which can select immigrants on the basis of being conducive to integration helps solves these multitude of cultural issues, and restricting the rate of immigration allows for this integration process to go more smoothly. It is reasonable to ask “What is so bad about a loss of social cohesion?” It’s not merely that the discourse becomes more terse and cruel. It has very real effects on everything from mental health to happiness and even the wealth of a society.
It is, therefore, totally reasonable for the majority of the British to feel resentment towards the existing immigration system. Of course, it would be a unfair to say that this is why the majority of people support restricting immigration. Views on immigration are not born from a cold look at the data. They are born from something more primal than that. They are come from the fear of loss. The liberalisers fear the transformation of Britain into something hostile, insular and impoverished. The restrictionists fear the loss of traditions, transformation of communities and race-to-the-bottom competition that comes from immigration. Immigration is merely the most symbolic of these new divide in the realignment of politics. Earlier, I wrote that politics is ultimately about trade-offs. This is still true, but we may decide upon better trade-offs. The points based system understood as a mechanism of moderation, providing the ability to tweak the balance between the competing values of dynamism, diversity and domestic harmony. In this moment, the excesses of diversity and dynamism have dominated immigration policy for over a decade. They should be curtailed, but not ignored. A points based system will allow us to continue to listen, to amend and provide a new balance to these voices.
