Immigration is not the problem
Big government is the cause of Britain's economic woes, not migrants
This week could mark a significant turning point for the Conservative Party’s election campaign. Nigel Farage's decision to enter the race and take on the leadership of Reform UK could, by some estimations, result in a ‘1993 Canadian Conservative Party moment’. This refers to the wipe-out of the ruling Canadian Conservatives thanks to, you guessed it, a party named Reform. History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Predicting how this campaign will end and what will happen next is impossible. What does seem clear, however, is that many of the dynamics will persist. The Tories find themselves in a tight spot. For Labour defectors, the government is failing to address their priorities, the economy and healthcare. On the other hand, for Reform and even those still supporting the Tories, immigration is the hot topic.
Rather than announce policies to boost economic growth and reform the NHS, to win back voters from Labour, the Conservatives’ are focusing on immigration. This week’s announcement from Rishi Sunak was a cap on worker and family visas (with exemptions for temporary work routes, such as Seasonal Agricultural Workers). Not to be outdone, Farage has spoken about ‘net zero’ migration and even Labour are promising to get down numbers.
With the UK facing so many desperate challenges, it’s disappointing that immigration has become such a focus of this campaign. That’s not to say immigration is not an issue. It may be entirely legitimate to want fewer people coming into this country, to be worried about boat arrivals across the channel, and even to raise concerns about some groups not contributing a fair amount or upholding liberal values. However, the oft-heard suggestion that Britain’s economic woes can be solved by cutting immigration down is farcical.
Immigrants are not the problem; they are often part of the solution. They are not the reason the UK has a housing shortage, that's to blame on a broken planning system that prevents houses from being built. They are not keeping down wages, an idea well-understood to be a 'lump labour of fallacy'. They are not overburdening the NHS or the welfare state – studies show that most immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services. Nor are immigrants, as a whole, responsible for rising violent crime.
Rather, immigrants fill gaps across the economy, from health and social care to construction and high-tech. This helps boost the economy, increase wages, and contribute to public finances. They are disproportionately likely to be entrepreneurs and lead major successful companies.
The biggest issues – housing shortages, strained public services, wage stagnation, crime — have roots in domestic policy choices, not immigration. Blaming immigrants for these problems is a dangerous distraction from implementing real solutions.
Matthew Lesh
Director of Public Policy and Communications
P.S. we have had a huge response to the launch of IEA Insider, our new community built on Substack. This week we released the first piece of exclusive content, by my colleague Kristian Niemietz on the culture war and debates about Britain’s imperial history. If you want to read that article, and support the IEA’s charitable mission, our offer to new subscribers (which includes a copy of Steve Davies’ new book Apocalypse Next: The Economics of Global Catastrophic Risks) is still available:
Should the UK Cap Immigration Numbers? IEA Podcast, Matthew Lesh interviews King's College London Professor Jonathan Portes, IEA YouTube
You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four
To celebrate the 75th anniversary of the UK publication of George Orwell’s classic dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (8 June 2024), the Institute of Economic Affairs is republishing the novel with a new introduction by Christopher Snowdon.
Orwell’s iconic dystopia continues to resonate, but his prediction of the inevitable decline of liberal capitalism proved premature.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a prescient warning about how a small group could use technology, manipulate language, and rewrite history to impose a totalitarian regime on society.
Orwell, however, was too pessimistic about the rise of totalitarianism, stemming from his misconceptions about economics and liberal capitalism.
The IEA’s new introduction to the book deeply delves into the roots, inspiration, economics, and legacy of Orwell’s magnum opus.
Commenting on his new introduction, Christopher said:
Orwell wanted a planned economy that respected individual liberty but he was increasingly pessimistic in his later years about the prospects for libertarian socialism. The Soviet experiment had turned sour and if Orwell had lived to see the same tragedy play out in China, Cambodia, North Korea and many other countries, I suspect he would have come to see it as a systemic problem.
The real year of 1984 is now further away from us than it was from Orwell when he wrote the novel, but Nineteen Eighty-Four has never lost its resonance. The immediate targets of Orwell’s satire are either gone (the USSR) or are of no importance (Stalinist intellectuals), but advancements in technology have made it easier than ever to create a regimented, state-controlled society if the totalitarian mindset flourishes again.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning, not a prediction, and liberals must remain vigilant. As Orwell said in his last public statement before he died: ‘Don’t let it happen. It depends on you'.
Christopher discussed his analysis of Orwell’s roots, economics, and legacy in The Spectator and Quillette.
You can also join Christopher on a tour of Orwell’s London, as he meanders from the Ministry of Truth to Trafalgar Square on the IEA YouTube channel.
1984: A Journey Through Orwell's London, Christopher Snowdon, IEA YouTube
News, Views & Upcoming Events
This soporific campaign offers no answers, from any quarter, to the big challenges facing Britain, Matthew Lesh, ConservativeHome, Prospect, The Daily Express & The Daily Mail
The British Empire and the Culture War, Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz, IEA Insider
The British Empire and the Culture War
·
In May, the IEA published Imperial Measurement: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Western Colonialism, a mini-book on the economics of empire, in which I rebut the idea that Britain’s wealth is built on colonial plunder. It is fair to say that it has ruffled a few feathers.
Obituary: David Boaz (1953-2024), Ryan Bourne, IEA Blog
Watch: Did the British Empire Really Drive the Industrial Revolution?, Managing Editor Daniel Freeman (Chair), Kristian Niemietz, Oxford University historian Dr Lawrence Goldman, economic historian Dr Victoria Bateman, and Dr Zareer Masani, IEA YouTube
Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, will be joining us for the latest of our In Conversation events, an IEA series of discussions with notable figures across public life. This event will take place on Monday, 10th June from 17.30 – 19.30 at the IEA (2 Lord North Street, Westminster, London, SW1P 3LB) and will be chaired by Tom Clougherty.
Invitation - The Orange Book: 20 Years Later
Published in 2004, The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism is a collection of essays authored by eleven leading Liberal Democrats highlighting the need to reengage with the economically liberal roots of their party.
Twenty years later, are the ideas outlined in The Orange Book still relevant? How are the Liberal Democrats balancing social democratic and classical liberal ideas? Could the Orange Bookers’ re-emerge and steer the ship? In an era of political realignment, where if anywhere, will economic liberals find their home?
Join us for a panel discussion on The Orange Book and beyond at the Institute of Economic Affairs:
 | A guest post by
|
You are right that it is poor policy choice rather than the arrival of economically boosting immigrants that is at the root of the strains on housing, healthcare and public services generally.
But we are where we are. Just taking housing, we have an accumulated deficit of about 4 million properties and even if we liberalised house building by abolishing the TCPA and green belt tomorrow that deficit is going to take a long time to clear; even a free market is constrained on what it can deliver in the short term. I’m afraid that means that until that underlying problem is solved there is going to have to be a limitation on immigration or the strains are only going to get worse and worse. And if there is no appetite to fix the underlying problem then we have to accept the consequences that flow from that.
And while you focus on the economic benefit of immigration this is not the only factor that is relevant. People are legitimately concerned about the importation of huge swathes of people whose culture is alien to our values, have no wish to assimilate peacefully and in too many cases are blatant in their wish to replace our culture with theirs. If immigrants are all like Mr Lesh we don’t have a problem but they aren’t. And this is an issue of legal immigration, not just of the illegal small boat cohort.