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.
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment. Professor Jonathan Portes also raised similar concerns about housing and immigration in this week's IEA podcast. The solution is to build more houses, but sadly as you have said that is extremely difficult. Therefore the housing shortage makes for the 'best' arugument against high levels of immigraiton. It is worth noting that many immigrants bring with them investment, which can help expand the housing supply, along with skills that could help with construction. I would also make the point that the priority, in any case, should be to just build some bloody homes; which is necessary irrespecitve of the immigration level. Beyond the economics, it is legitimate to raise questions about culture and integration, the challange of maintaining liberal democratic values, and to be selective on that basis.
You are right that we should “just build more bloody homes”. And if immigrants bring relevant skills to do that, hallelujah. But the legacy of years of neglect (nimby stupidity) is that we have such a colossal housing deficit that it will take years to clear, even if we built at 1930s rates or a better. The penalty for that is that we have no alternative but to put a constraint on immigration to stop the deficit growing worse and worse. To maximise the economic consequences of the poor legacy we therefore need to be very choosy about the immigration we continue to allow so that we take those who will add most value and refuse those whose value is least or even negative. By way of example, stopping the racket of universities being a gateway through way a “student” comes to a 5th rate institution to study a pseudo subject and then brings in all of his or her family shouldn’t be controversial.
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.
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment. Professor Jonathan Portes also raised similar concerns about housing and immigration in this week's IEA podcast. The solution is to build more houses, but sadly as you have said that is extremely difficult. Therefore the housing shortage makes for the 'best' arugument against high levels of immigraiton. It is worth noting that many immigrants bring with them investment, which can help expand the housing supply, along with skills that could help with construction. I would also make the point that the priority, in any case, should be to just build some bloody homes; which is necessary irrespecitve of the immigration level. Beyond the economics, it is legitimate to raise questions about culture and integration, the challange of maintaining liberal democratic values, and to be selective on that basis.
You are right that we should “just build more bloody homes”. And if immigrants bring relevant skills to do that, hallelujah. But the legacy of years of neglect (nimby stupidity) is that we have such a colossal housing deficit that it will take years to clear, even if we built at 1930s rates or a better. The penalty for that is that we have no alternative but to put a constraint on immigration to stop the deficit growing worse and worse. To maximise the economic consequences of the poor legacy we therefore need to be very choosy about the immigration we continue to allow so that we take those who will add most value and refuse those whose value is least or even negative. By way of example, stopping the racket of universities being a gateway through way a “student” comes to a 5th rate institution to study a pseudo subject and then brings in all of his or her family shouldn’t be controversial.