Proposition: We Need More!

Elliot Wood

Brexit is done. The borders are safe. Our jobs and NHS are safe. The UKIP battle cry of ‘We want our country back!’ need not be chanted anymore.

But the truth is; they never had any reason to be chanted. The borders weren’t endangered by foreign nationals. Jobs weren’t stolen by Poles or Indians. The NHS didn’t use up its operating theatres for Nigerians. And whilst yes, Brexit is done, the fact it has been done should give us more of a reason than ever to look at our needs, to change our approach and to take more immigrants. 

But first let’s look at the defining advances of modern Europe’s time: the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the end of apartheid and the introduction of same-sex marriage. These triumphs of mankind achieved success based on arguments of moral principles and the acknowledgement of a shared human identity. So, I ask you: is it morally right to deny someone the chance to choose where they work, study and raise their family? Is there a fundamental human difference between ‘us’ and immigrants? Am I any more worthy than them?

If you answer no; then the answer to more immigration is surely yes. 

Lockdown has proven more than ever our innate desire and need for freedom, colour and diversity in our lives. Simply put, immigration enriches diversity and epitomises the freedom to move and improve one’s socio-economic standing. Fears of rapid cultural change fail to consider the idea that there is no true defined British culture. If there were to be one, surely we would want it to be about moral, progressive and just characteristics rather than skin colour or cuisine. In fact, the very reason I am writing this article is because of my tolerance and broad world perspective which immigration has paved the way for. 

The harsh truth however, is that to convince a government and a country to take more of the very thing they fear and blame for their suffering, it requires an empirical analysis, rather than just an ethical one. Fortunately for immigration, it wins out on both.

Currently the UK is home to 9.5 million people who were born abroad. That is 9.5 million more people who can work, learn, buy and sell than if the UK didn’t take immigrants. Likewise, the very nature of an immigrant makes these people, on average, harder working and more willing to take risks. Hard work and risks are two ingredients of economic success. Steve Jobs (Apple), Michael Marks (M&S) and Alec Issigonis (Mini) are the prime examples of this; they took huge risks and never stopped working for the rewards. Yet, they’re also the prime examples of something else: they’re all immigrants. This shows that when immigrants are given the opportunity to thrive in an environment like the UK, the prospects can be huge.

That environment can then itself progress. More than half of new immigrants have been in education until 21 or later; a figure which dwarves the 20% of UK citizens on the same level. Immigrants thus generate a better qualified workforce and their strong presence amongst highly skilled workers, allows for major advances: be that in science, technology or business. 

Whilst immigrants are indeed over represented in the highly skilled workforce, they are too in the very low skilled. This actually lends itself as an advantage. They often perform jobs which UK citizens aren’t willing to do. The fact that migrants are more likely to work nightshifts than UK citizens not only helps explain this, but shows how much we need them. From the most advanced, to the most mundane jobs, immigrants can fulfil those roles; all of which are essential and mean we can live our lives the way we do. 

And why especially do we need more? The UK currently suffers from an acute shortage in many sectors, ranging from chemical scientists to electrical engineers to veterinarians. The NHS itself admits to shortages of up to 250,000 staff by 2030. Considering almost 30% of our doctors and 15% of NHS and community centre staff are foreign nationals for example, immigrants are the most viable and beneficial way to solve these labour shortages. They arrive willing and skilled; this should be capitalised upon.

So where’s the doubt? Anti-immigration group ‘Migration Watch UK’ argue that immigrants come here to use our NHS, schools and welfare system, robbing the country of jobs and money. This couldn’t actually be farther from the truth. 

EEA migrants are estimated to have paid £4.7bn more in taxes than they received in welfare payments and public services. Us Brits however, cause a stonking deficit of £41bn! Moreover, the net fiscal contribution of each migrant is £2,300 more than the average adult resident in the UK. 

It is shown by the widely economically agreed upon ‘lump of labour’ fallacy, that immigrants don’t take our jobs. In fact, quite the reverse. Their major contribution to increasingly flexible labour markets and the gig economy have resulted in UK unemployment declining. Furthermore, medium and high paid workers are more likely to gain in terms of wages from immigration than lose out. Immigration thus aids all economical echelons of society. 

Workers however are just the half of it. The UK boasts extremely popular higher education establishments amongst migrating students who are net contributors of £20.3bn to the UK economy and an indispensable part of universities’ funding due to their elevated annual fees (up to £40,000 a year). 

Despite all these incentives, the new UK immigration policy fails to gain full advantage of increased immigration. Many needed lower skilled workers will fail to reach the demanding 70 point threshold. It is also predicted EU students studying in the UK will fall by 15,000 each year. The dire labour shortages will persist with this policy, but there is hope in immigration. 

The UK can modify its approach to immigration to help all suffering sectors and encourage students to settle with the graduate visa. With the labour cracks filled, the economy can begin to climb. It’s been clearly shown that immigrants give far more than they take; what are we waiting for?

So yes Brexit’s done; but with higher immigration, the borders will still be safe and our jobs and the NHS will be even safer. Not only will our economy bounce back stronger from this terrible pandemic, but our country will show itself to be respectful, diverse, prosperous and morally upright.If Boris Johnson wantsthis country to be “open for business,” he simply cannot be closed to immigration.

Elliot Wood.

Counter: The Points Based System is Fit for Purpose!

The answer to the UK’s immigration debate is not simply “More”. 

The answer is control. 

With control comes the ability to tailor one’s immigration policy such that economic and social objectives can be filled. If the need is more doctors for the NHS, this can be done. If the need is more diversity, this can be done. And if the need is more low skilled workers, this can be done. Certain jobs in healthcare and education currently merit a 20-point addition for this very reason.

In all accounts, the article above has highlighted the great utility derived from the points-based system, which is that a nation can promote immigration in areas of need, but crucially discourage it in areas of excess.

The proposition has highlighted the need for more immigrants through the use of specific examples. From jobs that operate within anti-social hours, to nurses, doctors or electrical engineers, the UK at any given time will have skill shortages.  But the way to go about this is an “Australian”, now British, points-based system from which you can set requirements and quotas to satisfy the economic objectives of a government, and hence the priorities of the people.

However, control, despite being of such importance, is not the only advantage of a points bases system.

The crucial benefit of the points-based system, in direct contradiction to the proposition’s opinion, is that a points-based system reduces the numbers of low skilled workers flowing into the UK. The fact that unskilled immigrants are more willing to work for lower wages, with worse labour conditions, something accepted by the proposition, only puts downwards pressure on the unskilled wage rate and the accepted standard of labour conditions. It is no coincidence that the government awards the 70 points needed for entry based on skillset. 10 points for a PHD, 20 if the entrant is due to be paid more than £25,600 a year: We are finally protecting the wages of the lowest payed, whilst attracting worldwide talent. What more could you want?

If the government seeks to drive down wages, reducing costs for firms and boosting profits at the expense of the poorest UK citizens, then by all means, the borders should remain open. Yet,governments should not always act in accordance with policy that has the greatest benefit to the firm - it should operate with its citizens in mind. The very premise of government favouring business over livelihoods has inspired the populist backlash we see today. The points-based system seeks to reverse this trend. 

Allowing UK citizens to be “priced out” of the labour market, is simply not sensible for a government to allow, particularly in a nation with a large pre-existing welfare budget. Moreover, the macroeconomic advantages of a rising wage rate, particularly with those low-income households who have a high propensity to consume (as opposed to sending money back to the country from which they came, something that is common practice amongst economic migrants) are simple. An increase to consumption, ceteris paribus, an increase in Aggregate Demand, as well as the accelerator effects this will have, this is a benefit to the nation on the whole, all whilst increasing the wages of the nation’s worst off. 

Yet not all arguments can be won on economic terms, immigration is a moral issue also. The article above posed the question: is it moral to deny someone the chances to choose where they want to work study and raise their family? 

The answer of course to this question is that yes, it is absolutely okay to do just that. 

Hypothetically speaking, I would certainly like to be a partner at Goldman Sachs, making millions of pounds each year. I also want to live in a 15 million-pound Kensington townhouse with a large Country pile to reside in on the weekends. Oh and a private island for the bank holidays wouldn’t be too bad. I could go on.

Now for me to claim that my lack of these things, is in some way “immoral” would be ludicrous. But by using this logic, as I don’t have the ability to work and choose where I want to live, I’m in some way I am the victim of immorality. This is a fact of life, we are all born different, whether that be parental wealth, the physical characteristics we possess, or our natural intelligence. The country in which we are born is no different. Just because someone is disadvantaged it does not make it immoral to deny them free roam of the world for this would cause more issues than it seeks to solve.

Crucially, the UK will continue taking asylum seekers – those fleeing war or conflict will retain their path to citizenship.  

A further point of contention I had with the proposition was the statement that there was no such thing as British culture! This is frankly untrue. The global prominence and recognisability of British culture is almost unrivalled, equally so, the local culture of different regions is one of true pride amongst their respective constituents.

To claim this would remain unchanged as a result of mass immigration is equally untrue: It is clear that it would. The difference in population make up affects the combined attitude of an area. Now it is not for me to say whether that is a good or a bad thing, nor where the balance would be. 

However, it is perfectly okay for one to be of the opinion that it has gone far enough and forced multiculturalism, especially when it undermines the prosperity of UK citizens, is unnecessary in Britain today. This is a benefit of a points-based system for it allows you to control immigration to a level that has the greatest benefit to the nation on the whole, including the immigrants who are yet to come. 

It is clear that the points-based system is the answer, for it allows the UK economy, and hence our livelihoods, to reside in perfect equilibrium. 

Not only can all of the positives of immigration still be attained while maintaining the control necessary to reduce the disadvantages, but low-income UK households will be the largest beneficiaries. As a result, the economy, and the countries conscience as a whole, will be better off. All this while being a fair and transparent system that objectively ranks and sorts those looking to enter the UK.

Not only is the points-based system a fit one, it is the single most sensible answer to the immigration debate in the UK.