Quote note (#152)
Blasts of sanity on immigration from Ed West (snippetized):
Even if the number of British emigrants equals the number of newcomers, there is a social cost to migration. Few argue about the social aspect because opponents of change know it feels unpleasant and racist and supporters understand it’s widely unpopular; so instead the former and latter both focus on economics and European immigration, a proxy debate of lesser importance in the long term. […] Migration statistics therefore do not necessarily reflect what people fear about migration. Firstly the question of net migration is partly irrelevant, since in one sense Britain has a problem with emigration, and the large number of highly skilled Britons leaving the country is disturbing.
… there are significant differences in migration from rich and poor countries. It would be far more useful if immigration statistics were broken down into movement from developed, developing and less developed countries. As I have previously stated, there is no such thing as an ‘immigrant’, and lumping them together makes no logical sense. […] … Immigration from Germany is an economic benefit and brings virtually zero social cost, and the flow of movement runs both ways (more Brits are on benefits in Germany than vice versa); so why bother lumping migration from Germany in with, say, Pakistan or Bangladesh where migration is almost entirely one-way and the risk of ghettoisation and other social costs is high[?]
… the social cost is underplayed because much of the Conservative Party belongs to a sort of Utopian Right on migration, believing what matters is whether an immigrant (economically) contributes to the country. […] Actually what matters is what his or her children and grandchildren do, since this is where the problems of alienation really begin. …