Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Anti-immigration protestors in New York, USA – a country built from immigrants.

 Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Economically and socially speaking, in fact, really quite a lot.

---

The most common argument against open borders and free migration is one of xenophobia. People are scared of things they don’t understand; hence the belief that all Muslims are terrorists; and all Eastern Europeans are here to scrounge benefits and take from the economy.

The former belief, surrounding Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants, which is based largely on ignorance and inaccuracy (although fueled in part by the ever-reliable tabloid press), is easily debunked by simple statistics: 6% of American terror attacks are carried out by Muslims; this number drops to 2% in Europe. Terrorists make up less than 0.00009% of the global Muslim population, and 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been Muslims.

But what of the argument surrounding economic migrants: those who travel to this country to work, allegedly stealing jobs and benefits – and driving down wages – from the already squeezed British public. An ITV News poll showed that 46% of the British public felt that Eastern European migrants receive more in public services and welfare than they contribute in taxes. Only 14% expressed the opposite opinion that, in fact, hard-working migrants are a positive influence on this country.

Prof. Chris Dustmann, a leading expert in the field of immigration economics and a professor at University College London, believes these 14% are correct – immigration is economically beneficial, and he has the research to prove it. His analysis from 2007 to 2011 found that there was a huge disparity between the amount that natives and immigrants contribute to society. Developing on work from three years prior, his 2013 paper concluded that the average native person lost the state a net total of £1,900 per year. Conversely, immigrants were found to contribute a net average of £2,610 per year. Clearly, the urban myth that Eastern European workers are lazy is just that; a myth.

Michael Clemens, head of the Migration and Development initiative at the Centre for Global Development, offers an international perspective on the benefits of migration. Economically, he explains, there are two labour markets that are affected by any instance of mass migration: the country receiving workers, referred to as the host country, and the country being left behind, referred to as the country of origin. In the host country, more workers arrive. Due to the basic laws of supply and demand, an influx of workers ought to cause a sharp drop in wages – theoretically, the host country should lose out because of immigration – but this is not what economists and analysts are observing.

A negligible decline in wages is seen amongst low-skilled workers, but other areas of the labour market are unaffected, and wages sometimes appear to increase. Reasons given for this vary: some argue that the education gap between immigrants and natives mean that immigrants do not challenge natives for jobs and rather unlock new markets; others believe that immigrants can drive certain areas of the economy into a boom, and this provides new jobs for native workers. For example, mass migration from Albania to Spain in 1991, following the collapse of the communist regime in Albania, led to the expansion of the construction industry in Spain. Indeed, this revolution of contruction gave rise to a popular Spanish urban legend that the word for builder, ‘albañil’, stems from the word for an Albanian, ‘albanés’ (linguists believe it actually stems from the Arabic, بَنَّاء , meaning ‘bricklayer’).

Unlike the almost unnoticeable effect on the labour market in the host country, the country of origin sees a huge change in wages. The labour force shrinks greatly following a mass migration exodus, meaning that demand for workers rises and wages go up. The government then receives higher tax revenues from these well paid workers; this money is usually spent on infrastructure projects and public service expansions. Overall, therefore, those who stay in the country of origin receive higher wages and experience a higher quality of life than before the mass migration event.

In conclusion, immigration is beneficial both socially and economically. Socially, it challenges prejudices; antisemitism was common in Britain until the aftermath of the Holocaust forced the British to accept Jews into their society as refugees, at which point antisemitism seemed to disappear. A similar experience of acceptance and a down-beating of prejudice could hopefully occur with immigrants today. Economic consensus today rests around the shrine of the free markets, yet for some strange reason, governmental policy does not allow free movement; this is a direct contradiction. Further, allowing mass migration appears (from numerous studies) to be beneficial to all – in an interview with ITV News, Professor Chris Dustmann states that “when you take recent immigrants as a group, the country is better, not worse off”. Immigration, huh, what is it good for? Well, as it turns out, really quite a lot.

The war in the Middle East is not a new one.

 

The war in the Middle East is not a new one. 

On Wednesday 2nd December, British MPs debated late into the night about whether or not the UK should ‘go to war’ with Syria, and at 22:32 the result of their vote was announced: Britain was to bomb Syria. A new war had begun.

---

At least, that was the impression you would receive if you read any of the newspaper headlines the morning after. “It’s WAR”, screamed one, “Britain at War”, yet another. The truth is, this is not a new war. The war in the Middle East has been an issue for centuries; the First Crusade of 1096–1099 is widely viewed as the very first West vs. Middle East war. Christianity and Islam were clashing at fault-lines all across eastern Europe, so following the Muslim capture of Jerusalem Pope Urban II declared war in 1905, in order to win back the Holy Land. The war lasted three long years, and in the climax of the Crusade (the infamous Siege of Jerusalem), around 11,000 Christian soldiers and over 50,000 civilians lost their lives trying to reclaim the Holy City.

All parties were in agreement that a war of such scale should never occur again, but just over 100 years later, the states formed by the First Crusaders were crumbling. In 1150 the County of Edessa, the very first state formed by the earliest Crusaders, fell; this led to the Second Crusade, which featured a similar plot line to the first: Middle Eastern unrest; Catholic intervention; unnecessary bloodshed. History repeated itself in the Third Crusade, and by that point, the total death toll for Christian wars in the Middle East had risen to over 250,000, even by the most conservative estimates.

The West appears to have an addiction to intervention in the Middle East, and, whether you view this as good or bad, there is one absolutely vital lesson for the West to learn. Forethought. The West lacked forethought in the Gulf War – having liberated Kuwait and gained occupation of Iraq, they failed to deal with the oppressive dictator in command of the country, Saddam Hussein. The CIA believed it would be better to allow a coup d’etat to overthrow Hussein. However, due to a lack of coordination; a lack of planning; a lack of forethought; by the CIA, the coup failed and Hussein, and his regime, remained.

However, whilst Hussein had enough military power left to crush the CIA-orchestrated revolt, he could not hold on to the dog-eared corners of Iraq. A power vacuum had been created. This is viewed by many Middle Eastern commentators and historians as one of the main causes for the chaos that we see in Iraq, and, increasingly, in Syria, today. The north of Iraq has been shattered by war; the Kurds are piecing together the shards in the northeast, whilst Daesh have swept in from the west. The result is a harshly divided three-way struggle for power; a political hot potato that cannot be, and has not been, solved by air strikes alone.

Whilst Britain’s politicians clash heads over the UK’s military strategy (or, in Jeremy Corbyn’s case, why we even need a military strategy), they must keep this important lesson in mind. Air strikes, ground warfare, or a political future are nothing without forethought. Any strategy requires careful planning for the future of Syria, and, for that matter, the liberation and restructuring of Iraq. If this planning is not completed, I fear we will all be feeling a strange sense of déjà vu around 15 years into the future when this terrible mess repeats itself.