Ignore their orders, destroy all borders

Sheraz Qureshi puts forwards some facts and destroys some myths

Aging Population:
Western Europe has a low birth rate, for example Italy's is below 2.0. This means that without immigration there will be a population decrease. The reason why this is important is because without an increase in (the young taxable) population - it will not be possible to maintain current living standards within the EU. This is because as Western Europe's population ages, so the net strain on its resources will increase as more money is needed to fund pension payments and to treat various health conditions associated with old age. The status quo is that Western Europe’s native working population is decreasing as the population as a whole ages and this means that there is less tax revenue available for rising healthcare and pension costs. To restrict immigration would be to limit the tax base to ' our citizens ' only, and we argue that to do so will result in a situation whereby Britain and other Western European countries are unable to receive enough tax revenue to cover the increasing costs that they face. Increased immigration offers a solution to this crisis. This is because young migrants (e.g Polish migrants) pay taxes into the system but often leave within 5 years. This means that even though they pay tax they do not claim from the pension system, or from healthcare when they grow old - this means that Britian / Western European countries are able to make a ' net profit' on immigrants. In contrast: to limit immigration, will result in a situation where countries such as Britain cant balance their own budget, and the British have to cut back on the lifestyle they are currently used to.

Free trade / human potential
Britain has a population of 60 million people. The Global population is 6 billion. The reason why this is important is because when you expand the pool from which you recruit then you vastly increase the chances of finding someone who is best suited to the job you are marketing. This is particularly important for High tech industry (the key to western growth) because so few people are capable of making the innovations required to advance the field. It therefore makes sense to expand the pool you recruit from by as much as possible. In contrast, if you restrict migration, everybody looses. Where is the net gain in the next Bill Gates being stuck ploughing a field in Mozambique as opposed to migrating somewhere where he could make more of a difference! The point is - that by allowing people who have talent to go to areas where there is the infrastructure that allows them to make an impact, it helps contribute to global economic growth, in contrast, to restrict immigration is to argue in favour of less economic growth, less gains in industry and the U.K suffering.

Brain drain?
People who are opposed to immigration often argue that countries that loose people suffer because of brain drain. We argue this isn’t the case. Many countries have come to view people as an economic export. e.g the Philippines. This country trains more doctors then it could ever possibly need, and the reason for this, is that despite the high costs involved in training doctors, because people who leave are still emotionally invested in their country of origin and the families they have left behind - they regularly send money back; and this money is used to support families and develop infrastructure. Restricting immigration will thus cause massive harms. Where will these people go? How will economies that are dependent on money being sent back continue to develop?

The NHS:

Tax payers expect the state to provide a free universal health care system, and we argue that this would not be possible without immigrants. Why is this? Well its because there aren’t enough cleaners, nurses and doctors from within the uk to meet the demand from patients. Immigrants also make the nhs more affordable as through competition for jobs they drive down the cost for the tax payer. Without immigration, the nhs would be even costlier, and even more understaffed.

Immigrants fill job gaps
There is a lack of British people willing to do manual or ‘ dirty jobs.’ However, many Eastern European migrants are willing to do the kinds of jobs the British simply refuse to do. In this situation, it therefore makes sense to let immigrants in, we gain from having services provided to us / they gain from employment. If you restrict migration then you will soon notice it in terms of dirtier streets and increased living costs as finding a plumber or an electrician becomes harder and costlier.

Free trade = competition:
Increased immigration benefits the consumer. Why? Because with increased competition for jobs, there is a greater chance that the best person for a particular job will be employed to do that job, and hence will provide a better service.


What about Illegal immigrants?
The idea of forcibly deporting illegal immigrants is costly and impractical. The economy needs illegal immigrants to fill gaps in the jobs markets. If all illegal immigrants were to be deported we’d notice it straight away. The immigration department costs the tax payer 1.5 billion pounds a year. In downsizing it we would save the tax payer money. We would also gain extra tax revenue. The status quo is that illegal immigrants don’t pay tax. Changing legislation in this way is also the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective. Illegal immigrants often become marginalized and find themselves forced into prostitution or crime. Granting illegal immigrants citizen status would prevent this and stop these people from being exploited.

Is there enough space?

It's commonly stated by right wing press that increased immigration is impractical because there isn’t enough space. In reality – London, has less people per square mile then cities such as Tokyo or new york. If we wanted to build more homes it would be practical to do so. Further – Britain needs more housing. This would provide more jobs in construction – and it would also serve to make it easier for people to get onto the property ladder. Lots of former green field and brownfield sites have already been earmarked for development.

But they’re not British?
I believe in universal human rights, this means that I believe someone should have the right to live and work where they want regardless of where they were born. I have the right to work in London just because I happened to be born there, why should that right be denied to someone else just because they happened to be born elsewhere? Still need persuading, go away and read Bendict Andersons’ Imagined Communities

Sheraz Qureshi