Ignore their orders, destroy all borders
Sheraz Qureshi puts forwards some facts and destroys some myths
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 Europes 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.
People who are opposed to immigration often argue that countries that
loose people suffer because of brain drain. We argue this isnt
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?
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 arent 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 wed 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 dont 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 isnt 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 theyre 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