WHO GAINS MOST FROM MASS IMMIGRATION?
pdf link: Eurofacts Vol. 13, No. 7, (pp3,4), published 11 January 2008
In seeking to prove its compassion Britain’s political elite has actually failed those it says that it wants to help.
The enthusiasm of politicians for mass immigration is not only a UK or even EU phenomenon. While all three British political parties in their 2005 election manifestos insisted that mass immigration was beneficial to native Britons, exactly the same message was given by President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers in their report of 20th June 2007.
Its chairman, Edward P. Lazear, stated: “Our view of economic research finds immigrants not only help to fund the nation’s economic growth but also have an average positive effect on the income of native-born workers”. It is doubtful, however, whether either President Bush or the current Labour government sincerely believes this. President Bush’s failed Immigration Reform Bill attempted to skew immigration towards those with higher skills but controversially proposed an amnesty for many current illegal immigrants.
Step towards Sanity
On 4th December Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, announced that unskilled immigrants from outside the EU would now be banned from entering the UK. Yet, previously the government had argued strenuously that unskilled immigrants were advantageous to British citizens. In its evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee the Home Office stated that “migrant workers complement the existing workers”.
The move to argue that only higher skilled migrants benefit natives is at least a step towards sanity - but EU membership has frustrated the proper application of this principle. The British government’s position can now be summarised in the following way: unskilled immigrants from Eastern Europe - good, unskilled immigrants from outside the EU - bad.
While this may represent an advance on the previous position it should also be noted that there will still be substantial lower-skilled migration via family reunion, asylum-seeking and student entry. Although the UK is not legally bound by the common immigration and asylum policy of the EU (except where it has opted in) this move is in tandem with Franco Frattini’s proposed Directive on the admission of highly skilled workers to the EU, announced on 23rd October 2007. This is an interesting conjunction.
Intellectual Foundations
Previously the stance of the major British political parties together with that of their counterparts in the USA and the EU appeared to reflect a desire to win the approval of the liberal elite in academia and the media. In seeking to demonstrate its compassion to this group it missed the opportunity to lay the intellectual foundation of policies based on a real understanding of the likely impact of mass unskilled immigration on the workforce at large and those at the bottom of the economic ladder in particular. It is this latter group - i.e. those with the lowest incomes and least capital - which are likely to experience the greatest impact; ironically, its members are largely those who formed part of previous waves of immigration. In short, we appeared to have arrived at a situation where the Western political establishment has convinced itself of its own compassion while in practice impoverishing those it professes to be compassionate towards.
It now looks as though immigration in general, and particularly mass illegal immigration, is on its way to be the defining issue of the 2008 US presidential election. This follows Hillary Clinton’s blunder in announcing support for granting driving licences to illegal immigrants and then ‘clarifying’ matters by saying that she was against the idea. She would have found this was unpopular even with blacks if she had checked: the George Mason Poll of Black Virginia in June 2007 showed 81 percent of black Virginians wanted local police to check the immigration status of all traffic offenders, for example; it also demonstrated the existence of a whole range of ‘incorrect’ attitudes among the black population.
The recent debate in Florida between the five leading Republican contenders revolved around immigration with both Giuliani and Romney back-pedalling on their previous support for illegal immigrants. To the irritation of the elite the issues it would most liked to have talked about - Kyoto, other ‘green’ issues and the Iraq war - figured less prominently.
Voters’ Concerns
In this way, American democracy is now responding to voters concerned about the massive downward pressure on the wages of poor Americans and the deteriorating infrastructure and social life in blue-collar areas. The September 2006 issue of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that over the last 25 years wages for the lowest paid US workers were down 20 per cent. An Internal Revenue report in October 2007 showed that the US’s top one per cent increased their share of total income to 21 per cent while the bottom 50 per cent earned just 12.8 percent of total income. While there is no doubt that globalization is part of the explanation, mass immigration -which our Home Office rightly tells us is similar in economic effect to globalization - is a major factor.
However, one should not exaggerate the responsiveness of American politicians to public concerns over immigration, since the political class remains largely in thrall to the Washington/New York liberal elite, a group whose incomes insulate its members from the pressures facing ordinary Americans. Moreover, this group of course benefits from cheaper servants, waiters, plumbers, etc. (50 per cent of US senators are reputed to be millionaires). Hence the position on immigration of Romney/Giuliani during the last few years.
The situation is complicated by the fact of Trojan horses within the communities worse affected by mass immigration. Typical examples are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who publicly argue for unrestricted immigration. In the past more thoughtful black American leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Philip Randolph and Booker T. Washington, regarded mass immigration as a threat to black prosperity and wrote extensively on the subject. While many civil rights leaders support illegal aliens and amnesty, many African-Americans believe they do so as “partisan Democrats” (and think that mass illegal immigration has been a major impediment to black advancement over the past quarter of a century.
Similar Pattern
A similar pattern can be discerned in the UK. The ruling Westminster elite looks to representatives of the black elite such as Trevor Philips or Darcus Howe, and assumes they accurately represent black opinion. Writing in the New Statesman on 3rd December 2007 Darcus Howe supported recent mass immigration from Eastern Europe on the bizarre grounds that “Many of the young workers are domestic workers… who lessen the burden of middle class working women” and “the cost of refurbishing houses and building new ones has fallen spectacularly”. It is easy to see why a middle-class homeowner or a landlord in need of cheap domestic servants might benefit from mass immigration; there is plenty of reason to doubt whether the average West Indian or Bangladeshi sees the matter in quite the same light.
The distinguished Harvard economist George Borjas has explained why blacks and previous immigrants suffer most from the new wave of mass immigration: “It turns out that African-Americans are likely to lose from immigration for two different reasons. First, it is employers who receive the bulk of the benefits from immigration (Blacks own about three per cent of the capital stock of the US while proportionately they constitute rather over ten per cent of the US population). Because blacks and immigrants are relatively more similar than whites and immigrants (in economic characteristics) any adverse impact of immigration on competing workers will fall hardest on the population of native-born African-Americans”.
Cheap Labour
Exactly the same is true of the UK. Take the Bangladeshi community. National average wages for Bangladeshis were £15,000 according to a recent IPPR report (£18,000 in London). This is about 60 per cent of average UK earnings. Plainly Bangladeshis are most in competition with cheap Eastern European labour. Similarly Bangladeshis own a disproportionately small share of capital so they do not benefit from the gains to capital arising from immigration.
Yet in recent evidence given to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee by the TUC and the Committee for Racial Equality, these central facts are completely ignored. Catholic and Anglican bishops and even the new leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, pose as compassionate liberals by favouring an amnesty for illegal immigrants - despite the obvious harmful effects on existing ethnic communities.
Financial Betterment
The increasing self-absorption and financial betterment of the British political class, its propensity to receive information only from black elites, and the fear of being thought racist has led all three political parties to ignore the effects of mass immigration on Britain’s ethnic minorities. In the USA voters are beginning to put their concerns about these matters to the politicians and the politicians are being forced to react. But at present there is no sign of the cocoon of hypocrisy surrounding British politicians being disturbed. At the EU level, which enjoys an even greater degree of insulation from the views of the voters, grandstanding in the European Parliament on ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ is a substitute for real concern about the effort of ‘liberal’ policies on existing minority communities.
The enthusiasm of politicians for mass immigration is not only a UK or even EU phenomenon. While all three British political parties in their 2005 election manifestos insisted that mass immigration was beneficial to native Britons, exactly the same message was given by President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers in their report of 20th June 2007.
Its chairman, Edward P. Lazear, stated: “Our view of economic research finds immigrants not only help to fund the nation’s economic growth but also have an average positive effect on the income of native-born workers”. It is doubtful, however, whether either President Bush or the current Labour government sincerely believes this. President Bush’s failed Immigration Reform Bill attempted to skew immigration towards those with higher skills but controversially proposed an amnesty for many current illegal immigrants.
Step towards Sanity
On 4th December Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, announced that unskilled immigrants from outside the EU would now be banned from entering the UK. Yet, previously the government had argued strenuously that unskilled immigrants were advantageous to British citizens. In its evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee the Home Office stated that “migrant workers complement the existing workers”.
The move to argue that only higher skilled migrants benefit natives is at least a step towards sanity - but EU membership has frustrated the proper application of this principle. The British government’s position can now be summarised in the following way: unskilled immigrants from Eastern Europe - good, unskilled immigrants from outside the EU - bad.
While this may represent an advance on the previous position it should also be noted that there will still be substantial lower-skilled migration via family reunion, asylum-seeking and student entry. Although the UK is not legally bound by the common immigration and asylum policy of the EU (except where it has opted in) this move is in tandem with Franco Frattini’s proposed Directive on the admission of highly skilled workers to the EU, announced on 23rd October 2007. This is an interesting conjunction.
Intellectual Foundations
Previously the stance of the major British political parties together with that of their counterparts in the USA and the EU appeared to reflect a desire to win the approval of the liberal elite in academia and the media. In seeking to demonstrate its compassion to this group it missed the opportunity to lay the intellectual foundation of policies based on a real understanding of the likely impact of mass unskilled immigration on the workforce at large and those at the bottom of the economic ladder in particular. It is this latter group - i.e. those with the lowest incomes and least capital - which are likely to experience the greatest impact; ironically, its members are largely those who formed part of previous waves of immigration. In short, we appeared to have arrived at a situation where the Western political establishment has convinced itself of its own compassion while in practice impoverishing those it professes to be compassionate towards.
It now looks as though immigration in general, and particularly mass illegal immigration, is on its way to be the defining issue of the 2008 US presidential election. This follows Hillary Clinton’s blunder in announcing support for granting driving licences to illegal immigrants and then ‘clarifying’ matters by saying that she was against the idea. She would have found this was unpopular even with blacks if she had checked: the George Mason Poll of Black Virginia in June 2007 showed 81 percent of black Virginians wanted local police to check the immigration status of all traffic offenders, for example; it also demonstrated the existence of a whole range of ‘incorrect’ attitudes among the black population.
The recent debate in Florida between the five leading Republican contenders revolved around immigration with both Giuliani and Romney back-pedalling on their previous support for illegal immigrants. To the irritation of the elite the issues it would most liked to have talked about - Kyoto, other ‘green’ issues and the Iraq war - figured less prominently.
Voters’ Concerns
In this way, American democracy is now responding to voters concerned about the massive downward pressure on the wages of poor Americans and the deteriorating infrastructure and social life in blue-collar areas. The September 2006 issue of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that over the last 25 years wages for the lowest paid US workers were down 20 per cent. An Internal Revenue report in October 2007 showed that the US’s top one per cent increased their share of total income to 21 per cent while the bottom 50 per cent earned just 12.8 percent of total income. While there is no doubt that globalization is part of the explanation, mass immigration -which our Home Office rightly tells us is similar in economic effect to globalization - is a major factor.
However, one should not exaggerate the responsiveness of American politicians to public concerns over immigration, since the political class remains largely in thrall to the Washington/New York liberal elite, a group whose incomes insulate its members from the pressures facing ordinary Americans. Moreover, this group of course benefits from cheaper servants, waiters, plumbers, etc. (50 per cent of US senators are reputed to be millionaires). Hence the position on immigration of Romney/Giuliani during the last few years.
The situation is complicated by the fact of Trojan horses within the communities worse affected by mass immigration. Typical examples are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who publicly argue for unrestricted immigration. In the past more thoughtful black American leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Philip Randolph and Booker T. Washington, regarded mass immigration as a threat to black prosperity and wrote extensively on the subject. While many civil rights leaders support illegal aliens and amnesty, many African-Americans believe they do so as “partisan Democrats” (and think that mass illegal immigration has been a major impediment to black advancement over the past quarter of a century.
Similar Pattern
A similar pattern can be discerned in the UK. The ruling Westminster elite looks to representatives of the black elite such as Trevor Philips or Darcus Howe, and assumes they accurately represent black opinion. Writing in the New Statesman on 3rd December 2007 Darcus Howe supported recent mass immigration from Eastern Europe on the bizarre grounds that “Many of the young workers are domestic workers… who lessen the burden of middle class working women” and “the cost of refurbishing houses and building new ones has fallen spectacularly”. It is easy to see why a middle-class homeowner or a landlord in need of cheap domestic servants might benefit from mass immigration; there is plenty of reason to doubt whether the average West Indian or Bangladeshi sees the matter in quite the same light.
The distinguished Harvard economist George Borjas has explained why blacks and previous immigrants suffer most from the new wave of mass immigration: “It turns out that African-Americans are likely to lose from immigration for two different reasons. First, it is employers who receive the bulk of the benefits from immigration (Blacks own about three per cent of the capital stock of the US while proportionately they constitute rather over ten per cent of the US population). Because blacks and immigrants are relatively more similar than whites and immigrants (in economic characteristics) any adverse impact of immigration on competing workers will fall hardest on the population of native-born African-Americans”.
Cheap Labour
Exactly the same is true of the UK. Take the Bangladeshi community. National average wages for Bangladeshis were £15,000 according to a recent IPPR report (£18,000 in London). This is about 60 per cent of average UK earnings. Plainly Bangladeshis are most in competition with cheap Eastern European labour. Similarly Bangladeshis own a disproportionately small share of capital so they do not benefit from the gains to capital arising from immigration.
Yet in recent evidence given to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee by the TUC and the Committee for Racial Equality, these central facts are completely ignored. Catholic and Anglican bishops and even the new leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, pose as compassionate liberals by favouring an amnesty for illegal immigrants - despite the obvious harmful effects on existing ethnic communities.
Financial Betterment
The increasing self-absorption and financial betterment of the British political class, its propensity to receive information only from black elites, and the fear of being thought racist has led all three political parties to ignore the effects of mass immigration on Britain’s ethnic minorities. In the USA voters are beginning to put their concerns about these matters to the politicians and the politicians are being forced to react. But at present there is no sign of the cocoon of hypocrisy surrounding British politicians being disturbed. At the EU level, which enjoys an even greater degree of insulation from the views of the voters, grandstanding in the European Parliament on ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ is a substitute for real concern about the effort of ‘liberal’ policies on existing minority communities.