Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Immigration, limitation of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

This debate looks at the harms and the benefits of immigration and is a very emotive subject in many countries. Levels of immigration vary greatly from country to country and the models used differ vastly, so the clearest debates will probably focus on one country or will look at the principle that immigration does more harm than good. It may make more sense within a particular jurisdiction to debate relaxing the immigration laws.

These arguments are focused on economic migration with an assumption that a country will fulfil its duty to take asylum seekers.

Pros

[1] High levels of immigration damage the cohesiveness of communities. Current citizens feel that their culture and way of life is under threat. Different languages, dress and religion emphasise the ’otherness’ of immigrants and lead to divided communities. This in turn increases crime and anti-social behaviour and decreases civic participation and volunteering, as people feel as if they have less of a stake in their country.

[2] Immigrants pose an economic threat to existent citizens. Skilled immigrants coming from abroad reduce the need to invest in domestic training in professions such as medicine and engineering. In both skilled and unskilled work, there is a risk of wage deflation as immigrants undercut domestic workers. In times of unemployment, immigrants may take jobs which would otherwise go to citizens.

[3] High levels of immigration put a strain on the infrastructure of the host nation. Housing and schools can suffer in particular. In areas of high immigration, there is often a shortage of school places, and the schools have to work harder to accommodate many different languages within the school population.

[4] The perception of immigration can be worse than the reality, but this still leads to resentment and less fulfilled citizens with high levels of prejudice. Many people believe that immigrants have taken their jobs, their places on housing waiting lists or their child’s school place. Others blame immigrants for crime and feel unsafe in their neighbourhood. Whether or not this is true, the perception in itself leads to unhappiness.

[5] Immigration is damaging to the home countries that lose their talent abroad. Brain drain is particularly serious in areas such as medicine, education and science and technology where those trained individuals could have made a real difference to the development of their nation had they stayed.

[6] Immigrants themselves do not always find the better lives they dreamed of. They may find that language barriers or unrecognised qualifications mean that they have to take lower-status work than they had expected, or they may not be able to find work at all. They may be forced into illegal labour where they are badly treated or end up on the streets. Even immigrants who do find work may be unhappy due to the unwelcoming response of the country and the problems with balancing two cultures.

Cons

[1] Immigration leads to vibrant communities where different cultures rub up against each other and make everyone’s lives fuller. Areas such as cuisine and the arts benefit hugely from the ’melting pot’ which immigration produces, which is why cities such as London and New York are so exciting.

[2] Immigration leads to the economic growth of a country and all citizens share the benefits of this. Many Western countries have ageing populations and need young immigrants to balance out their demographics. Often immigrants are doing work which others do not wish to do, or they may be filling skills gaps within a country. Everybody should be grateful to the doctors and teachers who immigrate to their countries and keep their services running.

[3] If the country’s economy is growing due to immigration, then the government should be able to invest in its infrastructure, building more schools, hospitals and houses and therefore promoting more growth; it is a virtuous cycle. Immigrants pay taxes which fund the services they use.

[4] We need to tackle prejudice, rather than immigration itself. Political parties should not target immigration for easy votes and the media should be responsible in their coverage of the issue. If the government focuses on improving public services, keeping employment levels high and the streets safe, then people will not need a scapegoat. Many citizens are themselves the descendants of immigrants and are now fully integrated and accepted. There is no reason why perceptions should not be altered.

[5] Many countries rely on the income which is generated abroad by those who emigrate. Somebody who is working as a cleaner in the West may be able to support their extended family by sending their wages home. The exchange of ideas which immigration promotes can also lead to increasing pressure for better human rights and a more democratic society.

[6] Immigrants can make their own decisions about whether they benefit from immigration and if they decide they do not, then they are free to leave. Most do not as they find in their new home a better standard of living, more freedom, more opportunities and ways to support their families.

Possible motions

This House would shut the door to immigrants.

This House believes that affluent nations should accept significantly more immigrants.

This House believes that immigration does more harm than good.

Related topics

Should Britain leave the EU?

Welfare state