The politics of immigration

Don’t mess

David Cameron thinks that tough talk on immigration will boost the Conservative Party’s fortunes. He is probably wrong

See article

Readers' comments


david denton

over the last 3 years of austerity there has been a shift to the right, whereas in most of Europe the shift has been the other way. Only 40% voted Tory or UKIP in the 2010 general election compared to 46% of voters now declaring an intention to vote Tory or UKIP. This is an important development and one which could save or destroy David Cameron's leadership hopes in 2015.


One should always ask is immigration policy a means to an end or the end itself.

If every countries and cities are all melting pots with similar demography, what then would be the purpose of having so many countries on earth.

I doubt politicians are altruistic in their goal of making humanity finally become One with Everything.

More down to earth explanation would be they need the numbers to foot the taxes and social security.

So how do you draw the line, the British will have to ask themselves what is Britishness


The country is going to hell in a handbasket and instead of focusing on the fact that we have the wrong economic policies, a broken social elevator, an underclass of hopelessly uneducated drunk youths, we instead focus in the half a million immigrants from Poland who come here mostly to find a job and make a better life for themselves.

Little wonder Cameron welcomes this debate. It distracts the public from his very real failures.

Slithy Toves in reply to environmentalist

I can think of loads of British people with which I'd do a direct swap with the same number of hardworking Poles. But that isn't the point. It's how colossal the scale of immigration has been over recent years.

As I pointed out in a post earlier, the number arriving in the British Isles over the past four years has been greater in total than almost the last thousand year combined. It sounds bonkers, but it's for real.

If that doesn't scare you witless, nothing will.

environmentalist in reply to Slithy Toves

>> But that isn't the point. It's how colossal the scale of immigration has been over recent years.

However large it might be this is still far from the most pressing problem that the UK faces today. There is no good reason to focus on this ahead of, for example, the wrong economic policies or the large underclass of white-as-bread British youths.

However there are two other reasons why some choose to focus on immigration at this point: (1) as a diversionary tactic and (2) racism.

Slithy Toves in reply to environmentalist

"I hear ya", as they say. And I agree that it isn't the most pressing problem that the UK faces today... it's the most pressing one it's going to face tomorrow. I mean, where do you stop: 75 million? 90 million?

Moreover, I concur that the focus for some is either racism or diversion. But not me. Neither. Not now or ever.


David Cameron is the emblematic face of the new British era of mediocrity, double talk, political correctness, wimpy and irresolute attitudes towards the meaning of Great Britain.
His piece in the Wall Street Journal today that talks about "fairness" and "visibility" in reference to taxes and regulation sends a shill down my spine. Those are always code words for liberal government expansion and intrusion in the private lives of their people's.
It would be better for Britain to elect an all-out socialist who doesn't pretend what he believes in than a weasel that can bring socialist policies with subterfuges.

David Cameron is destroying the Conservative Party and the meaning of conservatism - along with the meaning of "Great" Britain.


The editors of the economist seem to live in a world of their own. They recognize that racial and ethnic groups all over the world want "ethnic self-determination", meaning to exersize control over their own patch of land. The white ethnic populations of Europe are right to be angry about being overrun by nonwhite immigrants from the 3rd world, and they have a perfect right to end immigration, if they so vote. No country has an OBLIGATION to admit immigrants. We white Americans are growing very angry about being transformed into a racial minority, in the nation founded by our ancestors. Sooner or later, some white English politician is going to find the guts to look the nation in the eye and tell them bluntly, "take your pick-end immigration, or see your race bred out of existence"
Sound like hysterical exaggeration? The Koreans have exactly the same worry about their own low birth rates and rising immigration of non-Koreans. Japanese, Jewish Israeli's and others, worry about the survival and biological vitality of "their people".
This is a universal human emotion. It is totally in keeping with the facts of biology and evolution. Wanting to see their "tribe" continue is part of people wanting personal survival. Ignore it at your peril.

thesceptic in reply to guest-woaaisi

Just a cautionary comment. You might want to go easy on the "we white Americans" bit when it comes to immigration topics. Somebody might take you up on it, and ask you to go back to where you (your ancestors) came from - which is certainly not the United States...

marting456 in reply to guest-woaaisi

It's funny how the media portrays only whites as racists. It's impossible to immigrate to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait and if you are a foreign worker there you are basically a slave. I knew someone from Brunei who was third generation there and still without a citizenship. The non-European countries with some money make it impossible to immigrate there. The only exception I know about is Singapore.

JHuston87 in reply to thesceptic

Don't confuse North America with the United States. Whites may not be indigenous to the land, but they ARE native to the civilization that's been built on it, which wouldn't exist if Europeans hadn't settled there, established the United States and made it what it is. So go ahead and "ask" the 200 million white Americans to go back to where their ancestors came from. They're already there.

JHuston87 in reply to thesceptic

Thank you. Despite my “ingenous” argument, you still clearly don’t get it, so I’ll elaborate:

The United States is a country, and as such it’s defined by the people who comprise it, more than by anything else. The legal, economic, and cultural foundations (and enduring qualities, reflecting the fact that whites have been the overwhelming majority of its society for over 300 years) of the US are distinctly European in origin, which makes white Americans the living embodiment of its history and culture and very identity. You can’t tell them to leave the United States, because they ARE the United States. New immigrants can help to define the country’s identity further; so anyone with roots in the US going back 200 years can claim something similar, after they’ve integrated and the history of their family has become one with the history of the United States. You’re the one implying that Amerindians are the only ones who can rightfully claim the country as their home.

I hope that clarifies.

thesceptic in reply to JHuston87

Your new comment is not ingenous, it is downright stupid and racist. You completely and totally deny the existence of the native Americans who absolutely DID emigrate to the US. You also seem to be under the impression that only white Americans embody the US history and culture.

If you cannot see and accept how ridiculous your argument is, lets not bother continuing the conversation.

I would also be curious to see how many of the white Americans (and all the other Americans as well, but you seem to think the US is only white) you refer to who do not have roots going back "200 years or so" feel that they are somehow "lesser" Amercians.

JHuston87 in reply to thesceptic

First of all, it's "ingenious", not "ingenous".
Second, you'll notice in my first response that I clearly stated that whites are not indigenous to the Americas, which is an acknowledgement of the existence of Native Americans; and I don't know what you mean by stating that those Native Americans "emigrated" (perhaps you "immigrated"?) to the US. They were already there when whites arrived.
Third, I did NOT claim that ONLY whites embody US history and culture. What I DID state were historical facts, specifically that white Americans laid the foundations of the country and have sustained and defined it for over three centuries, more than any other group has, and are therefore the last ones to be accused of not having roots in the US. Again, you're the one who implied that Amerindians are the only ones who can rightfully claim the country as their home, which makes YOU the bigot.
Fourth, the 200-year quantity is something that you came up with, not I. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has integrated into US society or who identifies with the US is American, be they first-generation or fifteenth-generation.

Wilhelm Röpke

I did not know that Mr Cameron is of German descent. That is a quite interesting.
Always Immigration comes up if the economy drops. As long it is running well, foreign workers are welcomed. By far more interesting is that some of the immigrants do not assimilate in the UK. Is that true or only a feeling? I supposed that this cannot be any problem for the UK since I was convinced that the UK is able to tell what is awaited of immigrants if they would like to stay.
What is the experience of those immigrants living in the UK in the second or third generation? Are there any data available that those speak English fluently and achieve a good graduation?
Well, I ask because the anglophone system of immigration is seen, from outside, as superior to its counterparts around the world.
Second question is: why is this topic on the rise now? Is that a theoretical debate or one on with concrete issues for the British people?
From outside, a picture is completing showing the UK is going to shut itself away.
It is that mix of speaking though on immigration, foreign people and parallel (the UK) turning its back to the continent.
Thx for letting me have your view.

Aethelbald in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

Actually, the Queen is the German descendant in question. She's a Saxe-Coburg.

Any international reputation that the UK has regarding immigration must be because it has been slightly less ugly than the Germans and their Turks, slightly less blinkered than the French and their Arabs, and slightly less totally bonkers than the Americans and their Mexicans. Now, if true, that's a pretty good record, except for one thing: It doesn't end well.

For example, if you're an unemployed programmer and you see a bus-load of foreign programmers disembarking into a large local high-tech employer each morning, would you feel that it was a concrete issue? Soon other buses will be coming, and these will be full of foreign accountants, and different kinds of foreign engineer.

Ultimately, anyone in the UK who is investing in their education and skills is currently at significant risk of being dispossessed of their cerebral capital by foreigners who are brought in primarily for the benefit of the rich. It's a form of robbery.

Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Aethelbald

Thanks for your answer.

Actually I checked both and both were somehow of German decesantant.
That is quite surprising. Never thought that the Windsor are so closely linked to Germany. I heart Philip speaking German and I was very surprised how fluent his German is.

Well, Germany went through a similar situation. Many jobs were outsourced to Eastern Europe or to Asia. New factories were built somewhere else. Many Germans (and from other origin) lost their workplace.

Germany invited people from Turkey to Germany. As "Gastarbeiter" they have stayed in Germany though. But they were supposed to go back sooner or later. However, the "Gastarbeiter" were not the problem. The problems came later in the second, third or fourth generation of the Gastarbeiter. The children of the "Gastarbeiter" speak German miserably. Few of them achieve higher education.
That is an highly explosive mix.

The key for success (in Germany) is to be fluent in German. So I wonder if the immigrants of the following generations behave similarly in the UK? In Germany we face the most problems with immigrants (Turkey and Arabs) in the second, third and fourth generation. Most of them refuse to assimilate and to integrate into the German society. And there is a further phenomenon. The good educated leave Germany and go back to their country of origin, e.g Turkey.

On the other hand I do believe that higher barriers will not help the UK or any other country on the long run. I am convinced that the UK and e.g. Germany, must take on the "battle" with its competitors. But it is necessary that minimum social standards are set and observed. That is what globalisation lacks.
Any further competition downwards must be stopped and avoided.

carl65 in reply to Aethelbald

I have my own problems with immigrants flooding into my (former) employer's office - except they were British and Irish "working holiday makers" who were prepared to work for half the pay on 457 visas in Australia. Indeed, Western Australia has in excess of 25% of its population are British immigrants. If you count those (such as myself) descended from British and other immigrants you are left with only the couple of percent indigenous population. Beware of casting the first stone, lest you find yourself having to find housing, jobs and social services for a few hundred million repatriated British emigrants and their offspring.

Enders Shadow

Whilst the experience of London is that the British melting pot is working well, it is often argued that the northern cities whose textile industries have disappeared and who have not, like Manchester, found alternative jobs, are ghettoised. The article is badly London-centric in its optimism; please check out Blackburn and Bradford before being so optimistic.

FriedmanSowell in reply to Enders Shadow

As someone living in Yorkshire i can confirm this, plenty of ghetto areas in the cities and towns particularly west yorkshire. Looking at the 2011 census would seem to suggest the London 'melting pot' is creating some ghetto areas too, the 2022 census will certainly be interesting.

Slithy Toves in reply to FriedmanSowell

"the 2022 census will certainly be interesting"

Change the word "interesting" to the term "mind bogglingly terrifying" and I'm in agreement. The only conceivable end point for immigration on the scale we are now seeing is ghettoization. For a melting pot you need more pot than stuff going into it.


I find it annoying the double standards and hypocrisy of some people, especially those who have had higher education and should know better than to stereotype and belittle people with their 'I'm better than you attitude'. The man in the photo, may or not be what many of you are thinking, he may be a 'skinhead' racist, he might just happen to fit your description of a thug but that doesn't make it true. Just as when racist brits see an arab or pakistani and assume all the negative ideas of immigration, islam and terrorism ect. That arab could be an atheist and an employer, please have one standard to fit all otherwise you're no better than any racist who does the same.
As for immigration in Britain, Maybe some voters are looking at it in a totally different way to how we, as readers of the economist do. I mean I'm guessing all of us on this website are interested in economics and so we see immigration for its potential to aid growth and bring in world talent. But just maybe, those that are concerned with immigration are thinking of negative aspects that we cannot ignore indefinitely. I know some deluded self righteous 'liberals' love to boast about diversity and multiculturalism even without any facts to support them but yes I believe there are some serious issues that will at some point greatly effect Britain if not sooner rather than later. Britain is an Island, and is smaller than france and yet thinks it can support mass immigration and almost copy America in a way, we simply cannot. At what population would we be overcrowded and it start to effect our standard of living and squeeze resources and living space to unbearable levels? I'm not sure but I wouldn't like to wait to find out. Would we like the UK to reach 70 million people? 75? 80? where do we draw the line? I don't think we can, but what we can do is reduce mass immigration considerably. I like having people from all around the world, and bringing talent from all around this planet is great...for Britain, but what about the undeveloped countries that these doctors, scientists came from? draining talent from these places is not really any help to them just as it wouldn't be for Britain if it was drained from there. And then there is one other point I will mention, the 2011 census showed that some cities are starting to become less than half white British, at what point do most see this as negative to our society? when the first major city is 30% white British? 20%? I have heard some argue that it is pay back for being a former colonial power, as if all white Britons are to be punished for things other brits did before their life time, what a disgusting thing to say, I wouldn't punish the German people for the Nazis and certainly wouldn't wish them to be out populated by immigrant groups for it. Lets have immigration at a sustainable level that brings the positive aspects but lessens the future negatives.

Slithy Toves in reply to FriedmanSowell

I like your post. But the fellow in the picture fits a stereotype which TE has exploited (using a sub text which says... "if you disagree with immigration you must be one of these").

And, seriously, tattoos on the neck aren't exactly the sign of an upstanding member of the Chipping Sodbury Women's Institute.

FriedmanSowell in reply to Slithy Toves

I agree with you although I do know of at least some people that have tattoos on the neck and arms that are middle class with a gentle and friendly personality. I have seen plenty of people stereotype others who are concerned with immigration as tattooed intimidating and xenophobic but there is a lot of genuinely normal people who vote for parties like UKIP and to belittle them as being a bunch of EDL protesters or the national front is just silly.

James Yarwood in reply to FriedmanSowell


Given that he could not spell 'Britain' (his tattoo reads 'Britian'), I am tending towards 'barely literate racist' rather than 'tolerant, upstanding citizen'.


People are not always who they seem.

The Black person on the tube is of course a Danish citizen on a shopping trip, while the oriental person pulling pints in a bar is Spanish, who will return to Spain for the tourist season. It stands to reason that the gentleman in your photo must a Bulgarian actor/opera singer/ballet dancer.

I just made these up. Let's not draw conclusions from appearances, your photo is pandering to the prejudice that big guys with shaven heads and tattoos are racist.


It seems to me that the UKIP are like the Tea party, here today and gone tomorrow.
And the tories are like the Republicans , withering away very slowly


Two places I have been to in the last six months.
At the beginning of winter, I went to see the Tenement museum in NY .the place is a caudron of multiculturalism. It is an existing melting pot of cultures.
Entrepreneurial skills there are changing the city constantly.
In fact they tell me that throughout the city,some 48% of businesses are owned by migrants.
The place is full of puerto ricans, Indians, Pakistanis, Jews, east Europeans, some north Europeans (they are feeling the punch of low birth rates)
African Americans, etc etc etc.
I found that the people with the best sense of humor are the African Americans.
Then a few weeks ago I went to Cambridge University.
In the laboratory of molecular biology, I was given the illustrated booklet of the 14 Noble prize winners in that department alone.
That is a bigger number then we have ever had in my country's history(Australia)
Just one department. Something to be proud of.
All except one were immigrants or refugees from outside the UK.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Slithy Toves

I think it slightly mendacious of TE to use an image of someone shaven-headed and patently nationalistic in the header.

Britain certainly has its oddballs and downright nasty racists, but, on the whole, it is a pleasingly obliging "live and let live" kind of place. The worry about immigration, however, is completely justified. Why?

Because there have been more immigrants to the UK since 2010 than the entire period from 1066 to 2009. If that isn't cause for concern (on a small island which is already under strain) then you can only be delusional.

kscUwyWrnA in reply to Slithy Toves

Unfortunately providing a link to a website that also states this ludicrous statistic and doesn't provide a source doesn't make it any less BS. Really if you want to make an argument against immigration there are plenty of real statistics and arguments to use. Otherwise it totally destroys any credibility in your argument.

Slithy Toves in reply to kscUwyWrnA

First, Migration Watch are probably the go to organisation if you want facts and figures about the subject. And why would they publish a stat that could be picked to pieces by a tea boy at The Guardian? Second, if you had bothered to look at their "history of" page you would have seen that they do cite references.

As for the esteemed journalist David Goodhart (a lefty, by the way) I cannot provide sources. But I'm sure he might furnish you with some if you ask nicely.

This from the ONS is also interesting "In 2011 13 per cent (7.5 million) of usual residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK; in 2001 this was 9 per cent (4.6 million)." Now bear in mind that the numbers arriving in the UK up until the 1990's was in tens of thousands, and less still before then, and you can see how maths does the job for you.

Mark Zieg

> a discrepancy between what people say to pollsters and politicians and how they vote

Part of that discrepancy may lie in which issues voters actually believe politicians capable / willing of acting upon.

For instance, imagine I have three hot-button issues (immigration, jobs, and war). I may feel equally strongly on all three issues. However, I may have a historical sense that regardless of what politicians say, they're not actually going to do anything substantive about immigration whether or not they obtain office. Therefore, I may vote primarily on the other two issues, because the first, though important, is perceived as ultimately unobtainable.


Does that tattoo read "Pride of Britian"?

Dr Lou

A point typically missed in these so referenced immigration debates on both sides of the Atlantic is that immigration by itself is far less pivotal or primary than is repeatedly inferred.

Groups like Ukip in Britain, Golden Dawn in Greece and 'Tea Party' composites in the US are hardly cause for change. They are, for the most part, little more than symptoms of the rising frustration, disconnect and political disorientation. Some of their respective elements are openly parasitic as they do little more than feed on and continue to irritate the politic in order to provide still more direct sustenance but without ever giving back anything or making any kind of real contribution.

Most assuredly, there is core bias, racism, prejudice and false nationalism at play in each of these examples. There are citizens of each country for whom immigration has become a cause and overriding obsession. And while each of these groups have core 'crazies,' many others who have handed over their votes are honest and sincere citizens who are far more understandably angry, frustrated and disoriented than racist or intolerant.

More important is that rather than being repeatedly viewed as an issue onto itself, immigration might be more seen as the proverbial 'canary in the coal mine.'

That is, there has been a long recurring focus on immigration and immigrants across the last several centuries on both sides of the Atlantic as each successive wave hits the respective shores which closely tracks the existing economic stability, job access and other social upheavals (as in during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. and Britain).

Today's immigration 'crisis,' then, is nothing new. What would be new and enormously helpful, however, would be to respond to the immigration debates with an enhanced sense of reality based on a better and more accurate understanding of their history and context.

Immigration and immigrants have once again become the bogeyman. That is; send them all back to where they came from and the world will realign. Stupid politics will end, economic political malfeasance will modify, naturally occurring social change will realign, a 'way of life' will be recovered, good jobs will be had, lost entitlement will return, schools and health will improve.

But, as has always been the case, it is a false line still too often gladly nurtured by cowardly politicians.

With social and economic stability framed by shared and accessible goals for a better and more stable life, populations become increasingly and naturally mixed as resentment reduces and jingoism is drawn back. Above all, even the perception that social and economic stability is obtainable and real seems to take the edge off of immigration as a core issue in and of itself.

Then, there are the reams of dishonest and disingenuous politicians who similarly use...and wantonly misuse...immigration and immigrants to deflect from their own ineffectiveness and cowardice; from their own economic mismanagement and disconnect and towards their own next reelection campaign and fund raising letters.

With honest attention to economic stability; with stable access to resources as competent schools and reliable health care; with a focus on employment and coherent management of the national budgets (for starters), groups like Ukip, Golden Dawn and 'Tea Party' affiliates would largely dissemble back into the historical cycle leaving only the most base political parasites still screaming into the wind.

And this, too, has long been a feature of national historical and social cycles!

Cameron and politics have been gamed. Colluding on the false premise that a root cause of it all is immigration is little more than a self-serving political ploy and standing delusion that further degrades the political discourse. It is also far easier than interpreting the data accurately for the purpose of doing the work which needs to be done since that would be most difficult to explain at the next fund raiser.

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to Dr Lou

I would have condensed this to this bit:


That was brilliant.


This article is correct that Cameron talking about immigration is a waste of time, the reason is because the people do not believe a word he says.

The only way he can win the immigration argument with UKIP is to cut immigration drastically and kick out immigrants that have been convicted.

Then he take on UKIP with actions speak louder than words.


Britain is open for business, provided you fill in 15 forms and we poke you in the eye with a stick.


I`m an immigrant married to a British citizen and I can tell that most people here arent that racist as the UKIP believe, quite the contrary, Britons are very tolerant in my view. But I`m quite against low skilled immigrants who don`t see anything good about the UK but the money and who dont struggle to speak English. If you try hard you can achieve full integration into British life, I can tell that from my own experience. but voting UKIP because you hate too many immigrants( yes, there are lots of immigrants but most here do work hard!)and the EU ( although I strongly agree it needs deep reforming and that can be achieved)is just sheer stupidity.

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to guest-lwmoiea

Americans have the same concerns about non-assimilators. It is worth looking at the data, though. In the US, the typical worry is that the new comers will never learn the language or remain low skilled. Despite these concerns, it appears to be unfounded concern, as in the US, anyway, the next two generations learn the language and improve their skills for the most part.

BentoBoy in reply to Damn Dirty Ape

I am American, I can assure you the ONLY non-assimilators are Spanish surnamed Latin Americnas. They are a tremendously proud, proud people, and they regard the USA as an extension of the UK, the bitter, hated historic rivals of the former big (but not great in any way) Spanish empire. It is tremendously humiliating for them to have to pay their life savings and risk their lives to make all-out desperate attempts to have to sneak into the country of their perceived hated rivals to be able to live decent lives. So they force their way into the USA , all proud and defiant, refusing to speak the language of their perceived rivals, refusing to give their kids American names, waving foreign flags all over the USA, refusing to acknowledge the English created the USA, smuggling $40 billion out of the USA every year, booing USA international sporst teams, trying desperately to force the Spanish language on the USA....

Ash Bhalla in reply to BentoBoy

Given that the dominance of the Caucasian in the US is based on the subjugation of Native peoples, it seems rather strange that you object to the import of Spanish/Latin American culture into the USA. English is as foreign to your shores as Spanish. You sir, are yourself a descendent of the kind of immigration to which you so strenuously object.

Added to this I might remind you that the US government observes that immigration from Latin American countries is today at "zero-growth" - i.e. the numbers arriving and returning are equal.

Fortunately for an entire swathe of people such as yourself, there was time when the message on te Statue of liberty had some meaning: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Today, US immigration laws are completely antiquated (c. 1920) and have nothing to do with the global workplace that exists today.

The world is not changing, it has changed, and residents of wealthy nations that have traditionally dominated world politics and therefore the world economy need to wake-up to that fact and adapt - perhaps they could take a lesson from the immigrants they seem to detest.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

