AYE: Louis Williams

I have a confession to make. I am an EU dual national, who probably wouldn’t exist without the free movement of labour from my mother’s homeland of Denmark to my father’s in the UK. There really have been great benefits from immigration, but it is foolish to suggest that no one has suffered from our ‘open door’ immigration policy.

Low-skilled Britons have seen severe wage competition by EU migrants, forcing their wages down or, in some cases, pushing them out of the labour market entirely. Nigel Farage was rather apt when he said that ‘open door’ migration had turned the “minimum wage into a maximum wage”. To take one example, the Albanian minimum wage is 125.15 leke (€0.87 ), just a tenth of the UK rate of £6.50 (€8.35). Foreign workers expect less. In the face of this, it is not surprising that lower-skilled workers face significant competition and have taken their complaints to Nigel Farage’s UKIP.People in this university often complain that everyone deserves a “living wage”. Yet in the competitive labour market we currently live in, the sad reality is that such a noble hike in the minimum wage would leave vast swathes of the UK low-skilled unemployed, particularly the young.

The cut-throat competition from EU workers has released an added stress on the labour market, by ruining the incentive for firms to train workers. Why would you hire a young British worker for an engineering role who needs six months’ training, when you can hire an experienced Lithuanian engineer for the same wage? The reality of free movement of labour for many lower-skilled workers has been a deconstruction of a meaningful apprenticeship system in the UK. This is not something many of us fortunate bright sparks have to worry about with our Cambridge gold-plated CVs. But the fact is that for the past two decades, this segment of the UK population, labelled by progressives as “backwards” or by right wingers as an “underclass”, has been ignored by all mainstream parties.

The solution to this effect of globalisation from the ‘Con-Dem’ coalition has been minor palliatives, such as small boosts to apprenticeship funding. These are mere sticky plasters in comparison to the problem caused for some parts of society by ‘open door’ migration.

Labour has been little better, consigning the disengaged and isolated groups to a life on the dole with help for the working class being synonymous with high levels of benefit spending and welfarism. UKIP has finally offered this group a voice – albeit a fairly distasteful one – with some solutions akin to curing a headache by blowing your head off with a shotgun. Their policy platform has been simple. They have offered to remove those on minimum wage out of income tax (along with the Lib Dems and Tories), boost benefits for the long-term structurally unemployed, and reduce annual net migration to 50,000 by leaving the EU.

This will help transform the minimum wage back into being a minimum, not maximum, payment. They have in effect offered the ‘underclass’ an opportunity back onto the work ladder with reasonable pay, which is why Labour should be quivering in their traditional heartlands. The mainstream parties have simply come to represent the middle-class bourgeoisie (for lack of a better word).

Personally, I believe that UKIP’s immigration policies would be a disaster for the economy overall, wiping billions off the stock market and thereby hammering all our pensions (yes, since last summer’s internship I’m a pension saver too). Strict immigration controls would restrict the dynamism of our economic centre, London, as well as hitting the professional and financial services industry. This would be a big drag on growth and wages overall, yet would be likely to drive a narrowing of inequality. The reality is, UKIP policies would likely improve the living standards of those left behind by the past decades of growth and revitalise deprived communities. This new popular base is a little surprising considering that UKIP was originally borne as a Thatcherite Eurosceptic movement. But they have reinvented themselves as the true ‘One Nation Conservatives’ who are trying to care for those left behind in the golden decade of growth. The political centre needs to wake up and tackle the negative consequences of immigration, or the rise of the anti-immigrant right will triumph and free movement will end for good. We need policies such as wage subsidies, national insurance cuts and massive apprenticeship subsidies.

Ignoring UKIP will not help the situation. It is time we tried far harder to compensate those who have suffered from ‘open door’ immigration. Making loud noises outside a college formal with whistles and chants will achieve nothing productive. People should travel to Clacton, Rochester and Heywood and understand why people are feeling deprived and depressed, and understand the fears and concerns that lead people to vote UKIP in the first place. Only then can we achieve real dialogue.

NAY: Eleanor Hegarty

The aim of this article is not to deny the problems associated with huge influxes of immigrants. Of course we must regulate who enters through British borders. Completely unregulated immigration is unsafe, not to mention unsustainable. But this is not UKIP’s point on immigration. UKIP does not advise caution. In its irrational anti-immigration hysteria, UKIP paints immigration as the main source of all of Britain’s problems and proposes draconian, all-or-nothing measures – such as leaving the EU – to “take control of our borders”. Designating the immigrant community as a scapegoat for Britain’s poor economic health is dangerous. UKIP is thriving on an ignorant British general public that is only too happy to direct its frustrations and anger at the most obvious and age-old cause of all problems – the foreigners. In succumbing to this facile blame game, Britain is at risk of developing a hostile racist mentality. It is time to confront general misconceptions on immigration in order to nip this hysteria in the bud.

Immigrants abuse the nation’s benefit system. The government’s own figures show that immigrants are about half as likely to be in receipt of an out-of-work benefit as people born here. The majority of immigrants are of working age, thus they do not benefit from the bulk of public spending, which goes to pensions, health care for older people and education. Indeed, immigrants contribute to the taxes that enable the British state to support its young and elderly dependents, and help to reduce the dependency ratio. This is crucially important with Britain’s ageing society. Research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that if the UK were able to reduce net migration to tens of thousands, the long-term impact would be significantly higher taxes or reduced government expenditure.

Immigrants steal British jobs. It is true that an influx of immigrant workers increases the supply of labour. However immigrants increase the total spending within the economy. They earn and spend money, in addition to setting up businesses, thus the demand for labor increases. Furthermore, while it may be that a British person cannot take the job an immigrant has just taken, he/she can find another one that, more than likely, has been created directly or indirectly as a result of immigration.

Immigrants depress wages. The impact of immigration on wages has had mixed results. In most cases, it appears that wages are higher and jobs easier to come by in areas with high immigration (like London), while many low migration areas have relatively depressed labor markets. In some cases, wages have been pushed upwards, while in others (mainly in low-skilled employment), a downward pressure has been exerted. What is clear, however, is that the relationship between immigration and wage depression is not cause and effect. This is evident in Clacton, where wages are 20 per cent below the national average, while the proportion of people on benefits is far higher, yet the immigrant population is less than half the national average.

Despite the misconceptions, the argument in favor of immigration is a convincing one. In addition to short-term benefits, the indirect impact over the longer run will be positive. As well as generally being more productive than local workers, immigrants have different skills and experiences to native workers, so they complement rather than substitute natives. It is also worth remembering that competition – including in the labor market – leads to efficiency gains, which over time should result in increased productivity and higher wages.

UKIP’s argument that immigration is the root cause for all of Britain’s misfortunes is not only erroneous on an economic level, but is positively offensive when taken from a cultural viewpoint. Every facet of British culture – be it culinary, musical, literary or theatrical – has been influenced, and in many ways, enhanced by the contributions of the immigrant community. British authors of ethnically diverse backgrounds, such as Zadie Smith or Kazuo Ishiguro have made some of the most impressive contributions to the literary world in recent years. The world of entertainment would be significantly less vibrant without comedic heavyweights such as Richard Ayoade, Gina Yashere or Shappi Khorsandi, who draw much of their inspiration from their ethnically diverse backgrounds. And of course there are the crucial foreign influences on British gastronomy. Walking down the streets of any British town it is impossible to miss restaurants selling what are now considered British staple snacks – kebab, falafel, korma, or Kung Pao chicken.

This mind-boggling array of ethnic diversity is inherent to British national identity – from the kebab enjoyed in the small hours to the use of the word ‘pyjamas’ (borrowed from Persian) – and this should not be forgotten. UKIP’s demonisation of immigrants not only cultivates a racist society that is hostile towards outsiders, but might even create a national community that denies its own roots and identity. This could have detrimental effects on the way Britain is seen by the international community. Britain is currently seen as a beacon of hope and tolerance, rightfully admired for its open-mindedness and multicultural society. How long would this reputation last if Britain were to follow UKIP’s lead?