Immigration to the rescue

Although this blog is in danger of becoming completely obsessed with the dismal demographics of Europe, I will venture forth once more, this time to comment on Samizdata's lament about the treatment of immigration in the British press. Especially the right-wing British press, which is whipping itself into ever greater furore over the threat that immigrants supposedly pose.

The other right-wing broadsheet in Britain, the Times, ran op-ed on the same topic this morning by Anatole Kaletsky, himself an immigrant (or refugee) from Russia. Kaletsky's columns are usually interesting, although on many an occasion I have wondered what on earth he was smoking. Last year, he predicted for instance that the Republicans would get punished by the electorate for the Bush tax cut. Admittedly, this was before September 11th, but still... Anyway, back to the issue at hand. His column today is title "Why Britain needs more people like me," and makes the case convincingly. Excerpts:

As an Eastern European immigrant myself, I find this a difficult subject. I am very well aware of the benefits I have received from Britain – starting from the inspiring statefinanced education I received at grammar school and then at Cambridge, to the ready acceptance I enjoyed from the British Establishment, which seemed to be almost oblivious to my foreign birth. As someone who has gained so much from Britain’s openness to foreigners and foreign cultures, I know that it may be considered self-indulgent for me to argue that Britain, too, has benefited from this flow – and could benefit even more. But with antiimmigration sentiment still strong and now enjoying an upsurge among environmentalists and other “progressive” movements, it would be even more churlish to stay silent. Mr Straw’s bold decision deserves an enthusiastic welcome. And if a Russian immigrant fails to endorse it, who else will?

This is a very valid point, one that underscores how those who call themselves "progressives" have become the reactionary custodians of a statist past. The luddite anti-technologists who fight genetically modified foods, nanotechnology, and any electronic gadget more complicated than a 1960's IBM electric typewriter somehow manage to call themselve "progressive" without so much as feeling the slightest bit of etymological dissonance.

First, the Government’s new attitude should help Britain to recognise that it is already a country of immigrants – and always has been. What, after all, were the Angles and Saxons themselves?

This is probably the weakest argument in his entire column. Theoretically, they were immigrants indeed, but there's a difference between your ancestors of 1,500 years ago roaming through Europe and having a society of that is considers itself to be of immigrant descent. You need constant immigration over the ages for that. But this is a minor quibble.

For politicians to pretend that immigration is some kind of new and unwelcome development, as they often have in the past, is a recipe for social dislocation and economic under-performance. Immigrants (defined as all British residents who were not born in this country) comprise 8 per cent of the UK population and 10 per cent of the people of working age. This is only slightly smaller than the 11 per cent share of the US population that was born abroad. London, where immigrants now make up 26 per cent of the population, is just as cosmopolitan as New York, whose immigrant population is 28 per cent. [...]

The fact that immigrants contribute more to the Exchequer in taxes than they take out in public spending may surprise many Tory politicians, not to mention readers of the Daily Mail and other jingoistic tabloids. But this is one of the many important conclusions of detailed research commissioned by the Home Office and published this week in the first of a series of studies into the economic and social impact of immigration.

Read the whole thing, as they say. Large-scale immigration from eastern Europe can be mutually beneficial for both Britain and the countries themselves, as the immigrants send money back home. The payoff could become asymmetric in favor of Britain if the flow of people becomes an brain-draining exodus, leaving eastern Europe for good. Ultimately, the demographics of eastern Europe are no better than those in the west.

Immigration has also been a hot issue here in the Netherlands. Ever since Pim Fortuyn brought it to the fore, it has been in the forefront of political debate. The main question is what to do about the unassimilated immigrants, who've live in self-imposed segregation in depressing inner-city ghettos, such as Amsterdam West. I'm not sure how many of his supporters see the immigration problems purely in terms of assimilation, or whether they're just pining after ethnic purity. In any case, the governor of the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlansche Bank) has been banging the immigration drum too, but he's been warning the Dutch that the country is going to need increasing numbers of foreigners, lest we come eye-to-eye with demographic armageddon. In a recent interview in Trouw, a daily newspaper, reinforces his message. He warns about the great disparity in economic development between the new countries joining the EU (an item for another blog entry someday), but then goes on to speak about immigration from even outside of the EU. Translated excerpt:

A very sensitive subject, he has found, because since he first mentioned this some time ago he's gotten an unprecedented amount of personal letters, 'some distasteful.' "Closing the borders, that's really the wrong argument. It's in our own interests to steer the migration process in a partnership with the affected countries. Then you can talk, for instance about a smooth return. Look at Germany, that's always had an open policy, there two-thirds of the 25 million migrants has returned to their native countries."

Quoting Germany as a country that has been successful in managing the immigration process is saying something about the poor state that the Netherlands is in. But the problem that exists now here is that we have a fifth column of immigrants who have irredentist fantasies of establishing an islamic theocracy here, while the demographics still argue for a big increase in immigration. And there's precious little sign of awareness of this on the part of politicians. Trouble ahead.