Not As Simple As Black and White (other colours are available)

It's almost a year ago since the BBC's Mark Easton reported on the study about attitudes towards immigation by Transatlantic Trends. The main points were:

"The British are easily the most hostile on the question of immigration and immigrants - even though five of the nations polled have a greater proportion of foreigners in their population. According to the research commissioned by US and European think-tanks, people in the UK are much more likely to say there are "too many" immigrants than comparable nations. In Britain the figure is 59% compared to 27% in Germany and the Netherlands - both countries with a higher level of foreign-born residents.

British respondents to the survey by are the most likely to say that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are a burden on social services. Two-thirds of Britons see immigration as "more of a problem than an opportunity" compared to around 50% in the US and mainland Europe. Around a quarter of Brits don't think any migrant should be allowed to access the NHS (25%) or state schools (22%), even if they are here legally. In other European countries with significant immigrant populations, the figure ranges from 1% to 5%."

Now it seems to me that those views seem about right when you compare the findings with personal experience of talking to people, visiting messageboards, blogs etc. I know anecdotal evidence is not scientific but there you go. Fast forward a year to the report by the think-tank Migation-Watch which boldly announces: Youth Unemployment and Migration: More Than A Coincidence. To be fair, in true tabloid style, it does calm down a bit after that and explains that meausring the impact of immigration or unemployment is not a science and that correlation is not causation. But tellingly it does say that undoubtedly a lot of new jobs have gone to immigrants.

Now the bit that I find fascinating and is something that neither the most rabid right winger, anti-immigration tub thumper nor the most fervent open doors policy believer will acknowledge is that very rarely these reports go beyond the surface. Nobody asks or seeks to ask where exactly these jobs are being created nor who the employers are that are creating these jobs. We seem to have a situation where some of the new jobs that are being given to East Europeans are by the very people who are naturally right wing leaning in their politics and would oppose immigration - these are those usually referred to as middle class or upper middle class who like their hired help cheap and reliable. We also have the situation where those industries which have a heavy union presence are also hiring cheap East European labour and once again we have the situation where this is seemingly against the wider beliefs of the unions whilst at the same time it keeps down costs, drives up profits, drives down wages and increases dividends. Shareholders tend to by nature be right-wing voting middle class and they are benefitting from higher levels of income.

A few years ago when Migration Watch published a report on immigrants from A8 I did some of my own research, as in fact did another poster on the old 5Live Boards (Fungus Roo), it wasn't a covert operation simply accessing data available in the public domain. What we discovered was that in one particular quarter the majority of new businesses registered and those newly registered VAT businesses were in areas where immigration was historically or recently high, the East Midlands, Lincolnshire, Hull. What appeared to be happening was that third generation Asian immigrants were starting their own businesses and then employing more immigrants. This isn't unusual, after all Arsenal football club have in recent years developed the habit of importing young French players who they already know share the same philosophy as the club and "re-education" of English kids isn't required, they aren't doing it for economic reasons but for cultural reasons. Now it seems to be that its very possible that the first wave of immigrants who didn't send back all their money in remittances are now starting their own businesses and employing the next wave.

So are all these newly created jobs being taken by immigrants leaving our own youth population on the scrap heap? We don't know. I actually think that the report is very honest in its limitations but due to the nature of the subject it will seized upon by those on both sides of the argument without 'drilling down' and looking at possible other causes beyond simple numbers: The conclusion to the report states:

"Youth unemployment in the UK increased by almost 450,000 in the period from 2004 Q1 to 2011 Q3, from 575,000 to 1,016,000. Over the same period, numbers of workers from the A8 countries grew by 600,000. Correlation is not, of course, proof of causation but, given the positive employability characteristics and relative youth of migrants from these countries, it is implausible and counter-intuitive to conclude – as the previous Government and some economists have done - that A8 migration has had virtually no impact on UK youth unemployment in this period. Accurate estimation of the size of the impact is beset with problems of statistical ‘noise’ and more research needs to be done to assess the true scale of the impact."


6 January, 2012

It is worth noting that, not for the first time, Migration Watch have ignored one key fact in the search for a bigger headline, this time the key omission being that youth unemployment was rising before 2004 and that does tend to water down the point they are trying to make. It does also ignore another key point that Europe's current basket case Greece has seen the EU's biggest rise in youth unemployment during the past decade without being subject to mass immigration.

When the first wave of A8 workers arrived suggestions that the new arrivals were 'brave' were scoffed at by people saying that they were actually going to areas where there were already limited numbers of immigrants lived and where they could be almost guaranteed jobs. We now have a situation where apparently immigrants are everywhere but surely if the British public were that concerned about jobs and the impact of immigrants on the health service, schools, transport etc they wouldn't be finding work outside of the area where the previous wave of immigrants lived.

If, as the report concludes, that the immigrants benefit from 'positive employability characteristics' shouldn't we be looking at what those characteristics are and asking whether or not they are something we should be aspiring to? Shouldn't we be looking at what industries have been benefiting from these positive characteristics and asking why?  Or is it simply easier to carry on doing nothing which neither helps future generations nor does it hold back the tide of prejudice, misinformation and misunderstanding. There's a serious discussion waiting to be had about training, education and youth unemployment but Migration Watch aren't interested in that debate.