Fear of Immigration

Much of Europe has immigration near the centre of its politics. Whether it is in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland or now Sweden, parties with a main policy of curbing immigration are in power or hold the balance of power. Everywhere else fear of immigration regularly scores high among key issues raised by voters in opinion polls. To be elected, almost all politicians strive to avoid being too liberal on the issue, finding choices of words not to feed newspapers portraying them as pro-immigrant.

For me, this is sad and worrying. It is sad because I appreciate myself the benefits of open borders in my own life and that of my offspring, and I feel frustrated that no-one seems to make a positive case for such liberalism. It is worrying, of course, because intolerance of difference has been the excuse for most persecution and even war over the course of human history.

I was twenty before I enjoyed an Indian meal, and I remember my first visit to a Thai restaurant aged 25. In those days travel between nations was complicated and frustrating, everyone having their own currency and various controls over movement of people and money. The idea that TV programmes would explore the prospect of retirement in the sun was fanciful. I was almost brainwashed at school to hate the people in the countries behind the iron curtain,.and gaining real experience to counter this was difficult. Supermarkets didn't have much in the spice department. Finding a plumber in London prepared to actually do any work was next to impossible and very expensive. Alternative medicine was hardly known, nor yoga or meditation. Making a phone call, even from Europe, involved queuing at some imposing municipal building. My daughter has just returned from a self-organised two month two to three countries and many more places in Asia, an impossible prospect for me at the same age. And her social circle maximises the benefits of diversity with no hint of prejudice.

I express this from a first world viewpoint. The benefits to people from other countries are much more positive and life changing, in general at least. Here we are not just looking at convenience but about life opportunity.

Some of this has been enabled by technology, but mainly it has come from liberal policies of governments, led by the EU. In Bulgaria last week I could marvel at the change since my previous visits 15 years before.

Yet most people see a mainly negative case for open borders (not least in Bulgaria, by the way). Many of my arguments in favour are benefits for all, so the counter arguments must be powerful. What are they?

The main one is about social disintegration, especially locally. Who wants their child to go to a school where standards are affected by many cultures and poor host language skills? Who wants to live in a street where the dominant culture seems alien? This is a valid argument, supported by history. Integration by newcomers is hard to achieve. Often there is a vicious circle of fear, distrust and alienation leading to attempts to integrate being shunned and counter-cultures emerging in response. It is true that a local society of great diversity carries its burdens.

Other arguments are less convincing. There is something about protection, whether of jobs or other perceived entitlements. This seems pretty invalid to me. Folk who make this case wouldn't want to be denied their chance to retire in Spain, and certainly enjoy the benefits of Indian-run corner shops and Polish builders. Competition is a good thing, almost always, though I agree it may not seem that way if someone's factory is replacing its workers with temps or if the queue for an upgraded council house never seems to shorten.

Then there is a general fear of change, often accompanied by cries for traditional values and concepts. Often this appears little better than bigotry. It is not the wave of immigrants that has led to the decline of the British pub (it is supermarkets and lifestyle choices), and street parties never amounted to much anyway. True, we used to know our neighbours better, but that again is a lifestyle thing, especially as more of us work further away from home and move houses more often.

So we have one real argument, bolstered by some emotive and lazy ones. Yet this motley collection of points wins out. Why? I believe the main reason is that somehow no-one makes the positive arguments. Maybe they are more long-term, less visible or tangible, and a bit selective, but they are so substantial that it ought to be possible to create a majority in their favour. That no one argues positively leaves the field clear for the fear merchants and populists. Politicians see it and retreat further into timidity. Newspapers, some with an agenda (perhaps the Daily Mail was over-vilified last week?) spread more fear with stories of jobs being stolen or communities violated.

The Economist made a point last week (in Bagehot I think) which surprised me. A link was made between the relative lack of power obtained by the far right in the UK and the existence of a virulent popular press. Elsewhere in Europe, the press is quite close to the establishment, and the establishment favours silence over immigration. According to Bagehot, this leaves fearful people in need of an outlet to vent, and they choose the far right.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced. The press is hardly the only factor involved – the electoral system is one other, not that I am a fan of the British one. Mind you, I haven't any better solutions, and a free press must be better than a timid, lazy one. So long as we can avoid too many explosions of unrest, the passage of time should help. As more of the next generation are able to live truly colour-blind lives like my daughter, fear can be beaten back to the margins. I just wish more of us had the courage to sing out the positive arguments, as surely that would accelerate the trend. Much depends on this, possibly even peace and certainly the pace of global development, and a watery silence is not really good enough from entities that see this. Apart from being brave and promoting the advantages, and continuing to support policies which work to minimise the real disadvantages (for example with investment in good schooling for all) what else we can do?