The British Dream does not demonise immigrants
I have just written a 400-page book about postwar immigration to Britain. It is crammed with facts and figures, many of which challenge, from a centre-left view, common assumptions about the economic benefits of large-scale immigration and the condition of ethnic minority Britain (more successful but more separate than most people on the left assume). Diane Abbott’s review in the last issue of Progress fails to engage with it.
Take two examples. First, she says that I portray the immigrant as ‘taker’ and casually adds ‘there is strong evidence that migrants are net contributors.’ I have a long chapter looking carefully at the fiscal issue and conclude that it is broadly neutral, though with big variations between different groups.
Second, she says that I am ‘forced’ to acknowledge that Caribbeans from the same roots do better in the United States than in Britain and that therefore my claim that culture matters falls. Of course, history, role models, and the condition of the host society all matter in shaping outcomes for an immigrant group, but that does not mean that the culture it brings is irrelevant.
Far from dealing in stereotypes or arguing, as Abbott alleges, that ‘all persons of Caribbean origin in Britain … [suffer] self-inflicted cultural wounds,’ I look carefully at the data on education and employment for all large minorities. And, while accepting that everyone is an individual, and that there are big variations within as well as between groups, it is clear that inherited traditions play a significant role in explaining why, for example, British Indians as a group are more successful than British Pakistanis.
Contrary to Abbott’s claim that I have not read EP Thompson, it is exactly his stress on the impulse to preserve ways of life from the whirlwind of 19th century capitalism that inspires my critique of the impact of mass immigration – ‘just a fact of life’ says Abbott – in our big cities.
Abbott can be a serious politician but she has an alter ego who clings to the anachronistic leftism of her youth. The latter wrote this paranoid review. Finally, the idea that I do not think Abbott is British (though she is not an immigrant, as she oddly describes herself) is risible; on the contrary, I think that she is almost part of the British constitution.
—————————————————————————————
David Goodhart is director of Demos
My instincts side me with Diane in this argument.
Immigrants, who are here primarily as economic migrants rather than as refugees or asylum seekers, tend to be of employment age, even if accompanied by elderly or minor relatives. Given their zeal to make a better life for themselves I would be really surprised if they were not “net contributors” rather than “takers”. Of course they are vulnerable to getting older, as we all are, and being of working age when they arrive, they may reach pension age sooner than those born here. Likewise they are as vulnerable as the rest of us to unemployment, redundancy, long term sickness etc and if they find it harder to get back to work it is not least because of racist discrimination, often unwitting rather than deliberate and conscious (for example, employers seeking unnecessary levels of education qualification really as a means of thinning down the number of applicants rather them being a requirement of the job). It should also be said that if the lower paid in society were paid the living wage, their dependence would be less. And immigrants are often to be found among the lower paid in society.
I haven’t read the book, but Diane presumably has and in a review I tend to side with the reviewer rather than the author who inevitably defends his work.
“because of racist discrimination, often unwitting rather than deliberate
and conscious (for example, employers seeking unnecessary levels of
education qualification really as a means of thinning down the number of
applicants rather them being a requirement of the job”).
Sorry to put a dampener on such a pathetic statement but a requirement for levels of education has nothing to do with race.
Abbotts comment that you describe the attacker aside, I thought her article was rather good,but then I Haven’t read your book, so I’m with Dan on that one,but I would say Dan that,David is right here about Bbott misunderstanding the take on individuals
Dan, its a shame that you try to comment on a book that you haven’t actually read. Its an even greater shame that you don’t seem to understand the issues involved. I think you need to be on at least the average wage of £26,000 before you become a net contributor. Therefore, immigrants on low wages will not be contributing more than they take out. If they have children or elderly relatives, they will certainly be taking out more than they put in.
Secondly, we have about 3 million unemplyed people in this country. Do we really need to import anyone else? I would suggest not. That does not mean that we can stop east European migration, but we can stop people from outside the EU coming here to live. (Not racism, just a matter of common sense that we let people in who can contribute to society…)
Parts of the Left are still in denial that immigration on the scale we have seen over the last decade has led to huge social problems, not least in demand for public services that immigrants have not contributed to. It is NOT RIGHT WING to be against mass immigration. Please remember that.
“I think you need to be on at least the average wage of £26,000 before you become a net contributor. ”
Think? What, so you don’t know either? You accuse others of being uninfoemed and in the next breath admit you are too. Unbelievable, another charlatan!
I find if and when the champaign socialist that Ms Abbot is opens her mouth on any subject it’s better to just ignore.
The only thing the woman represents is herself or whatever she feels will bring benefit to herself.
“I have just written a 400-page book about postwar immigration to Britain. It is crammed with facts and figures”
Yeah, which you got from a bloke on a bus somewhere that you can’t remember. Ya charlatan!