Since 2001 I have worked in London Hotels. As an Englishman, this has made me part of a small minority every time. this would have also been the case in top Hotels in 1961, 1971, and so on.
The work I and my colleagues do has always been seen as "beneath" the dignity of most English people to do.
As a low-wage, non-unionised industry, we rely on immigrant labour, particularly in London and the Southeast.
The exploitation levels by both higher management and owners, and often by guests, would be unbelievable to most of you.
Immigration is an emotive issue, and the truth is that Governments of both parties have let down working class people as regards technical education, polytechnical education, and in creating jobs in high-skills areas. The last Labour Govt. did more than any to improve hotel workers conditions through the minimum wage, and latterly through changing the tax rules on tips.
Now it may be that we need to introduce a fair system of immigration controls, that are also workable, transparent and able to be policed.
These will only affect non-eu immigrants, and here is the problem.
The people these will hit will be the 3rd world poor. Billionaires from wherever will still be able to use this country largely scott-free as a haven.
Whilst the poor pay most of their income on taxable goods, and in most cases do not have the capability to avoid income tax as well as VAT, where is the justice?
I only ask, as I have no panacea for this problem.

When I was out of work for a while in the early '90's, I was lucky enough to get a job in a business run by a guy who'd come from Kashmir a few years previously. During the day he drove buses, & then when he knocked off he'd be behind the counter of his off-license & general store. I worked with about 30 odd others in an office he'd set up in the back as a call centre. This one immigrant had set up a business that provided jobs not just for his sons & daughters but for 30-odd others. When his daughter got married, he was able to provide the groom with a business & a house for them to carry on & do likewise. Even if you try to decouple as David Goodhart says, the issue of immigration from the issue of racism, you hive it off into another -ism - to tar all immigrants as lazy or as taking jobs British people should have or as somehow a drain on our resources is to take up another prejudice. For every immigrant that you can tell me is a drain or is whatever else, I can tell you about others that are worth their weight in gold to the UK economy. Immigration is at best a distraction from the real issues - for example, the lack of strong unions to secure decent wages for all, the existence of a clandestine economy that traffics people in to exploit them in the food production industries and so forth. The open door policy that gives Eastern Europeans the right to come "flocking" here gives us the right to go flocking anywhere else in the EU, should we have the get up & go to get up, and go.

Come on David - US capital was as likely to use red neck hicks of impeccible US heritage to break strikes - many of which were waged by migrant workers for heaven's sake - as they were a new batch of immigrants. You claim for the greater propensity for migrants to scab in the US is a complete inversion of the complaint usually made by labour radicals. The likes of William Z. Foster, James P. Cannon, John Reed, and others felt that the immigrants were too prominent in the leadership of militant labour. Paul Buhle's excellent 'Marxism in the USA' makes similar points.

James Roediger, in 'The Wages of Whiteness' deals with an early period - the mid-19th century - argues that the entire identity of the American working class was constructed around the core sense of 'whiteness' and the values of protestant christianity and this acted as the main brake on the development of socialism along European lines. If things had turned out more favourably and alliance between progressive whites, black workers and immigrants would have taken on and defeated the ethnic solidarity of the whites and laid the basis for a working class-based social democracy.

To string together unrelated facts about the New Deal and the coincidentally low level of migration at that time is more sleight of hand, as are the claims for the Great Society programmes of the 1970s. Both can be accounted for by responses to (a) the Depression and (b) the moral morass of US society after the Kennedy assassination, the direction of the Vietnam War, and the revolt of the black ghettos. You hedge your bet to say that immigration restrictions were not the only factor - how about a vanishingly small factor in influencing these developments?

Puttnam's role in this discussion? Deeply contested by his colleagues in the US and flatly contradicted by the experience of Canada, which saw has seen support for its welfare state strengthened during a period of high inward migration - though admittedly not under the influence of an explicitly social democratic programme.

There are a number of problems with this article. Firstly it says inequality is wrought by free market policies not mass immigration. But of course free movement of labour is an integral part of free market policy, its not something seperate.

Secondly it talks about building a more tolerant and just society. This is easier when social solidarity and social capital are greater. Unfortunately there is significant evidence that the increasing diversity leads to a reduction in solidarity and social capital

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118510920/HTMLSTART

While efforts can be made to counteract this effect these can never be more than mitigation. Free movement of labour and mass immigration harms the fight for social justice, which is why the neo-liberal New Labour government promoted it so much.

The article also mkes the dishonest equation bewteen being anti-immigration and be anti-immigrant. That's like saying people who are against expansion of higher education must hate students. They might hate students but it doesn't follow at all.

"the fantasy dream world of Bollywood, which bears no relationship to real life in modern day Britain."

it probably doesnt bear much relationship to real life in modern day India either...

Tommy - You are the one who is being ignorant in this matter. The new labour government of the last 13 years encourage mass immigration because it is a right wing neo-liberal policy. The fact that individual britons benifit does not mean that those countries where they settle do not suffer from mass immigration. Nor does it mean that Britain doesn't either.

David @ 23:37

"There are a number of problems with this article. Firstly it says inequality is wrought by free market policies not mass immigration. But of course free movement of labour is an integral part of free market policy, its not something seperate"

This is sleight of hand reasoning. Migration is a constant in all human societies, from pre-historic, antiquity,fuedalism, dynastic empire, right through to the free markets of present day capitalism. Dressing up 'free movement' as a distinctive product of free markets won't wash either. The history of migration under capitalist free markets is most typically about the suppression of previous opportunities for free movement rather than their extension.

David is seeking to give the impression that an anti-immigration policy is available that would break with the logic of free markets, and promote egalitarian social solidarity AND promote the welfare of immigrants.

Dumb, dumb and dumber. Anti-immigrant policies feed the eactionary nationalist sentiment and will only disarm citizens and working people who are looking for progressive and democratic approaches to the problems of modern day life.

Don - a number of points to make. Firstly that fact that recently arrived immigrants to the US 100 years ago mght have been unwilling to act as scab labour does not mean they were not used to drive down wages. The law of supply and demand means that if the supply of labour goes up faster than demand then wages will go down. Unions can work to counter this effect but the effect is real.

Secondly I take it that by 'red neck hicks' you mean poor southern whites. You would not use derogetory phrases that refer to any other ethnic group. Why do you think it OK to use racially loaded insults that refer to southern whites (and poor southern whites at that - so much for solidarity).

Thirdly that fact that those immigrants to america had a much stronger sense of social solidarity and egalitarianism is exactly what Putnam's theory would predict. Immigrants from Europe at that time would mostly have come from countries like Italy that were highly ethnicly homogenous at he time. Others were coming from counties where they were isolated by religeon, isolated by law in ghettos and bound together by a common experience of persecution. In these ethnicly homogenous environments they could more easily develop ideas of solidarity and build social capital.

The established white population of the US by contrast was coming from a highly ethnicly diverse society as a result of both slavery and mass immigration. Putnam's theory would predict they would have less social capital and sense of solidarity than the recently arrived immigrants and you say this was indeed the case.

As for the identity of the American working class in the 19th century, it would only have come to be identified with whiteness because america was ethnicly divided. In america, unlike much of europe of the time, the 'progressive alliance' you mentioned was needed for social democracy to succeed and in america, unlike much of europe, social democracy failed. I do not think this was a coincidence.

As for politics of the US in the mid 20 century. There might have been any number of ways american politicians could have responded to the depression and as for moral morass, I think the laws of supply and demand are rather more important in determining policy than any 'moral morass' whatever that means.

As for Putnam's theory being deeply contested I'm not surprised. Its not an idea a modern liberal professor would be compfortable with, even Putnam himself is clearly not comfortable with it. I would be interested to read what his colleages criticisms were though. As for Canada, which period are you refering to and do you mean popular support for the welfare state increased or that the welfare state and economic equality expanded?

Don - a number of points to make. Firstly that fact that recently arrived immigrants to the US 100 years ago mght have been unwilling to act as scab labour does not mean they were not used to drive down wages. The law of supply and demand means that if the supply of labour goes up faster than demand then wages will go down. Unions can work to counter this effect but the effect is real.

Secondly I take it that by 'red neck hicks' you mean poor southern whites. You would not use derogetory phrases that refer to any other ethnic group. Why do you think it OK to use racially loaded insults that refer to southern whites (and poor southern whites at that - so much for solidarity).

Thirdly that fact that those immigrants to america had a much stronger sense of social solidarity and egalitarianism is exactly what Putnam's theory would predict. Immigrants from Europe at that time would mostly have come from countries like Italy that were highly ethnicly homogenous at he time. Others were coming from counties where they were isolated by religeon, isolated by law in ghettos and bound together by a common experience of persecution. In these ethnicly homogenous environments they could more easily develop ideas of solidarity and build social capital.

The established white population of the US by contrast was coming from a highly ethnicly diverse society as a result of both slavery and mass immigration. Putnam's theory would predict they would have less social capital and sense of solidarity than the recently arrived immigrants and you say this was indeed the case.

As for the identity of the American working class in the 19th century, it would only have come to be identified with whiteness because america was ethnicly divided. In america, unlike much of europe of the time, the 'progressive alliance' you mentioned was needed for social democracy to succeed and in america, unlike much of europe, social democracy failed. I do not think this was a coincidence.

As for politics of the US in the mid 20 century. There might have been any number of ways american politicians could have responded to the depression and as for moral morass, I think the laws of supply and demand are rather more important in determining policy than any 'moral morass' whatever that means.

As for Putnam's theory being deeply contested I'm not surprised. Its not an idea a modern liberal professor would be compfortable with, even Putnam himself is clearly not comfortable with it. I would be interested to read what his colleages criticisms were though. As for Canada, which period are you refering to and do you mean popular support for the welfare state increased or that the welfare state and economic equality expanded?

@David

"The article also mkes the dishonest equation bewteen being anti-immigration and be anti-immigrant."

The article does not make this equation. What it does is point out how this equation, unfortunately, has been made repeatedly by Labour during its time in power.

David

There may be some way of making a distinction in principle between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant, but since immigration is what immigrants do I would expect that a lot of the people you want to bring back to social democracy will be inclined to miss it in practice.

David - Do I think right wing neo-liberal governments have done so much to promote immigration because they want to undermine social democracy? No - I suspect neo-liberals haven't given much thought to the undermining of social democracy at all - they've just assumed that it would be eclipsed by multiple other factors in the political agenda they've been pursuing.

But in truth your claim that the advance of free movement is strongly associated with neo-liberalism is patently false. In the US the neo-cons are overwhelmingly anti-immigration (and anti-immigrant). In Europe the drive towards the completion of the single market was famously led by Jacques Delors - a social democrat truly worthy of respect, who saw free movement in the European context as promoting welfare gains for the working class. He was quite right on this point - the advent of free movement provided a powerful lever for the redirection of capital investment and the modernisation of infrastructure which benefited the Med states right throughout the 1970s and 80s.

I agree that Social Democracy has seldom, if ever, risen to the challenge of integrating a progressive approach to immigration into its basic world view at any point post-WWII. Outside the ranks of its most advanced thinkers the dominant SD tradition has been the maintenance of ethnic solidarity and tribalism. If you are of the view that a more cosmopolitan approach to politics has done little to promote social democracy in the past I can only say, well let's try again - all the other roads lead to certain extinction.

If pro-migration neo-liberals are really so important in the US, why is there no significant support for the idea of making NAFTA an area of free movement? The blogspot you link is an exotic sideshow utterly marginal to the real forces determinging US policy.

Closer to home, why wasn't Mrs Thatcher an advocate of free movement, or any of the luminaries in her intellectual circle? Or may be you can direct us to a blog that will tell us what Alan Walters really thought about immigration controls....

Incidently, why do you say I have no idea about Delor's motivations in supporting free movement in Europe? (no, don't answer that - I'm not interested...) I could, for example, be very familar with his 1992 book 'Our Europe - the Community and national development'. Seems a bit extreme to say I've no idea ....

Well you're doing better than me David. My rather lengthy response to you post just vanished all together, and I haven't got the heart to write it all again. I suspect others reading this exchange might be relieved...

To summarise - yes, redneck now does have a predominately derogatory meaning and I accept your reprimand. Didn't always though - it was the self-proclaimed identity of poor whites involved in radical populist movements right up to WWII.

"If the supply of labour increases faster than demand then wages will go down." Of course they will - are you expecting me to argue with that? It’s the very definition of deflationary pressure on wages after all. I presume you think we have been living through a period of falling demand in recent times – I don’t.

On critics of Putnam, Kymlicka and Norman's edited volume - called something like 'Multiculturalism and Diversity' is a good place to start. They make the point that support for the Canadian welfare state has been maintained during recent decades when ethnic diversity has increased substantially. My point is no more than saying that support for expensive state policies which sustain solidarity is not necessarily eroded by cultural diversity – things like the provision of health care free at the point of need can be supported by people coming from many difference cultural backgrounds.

Don - Sorry I don't have the chance to see your original reply. To respond to the points you've made that have got through.

Firstly no I don't think we live in a period of falling demand and I never suggested we did. I simply pointed out that capital tries to ensure that supply increases faster than demand is increasing. Of course I wouldn't expect you to disagree with that. I'm simply suggesting that the rate of inward migration plays a bigger part in determining that balance of supply and demand, and through that the balance of power between capital and labour, than you seem to make allowance for.

Of course other factors, including the trade union struggles you talk about, will play an important part. But if there are little or no limits on an employer importing labour (or exporting capital) then they will always hold the trump card for defeating the workers. I believe that this is exactly the reason why the same governments that have in recent decades removed the restrictions on the movement and export of capital have also encouraged the mass movement and import of labour (despite a lot of disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary).

Concerning Canada I am very pleased that support for welfare and free at the point of use health care has been maintained. I would be interested to know how well this support translates into both effective action and political power and if that has changed over the decades. I do not know enough about Canada to comment further on this point but I will try to find a copy of the essay you mentioned.

What you leftists actually mean by a more "tolerant" society is one i which there are no fertile, heterosexual whites.

You won't be satisfied until UK is devoid of light-skinned people.

Sweet fanny adams! What a kerfuffle!
As a white working class pleb, I do not have a problem with immigration per se, only with it being used to keep wages low - an old ruling class trick.
Ingrid, as for Europe and the UK having been "spoiled2, what utter rubbish! To be frank, if people come here and dont like our diversity, then go somewhere else. Maybe the only Australians who can talk on immigration would be the Aborigional peoples.
I enjoyed Oz when I went for a month a few years ago, but I did otice that many attitudes were what we would have expected in 1980s Suffolk!
Any solution to this needs to be open, fair, and humane, as well as seen as non-racial in execution.

Congratulations - this a good article with a more balanced assessment of what the immigration debate actually represents in the symbolic discourses of politics in the UK today. The Goodhart thesis is certainly confused in its assessment of the reasons why, when it came down to it, the immigration dog just didn't bark in this election campaign.
But I am less sanguine about your assessment of Jon Cruddas's take on the issue. Admirable though his stance is on many aspects of this issue, he is wrong in his recent claims that migration has been driven by rogue employers out to make a quick buck by driving down wages. Migration is a core strategy for cutting edge companies, wide swathes of the public services, as well as sectors where wages are much more modest. Migrants figure in the system in pretty much the same way as other workers - victims rather than the cause of disadvantage. If this fact isn't built into our strategies for more progressive policies then we can kiss a final goodbye to the values of solidarity and fairness which Goodhart pines for, but believes possible only in ethnic subcultures rather than across the whole of society.

The simple fact is that big business and the capitalist class DOES use immigrant labour to depress wages. Immigration fuels unemployment and creates a disincentive for the state and business to help those that are unemployed back into work, because it's cheaper simply to import labour. The way to overcome this is a mix of trade union/worker solidarity with immigrants, state action (yes, including, perhaps, restrictions), and improved methods of integrating them into communities, one of which should be tackling economic inequality.

@Swatantra, "...broadcasting wall to wall pulp entertainment, particularly rubbish films and endless popular music [...] the mindless 24 hr a day entertainment that is fed to the people [...] they lap it up."

To be honest, you could be talking about BBC and ITV; so I am not sure why you are accusing this of being the policy of "them forrin stations".