The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Where now for the immigration debate?

The coalition's political approach is at risk of unravelling, but genuine policy challenges remain.

By Sarah Mulley Published 01 November 2012 19:45

David Cameron watches passengers go through immigration control during a visit to Heathrow terminal 5. Photograph: Getty Images.

The economic impacts of migration, and of immigration policy, are back in the spotlight. Today, Gus O’Donnell accused the government of "shooting itself in the foot" on growth by restricting skilled immigration. Yesterday’s two big economic reports, from Michael Heseltine and the Resolution Foundation’s Commission on Living Standards also considered the issue from different perspectives.

O’Donnell and Heseltine both highlight the potentially negative impacts on growth of immigration policy that restricts (either in principle or in practice) the ability of businesses to access a global pool of talent. Meanwhile, the Commission on Living Standards, in an exhaustive study of the causes of the "wage squeeze" that has affected low and middle earners in the UK, concludes that immigration has not been a significant factor.

So if immigration is important for growth, and doesn’t have significant effects on low and middle earners (the evidence for both these claims is strong), what’s the problem? Why does the government persist with an immigration policy that appears to make no economic sense, and why does the opposition not offer a more straightforward criticism of it? There is sometimes a feeling on the "progressive" side of the argument that this is simply a problem of politics and public opinion – if only the economic evidence could be better communicated and understood, then the path would be clear for a more "rational" (and, by implication, more liberal) immigration policy. This is wrong, for at least two reasons.

The first is that there are genuine policy challenges with respect to immigration policy that need to be addressed – this is not simply a case of politics and public opinion muddying the crystalline waters of economic evidence.

The impacts of migration on the labour market and the economy are complex. Although the finding that migration has had little impact on wages or unemployment is robust, there are some important caveats which need to be considered. Too little is known about the distributional impacts of migration. The Commission on Living Standards is right that even at the bottom end of the labour market, the impacts of migration on wages and employment seem to be very small, but this does not rule out more significant impacts on specific groups of workers (for example in some sectors in particular local areas). Nor does it take into account the fact that migration (including skilled migration) has been part of an economic model that has seen wages at the top end of the labour market become disconnected from those at the bottom. Pleas from the City to be able to bring in more highly-skilled (and highly-paid) migrants may make sense from the point of view of economic growth, but we should take seriously the argument that some kinds of growth are better than others, and that migration policy needs to be part of that discussion.

Migration also poses a range of complex policy challenges beyond labour markets and the economy, particularly at the local level – the rapid population change that can result does affect housing, public services, and community cohesion, whatever the economic benefits.

The second reason, which Heseltine recognised in his report yesterday, is that migration policy must have "public assent". This is not just an argument for better communications. Progressives and economic liberals may find some aspects of public opinion on this issue uncomfortable, and it is always open to them to try to shift the terms of debate – but the right response can never be simply to ignore the views of the electorate. Arguments over migration cannot be left to experts or economists but must be shaped through democratic debate and choice.

So where does this leave migration policy and politics? There are three key challenges that policymakers and politicians must face up to. The first is that migration must be situated in a wider policy debate about the economy (and housing, welfare, and communities). Ed Miliband has understood this, and Labour is showing promising signs of tackling migration policy in this way. The second is that many of the real policy challenges are local ones, and need to be addressed at the local level – something that will require a big change of approach in a policy area that has traditionally been highly centralised. The government’s net migration target is about as far away from the nuanced local policy mix that is needed as it is possible to get. In light of this, the third challenge presents a paradox – although there are real policy challenges at the local level, the public don’t (on the whole) feel that immigration is a problem in their own local communities, although a large majority do feel that it is a problem for the country as a whole.

So politicians are faced with a national political problem which is cast in terms of very simple choices, and a need for nuanced and local policy solutions. The government has opted to play the political game rather than the policy one – a strategy that is at risk of unravelling under the weight of its own contradictions, and the kinds of critiques that have emerged this week. Labour are engaging seriously with the policy questions, but are still in search of a narrative on immigration – "one nation" Labour is as good a starting point as any, but much more work is needed given the party’s difficult recent history on this issue.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Immigration Conservatives Coalition

More from Sarah Mulley

View the discussion thread.

34 comments

Mon, 2012-11-05 10:57 — Caroline Crampton

Comments on this article are now closed. Thanks for your contributions.

Sun, 2012-11-04 14:03 — Old Man

Where now for the immigration debate? Some place in europe, there must be plenty of room

Sun, 2012-11-04 12:21 — Billy Middle England (not verified)

What debate ? A bit of huffing and puffing from the politicians followed by bugger all change is what we get . For reasons mysterious no mainstream politician seems to have the slighteest intention of stemming the invasion of this country Half a million a year , the last I heard , give or take a small town .

Sat, 2012-11-03 12:13 — scampy

Never mind about immigrants taking jobs what about the cost to British tax payers of giving uncivilised uneducated immigrants from third world countries houses and welfare benefits for life for not working and breeding.
Where is the benefit to the host country of taking in these illegal asylum seekers who have passed through many safe countries to get to welfare benefits heaven UK?
We welcome their diversity was the slogan of the labour stooges?
Open your terrorist office in Londonistan and we will pay you a salary from the public purse?

Sat, 2012-11-03 16:44 — jankaas (not verified)

go on then Scampy, what is the net loss in financial terms of all these immigrants? pls make sure to include your sources in your answer. thanks in advance!

and to show good faith on my part i'll try and answer your question regarding the benefit to the UK in providing asylum to those in need;
- it is the right thing to do. it is the decent thing to do. it is the Christian thing to do. it's a great and proud British tradition to take care of the weak and provide comfort and shelter. Britain sets an example to the world by adhering to the highest moral standards. Britain has no obligation to take every such person, but there is a clear and unambiguous case to take in a substantial number of them when no option remains, as should other Western nations. ok?

now, over to you for your evidence.

Sat, 2012-11-03 12:09 — scampy

Fri, 2012-11-02 23:13 — Fraziel1

Mass immigration has been an utter disaster for the working class and of course is supported by business, who get to pay lower wages, and by the libtard left who all live in cushy areas not affected by mass immigration and who do not compete in the same jobs market as the unskilled immigrants flooding over here. We need a points based system like Australia where you cannot get in here unless you had needed skills and we should withdraw from the EU. We should also look at immigrants claiming asylum as many come half way round the world to come here rather for benfots and the NHS rather than go to a nearby country that could offer help. It's not right wing its just fair and reasonable. If we can't curb mass immigration then all immigrants should be housed in well to do and middle class areas rather than dumped in working class areas as they mostly are now.

Sat, 2012-11-03 00:30 — jankaas (not verified)

that's the best post yet Fraziel, if your aim is to make the anti-immigration argument seem like the rant of a drunk loser who has been outcompeted by foreigners all his sorry life.

well done you.

Sun, 2012-11-04 06:46 — Paul J (not verified)

You sound lie a nasty tory actually Jankas, with your smug social darwinism.
Poor people desrve crappy wages and everything, because they've been outcompeted.

Sun, 2012-11-04 11:21 — jankaas (not verified)

gosh, that's me in my place eh? way wide of the mark unfortunately.
Darwinism only works for biological systems, relates solely to reproductive fitness, only non-scientists will hijack it for their specious arguments to make themselves appear 'sciencey'.
what i do believe is that there are bitter bigots on these NS threads who insist that their own failings are purely down to foreigners like me.
are you one of those Paul?

Fri, 2012-11-02 17:51 — darren close (not verified)

One upside of all this immigration: students eager to sample interesting and varied cultures no longer need to take a gap year out to achieve their aims. They simply have to jump on the nearest bus and make their way over to the Deane, Daubhill and Halliwell areas of Bolton. Once there they will be able to sample the delights of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. They could do the tour in under a day and it would save them a fortune.

Fri, 2012-11-02 19:42 — jankaas (not verified)

glad to see such open and unconditional support for multi-culturalism.

Fri, 2012-11-02 16:54 — A. Cole (not verified)

The elephant in the room....

HOW HAS MASS IMMIGRATION BENEFITTED THE WHITE WORKING CLASSES???

Fri, 2012-11-02 14:16 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

There are a lot of immigrants in Manchester and a few do a good job; there are also many illegal immigrants in virtualy every newsagents bar a couple, and all are proud to display for their bosses that they do understand they are better than the old palin white English.

Well if you get benefit in Bolton and travel to all the mainly Asian shops and multiply that by a million of them on the outskirts no wonder they laugh and call us pinkies and show their finger to approve we are pinkies.

By the way I do have good Asian friends, whom work hard and do not drain the benefits,housing and education and not do illegal claiming.

Not too many here that do not feed off the system.

Fri, 2012-11-02 19:55 — jankaas (not verified)

"...if you get benefit in Bolton and travel to all the mainly Asian shops and multiply that by a million of them on the outskirts..."

my, how very 'scientific' of you Posh.

Fri, 2012-11-02 14:17 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

'plain'

Fri, 2012-11-02 14:14 — London Exile (not verified)

The suggestion that there is strong evidence that immigration does not significantly affect wage rates for low and middle income earners is risible. Take the building industry, often seen as the motor for growth in the UK economy and an opportunity to earn good money for workers without specific skills or qualifications. 30 years ago building labourers who were "handy" could earn £150+ per week. A good competitive wage at the time. Today wage rates for building labourers are hardly higher and it's not hard to see why; the substantial migration of people's from Eastern Europe.

This glib dismissal of the true impact of mass immigration does the author's no good at all.

Fri, 2012-11-02 12:28 — Stephen_Green (not verified)

"The second reason, which Heseltine recognised in his report yesterday, is that migration policy must have "public assent"."

Migration policy has NEVER had public assent. Polls have consistently showed a majority against while the main two political parties have just as consistently ignored public sentiments and offered only a slight choice in degree, not in kind. As our more recent history with e-petitions shows, the governing classes wish for the illusion of responsive government, not the reality.

The most recent attempts by the likes of Frank Field and Nicholas Soames for 'balanced migration' has three key problems: a) differential birthrates in UK population groups already having residency b) the outputs and inputs are not of a similar value for the requirements of a cohesive, settled society and therefore there is anything but balance c) the EU, already significantly adding to legal immigration and if David Cameron achieved his stated desire, would also include Turkey. Additionally the various trade agreements the EU is finalising that locks in immigration from certain nations (see Linda Kaucher here and elsewhere)

The British in general and the English in particular have the greatest moral right to determine the composition and maintenance of their historic homeland. That is the basis of any starting point for me. Not so much, I would assume for your average NS reader.

Fri, 2012-11-02 19:50 — jankaas (not verified)

to most thinking people immigration is hardly the root of all evil. if the reverse were true you'd have the BNP, EDL or similar in government.
there is nothing to stop bigots like yourself getting together and taking over democratically. except of course you lot are either too stupid to get on with it, or, just a negligible minority.

Fri, 2012-11-02 20:26 — Stephen_Green (not verified)

The left do like their strawmen don't they Jankaas, how would they debate without them? 'Root of all evil' is wrong on a number of levels, but polls from the Social Attitudes Survey and many others of equal (and lesser) significance consistently show majority opposition. Perhaps if you wish to reply you might actually make a solid point worth discussing.

Sat, 2012-11-03 00:21 — jankaas (not verified)

since you missed it dear, i'll condense my 'solid point' for you; polls aren't elections.

now read that again till it sinks in. then ask yourself why no overtly anti-immigration party ever wins more than the support of a handful of cretins.

Sat, 2012-11-03 01:15 — Stephen_Green (not verified)

Well sweetie, in any election the overwhelming majority of people historically will vote for an established party or abstain. 65% in 2010 (i.e. 35% did not think it worthwhile to vote). At least with our voting system in the UK.

Parties considered single issue focused rarely do well. The Greens have had a couple of spikes, but then they fall back. So there is a problem for newer parties to break out of the amateur league into the professional league, things would have to become more critical for it to happen.

Yet, in Europe, parties that are harder edged on immigration are managing to do so although frequently under different electoral systems. In the UK the UKIPers are being talked up by some sections of our press as an alternative, but are not supported by me.

Anyway, back to straw men. I was discussing the statement above taken from Heseltine regarding getting public assent. They do not have it, they are fully aware they do not have it. They (the governing class) manage at least at present to achieve acquiescence by using the more short term argument of economic necessity, underpinned by a cruder moral argument employing guilt and shame by labelling contra arguments with terms such as racist.

So, having the BNP or the EDL or any similar party in power is a straw man argument. I did not suggest it and for the reasons outlined above it's not likely at present. But if you wish to ignore what's happening elsewhere, particularly when economic conditions could deteriorate more severely, then again, please be my guest. I'll just be pulling on my boots in the other room.

Sat, 2012-11-03 10:03 — jankaas (not verified)

look love, i view your claimed lack of "public assent" regarding immigration as a straw man. as i do your suggestion that debate regarding immigration inevitably results in accusations of racism.

i'd turn that round, based on the public debates in your media, and suggest that those against immigration have a compulsion to misrepresent and fail to evidence their claims, instead relying on here-say and anecdote.

the default behaviour of the human species is to migrate, to dare think beyond where they were born, and try and better themselves. however the instinct of island communities like Britain is to see this as a criminal act. since you appear so fond of polls and European comparison, here's a two-for-one; around 60% of British think there are too many immigrants, compared to around 30% of Dutch and Germans.

Sat, 2012-11-03 14:08 — Stephen_Green

My dear old girl, how could public assent ever be a straw man? I responded to this as a stated requirement both in the recent report and stated as a requirement by the author of this article*

The default of the human species is to settle, not to migrate. A seconds thought shows this to be the case, at least since the neolithic. Where does the misrepresentation lie or what lack of evidence do you see? All I see is progressive bluster and abuse filling the hole where an argument should be.

This is a British based magazine, discussing immigration into Britain and if you wish to discount public assent then that sounds very in-line with the usual progressive default of knowing best and working stealthily to an agenda that is not fit for the real world or real people.

I have to say, I do not believe your 30% figure even in Germany with their ahem, history, and a constitution and education system set up to tackle it (i.e. create a nation of progressives) and in Holland you have that nice Mr Wilders, do you not?

I think the bottom line is that a fair percentage of people begrudgingly accept immigrants because it is usually framed in the context of: reduced (skilled) immigration > contracting economy. The left in academia and outside in think tanks have become conjoined with big business to imply a doomsday scenario and there are few other voices.

*"Progressives and economic liberals may find some aspects of public opinion on this issue uncomfortable, and it is always open to them to try to shift the terms of debate – but the right response can never be simply to ignore the views of the electorate. Arguments over migration cannot be left to experts or economists but must be shaped through democratic debate and choice".

Sat, 2012-11-03 14:36 — jankaas (not verified)

ok petal, let's try and locate the relevant points from your post;

" how could public assent ever be a straw man?"
simple, i just say it is and then it becomes one. merely copying your approach.

"The default of the human species is to settle, not to migrate. A seconds thought shows this to be the case, at least since the neolithic."
so you decide timeframes once more? ok. so humans were not humans prior to the neolithic according to you. what were they then? so i repeat, the default is to migrate to other places. a genuine second's thought forces that conclusion since all humans originate from an tiny African group of ancestors.

"Where does the misrepresentation lie or what lack of evidence do you see?"
eh? how on earth can i point you to where the lack of evidence is.....? so the question is; where is your evidence that immigration is a problem for the UK? do take your time.

"I have to say, I do not believe your 30% figure"
charming. but to be expected as the default position of the UK Right when confronted with their inherent Little Englander syndrome. the study was commissioned by US and European think-tanks, the NS won't allow posting of links, so you'll have to Google "transatlantic trends immigration 2011". look for 'key findings' or just trust that not every Johnny Foreigner is a liar....?

"in Holland you have that nice Mr Wilders, do you not?"
erm, "not" is the correct answer. he was recently voted out by us, he's had his odious 15 minutes so to speak.

"I think the bottom line is that a fair percentage of people begrudgingly accept immigrants "
finally, something i can agree with. as i said previously, another default position for human beings is to distrust strangers, however, this does not mean thinking people give in to these base instincts.

all of which brings me back to asking you for the evidence that immigration creates a measurable problem for the UK.

Sun, 2012-11-04 00:40 — Stephen_Green

Liebling, forgive me, but life intruded.

"Copying your approach"
No. I talked to the topic and discussion points. You freewheeled into the BNP & EDL which were tangential at best.

"the default is to migrate"
The neolithic began in Europe about 9,000 years ago. Before that we only migrated as hunter-gatherers. Very poor schatje. Let's take a random European country. How many emigrate annually? In the UK, at best/worst, it is 0.5%. Please outline how migration is the default mode.

"Transatlantic trends"
I will come back to you on Germany and Holland once I have had a chance to read. For now your suggested Googling led me to the following sentence "In 2011, 52% of Europeans polled and 53% of Americans saw immigration as more of a problem than an opportunity, with the strongest pessimism in the U.K. (68%)." i.e. a majority with the UK happily in the lead.

"Nice Mr Wilders"
It appears he was punished (according to countless news articles) after being roasted by the press for forcing a general election. He lost 9 seats but kept 15. That seems more of a setback not the end of his "15 minutes" of fame.

"Problems of immigration"
Where to start? But, from the top:

-A majority of our people do not want it.
- Every living person has a natural genetic self-interest.
- Territorial integrity is a vital part of this.
- Vast numbers of non-kin immigration threatens the numerical dominance of a people in a particular space. It threatens their genetic self interest.
- By doing so it unravels the cohesiveness of the society - loss of social trust, loss of altruistic behaviour. More inward looking behaviour, social anomie.
- In a democratic system it causes resource conflicts and the breakdown of social norms.
- It causes soft-despotism as new laws must be enacted to force the population to abide by progressive requirements (do not openly express resentment; do not openly choose to associate with particular people and disassociate from others; hiring practices with positive discrimination and so on)
- It forces changes in the educational system to inculcate members of society into the newly enforces consensus. History becomes not a chronological study of British history and broad trends but a set of selectively edited morality tales all facing the current age, English literature does not escape this nor the wider humanities too. In heavily settled parts of the UK, English is a second or third language in schools.
- Immigration increases social anomie but also segregation

I could keep going but it is almost 11pm and time for a film, that will do for now.

More than this it is also not beneficial to those we allow entry, diverse societies are not beneficial to ethnic minorities for many similar reasons. Lack of trust, mental illness, mortality rates - look it up. No doubt you would add 'white privilege' and various other evils from some progressive Kabbalah to that too.

The question is not 'why not' but 'why'. The onus is on those progressives who encourage us to destroy our societies to give us pretty solid reasons for doing so.

Why should you Dutch and us English obliterate ourselves to satisfy some progressive nihilistic desire? Why should we tear up our long-standing and painfully won settled social consensus? Of course these questions are asked under the assumption that you and any offspring actually hold full Dutch blood and don't have your own genetic interest in pushing for minority status for Dutch, English and more generally European people.

Sun, 2012-11-04 23:57 — jankaas (not verified)

sorry sweetcakes, run out of time for measured response. will do so tomorrow at top of the thread. ttfn

Fri, 2012-11-02 11:41 — NativeSon (not verified)

As the first comment under this article show, one of the main reasons immigration is still a contested issue, is because it is very useful for stirring up racial hatred.

If going to a country, and trying to find a job counts as colonisation, then I'm not sure what word we should use for when the Europeans went to Africa/Asian/Australisia/The Americas and exterminated indigenous people, enslaved those remaining and reaped its natural resources.

You may think I am going off topic, but these are the historical factors which have led to the need for migration today, and it is only when Europe/US is willing to allow poorer countries to develop industrial policies which can create sustainable economies that they can stop 'worrying' about migrants. Of course, independent economies in the global south would damage our own economy - so it is unlikely that European politicians will allow that to happen.

Fri, 2012-11-02 13:29 — John Standing

Nativeson,

I will enlighten you on two issues you appear not to understand.

Colonisations can be legitimised. The means of doing so is two-fold. First, they can be legitimised by the consent of the colonised, though this is never forthcoming. Second, they can be legitimised by victory at arms by the coloniser. Thus the Red Man fought a war of armed men on horseback against the European colonisers of his land, and he lost. The European making of America was legitimised thereby.

We English people have not been consulted at any time about whether we want to be colonised and replaced by racial aliens. Instead, we have been ignored, spat-upon, and dehumanised into silence. So method one of legitimisation does not apply, and nor, obviously, does method two (though it might in the not too distant future).

So, your equation of the foreign colonisation of Europe with the European colonisations of the New World falls.

Second, the racial aliens travelling to white countries and only white countries are not here because "people want to improve their lives". They are here because the political class of the West is traitorous, and pursues the interests of the financial and global corporate elites.

The genocide of racial Europe, which is what this event really is, does not have its roots in the economic interests of the peoples who come here. They are only tools of other actors with another agenda (and so is the political left, btw).

Fri, 2012-11-02 12:44 — Stephen_Green (not verified)

Nativeson, if the native population is increasingly numerically dispossessed, then colonisation is the correct term, both in political and biological terms.

Secondly, global elites who form a class above nationality drive the neo-liberal economic system we all suffer under, not Europeans as a group. As in my first comment, the British have never been for immigration and yet 500k are still coming in annually.

Therefore, you requirement that 'we' bring undeveloped nations up to the level of already developed nations (assuming that this is in all cases possible) before immigration can stop is unrealistic. More than this it is not required. Any responsive political party could stop this within a week if they decided to do so.

The formulation, colonialism = migration will also come as a shock to the Greeks and Norwegians of this world.

Fri, 2012-11-02 13:11 — John Standing

No discussion of migration into England (not Britain, let's recognise the issue where it bites) is fit for purpose unless it recognises three facts from the outset:

1. The migrations in question date from 22nd June 1948, and arguably from the outset of WW2. All immigrant populations since then, whether or not members are born here, are one.

2. Their effect is to colonise the land of a people, the English, who possess kinship, ethnicity, and indigeneity; and who are being replaced without consultation, which is wicked. The replacement takes the form of direct generational replacement through on-going immigration and differential birthrates, displacement abroad (especially of young English families), and deracination by race-mixing. In other words, this is a genocide event for the English under Article 2(c) of the 1948 Convention.

3. The English struggle for life and land is natural, normal, healthy, and moral, and is a universal human behaviour. It is self-defence, which is a morally unimpeachable cause. It is not "racism" or "hate".

Only if these facts are accepted can an honest debate about mass immigration be conducted. We have not had such a debate. In my view the liberal Establishment and the other interests suppressing honesty will never allow it, and the inevitable end-result will be the "rivers of blood" Powell has been so dismissed and demonised for foreseeing.

Fri, 2012-11-02 19:38 — jankaas (not verified)

1. your date is merely your personal choice, so can be ignored. as can you claim that those born and raised here are somehow not sufficiently English.

2. there is no such a thing as a pure English person, you lot are just another rag tag bunch of various groups of humans who reproduced. same as me. go on, have your DNA tested and you'll see where your ancestors came from. same as everyone ultimately, we're all of African descent.

3. close but no cigar. to be a bit bigoted is a default position for humans. doesn't make it right though, and educated thinking people can realise some of their base instincts are not to be followed.

your 'facts' therefor are just the usual musings of a sad little Englander. stop blaming others for your lack of success and your inability to get ahead. you're just being out performed by more able humans. face it, you're a total loser.

Sun, 2012-11-04 13:15 — John Standing

Unfortunately for you, I really do deal in facts, and you really can't dispute them. So you have to use diatribe. You are not an honest debater. Modern or racially-alien mass immigration, for example, did begin with the Windrush episode (though foreigners were entering, and staying, in numbers during WW2). Prior to that the land of the English received 50,000 fully assimilable Huguenots and later, the same number of non-assimilable Jews. But today we are, counting their seed, suffering the presence of around 10 million racial aliens.

You reify the strawman of "purity". But all peoples have genes from elsewhere. It is relatedness - the possession of shared distinctive genes - which signal ethnicity. The English are a ethnic group who attained kinship (relatedness) between the Germanic invasions and the crowning of Edgar as king of all the English in 953.

Never, NEVER deny the existence of a people. That's genocide talk, and you need to examine your heart. If you are one of our people. If you are foreign or half-foreign, you are acting racistically and I ask you to desist.

Your "we are all Africans" is also simply hate-talk. You might as well say we are all yeast. It's intellectually dishonest and morally flawed. Go and google for gene maps. You will find quite a sufficient number showing the separation of the human populations - they do not map on a single point. They are distinct. Don't lie again.

It is a pretty neat trick to fill the land of a people with racial aliens and tell them they are "bigots" for resisting. But all you scum have is tricks. You cannot debate with facts, you cannot debate ultimate value ... you have nothing.

We will end the attempt on the English life. You won't like it.

Fri, 2012-11-02 10:17 — argiebee (not verified)

Despite economic theory and common sense arguments that immigration is good, there isn't much evidence backing this up. At best immigration increases GDP by adding more people but does not improve the GDP per capita of the native population.

It is very important to consider the distributional effects, and research tends to suggest that the wealthiest are better off and the poorest worse off as a result of immigration.

Most economic research shows no correlation or association between new migrants and native employment/unemployment. So immigration does not help native employment.

This does not fit in well with economic theory on immigration because more people (immigrants) finding jobs should lead to more jobs being created for native workers as well.

Also the research tends to use spatial correlations i.e. different areas of the UK have different rates of immigration and native employment/unemployment and these are compared. However one of the main problems with this is it ignores that migrants are more likely to move to and find work where there are more jobs being created, so you would expect migrants to be going to areas where the employment prosepcts of the native population are also better. This correlation is not found, so it really suggests that migrants are adversely affecting the employment outcomes for the native workforce.

The Migration Advisory Committee's report in January again confirmed no correlation/association in general, but actually found that specifically for non-EEA migrants there was an adverse effect on native employment/unemployment. As they put it, every 100 non-EEA migrants resulted in 23 less jobs for native workers.

Non-EEA migration tends to be the skilled migration that many are calling for, but the evidence suggests that this has the worst effect on native employment/unemployment.