Although many elites share Gideon Rachman’s praise for mass immigration (January 23 Opinion), the reality is that this ignores a growing body of evidence.
Contrary to Rachman’s assertions, we now know, thanks to the work of Professor Robert Putnam, among others, that highly diversified societies marked by massive immigration have lower levels of social trust. We also know, as the Migration Advisory Committee and others have recently highlighted, that Britain’s current model of low-wage, low-skilled and largely unselective immigration is fueling Britain’s housing crisis. Only 15 percent of the two million people who arrived in Britain over the past five years came on a skilled worker visa. Furthermore, recent research from the Netherlands highlights that non-EU migration, like that which Britain encourages today, represents a net fiscal cost, not a benefit, to Western economies.
Finally, while Rachman describes me as an “anti-immigration activist” for highlighting these problems with mass immigration, I wonder why the vast majority of academics who openly support this broken consensus are not described as ” pro-immigration activists”?
Professor Matt Goodwin
Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom