Why migration policy is never right

February 26, 2009 by
Filed under: Credit crunch, Public policy 

My old friends at ippr have a report out today on immigration. In typical ippr style the work is balanced, evidence based and progressively inclined. It comes to the conclusion that there is no net impact on the existing workforce as a result of immigration. However, all the evidence upon which the project was based comes from before the recession, so I fear it won’t cut much mustard with the kind of people who have been protesting against the hiring of foreign workers.

Coincidentally, a former ippr colleague of mine, who now works for the US based Migration Policy Institute has asked me, ahead of a seminar they are hosting in London next month, to lay out a cultural theory approach to migration policy.

I’m not sure I am entirely equipped for the job (either in terms of expertise in migration or cultural theory) but here goes:

Migration policy is tough because it has to deal with powerful forces and perspectives along each of the three active paradigms of cultural theory: individualism, egalitarianism and hierarchy.

Hierarchists (by which in this case we generally mean Government agencies) want a migration policy which is orderly and leads to predictable and manageable outcomes. Moreover, they feel a great deal of pressure to show that they can engineer and deliver such a policy. This helps to explain why Governments not only tend to talk tough on migration but also consistently exaggerate their control over migration and its outcomes. The state’s frailty in the face of the uncontrollability and complexity of migration threatens to undermine its credibility not just in this area but more broadly.

This is because migration is an issue which stirs huge egalitarian feeling. People often associate egalitarian instincts (an emphasis on ideas of fairness, shared values plus a suspicion of change driven by the state and markets) with the left, but in this case egalitarianism is most often expressed in hostility to migration. Progressives and champions of the rights of migrants and refugees do attempt to counter this with their own appeal to common values and grass roots mobilisation (see, for example, the brave and creative campaign, Simple Acts, advanced by the Refugee Week Partnership, which includes he Refugee Council and a number of other agencies) but these appeals lack the intensity of nationalism or tribalism.

The individualist approach to migration combines the desire of migrants themselves to improve their lot (or in the case of refugees – to save their lives) with the need of business to have as broad a labour market as possible from which to select employees.  Thus, individualism, which is normally associated with a right of centre perspective is, in the case of migration, the foundation for what looks like the progressive stance on this issue – the one argued by the RSA itself in a report published during the time of my predecessor.

Migration policy is complex for many reasons but a cultural theory analysis highlights why this is such a ‘wicked’ issue.  Egalitarians, individualists and hierarchists share powerful and apparently irreconcilable views which invert traditional alignments between ideology and models of change.

A successful migration policy has to find the aspects of each perspective which can be reconciled with the others.  How can hierarchists accept a policy that recognises and works within the limitations of state regulation?  How can egalitarians be engaged in shaping a realistic and humane migration policy that can be reconciled with cohesion and local fairness? And how can individualist aspirations be met in ways which recognise that for many people migration has few obvious benefits.

As usual, cultural theory offers no answers but it does force us to address the really tough questions.  As the recession deepens, the  tendency of hierarchists to over-claim, and egalitarian to express fear and suspicion, will grow.  But people’s desire for a better life will not go away, nor  will the globalising effects of modern business and technology. At a time like this a workable and progressive migration policy requires exceptional insight and courage from those who frame discourse, develop policy, and live with its consequences.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

10 Comments on Why migration policy is never right

  1. joe on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 9:08 am

    2. Seems to me there are two facts missing from this debate. First, that we are a nation of immigrants. It makes no logical sense to protest about immigration in the last x years when your own ancestors only been here since the last y years. The successive waves of immigration have brought with them great innovation and vibrancy, the mixing of ideas and knowledge. They have often performed the low-paid jobs nobody else wanted and were used as cannon fodder during our numerous bloody military campaigns.

    Second, the reason why people want to come here is because we have a wealthier lifestyle with far more opportunities than other have. And a large part of the reason why there is a global class system is because of colonialism. We went around raping-and-pillaging everyone else’s resources, causing disease, slavery and poverty and storing the wealth in banks at home.

    Given those facts, there is no such thing as ‘illegal’ immigration. People who want to work hard to better their lives or escape persecution are not criminals. Moreover, according to James Lovelock, these isles are going to be one of the best places to live in a changed climate future, so we’d better start rethinking how we talk about the issue. There are far more of ‘them’ than there are of ‘us’ for a start.

  2. matthewtaylor on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 9:15 am

    3. Thanks Joe

    This is a brilliant exposition of what might be termed the left egalitarian position. But, as I’m sure you recognise, it’s a million miles from the feelings of those who believe (however erroneously) that their neighbourhoods have been damaged and their jobs threatened by migration. Would it ever be possible for people from such different perspectives to engage with other. That’s’ one reasons why this is such a tough policy area

    Thanks for the comment

  3. joe on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 9:48 am

    4. Matthew – absolutely, which is why we are thinking hard about how we can do something about the hidden poor in our own communities – ie homeworkers. They’re ununionised and often paid less than the minimum wage. A hugely vulnerable group who almost nobody is at all bothered about.

    The understanding I’ve outlined above (which I’ll take your word for it being left egalitarianism) leads towards action in our own communities not ignoring the problems within them. We need to be more reliant on our own resources not dependent on others. We have unused skills in this country. We can do far more than the current fashionable cultural memory suggests. There are no pointless people, there are no pointless skills. Just forgotten people and wasted skills.

    I don’t believe anyone comes to this country wanting to be a cleaner, or working stupid hours living in a shared bedsit. These people are not a threat, they are just extremely hard working and prepared to do things we are not. Rather than focus unnecessarily on these people (who presumably are the ones holding much of our economy up) we need to focus on ourselves, how we build sustainable communities, how we become more self reliant, how we find new markets for the people and creativity that exists within our communities.

    We’ve done some more thinking about this with reference to the clothing industry here: http:/./www.freedomclothingproject.org/reports

    incidentally, I think the RSA should do far more thinking about the ‘Manufactures and Commerce’ in these times of economic upheaval.

  4. Michael in UK on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:34 pm

    5. I don’t understand your reasoning for saying “in this case egalitarianism is most often expressed in hostility to migration.” As an exercise, I did my own quick thumbnail cultural theory sketch on migration before reading yours. “My” egalitarianism comes out just like what you call “left egalitarianism” in your reply to Joe above ie. broadly supports migration on “one world/universal equity” grounds.
    Can you clarify how (any kind) of egalitarianism has a tendency to oppose migration please? I am trying to use cultural theory in my own worjk and this has confused me.

    I also had the individualist paradigm as being broadly opposed to migrartion – on what I termed “Nimbyism, and British jobs-british people grounds”, while at the same time acknwolwdging that individual migrants will want to improve their lives and oportunities.

  5. Duncan Lawie on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 9:04 am

    6. I’d like to have a go at answering Michael’s question here.

    The “defensive egalitarian” position is one which identifies closely with the existing community and is concerned by its disruption. It oppose the hierachical imposition of “new” people in our area and considers them as individualist interlopers who are breaking down existing community values.

    Migration certainly appears to be a good topic for reminding us that cultural theory doesn’t map onto the old left/right spectrum. We need to escape from that one dimensional system into one which recognises the shapes of real lives.

  6. matthewtaylor on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 8:24 am

    7. Hi Joe

    Thanks for this. Sounds like you are doing good work. Can I largely agree with you while still suggesting that rapid increases in ethnic and national diversity create issues which need to be openly addressed (so, neither ignored or exploited)? I absolutely agree about hidden potential and, as I have said many times in the past the coming squeeze on public spending means we will need public services to much better tap into civic capacity.

    On your final point, I agree and we are developing a proposal on entrepreneurship and have commissioned a think piece on new forms of manufacture

    Matthew

  7. matthewtaylor on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 8:56 am

    8. Hi Michael

    Marco Verweij has also questioned my assertion that anti-immgrant movements reflect an egalitarian perspective. I’ll cut and paste his thoughts (and my reply) when I get in to work.

    Matthew

  8. matthewtaylor on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 9:09 am

    9. Thanks Duncan. This is exactly my view. As I’ve just replied to Michael Smethurst, Marco Verweij e-mailed me to question our view so I’ll put up his comments later today.

  9. matthewtaylor on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 12:46 pm

    10. As promised, here are Marco’s commments:

    I just read your interesting blog entry on ‘why immigration policy is never right’, and wanted to share my (rather limited) thoughts on that – hope you don’t mind.

    I don’t think I would agree with your description of the egalitarian perspective on immigration. Egalitarianism, almost by definition, has to come down on the side of whoever has less power in a particular situation. (If one allowed for the idea that those with more power would be more benevolent, wiser, etc, then one might as well give up on defending egalitarian beliefs). A nice and rather bizarre example of this behaviour can be seen whenever the US, NATO or Israel attacks some cruel dictator or corrupt leader (Saddam, Milosevic, Arafat). In those cases, there will invariably be TV pictures of some Western peaceniks showing their solidarity with the oppressed by forming a ‘human shield’ around Saddam’s palace, Arafat’s compound, Milosevic’s fossil energy plant, etc. But before the military attack (or threat of attack), the very same peaceniks were among the vocal (and most courageous) critics of the very same dictators. For in that situation, the power was in the hands of the dictators (vis-a-vis their oppressed populations). Of course, an important exception to that rule is whenever a radical egalitarian clique (such as the Khmer Rouge in the mid-70s) grabs power itself. (A nice book about the drawbacks of radical egalitarianism written from a CT perspective is Richard Ellis’s “The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America”, University Press of Kansas, 1998 – this critique is even stronger as Richard himself clearly belongs to the left/’liberal’-wing of US politics).

    In any case, in my view, the egalitarian perspective on immigration is to show much concern about, profess solidarity with, and defend immigrants. The cause of immigration (in the egalitarian view) is the rapacious nature of capitalism, which is making the rich richer and the poor poorer – thus leading to large streams of economic, ecological and humanitarian refugees. And the egalitarian perspective will strongly protest treating immigrants as second-class citizens. A nice example would be the Immigrant Solidarity Network in the US (http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/).

    I think I understand why you presented the egalitarian perspective in a different manner. For me, this has to do with the inadequate way in which ‘fatalism’ is usually described in CT. Typically, fatalism is seen as a source of resignation, passivity, etc. I partly disagree with that, and think that Banfield got it completely right in his ‘Amoral Basis of a Backward Society’ (which is also mentioned in the book CT as an excellent description of fatalism). As Banfield explains so clearly, fatalists are obsessed with relative gain. They will not join collective action that will benefit them absolutely but will benefit others more. (As a result of this, little collective action gets undertaken, and then resignation reigns). This is the rationality of the zero-sum game: what you win, I lose. It is also the rationality of ‘an eye for an eye’ (as this at least undoes relative gain by others), and of ‘me against my brother, my brother and me against our cousin, me and my cousins against the village, etc’. In the immigration debate, the fatalistic rationality is expressed by those who not only want to stop all immigrants from entering, but would also like to kick all resident foreigners out as well (as ‘they are stealing our jobs, women, etc’). It is the perspective of the National Front and other xenophobic/racist groups. Especially in the immigration debate, it is a quite active political force – hence, my dislike of the term ‘fatalism’, which to me suggests too much passivity. In my eyes, this is certainly not your fault – I believe CT needs to be clarified on this point (and it has taken me a lot of teaching critical undergraduates to understand this myself).

    I agree with your take on the individualistic point of view. But in reality it is sometimes an more extreme position than you describe: the Cato Institute in the US, for instance, has argued that it is because of government intervention in the economy (through border controls, immigration laws & quota, etc) that so many foreigners reside in the US. In their eyes, far less foreigners would stay in the US if they knew that they could return whenever they wanted. Their solution
    (http://www.cato.org/researcharea.php?display=7) is: abolish all border controls – no restrictions on the movement of labour at all. Admittedly, such extreme individualistic views are much less prevalent in Europe. (Another individualistic tactic in this debate: to claim that the concerns over immigrants are greatly overstated- see for instance an older report
    at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html).

    Just my sixpence! For you to entirely ignore, of course. (Quite a few of my undergrads like to analyze this topic through a CT lens, so I have had to give some thought).

    Cheers,

    Marco

  10. Michael in UK on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 1:50 pm

    11. Excellent. Thank you Matthew for posting Marco’s comments- they really help. I especially like his stress on the the idea that fatalism is not always passive or inert, it can lead to action which well have malign or destructive effects (or so the other perspectives will argue.).

    The other big point for me was where he said – “Egalitarianism, almost by definition, has to come down on the side of whoever has less power in a particular situation.” I can appreciate Duncan Lawrie’s argument above, but I am persuaded by Marco’s argument here.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!