Ten years ago, the Leave campaign won the referendum on EU membership by confecting a political issue out of the topic of immigration. The ruse continues to serve them well. There is, within the UK electorate, a constituency that is fiercely nativist and quite happy to see foreigners, especially those with brown skins, demonised. Opinion polling finds “an increase in public concern” among some parts of those questioned: indeed between 40% and 50% say that for them immigration (at too high a level) is among the most important issues.
This did not used to be the case. But political operators such as Nigel Farage have managed to construct immigration into an issue. Right-wing newspapers such as the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and the Expressglory in negative stories about immigration. And we must not forget GB News. Those of an anti-immigrant disposition make effective use of social media to spread ‘information’ about immigration that might have a modest basis of truth, but frequently none whatsoever.
The race to the right
In September 2024 Farage set his face against any policy of enforced deportations of immigrants. More recently, Rupert Lowe of Restore Britain committed his extreme-right party to a policy of deportation and this has caused Farage to change his stance and propose a policy of deporting 600,000 migrants in Reform UK Limited’s first term of government.
In this way the whole framework of discussion about immigration is being dragged off to the right. Where once mainstream, moderate political parties (Labour, Conservative) would have stood up against anti-immigrant rhetoric, the electoral temptation to follow Farage has been too great. As journalist James Ball has written, “Labour having seen the Tories shift, largely followed suit – Shabana Mahmood’s Home Office is, in many ways, more hardline than most of her Conservative predecessors” [subscription required],.
Setting the context
What is in danger of becoming ultra-depressing is that discussions on immigration may often take place in a context of ignorance, prejudice and false information. The good news is that in May, Lauren Gilbert and Jonathan Portes published a 27-page monograph, Immigration to the UK: Escaping the doom loop (PEF, 2026), that is a cornucopia of information and wise analysis.
The paper is written for non-specialists, is principled, accessible, clear and thorough, and handsomely repays a good read.
Key points that emerge from the paper are:
- Immigration into the UK has fallen dramatically in the last few years and is now down to 171,000.
- For the indigenous UK population to replace itself requires women to give birth to an average of 2.1 children. The current fertility rate of 1.4 implies population decline and obliges, in the long run, a smaller working population to support a growing cohort of pensioners.
- Most immigrants are workers and contribute more to the exchequer by way of taxation than they take from government by way of services received. Gilbert and Portes’s data shows that the lifetime cohort total of net contributions of immigrants is £47.1bn.
- In effect, a policy of restricting immigration is acting to reduce labour supply at precisely the point where demographic trends are already doing so. Two sectors at particular risk are health and social care, followed by hospitality and local services.
- Another sector at risk is foreign students. Gilbert and Portes report that that each student contributes between £90,000-£100,000 to the economy over the period of their course. The net annual contribution is between £30-£40bn. This ‘invisible export’ cross-subsidises domestic students and also supports research in our leading universities. To date it has been a major element of UK ‘soft power’ –but in future? The unwisdom of tightening restrictions on dependents has already meant a decline in visa applications. This has serious implications for the continued financial viability of some universities.
- The government constantly tinkering with immigration rules generates uncertainty. Firms and universities look to make long term plans, and these can be upset by short term changes in regulations. The effects of some rule changes are uncertain and lagged, giving rise to instability.
These are serious downsides – and this is not an exhaustive list – of seeking to reduce immigration.
Put another way, immigration has been hugely beneficial to the UK and its economy.
The immigration reduction doom loop
To quote directly from the monograph for a moment:
“The economic costs of lower migration emerge gradually and are often diffuse; the political signal from announcing restrictions is immediate but typically short-lived. This creates an incentive for repeated tightening without a corresponding improvement in underlying outcomes.
This dynamic can be summarised as follows:
- Migration is framed as a cause of economic and social strain;
- Policy is tightened in response;
- Economic performance weakens (through labour supply and fiscal channels);
- Public dissatisfaction increases;
- Migration remains the focal point of political grievance.”
And thus we go round the same doom loop once more.
What can we do?
Firstly, please take the time to access the Gilbert and Portes paper and read it. There is so much more in it than I can get across in 1,000 words.
It’s fine to be both well-informed and angry. Angry on two counts, because restricting immigration to the UK is doing precisely the wrong thing and, if we also bring in policy on asylum (outside the scope of this piece), there are moral issues of compassion and humanity. I am an inveterate writer of letters to The Yorkshire Post: why not write your own letters to the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and others?
If you come across racist or otherwise anti-immigrant conversation or writing, please do your best to ‘call it out’. But do not put yourself at risk. The facts – and the principles – are on your side.
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
