Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter

Re-open the Borders 161
IMMIGRATION AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
A common argument put forward by the proponents of immigration controls
is that free movement would be impossible to accept because of the existence
of the welfare state and the burden immigrants would put on it. In 1963
Frank McLeavy, Labour MP for Bradford East, said in the House of Commons:
We cannot afford to be the welfare state for the whole of the Commonwealth. We have
a responsibility to our people from a trade union point of view ...
Such attitudes are frequently expressed, and not just by trade unionists.
Apparently the benefits of the welfare state should be reserved for the native
inhabitants of the rich countries. They are not for sharing. The effects of
immigration on public finances are much debated. But, as Bob Sutcliffe
argues in Nacido en otra parte:
This is really an extraordinary debate. First, both sides share the assumption that
immigration is desirable only if it has a positive fiscal balance. That is, immigrants
are welcome only if they improve the economic situation of the current inhabitants.
If not, they must be excluded. A debate based on similar assumptions in relation to
national groups would be almost universally considered barbaric. If, for example, and
as is likely, in general people over the age of 70 receive more from public expenditure
than they contribute to it, an argument corresponding to the one on immigration
would have to be that such persons are undesirable and should be expelled from the
country. Doubtless the same would apply to the unemployed, the severely incapacitated,
perhaps to religious people and artists. The only reason why the argument is not
rejected is that it concerns foreigners. To take this argument seriously is to contribute
to the dehumanisation of the migrant.
Nevertheless those who wish to protect the privileges of the inhabitants of
the rich countries need not worry too much. Most research concludes that
the effect of immigration on public finances is slight. Seventeen studies on
the matter were examined by the OECD in a 1997 report on Trends in International
Migration; 4 said the effect of immigration on public finances was
zero or positive, 6 that it was zero or negative, and 7 could not decide; none
of them was said to be conclusive. Immigrants when they first arrive
probably contribute more to the welfare state than they take from it. They are
generally young men, and sometimes women, of working age, self-selected
as fit and enterprising. Provided they are allowed to work they do so; they
pay taxes and do not require welfare benefits. The rich countries get the
labour they need for the functioning and expansion of their economies
without having to pay what Marxists call the reproduction costs of labour:
the support and education of children and care and medical attention for
people who are ill. Usually they fail to make any attempt to provide
immigrants with adequate housing. Refugees, it is true, sometimes come
with medical problems, including the aftermath of torture, but they too are
mostly young and would work if they were allowed to. The very rich come