Welcome, immigrants

A month ago, a BBC News investigation team uncovered a criminal network in West London, involved in smuggling poor, male farmers from Punjab in India into the UK. These illegal immigrants, known as faujis were given fake documents, poorly paid manual work and stationed in squalid housing. Yes, it was totally wrong to provide them with fake passports, driving licenses and Home Office registration cards. But there are other aspects of this activity where the illegality is not so obvious, and they should be further contemplated before being branded so quickly as inhumane.

Take their accommodation - the faujis are packed into houses living in poor conditions all over Southall. And their pay - they are often employed for 12-hour days, six days a week at £150, which is just over £2 an hour. In the exposé, the undercover reporter Mohammed‚ managed to work in a chip shop and on a building site flouting all safety regulations. But aren't all these circumstances better than the alternative? As rural workers in India pay, rights and living and working conditions are even worse. This is evident from the lengths they are willing to go to in order to enter Britain illegally. All the while, poverty in India is improved by the remittances of faujis to their families back home.

The UK also profits. In keeping within the laws of supply and demand, abundant labour brings down the costs of goods and services for the consumer. And with the need for manual labour taken care of, the UK can focus on becoming a knowledge-based economy.

Evidently, we need a pro-immigration policy, bringing non-zero sum consequences where both immigrants and the British benefit. The entry of 600,000 eastern Europeans since 2004 is testament to this; their role as workers and consumers has been vital to this country's growth over the last 4 years. Indeed, the Labour government's decision to open its borders when the remainder of Europe (save Ireland and Sweden) refused to, is something to be commended. Let‚s just hope it doesn‚t stop there.

...
written by Oli, August 15, 2008

Dare to point out that these workers are now earning 10 times what they did at home and you will be branded a cruel, hateful capitalist.

The media are great at twisting any story with their simplistic agenda of highlighting their own naivety about the world!

...
written by Anonymous, August 15, 2008

You can complain about tax and regulation however engaging illegal business practises is not excusable. The government should begin a crack down.

These illegal business practises harm businesses that are ran legimately and legally.

...
written by Arthur, August 15, 2008

I am sorry but as much as I love what the ASI stands for it occasionally lets ideological idiocy trump common sense, and this is a case in point.

£2 per hour might well be more than the faujis can earn back in India but some English people do not believe that their country is there only to be used for the benefit of foreign nationals. How much does India pay towards defence? If they reduced tax then companies could afford to pay them more. Why is it that we are expected to pay for India's economic decisions? We do not ask these questions because we are in a default setting in this country that immigrant equals good and questioning national equals bad.

You then go on to say that the UK profits because of cheap goods brought about by cheap labour. But what you fail to mention is that these lower pay costs, usually in the unskilled labour market, maintains the gap between rich and poor. In a prosperous country we want labour competition to be fierce so more people benefit from higher wages, and less people are doing non-jobs. It is in countries where the supply of labour is far higher than demand that exploitation takes place, hence the growing exploitation in the UK.

You also claim that consumers benefit from cheaper goods but if they themselves are being paid less in the first place then the benefit is not quite so obvious to them, is it? When it comes to disposable income, the difference between income and expenditure is key. If they are both reduced then we are no better off despite the ignorant rhetoric that tries to convince us that we are.

And finally, the Labour decision to open our borders to Eastern Europe was not something to be commended but a desperate act by a government that wanted to mask overspending and reducing competitiveness in the UK by cheaper labour costs. Didn't do much good in the end, did it? And it can also be argued that all that cheap building and decorating labour contributed to the latter stages of the property bubble as we all though we could buy a property and do it up for the price a a packet of fags and a bottle of Wodka.

I am not sure whether this post represents the ASI's genuine position or a ploy to illicit some sort of response but the selective economic logic is not worthy of all the good the ASI does. You can argue that cheap foreign labour is good in some instances but the economic argument can equally be made to show how it is not quite so good for others.

And anyway, please get over the narrow mindset that thinks happiness and well being is only down to crude economics. Sure, wealth helps but when deified, it blinds us to all those other social and cultural things that make us happy, and human.

I believe in market economics, but...
written by Arthur, August 15, 2008

As Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green MP said at the ASI earlier this year, "I believe in market economics, but..." A bit like "I have many black friends, but...", it was the opening line of a totally anti-market and illiberal rant against immigration.

It is amazing how often supposed economic liberals (including many of the ASI's supporters) forget the basic lessons of Adam Smith once somebody speaks in a foreign accent. Immigration is a perfect example of enlightened self-interest in action. The faujis are no more interested in keeping down the cost of good and services than Arthur (above) is in his "country [being] there only to be used for the benefit of foreign nationals". However, both the British and the Indians benefit from their coming here to work.

The influx of East European immigrants was worth 0.5% of GDP growth over-and-above population increase and helped keep down inflation.

At the end of the day, the question is not one of economics but of liberty. The government should not have the power to tell me whom I may employ or to dictate to them how much they should be willing to accept. Doing so is crude protectionism, and labour protection is as harmful and authoritarian as protectionism in any other field.

Written by Yohan Sanmugam
Friday, 15 August 2008
A month ago, a BBC News investigation team uncovered a criminal network in West London, involved in smuggling poor, male farmers from Punjab in India into the UK. These illegal immigrants, known as faujis were given fake documents, poorly paid manual work and stationed in squalid housing. Yes, it was totally wrong to provide them with fake passports, driving licenses and Home Office registration cards. But there are other aspects of this activity where the illegality is not so obvious, and they should be further contemplated before being branded so quickly as inhumane. Take their accommodation - the faujis are packed into houses living in poor conditions all over Southall. And their pay - they are often employed for 12-hour days, six days a week at £150, which is just over £2 an hour. In the exposé, the undercover reporter Mohammed‚ managed to work in a chip shop and on a building site flouting all safety regulations. But aren't all these circumstances better than the alternative? As rural workers in India pay, rights and living and working conditions are even worse. This is evident from the lengths they are willing to go to in order to enter Britain illegally. All the while, poverty in India is improved by the remittances of faujis to their families back home. The UK also profits. In keeping within the laws of supply and demand, abundant labour brings down the costs of goods and services for the consumer. And with the need for manual labour taken care of, the UK can focus on becoming a knowledge-based economy. Evidently, we need a pro-immigration policy, bringing non-zero sum consequences where both immigrants and the British benefit. The entry of 600,000 eastern Europeans since 2004 is testament to this; their role as workers and consumers has been vital to this country's growth over the last 4 years. Indeed, the Labour government's decision to open its borders when the remainder of Europe (save Ireland and Sweden) refused to, is something to be commended. Let‚s just hope it doesn‚t stop there. Bookmark Comments (4) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Oli, August 15, 2008 Dare to point out that these workers are now earning 10 times what they did at home and you will be branded a cruel, hateful capitalist. The media are great at twisting any story with their simplistic agenda of highlighting their own naivety about the world! ... written by Anonymous, August 15, 2008 You can complain about tax and regulation however engaging illegal business practises is not excusable. The government should begin a crack down. These illegal business practises harm businesses that are ran legimately and legally. ... written by Arthur, August 15, 2008 I am sorry but as much as I love what the ASI stands for it occasionally lets ideological idiocy trump common sense, and this is a case in point. £2 per hour might well be more than the faujis can earn back in India but some English people do not believe that their country is there only to be used for the benefit of foreign nationals. How much does India pay towards defence? If they reduced tax then companies could afford to pay them more. Why is it that we are expected to pay for India's economic decisions? We do not ask these questions because we are in a default setting in this country that immigrant equals good and questioning national equals bad. You then go on to say that the UK profits because of cheap goods brought about by cheap labour. But what you fail to mention is that these lower pay costs, usually in the unskilled labour market, maintains the gap between rich and poor. In a prosperous country we want labour competition to be fierce so more people benefit from higher wages, and less people are doing non-jobs. It is in countries where the supply of labour is far higher than demand that exploitation takes place, hence the growing exploitation in the UK. You also claim that consumers benefit from cheaper goods but if they themselves are being paid less in the first place then the benefit is not quite so obvious to them, is it? When it comes to disposable income, the difference between income and expenditure is key. If they are both reduced then we are no better off despite the ignorant rhetoric that tries to convince us that we are. And finally, the Labour decision to open our borders to Eastern Europe was not something to be commended but a desperate act by a government that wanted to mask overspending and reducing competitiveness in the UK by cheaper labour costs. Didn't do much good in the end, did it? And it can also be argued that all that cheap building and decorating labour contributed to the latter stages of the property bubble as we all though we could buy a property and do it up for the price a a packet of fags and a bottle of Wodka. I am not sure whether this post represents the ASI's genuine position or a ploy to illicit some sort of response but the selective economic logic is not worthy of all the good the ASI does. You can argue that cheap foreign labour is good in some instances but the economic argument can equally be made to show how it is not quite so good for others. And anyway, please get over the narrow mindset that thinks happiness and well being is only down to crude economics. Sure, wealth helps but when deified, it blinds us to all those other social and cultural things that make us happy, and human. I believe in market economics, but... written by Arthur, August 15, 2008 As Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green MP said at the ASI earlier this year, "I believe in market economics, but..." A bit like "I have many black friends, but...", it was the opening line of a totally anti-market and illiberal rant against immigration. It is amazing how often supposed economic liberals (including many of the ASI's supporters) forget the basic lessons of Adam Smith once somebody speaks in a foreign accent. Immigration is a perfect example of enlightened self-interest in action. The faujis are no more interested in keeping down the cost of good and services than Arthur (above) is in his "country [being] there only to be used for the benefit of foreign nationals". However, both the British and the Indians benefit from their coming here to work. The influx of East European immigrants was worth 0.5% of GDP growth over-and-above population increase and helped keep down inflation. At the end of the day, the question is not one of economics but of liberty. The government should not have the power to tell me whom I may employ or to dictate to them how much they should be willing to accept. Doing so is crude protectionism, and labour protection is as harmful and authoritarian as protectionism in any other field. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!