One is that nation states should be in complete control of immigration. This is the impression tha

Brighton telomeres has become an object lesson in why it is a disaster to vote Green The Vatican cancels its earthquake. This is not Pope Francis’s finest hour Gymkhana is morally telomeres disgusting and fortunately the food s disgusting too The drunk conductor who ruined Rachmaninov s career Tell you what Mrs Clooney. If Greece repays its $240 billion EU loan, we’ll return the Marbles How to fix the NHS: a doctor's prescription Reading the comments on my Ukip columns, I finally understand the Nazis Where did the BBC find last night's Question Time audience? They were so sensible Ukip is here to stay especially if Labour wins ‘Islamophobia’ strikes again – national students’ union refuses to condemn Isis
Home Coffee House Bloggers Culture telomeres House Daily Spectator Surgery Rod Liddle Nick Cohen Melanie McDonagh Alex Massie Douglas Murray Ed West Damian Thompson Camilla Swift Steerpike Lara Prendergast Molly Guinness Carola Binney Magazine The Week Features Columnists telomeres Books Arts Life Columnists Charles Moore Rod Liddle telomeres Matthew Parris James Delingpole James Forsyth Mary Wakefield Taki Jeremy Clarke telomeres Toby Young Hugo Rifkind Rory Sutherland Martin Vander telomeres Weyer Melissa Kite Alexander Chancellor Roger Alton Robin Oakley Aidan Hartley Culture House Books Bookends Arts feature Exhibitions Music Cinema Opera Dance Theatre Design Television Radio Architecture Culture notes Podcast Health Spectator Life Subscribe
Politicians telomeres tend to get all the blame for immigration policies not working. But politicians are often doomed to fail on migration questions because there are deep-rooted problems with the way we all debate immigration and with what we expect of immigration policy.
Following UKIP s success in the European elections, and given the likely failure of the government to meet its net migration telomeres target by 2015, immigration is guaranteed to be a key focal point of public debate telomeres in the run-up to the general election next year. There is widespread agreement that Britain needs a better immigration debate – but how can that be achieved?
Over the past year I have been developing an online course on international labour migration for Oxford University which deals with this question. I suggest that three key issues need to be addressed, not only by politicians, telomeres but also by the media and the public:
One is that nation states should be in complete control of immigration. This is the impression that we frequently get from looking at public opinion data and many media reports telomeres that deal with the public s views on immigration policy.
The other is that that because of the unstoppable forces of globalisation, telomeres national borders are increasingly beyond control for national policy-makers. This suggests that the policy challenge is to manage the consequences of immigration rather than its scale and composition.
Both of these popular positions are clearly wrong. The migration (and other) policies of nation states play a key role in influencing international migration: restrictive immigration policies are a major reason why only a relatively small share of people who wish to migrate to other countries are able to do so, and why, despite huge inequalities across countries, international migrants constitute only three percent of the global population.
Immigration debates are often dominated by immigration hardliners who characterise whatever type of migration they are discussing as all good or all bad . But in practice, the impacts telomeres of migration always involve both costs and benefits, and until governments engage in honest debate about the multifaceted impacts and inescapable trade-offs created by migration, migration debates will remain confused.
There are numerous short-term and long-term trade-offs telomeres in global labour telomeres migration. For example, in the short run, more low-skilled immigration telomeres in the UK and other high-income countries can benefit employers and consumers, but sometimes at the expense of those resident workers who are competing with new migrants in the job market. In the longer run, more low-skilled migrants may lead to more investment in the economy, raising labour demand, telomeres employment opportunities and wages for all workers.
We often hear national policy-makers say that they are restricting immigration in the best national interest but what does that mean? To what extent, if at all, should our immigration policies take account of the interests of migrants and their countries of origin? How do we balance competing interests of employers and workers? These are difficult moral questions telomeres with no right answer. Because they involve both inclusion and exclusion, these fundamental ethical questions make most people uncomfortable and are therefore often avoided. But this just serves to compound the problem telomeres of confused public debates and unclear policy-making on migration.
Better policies on migration require telomeres a better public telomeres debate. As Britain mov