BOOKS TOM GAISFORD


HUMAN TIDE ON OUR SHORES


The Challenge of Immigration: a radical solution Gary S. Becker


INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS/PROFILE, 66PP, £7.50


■Tablet bookshop price £6.75 G Tel 01420 592974


ary Becker is a Nobel laureate and professor of economics and soci- ology at the University of Chicago. In this book, his message is


straightforward: “Think of immigration”, he writes “as a market.” His radical solution will, he hopes, reconcile different approaches to this controversial and divisive subject. It goes like this: there is excess demand to come to rich countries. The price is, therefore, too low and we should raise it, thus balancing the desired number of immigrants with the number who want to enter. It should be applied to anyone who can pay the fee, with the exception only of such obvious cases as “potential terrorists, criminals and people who are very sick and who would be imme- diately a big burden on the health system”. In adopting this market approach, a better


sort of immigrant will be attracted, namely the skilled, the young and the committed.


OUR REVIEWERS Tom Gaisfordis a human-rights lawyer working in London. Brian Mortonwrites regularly on the arts for The Tablet. Amanda Hopkinson is a visiting professor at the Centre of Translation and Intercultural Studies at Manchester University. Mary Blanche Ridge is a freelance writer.


THE TABLET BOOKSHOP £1.5 (4 books or more: add £5)


Postage and Packing for books up to 1kg* UK


EUROPE £2. per book


REST OF THE WORLD £2. per book *P&P for oversized books will be charged at cost


We accept Visa, MasterCard and Switch Cheques payable to Redemptorist Publications


Call:


Email: Post:


01420 592 974 Fax: 01420 888 05 tabletbookshop@rpbooks.co.uk


The Tablet Bookshop, Alphonsus House Chawton, Hampshire GU34 3HQ


Redemptorist Publications will endeavour to sell you the book at the price advertised. However, occasionally on publication the published price is altered,in which case we will notify you prior to debiting your card.


22 | THE TABLET | 25 June 2011


Poor, ambitious would-be immigrants could also come, if they finance loans by contracting with companies that could pay the fees directly for them. In return, they would commit to working for those companies for a number of years, legally and without reliance on the black market and its associated perils. Humanitarian cases would continue to be considered, under our current international and regional obligations. This engaging idea arose during Becker’s debate with Diane Coyle, a member of the UK Migration Advisory Committee, which took place at the Institute of Economic Affairs, in the name of “continuing to promote the case for market-orientated solutions to eco- nomic and social problems”. Coyle’s argument focuses on the UK context. She highlights differences between the UK’s native population and its immigrant com- munity and emphasises the complementary nature of the respective skills of both groups. For instance, for UK-born men the most com- mon occupations are managerial jobs, heavy- goods driving and skilled trades; in contrast with immigrant men, fewer are chefs, software professionals and medical practitioners. UK immigration policy, she explains, tries to encourage and harness this complementarity. Of course, economists who believe that


markets adjust to reduce such imbalances as skills shortages are uncomfortable with this selectivity. Coyle contends, however, that “identity matters when it comes to moral obli- gations”. She clarifies this: “Many people would argue that we have the strongest moral obli- gations to those who are closest to us.” The aim of ensuring that people already living in the UK have adequate opportunities to gain skills and compete should be afforded a “higher ranking in terms of social welfare than the well-being of those who are currently not living and working here”. In such circum- stances, “fairness should trump efficiency”. Yet, understandably, Becker struggles to see


how “a system that decides which immigrants are acceptable by their occupations, ethnicity or other criteria” is fairer than his less selective model. Indeed, the appeal of Becker’s proposal lies in its simplicity and apparent universality. As the debate itself demonstrates, however,


Shoppers in the culturally diverse borough of Newham, in east London. Photo: Reuters


Becker’s noble attempt to recon- cile conflicting perspectives on immigration policy meets imme- diate resistance. At the centre of the discord is a fundamental dis- agreement over the question of fairness. Which process is fairer – our current, interventionist policy or Becker’s “radical solution”?


And, just as important, fairness for whom? At odds with Coyle’s perspective, Becker’s strict market approach would appear to prevent him from giving preference to the needs of state nationals over the concerns of “ambitious immigrants”. To do so would be to interfere with the forces of supply and demand. Yet Becker’s model assumes a different level of intervention. In pricing immigration, he would in effect be defining the market. Positions would still need to be taken on how many immigrants we want, and what types we would like to encourage. His market solution cannot exist independently of such concerns. At the heart of this discussion are more fundamental questions. There was a time when regulation, or “intervention”, hardly existed. Becker reminds us that until the early twentieth century the United States had, essentially, unlimited immigration. However, the rise of the welfare state, he argues, makes this an unattractive prospect, given our natural tendencies as humans to respond to incentives, and the likelihood that a significant number of migrants would move to take advantage of welfare benefits and other government- provided goods. The starting point of this debate was the


question of how to solve the challenge of immi- gration. Yet the meaning of that challenge is itself unchallenged. Is it, essentially, how can we achieve most benefit from immigration? Surely the issue is broader than a question of domestic gain. While we continue to frame such discussions in the context of our primary concerns as host states, it is difficult to see a satisfactory solution. Meanwhile in the UK net immigration is on the rise again. Despite the present Home Secretary’s intention to reduce it to “tens of thousands” before the end of the current Parliament, this trend will be difficult to reverse. This book may, albeit indirectly, usher us one step closer to reframing, in broader terms, the debate about what remains one of the most complex and polarising issues of modern society. Ultimately, the real chal- lenge of immigration is best defined as one shared with those who feel compelled to come here, often at great risk, expense and personal sacrifice.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36