Following my earlier post on the subject, I wanted to build upon my thoughts on immigration. Now the dominant New Left has decreed it an acceptable area for debate, people from all over the political spectrum seem to be in agreement that we need to restrict it - but just how accurate is this view?

I draw upon an article in the Telegraph by Conservative MP Peter Lilley. Much of it is made of the usual partisan bickering you would expect from an MP, but there are some important points argued:

The greatest public concern about immigration, and the most rational, is rarely mentioned in public debate: its impact on the housing market. Even if Eastern Europeans share dwellings at double the national average, an extra 600,000 people must occupy well over 100,000 dwellings. That is more than half the new homes built each year. Workers from the new member states are not entitled to social housing or housing benefit, but every private dwelling they occupy means one fewer for local residents.

It is difficult to argue he does not have a point. Who could deny that space itself is not finite? Eventually there will have to be upper-limits on the number of immigrants we can welcome, if simply to try and combat overcrowding. These are simple, empirical, geographical arguments.

However of course nothing is that simple, and there are other things to bear in mind. Firstly is the struggle the 'native' British population has in merely replacing itself, as birth rates continue to fall. Surely then at least some immigration would not hamper the search for homes.

Secondly, it has to be questioned whether work restrictions will really be that effective. EU citizenship means workers from Bulgaria and Romania will be free to come to this country anyway. Should they get work, they will be extremely difficult to catch, and if caught, all they will face is deportation back to their country of origin, from where they are free to try again. If implemented, it seems that restrictions would be so difficult to enforce that it hardly seems worth wasting time on.

Lilley offers us economic arguments in favour of immigration restriction:

Precisely because immigrants are often skilled, invariably industrious, and usually willing to work for less than the going rate, the resident population fears their impact on British pay and jobs. Government claims that immigration is economically enriching ring false to those lower down the pay spectrum.

It surely is not deliberate, but notice how his references to immigrants as "skilled" and "industrious" seem to want to draw comparison to the British. Why would anyone think that of us? Lilley continues:

Of course, that is what makes immigration popular with the better-off. They would rather employ a skilled Polish worker than a semi-skilled Brit; and prefer a highly motivated East European to a Briton whose drive is blunted by the knowledge that he can get nearly as much "on the social".

Perhaps there is the answer. Lilley tries to attack the 'better off' for employing the skilled over the semi-skilled, and the highly motivated over those "whose drive is blunted". Perhaps I am missing something, but even the better off do not treat business as attempts at charity. Why shouldn't you employ the best person for the job?

It is all very well to frame this as "countryman vs foreigner", or "stick up for your own", but if you are inclined to believe in a free market you would reject much government involvement in this area, which leaves individual action - and how many people have the time or energy to what is essentially engage in social engineering with national consequences when all they want is a job to be done?

All these people are trying to do is enhance their own lives by seeking new opportunities, taking up jobs where their are shortages, creating new jobs by setting up their own businesses and through their extra spending power, keeping down wage inflation (though this may cause harm when inflation in other areas is higher) and healthily in my opinion exposing welfare, state run public services and the minimum wage for what they are. Leaving aside cultural considerations (on which I feel the argument is stronger) immigration really is a good thing

I oppose these new silly restrictions on new EU members. It totally contradicts the ideal of European intergration, and you cannot have it both ways. It seems bizarre to support the EU yet kick up a fuss when it alledgedly backfires on you. I do not support British membership of the EU, but at least I do support some intellectual integrity.