Now let's turn our attention to the article, which is attached to this
message.  As the article is from a British magazine, this may make it a
bit easier for us to read "at arm's length," thereby removing some of
the emotional nature of the entire immigration debate.

The importance of this article is that it removes something else from
the debate as well--race.  Here the talk is about overwhelmingly white
Britain declining to allow more immigration from overwhelmingly white
Eastern Europe.  The point is that casting the immigration debate in
racial terms, as is often done, is a gross oversimplication; immigration
is a controversy even in nonracial situations.  A similar controversy
emerged a few years ago when many citizens of Hong Kong objected to the
large influx of people who were migrating from inland China.  And here
in California, there was something like this during the Dust Bowl years
in the 1930s, when white Californians tried to bar white "Okies"
(Oklahomans) from entering California.  In all of these cases, the
issues were economic--the effects of migration on jobs, school funding,
housing prices, etc.  Please read the article and think about these
implications.

By the way, speaking of the economic aspects:  This article was in The
Economist, which is widely read in the U.S. (I am a subscriber, though I
am much more politically).  It tends to take a very pro-immigration
stance, which they consider good for business.  This is also the case
for the Wall Street Journal in the U.S., which has called for fully open
borders, no restriction on immigration of any kind.  By contrast, the
AFL-CIO and other labor groups in the U.S. have been much more hesitant,
and in fact have rather complex stances on the issue.  One of the first
things we will do in our class is discuss what the motivations, open and
hidden, are of the various players who push Congress for various changes
to immigration policy, on both sides of the debate.

Norm


Britain

Migration from eastern Europe

Second thoughts

Aug 24th 2006
The Economist 

Why the door will not open for workers from Romania and Bulgaria

WHEN the European Union expanded in May 2004, just three of its existing
15 members welcomed migrant workers from eastern Europe. Britain was the
only large country to open its labour market. Along with Ireland and
Sweden, it waived the opportunity to impose restrictions lasting up to
seven years. The decision allowed eager Poles, among others, to fan out
to vegetable fields, building sites, factories and restaurants across
Britain.

In January 2007 the EU is expected to expand yet again. On current plans,
Romania  and  Bulgaria will follow in the wake of the eight eastern
countries that joined in 2004. Until now, the government was resolved to
offer the same welcome to migrant workers from the two new members. But
ministers are having second thoughts and thinking them aloud.

On August 20th Alistair Darling, the trade secretary, said that migration
from Romania and Bulgaria would be "managed". In explicitly ruling out an
open-door  policy,  he  seemed  to  be  preparing the ground for an
embarrassing U-turn.

The bigger political embarrassment, however, would be another stampede of
migrant workers, this time from Romania and Bulgaria. Before Poland and
the other seven countries joined, the government published a prediction
of the likely migration that has proved wildly wrong. The study suggested
that the net inflow of workers (taking into account those that return)
would be only 13,000 a year up until the end of the decade.

Instead, figures released on August 22nd showed that 427,000 migrants
from eastern Europe had registered for work between May 2004 and June
2006.  These  figures do not include the self-employed, such as the
supposedly ubiquitous Polish plumber. Allowing for that, the true figure
was nearly 600,000 according to Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister.

John Salt, director of the migration research unit at University College
London, says that the population movement since May 2004 is the biggest
single wave of migration in British history. Certainly this is the case
in absolute terms, although he adds that the arrival of Huguenots from
France in the late 17th century may have been bigger as a share of the
population.

Ministers are waking up to the political dangers of presiding over an
even bigger influx than the current one when Romania and Bulgaria join
the EU. There is nothing new in such calculations. "Immigration can be
the greatest political vote loser for the Labour Party if one seems to be
permitting a flood of immigrants to come," noted Richard Crossman, a
Labour  minister,  in  his diary in February 1965, during a time of
heightened  anxiety  about new arrivals. But until now Tony Blair's
government has thought that the economic gains were worth the political
risk.

The  new  wave  of  migration has certainly brought some impressive
short-term  benefits.  The working-age population has recently been
increasing at its fastest for over 20 years, which should feed through to
faster GDP growth. Competition from so many keen jobseekers has helped to
keep wage pressures at bay despite the leap in inflation caused by higher
energy and commodity prices.

Although the macroeconomic impact of the newcomers appears benign, it has
distributional consequences that are increasingly worrying Labour MPs.
Almost four-fifths of the arrivals who have registered for work earn an
hourly rate of between £4.50 ($8.50) and £6. By contrast, less than a
fifth of the overall working population earn less than £6 an hour. John
Denham, a former minister, says that the new arrivals have halved wages
for builders in his Southampton constituency.

Both he and Frank Field, another influential Labour backbencher, also
worry that the migrants will undermine attempts to get people off benefit
and back to work. "If you have a choice between hiring someone who has
been on incapacity benefit with a mental health problem for five years,
or a young, fit Pole, who are you going to go for?" asks Mr Denham.

Another  concern is the strain on the public services from so big a
population shock. Although few of the new workers have brought families
with them so far, some local authorities are starting to complain about
increased demands. In Slough, the council says that one of its primary
schools has recently taken in 50 Polish children in a single term. And
because the new migrants have spread out, rather than clustering in
London and a couple of other big cities as previous waves have done,
their effect is being felt all round the country.

As  such worries intensify, the chances of Romanians and Bulgarians
replacing Poles and Lithuanians as prime fixers of the country's dodgy
plumbing are fading. Indeed, a broad political coalition, including
employer  groups like the British Chambers of Commerce, now opposes
extending the open-door policy to the two prospective new members.

Romania and Bulgaria have two other things going against them. First, as
especially poor countries, their workers may be even more likely to move
to Britain than those who have come already. Second, there is no grand
foreign-policy objective in their favour. Two years ago, worries about
low-paid  workers stealing jobs were swept aside by arguments about
winning allies in the east in battles over the future of Europe. But that
is no longer so necessary now that the EU has stalled following the no
votes against the constitution.

Workers from the existing eight eastern EU members will remain free to
work in Britain. But if restrictions are imposed on migrants from Romania
and Bulgaria, as now seems likely, the decision may also mark the peak in
an extraordinary high tide of immigration.