Chapter 41.
The discourse on migration is often framed in stark terms, a debate between an economic “threat” and a humanitarian “tragedy,” yet both labels fail to capture the complex reality. The true narrative is less about fiscal burdens and more about the profound, and often unacknowledged, role of migrants as a vital economic and social asset. The real tragedy, many suggest, is that migrants and asylum seekers have become convenient scapegoats for the growing crisis of inequality and social malaise.
The argument against immigration often rests on a flawed fiscal analysis. Critics point to the immediate costs of housing and social services, framing migrants as a financial drain on the state. However, as scholars like Professor Per Hansen argue, this approach is misleading. It confuses a government’s financial resources—the symbols of money—with a nation’s real resources—its people, their labour, skills, and creativity. While a government must spend to accommodate migrants, its capacity to do so is not a limiting factor for a sovereign currency issuer. The true constraint is the nation’s capacity to provide for its population, a capacity directly boosted by the influx of people. This view, informed by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), is championed by economist Stephanie Kelton in The Deficit Myth. Kelton dismantles the common analogy that a government’s budget is like a household’s, explaining that a monetarily sovereign government can never run out of its own currency. The real limit on spending is not a deficit but inflation, which occurs when a government spends into an economy already at full capacity. Therefore, if there are idle resources, like a shortage of nurses or builders, a government can spend to utilise them without causing economic harm. This perspective is supported by the work of Ian Goldin. In his book Exceptional People, Goldin provides a powerful, historical argument for migration as a perpetual driver of human progress. He positions migration not as a modern anomaly but as a fundamental and beneficial component of human history that fuels innovation, spreads ideas, and promotes economic growth. Throughout history, from the Silk Road that connected civilisations to the tech hubs of Silicon Valley, the movement of people has been a primary driver of human advancement. Goldin’s empirical data shows how migrants fill critical labour gaps and contribute to substantial economic gains for receiving countries, aligning with the view that they are an economic asset, not a liability. The benefits are not just for the destination country; remittances sent home by migrants often far exceed official development aid, providing a lifeline for their families and communities. The phenomenon of “brain circulation” also means that migrants often return to their home countries with new skills, capital, and ideas, further fuelling development.
However, a truly balanced view must also acknowledge the concerns raised by other scholars. Economist George Borjas, a leading voice in the field, presents a more cautious perspective in Heaven’s Door. Borjas focuses not on the overall national gain from immigration, but on its distributional consequences. His research suggests that an influx of foreign-born labour, particularly low-skilled workers, can increase competition and depress the wages of native-born workers in the same professions. While the national “economic pie” may grow, the slice for the most vulnerable in a society can shrink. Borjas’s work highlights the potential for immigration to exacerbate income inequality and poses a significant challenge to the notion that migration is universally beneficial for all segments of a host society. His arguments are often used to justify more restrictive immigration policies aimed at protecting the native-born workforce.
Beyond the purely economic debate, migration creates profound social and cultural shifts. Paul Collier, in Exodus, adds complexity by looking at the effects of migration on social trust. He explores how large, culturally distinct communities can potentially erode social cohesion and the willingness of a society to support a redistributive welfare state. This perspective, while not anti-immigration, adds a crucial layer of nuance by acknowledging the social challenges of integration and the political need for social solidarity. Drawing on research by Robert Putnam on social capital, Collier suggests that while diversity is a long-term strength, it can present short-term challenges to trust and cooperation. Similarly, David Goodhart, in The Road to Somewhere, provides a sociological framework for understanding the populist backlash against migration. He identifies a divide in Western societies between the highly mobile, educated “Anywheres” and the more rooted “Somewheres,” who feel that the benefits of globalisation and migration bypass them entirely. Goodhart argues that the concerns of the “Somewheres” are legitimate and have fuelled the rise of populist movements.
This brings us to the core of the scapegoat argument. As Maya Goodfellow explains in Hostile Environment, political rhetoric has systematically demonised migrants. Polling data from organisations like Ipsos and YouGov consistently shows that public concern about immigration rises during periods of economic hardship. For instance, Ipsos data from September 2025 indicates that immigration was the biggest issue for Britons, mentioned by 51%—a level not seen since October 2015. This concern is particularly high among older and working-class people, who are often most affected by economic precarity. Crucially, this heightened concern often coexists with widespread misconceptions about the scale and nature of migration. YouGov polling has found that nearly half of Britons mistakenly believe that there are more illegal migrants than legal ones, a belief held by 72% of those who support mass deportations. This disconnect between public anxiety and empirical data is a strong indicator of how public opinion can be influenced by misleading rhetoric rather than facts.
The correlation is not simply a matter of timing; it is a political process. Research from the Institute of Race Relations shows that politicians and some media outlets deliberately use migration as a scapegoat for problems caused by domestic policy. They blame immigrants for pressures on public services and housing, which are often the result of years of austerity and chronic underfunding. For example, reports note that while the wages of the poorest 10% of workers have been slightly affected by migration, the impact of welfare reforms since 2010 on the same group has been far more significant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has also found that while immigration has contributed to a slight increase in overall wage inequality, the effect is very small compared to other factors. More importantly, the IFS notes that the way immigration is perceived varies significantly across different population groups, a fact largely attributed to racial and cultural concerns rather than perceived economic competition. This provides a simple, satisfying explanation for complex problems and strategically redirects public anger away from the failures of economic policy and towards a convenient target. This political deflection is often amplified by a partisan media that uses dehumanising language, such as “swarms” or “floods,” to further demonise migrant populations. The real “tragedy” of the migration debate is not just the humanitarian plight of refugees or the economic challenges of integration. It is the cynical manipulation of public fear to mask the systemic crisis of inequality, ultimately pitting the most vulnerable members of society against each other.
A rally in Newcastle provides a powerful, tangible example of this dynamic. The event, which was widely covered by local newspaper and television reports, saw a small, anti-migrant demonstration met by a far larger, anti-racist counter-demonstration. With over 3,000 protesters showing up to oppose the roughly 150 anti-migrant activists, the anti-racist groups successfully prevented the march from reaching its intended target—an asylum seeker hostel—and instead filled the city with a peaceful display of solidarity. This event illustrates that when given a clear choice, a significant portion of the public is willing to actively reject the scapegoat narrative and instead champion solidarity and tolerance. It is a powerful example of how a community can collectively push back against a politics of division and hate.
Next Chapter: Debt Forgiveness: We All Prosper
Bibliography
Collier, Paul. Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Goodfellow, Maya. Hostile Environment: How Immigrants Became Scapegoats. Verso, 2020.
Goodhart, David. The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics. Hurst, 2017.
Goldin, Ian. Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future. Princeton University Press, 2011.
Hansen, Per. A Modern Migration Theory. The Market Exit, 2024.
Kelton, Stephanie. The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. John Murray, 2020.
Borjas, George J. Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton University Press, 1999.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Additional Sources
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). “Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK.” Various reports.
Institute of Race Relations (IRR). Various reports on race and migration in the UK.
Ipsos MORI. Polling data on public attitudes towards immigration.
YouGov. Polling data on public attitudes and misconceptions about immigration.