While many elites will share Gideon Rachman’s praise for mass immigration (Opinion, January 23), the reality is this ignores a growing pile of evidence.
Contrary to Rachman’s claims, we now know, from work by Professor Robert Putnam, among others, that highly diverse societies with mass immigration have lower levels of social trust. We also know, as the migration advisory committee among others recently pointed out, that Britain’s current model of low-wage, low-skill and largely non-selective immigration is fuelling Britain’s housing crisis. Only 15 per cent of the 2mn people who came to Britain over the past five years came on a skilled worker visa. Furthermore, recent research in the Netherlands points out that non-European migration of the very kind Britain is now encouraging is a net fiscal cost, not benefit, to western economies.
Lastly, while Rachman describes me as an “anti-immigration activist” for pointing out these problems with mass immigration, I wonder why the vast majority of academics who openly support this broken consensus are not described as “pro-immigration activists”?
Professor Matt Goodwin
Canterbury, Kent, UK
