How has immigration actually affected the UK?

Migration is defined as the permanent movement of people from one place to another. Within the UK, the movement of people has brought changes in economy, culture, industry and politics. While the nation’s migration has varied greatly in volume and type, most has been increased immigration since the 1900s. As a binary, polarising topic, whether migration has benefitted or worsened the UK overall remains hotly contested and has been pivotal in major political decisions. I will explore different types of immigration and emigration over the UK’s years, assessing their effects on multiple aspects of UK life, to conclude with an overall judgement of migration’s success.

Migration allows for the free movement of labour where needed. Unrestricted movement of people leads to jobs being filled where needed in an example of supply and demand. As well as being a fundamental right, allowing people to move to where the highest wages are available is economically desirable. The Windrush immigration between 1940 to 1970 was encouraged at the time, to fill occupations such as manual workers, cleaners, drivers and nurses. These medium skilled professions had to be taken by Caribbean immigrants as they were too undesirable or high skilled for the British public. Windrush intervention, aside from legal detriments, allowed society to develop further in terms of health and education, and accelerated the tertiary industry’s dominance in the UK. Pre 2000, this generation of immigrants proved to be a success for the UK’s economy.

Similarly, current regional migration within the UK follows supply and demand. Thatcher’s “Lessaiz Faire” neoliberal policies drove a spiral of national inequality after the 1980s. A somewhat polycentric distribution of power and importance between the UK’s major cities was replaced by its current monocentric model, with London as the sole centre of UK finance, economy and opportunity. Agglomeration has accelerated London’s dominance, in a clear example of a core area draining surrounding periphery areas. This has lead to most regional migration being north to south, as jobs opportunities and infrastructure attract young professionals. London’s subsequent strengthened economy and influence has made it a global hub, bringing further investment and the interest of high profile international elites. Through the financial sector, French elites hold the largest proportion of London’s wealth. High skilled economic migrants from the north or other nations improve London’s competitive advantage by collaborating and forming networks with each other. The UK is now a key player in the global market thanks to London’s success, a success which wouldn’t have been possible without migrants.

As shown in Brexit statistics, most support for immigration to the UK is by its younger population. This could be due to the tendency of the elderly to dislike change, social media reflecting youth views on themselves or the younger generation’s higher exposure to migrants. Boston in Lincolnshire is a (controversial) example. The town experienced heavy immigration (double England’s annual change) due to Polish workers filling its low skilled, seasonal jobs shortage in agriculture. The UK’s membership in the EU made this movement of labour easy. Boston now has exceptionally low unemployment, 4.4% compared to 5.2% nationally. More importantly, the increased European culture diversified the economy to create year-round jobs. The physical quality of the work also required a young labour force; over half of the Polish workers were aged 23–25. A younger population contributes to the economy (compared to pensions), puts less pressure on the NHS and increases potential workers for the future. Youth combats the population issues seen in stage 5 of the Demographic Transition Model, as population doesn’t decline. The European young workers and their cultural benefits have led to some success in Boston; strengthening the UK’s present and future may prove pivotal in evaluating migration’s effect.

The cultural shift of the UK has influenced its economy and politics in a variety of ways. Rusholme in Manchester is an example of migration defining a UK area. With Manchester already being a melting pot, this ward is dominated by South Asian disaporas, with the Pakistani population the largest by far. The volume of international students studying at Manchester university occupies a significant proportion of the inner city’s housing; during and after their courses, they bring their skills as another potential workforce. In a positive feedback loop, immigrants can influence national policies on immigration, especially in migrant heavy areas like Rusholme (57% non-white British), to increase the UK’s influx further. Some South Asian immigrants establish local businesses, contributing to national tax. Along Rusholme’s famous Curry Mile, most business tends to be restaurant based. The area’s fame and attractiveness brings in a large influx of customers, generating its own economy, and shifts the perception of British food. The increasingly globalised British identity is seen by many as a positive, as the nation adopts the positives in other cultures. A rise in diasporas brings more than workers for local jobs; it can aid in further immigration and improves local culture.

On the other hand, these benefits can be viewed as trivial compared to UK migration’s ramifications. In a nation with an already severe lack of housing, producing just 1/3 of it’s annual 100,000 homes, an influx of immigrants taking these limited spaces from locals makes for a dysfunctional society in one way or another. Brixton experienced one form of this, as Commonwealth incommers who couldn’t afford London prices devised their own ways of generating money between themselves. One such system, “Susu”, allowed houses to be bought outright closer to higher value jobs. After these workers commonly invited friends, Brixton’s population became predominantly Carribbean. Besides their culture and businesses, they may have displaced local British families and replaced the traditional food, hair and lifestyle to an unrecognisable point. Following high Asian and illegal immigration currently, overpopulation becomes more significant as the pressure mounts on the NHS, services and facilities.

In parallel, the Polish community in Boston has mostly been viewed as a local issue. The unusual number of jobs filled has created a major rich-poor divide, with a more extreme squeeze on those at the poorer end. Temporary workers are more inclined to reside in low quality housing, and share while doing so. Low paid accommodation by multiple (often 10) workers per house amounts to much more than an average family could pay. Subsequently, house prices are driven up faster than housing supply. Local rents in Boston are now much higher than neighbouring areas like Nottingham, despite significantly lower wages. EU immigrants also require more facilities, especially as the young workers bring children to the town. For example, £1000 extra is spent per child with language issues. This draining of public facilities has led to an aggressively anti-immigrant ideology becoming popular between locals. While Boston’s socioeconomic issues may extend beyond cheap workers, the use of xenophobia to scapegoat immigrants is becoming increasingly common within the nation. The local population is unhappy with its living conditions and takes any chance it can. 76% of Boston voted to Leave the EU, to make Polish immigration much more difficult, in the highest proportion of Leavers seen by the UK. Brexit’s shortage of low-skilled workers may have caused these local populations more problems in the end.

Division is inevitable when considering the sheer speed at which immigration has changed the UK. 8 Manchester wards, including Rusholme, have a non-white British majority. Coupled with declining industry and a worsened quality of life, local populations tend to turn to racism easily. Xenophobia’s growing popularity can be seen in the growth of English Defence League policies and UKIP’s rise. Living in a successful Pakistani dominated area could enlighten some to a different culture or challenge the national identity of others. The disparity causes social tensions and crimes which wouldn’t have occurred without immigration.

In conclusion, I believe migration has been beneficial to the UK. Providing labour where needed, making the UK competitive, increasing the population’s youth and diversifying its culture, the UK’s economy and identity have been defined by migration. While overpopulation, drained resources and tensions are unfortunate, they exist as the necessary aftermath of a process that completely changes the UK. The nation’s value and people are owed to the advantages it took from other nations and it would have much lower strength, influence and quality without; migration has been and is one of the UK’s greatest benefits.

Related posts:

ONE OF MY MOST CHERISHED books as a young boy was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Still is. Less than a month after its first publication educators deemed it to be “trash and…

Posicoin is a cryptocurrency meaning postive coin and as a famous japanese character “ Posi Hame-Kun” born in the internet culture. This project will rediscover the aesthetic content that Japan has…