'Going beyond the negative, hypocritical and defensive arguments about immigration, Phillippe Legrain, author Immigrants: Your country Needs Them argues that it is a force for good and that opening our borders is not only a moral imperative, it would be good for Britain.' Wednesday January 23, 7.30pm, Bellerby's College, behind Brighton Station, opposite the Jury's Inn.

See http://www.philippelegrain.com/ for articles and book availability.

The Sean Bell Diary

Philippe Legrain presented the anniversary Brighton Salon with the absurdity of what is common sense when considering immigration. The reported views of British émigrés in Cyprus who do not speak Greek and live in an enclave were that they left London because it was full of foreigners who had not bothered to learn the language.

The author of Immigrants: Your country needs them and Open World said that the negative side of the debate on immigration and its effects had long dominated the issue. Those seeking to open borders are often on the defensive. He suggested that the burden of proof that immigrants had when trying to enter Britain should instead be placed on the authorities. Freedom of movement between countries should be morally considered as a fundamental human right. Since 9/11, more people have died trying cross the US-Mexican border than died in that attack. Most people in the West believe they have the right to travel abroad, retire abroad and associate freely with people from other countries. Why deny that to those from poorer countries? But the argument is not just a moral one. The removal of border controls on the movement of people would double the world economy. When people move from poorer to richer countries they become more productive and send home money, or remittances. Officially these add up to $300 billion a year globally, although there may be another $300 billion in remittances transferred informally. When one considers that foreign direct investment to poor countries is just $200 billion a year and that aid of all kinds is just $1 billion, immigration is the single most important form of support for people living in poor countries, whatever its true figure. Furthermore, Philippe pointed out that remittances go directly to the people they are intended for and not to western NGOs or the Swiss bank accounts corrupt officials. This targeted money is not spent on arms and benefits the local economy directly by paying for better education and health. Immigrants often return home when they have saved up enough capital to start businesses, benefiting the economy further. Would Britain benefit from an influx of immigrants? Would not public finances and resources be stretched past their limits? Just considering these questions very narrowly, yes immigrants pay in more tax than they receive in benefits. Philippe stressed the importance of not looking at the issue of immigration in that negative way. Diversity, the different perspectives that immigrants bring to problems, presents very real opportunities for innovation and growth that can solve many problems that exist regardless of the number of migrant workers. Second-generation descendants of immigrants founded the most successful companies of Silicone Valley, including Google, Yahoo and eBay. It is a myth, says Philippe, that we need skilled immigrants in the British economy. We need all kinds, but the unskilled do jobs most British people will no longer do. For example, as the population ages, care for the elderly requires care workers. British people rarely apply for jobs in care homes. Immigrants do not form an underclass of low-paid workers. They are better off than they would have been and the opportunity to migrate freely means that workers stay more temporarily. In general they make money, spend it here and return their savings home. Those who stay tend to work hard and improve their conditions and wages the longer they stay. Thos who settle permanently often have children, who are British. Beyond the economic benefits are the cultural benefits. Look at the choice of food, music and other artistic expressions that result from people mixing freely. In general, Philippe argued that objections to immigration are mostly false; the result of the rationalisation of prejudices against foreigners that already exist. The Discussion Objections were raised. Don't foreigners take our jobs? Don't they strain our welfare provision? In the long term, no. Philippe cited the example of Israel where, between 1992 and 1997, Russian immigrants with few skills who spoke no Hebrew and did not even have experience of a capitalist market economy increased the population by 15%. The economy improved and wages rose within eight years. The influx of immigrants into the US state of Florida also benefited its economy. Isn't growth in the population a bad thing for us? David Cameron has said that Britain is full up, but the only measure he takes to restrict the population is immigration control. Philippe pointed that he does not advocate the shortening of people's life spans. The Tory leader does not call for greater birth control or restrictions on the number of babies born and he does not want to pull out of the EU, from where most immigrants now come. Only non-European foreigners are targeted by the 'full up' statement. Philippe said that some would call for the population to be reduced to 30 million. 'You go first!'. Aren't we overcrowded? Aren't supermarkets and the NHS full of queues and don't schools dumb down for poor English speakers? A hundred years ago nobody would have thought it possible that Britain could sustain a population of 60 million, six times what it was then, but it does and life is better. People are the solution, not the problem, said Philippe. He pointed out that one could not really say what an optimum or maximum number of people would be. How could one know? Should we let anybody decide what the population should be? Three quarters of Britain is agricultural land and the government's proposed three million new homes will take up the space of just 0.3% of that land, less if more brownfield sites are used. Most people choose to live in urban areas. The reason that queues are not even longer in supermarkets and the NHS is because immigrants work in those places. The problems with public services are not the result of immigration and immigrants can help in any improvements that are made in them. Further objections were that growth, if encouraged by immigration, was unsustainable and a bad thing in itself. Should not countries try to be self-sufficient and improve with their own efforts or resources? Philippe said this was like someone from a small Welsh village being told that should not go to university because their village needed them and that their obligations were more important than their rights. The poor should not be penned into their own countries. Globally, immigration redistributes people; it does not in itself increase their number. What about the problems of the clash of cultures? Shouldn't families look after their old people? What would determine nationality if borders were all open? Isn't economic happiness being prioritised over the collective good? Shouldn't something be done about the brain drain from developing nations? Just benefiting from the use of cheap labour is very like the old imperialist mind set resurfacing, isn't it? Time was running out, so Philippe could not get back on these questions, but he did point out that people could live together because there is no such thing as a monolithic cultural group in Britain anyway. 'British Muslim' or 'white Christian' are both terms that may describe very different people, who can simultaneously be all sorts of other things and share other kinds of identity. Just before running for his train, Philippe said that the brain drain was a symptom of a problem not its cause. The World Health Organisation believes there is a shortage of 2.6 million doctors in developing African nations. If every single African doctor in the world went home, just 12% of that shortfall would be met. Thank you, Philippe Legrain, for an excellent presentation. I think there were a few people who came away with a different view on immigration control than they went in with. Philippe's great book, that covers in some way all the objections that were raised and that didn't get covered by the end, is available through his website, to which there is a link at the side of the Brighton Salon's home page. Thanks again to Bellerbys College and Peter Travis for the use of the space and for the beverages. Thanks to all those who came and contributed to a lively and enjoyable discussion, which continued for some time in the pub afterward. The next Brighton Salon is still being organised, but will focus on the fusion power – the nuclear energy release that takes place in the sun but could well give great benefits to humanity if it can be contained here on earth. Is it a scientific pipe dream? Is it a way of avoiding the realities of the energy crunch? Concentrate, here comes the science bit!