Kort

Paul Collier, Oxford-professor og forfatter av boken Exodus, som vi tidligere har omtalt her, har publisert et innlegg i The Guardian om hvorfor innvandringen må begrenses.

En ny studie viser at den økonomiske innvirkning er begrenset.

A careful new study across Europe by Frédéric Doquier of the University of Louvain finds that the cumulative impact of a decade of immigration has changed wages by between 0% and 0.5%, depending on the country.

De store virkningene av innvandring er sosiale og kulturelle og de blir synlige over lengre tidsrom.

Størrelse betyr noe. Geografi og demografi henger sammen. Likevel har venstresiden tabubelagt å diskutere volum og kvantitet og pris. Det holder ikke i lengden.

The important effects of immigration are social and long term, not economic and short term. The key long-term social effects are probably on the overall size of the population and its diversity. As to population size, Britain is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe, and there is a sound environmental argument for protecting quality of life by discouraging further substantial increases. As to diversity, it involves a trade-off: as it increases, variety is enhanced but cohesion reduced. Variety is good but, unfortunately, as cohesion erodes voters become less willing to support generous welfare programmes.

Større mangfold sliter på samhold og tillit. Det er faktum. Venstresiden burde ikke forsøke å bestride enn si forby å snakke om det.

There is a universal psychological tendency for inconvenient truths to be denigrated, and this is certainly inconvenient for the left. But it is not speculation: I describe some of the supporting research in my book Exodus, and rigorous new experimental research by the Oxford political scientists Sergi Pardos and Jordi Muñoz finds that immigration has just this effect, especially on benefits that are targeted at the poor.

This answers the question I started with. The trade-off between variety and cohesion affects social groups differently. The young, affluent middle classes are the big beneficiaries of variety. In contrast, those people on benefits, whether because they are unemployed or pensioners, are the most vulnerable to the weakening of cohesion.

Den unge middelklassen er de som har største utbytte av innvandringen, og det er de som setter tonen. De svakere gruppene, enten det er eldre eller arbeidsløse, er sårbare.

Hvordan passer dette til beskrivelsen av det nye sosialdemokratiet? Kanskje det sier noe om hvilke sosiale lag som er bestemmende i Arbeiderpartiet?