The Sylvan immigration debate considered the following motion:
The UK needs high levels of well-regulated migration.
The debate took place on Monday 7th October. Giovanni Patricelli proposed the motion and Richard Whaley opposed it.
The proposition arguing that we need high levels of well-regulated migration
The proposer began by defining the terms of the debate. ‘Should have’ means the need to have, different from simply desiring it – having benefits attached. In economic terms, the UK workforce includes 20% foreign born. McKinsey studies show that firms with racial and ethnic diversity enjoy greater performance. Moreover, migrants drive a net positive tax implication for the UK according to UCL. The EU has a highly-educated workforce on our doorstep, and the NHS heavily relies on non-British workers. Migrants also help trade and address the ageing population. Intangibly, we also desire a diverse and flexible society, as well as a have a moral obligation. Though this does not mean the more the better.
In 376 AD the Roman Empire was invaded by Barbarians who were fleeing the Huns and wanted to become Roman citizens. The influx became uncontrollable and caused a major problem. So what could we do to regulate immigration and why? Controlling it before entry offers the best outcome. Immigrants themselves need to be willing to integration, so we can impose a culture or language test. Just link in Rome, which was multinational, with a dominant Roman culture. We need immigrants who are socially useful and to exclude violent criminals, while we have to take some political refugees. Overall, we should see immigration as an opportunity. We should focus on what we can achieve with it, not the difficulties.
The opposition against the immigration debate motion
The opposer opened by asking whether what the proposer offered can ever be achievable – if not, the motion shouldn’t stand. Hadrian’s Wall today finds an echo in Donald Trump’s border wall in the US. The Roman economy in Britain stopped in about 350 AD, when Saxon incursions via little boats disrupted it. The Romans built forts and attacked the boats, but that didn’t stop them – a problem we face today. We have civilisations coming to an end. Rome built a wall all the way round the empire, yet migrants wanted to benefit from Roman society. The steppe raiders became stronger than the Roman army, and people started coming in. This led to an aristocracy of barbarians and the economy suffered. Farming and technology went into reverse and the cities recede, ending the civilisation.
Trump faces the same problem and Europe does from the south. We cannot control little boats, the Border Force doesn’t use force. We need to refurbish these walls, because civilisations that can’t, don’t survive. The British people voted in Brexit that they don’t want foreigners as a full-up, crowded country. House and land prices have gone up due to demand – no more for the time being. We do have some need for immigration, as we cannot even train our own people to do some jobs. The flock of migrants represent a danger to our civilisation, we simply cannot control the boats and I see no prospect of it.
Floor speeches from the audience of the immigration debate
Floor speakers ranged widely across all aspects of the topic. The reproduction rate of England and Wales stands at 1.46 births per woman, leading to a shrinking population. We need immigration, but not the current kind. The OBR has found that low-skill, mass immigration from outside of Europe puts pressure on the state. The Conservative government promised a points-based immigration system it hasn’t arrived. When has immigration caused a large issue in the UK? In Victorian times we had no border controls, and the 1990s saw high levels – no issue then. Recently we’ve had great influxes from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine – desperate people we invited here. The idea of immigration destroying a civilisation offends me. The immigration system does not work, with asylum seekers getting priority.
We had 40,000 immigrants via boats in 2023, yet that pales in comparison to the overall inward migration of 1.2 million and net 685,000. I don’t see how we can deliver ‘well regulated’. Yet we have an obligation in a changing planet, with some places increasingly uninhabitable. The UK has had a hand across the world. As a teacher I know we need foreign language schools with so many children unable to speak English. We have a right to freedom of movement based on the UNDHR, for all people. The British state lacks the ability to integrate immigrants, with no language courses. Unfettered immigration boosts the rentier class. Closing the border will not help the economy, which needs democracy and incentives for economic activity. We Anglo Saxons improved Britain!
Floor speeches continued
We should have regulated routes to settle here, not barriers, and avoid illegal migration. The lower-skilled, non-EU migrants we attract post Brexit tend to bring their families. The points system requires a £38,500 salary which is very high. We need the right level of immigration, not high levels. British wages have been reduced by the influx of immigrants and offshoring, and this causes a brain drain from the source countries. We need proper workforce planning. The rise in crime partially relates to un-integrated immigrants.
The opposer’s rebuttal
It is not possible to have open doors to the world. How do we define high immigration? In any case, the present rate is unsustainable, we cannot control the wave of little boats. We don’t know what’s happening and can’t control it. Controlled immigration would be fine, but we can’t.
The proposer’s closing speech
If well regulated, the motion should pass – yet people have said it cannot be. Civilisations do not end due to border controls, they end when they cannot adapt. I would rather we transition into something that can adapt. ‘Low skilled’ means people who do jobs, not useless people. This centres on work, not skill level. We have a lack of optimism and have focused on can we instead of whether we should. If you don’t try, you certainly won’t achieve it. Should all people be treated equally – yes, purely on principle. There are elements of the motion that are not perfect, but it can’t be wrong.
Result: the immigration debate motion carried
In a razor-thin final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that we should have high levels of well-regulated immigration.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.