移民:摘唾手可得的果实

K. Niemietz
{"title":"移民:摘唾手可得的果实","authors":"K. Niemietz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Opinion surveys consistently show that the British public is hostile to immigration. However, if we dig a little deeper into the polling data, a more differentiated picture emerges. Despite overall hostility to immigration, there are types of immigration that are widely accepted, or even popular with the public. Contrary to the way the debate is usually framed, concerns about immigration are not really about overall numbers. Anxieties about immigration are primarily cultural, not economic. The net migration target should be abolished, as net migration levels are irrelevant. The cap on the number of work visas for highly skilled people (Tier 2 visas) should also be abolished. Skilled migration is popular with the public, and Tier 2 migrants are, almost by definition, highly productive economic and fiscal net contributors. Limiting their numbers is not just needless economic self-harm: it is not even good politics. The government should also make it easier for foreign students to come here, to work alongside their studies, and to work here after their studies. Debates about post-Brexit immigration policy options are predicated on the assumption that after Brexit, the UK must have one single immigration regime vis-à-vis the EU as a whole. This is not true. The UK could keep free movement with some countries, and end it for others. Free movement was never controversial in the UK before the 2004 EU enlargement. There is no reason why the UK should not be able to keep free movement for the old member states (the EU-14) and the EFTA countries. There is a two-thirds majority for free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (“CANZUK”). This is a clear-cut example of where immigration policy can be liberalised with public support. Free movement between these countries should be introduced immediately, ideally on a reciprocal basis, or unilaterally if not. This could potentially be extended to other countries, if and when there is public support for it. Britain’s future migration system should be a two-lane system. There should be free movement for some countries, although unlike in the past, those would not all have to be European countries. They would simply be the countries which the British public is most comfortable to share an open border with. For the rest of the world, there should be a simplified, uncapped version of the current tier system.","PeriodicalId":134919,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Politics of Immigration (Topic)","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immigration: Picking the low-hanging fruits\",\"authors\":\"K. Niemietz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3853123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Opinion surveys consistently show that the British public is hostile to immigration. However, if we dig a little deeper into the polling data, a more differentiated picture emerges. Despite overall hostility to immigration, there are types of immigration that are widely accepted, or even popular with the public. Contrary to the way the debate is usually framed, concerns about immigration are not really about overall numbers. Anxieties about immigration are primarily cultural, not economic. The net migration target should be abolished, as net migration levels are irrelevant. The cap on the number of work visas for highly skilled people (Tier 2 visas) should also be abolished. Skilled migration is popular with the public, and Tier 2 migrants are, almost by definition, highly productive economic and fiscal net contributors. Limiting their numbers is not just needless economic self-harm: it is not even good politics. The government should also make it easier for foreign students to come here, to work alongside their studies, and to work here after their studies. Debates about post-Brexit immigration policy options are predicated on the assumption that after Brexit, the UK must have one single immigration regime vis-à-vis the EU as a whole. This is not true. The UK could keep free movement with some countries, and end it for others. Free movement was never controversial in the UK before the 2004 EU enlargement. There is no reason why the UK should not be able to keep free movement for the old member states (the EU-14) and the EFTA countries. There is a two-thirds majority for free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (“CANZUK”). This is a clear-cut example of where immigration policy can be liberalised with public support. Free movement between these countries should be introduced immediately, ideally on a reciprocal basis, or unilaterally if not. This could potentially be extended to other countries, if and when there is public support for it. Britain’s future migration system should be a two-lane system. There should be free movement for some countries, although unlike in the past, those would not all have to be European countries. They would simply be the countries which the British public is most comfortable to share an open border with. For the rest of the world, there should be a simplified, uncapped version of the current tier system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":134919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Politics of Immigration (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"126 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Politics of Immigration (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Politics of Immigration (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

民意调查一直显示,英国公众对移民持敌视态度。然而,如果我们对民意调查数据进行更深入的挖掘,就会出现一幅更有差异的画面。尽管总体上对移民充满敌意,但仍有一些类型的移民被广泛接受,甚至受到公众的欢迎。与辩论通常的框架相反,对移民的担忧实际上并不在于总体数量。对移民的焦虑主要是文化上的,而不是经济上的。净移民目标应该废除,因为净移民水平是无关紧要的。高技能人才(Tier 2签证)的工作签证数量上限也应取消。技术移民在公众中很受欢迎,而二级移民几乎从定义上来说,都是高生产率的经济和财政净贡献者。限制他们的数量不仅是不必要的经济自残,甚至不是好的政治。政府也应该让外国学生更容易来到这里,在学习的同时工作,以及毕业后在这里工作。关于英国脱欧后移民政策选择的辩论是基于这样一个假设:英国脱欧后,英国必须对整个欧盟实行单一的移民制度。这不是真的。英国可以与一些国家保持自由流动,而与另一些国家结束自由流动。在2004年欧盟扩大之前,自由流动在英国从未引起过争议。英国没有理由不让老牌成员国(欧盟14国)和欧洲自由贸易联盟(EFTA)成员国保持人员自由流动。三分之二的人支持加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰和英国之间的自由流动(CANZUK)。这是一个明确的例子,说明在公众的支持下,移民政策可以自由化。这些国家之间的自由流动应该立即实行,最好是在互惠的基础上,否则就单方面实行。如果得到公众的支持,这种做法可能会推广到其他国家。英国未来的移民体系应该是双车道体系。一些国家应该有自由流动,尽管与过去不同的是,这些国家不一定都是欧洲国家。它们只是英国公众最愿意与之共享开放边界的国家。对于世界其他地区,应该有一个简化的,无上限版本的当前等级系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Immigration: Picking the low-hanging fruits
Opinion surveys consistently show that the British public is hostile to immigration. However, if we dig a little deeper into the polling data, a more differentiated picture emerges. Despite overall hostility to immigration, there are types of immigration that are widely accepted, or even popular with the public. Contrary to the way the debate is usually framed, concerns about immigration are not really about overall numbers. Anxieties about immigration are primarily cultural, not economic. The net migration target should be abolished, as net migration levels are irrelevant. The cap on the number of work visas for highly skilled people (Tier 2 visas) should also be abolished. Skilled migration is popular with the public, and Tier 2 migrants are, almost by definition, highly productive economic and fiscal net contributors. Limiting their numbers is not just needless economic self-harm: it is not even good politics. The government should also make it easier for foreign students to come here, to work alongside their studies, and to work here after their studies. Debates about post-Brexit immigration policy options are predicated on the assumption that after Brexit, the UK must have one single immigration regime vis-à-vis the EU as a whole. This is not true. The UK could keep free movement with some countries, and end it for others. Free movement was never controversial in the UK before the 2004 EU enlargement. There is no reason why the UK should not be able to keep free movement for the old member states (the EU-14) and the EFTA countries. There is a two-thirds majority for free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (“CANZUK”). This is a clear-cut example of where immigration policy can be liberalised with public support. Free movement between these countries should be introduced immediately, ideally on a reciprocal basis, or unilaterally if not. This could potentially be extended to other countries, if and when there is public support for it. Britain’s future migration system should be a two-lane system. There should be free movement for some countries, although unlike in the past, those would not all have to be European countries. They would simply be the countries which the British public is most comfortable to share an open border with. For the rest of the world, there should be a simplified, uncapped version of the current tier system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Postbellum Electoral Politics in California and the Genesis of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 Do Open Borders Lead to Different Types of Migrants? Firm Heterogeneity and the Impact of Immigration: Evidence from German Establishments Mass Involuntary Migration and Educational Outcomes Vietnamese Immigrant Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Self-Employment in Vietnam and the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1