Sir, – In the course of his recent rather eccentric piece on immigration and fertility trends, William Reville referred darkly to the "predictable negative consequences" of immigration ("Let's talk about the link between immigration and low reproduction rates", Science, January 19th). Since he was careful not to say what these consequences were or to cite any evidence, it is difficult to know what your science correspondent had in mind.
Hence it is worth drawing attention to some of the economic consequences that have been extensively studied in recent years. A very recent review (by Giovanni Peri) of the international research concluded, among other things, that immigration has a very small negative effect on average wages of native workers. There is little evidence of immigration lowering the wages of less-educated workers. In the longer term, immigrants increase innovation and skill-mix enhancing productivity. In many countries, the share of graduate workers is higher for immigrants than for native workers.
The evidence I have seen for the UK shows that immigration tends not to cause higher crime, contrary to what some media would have you believe. Moreover immigrants tend to be net contributors to the public purse since they typically have high levels of economic activity and their health is better on average. It is also worth remembering that most immigrants are “instant adults”; they arrive fully reared, educated and productive so the cost of getting them to that point is borne elsewhere. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN J DENNY,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Associate Professor,
School of Economics,
Geary Institute for
Public Policy,
University College Dublin,
Belfield, Dublin 4.
A chara, – The reaction of Hugh Holmes and Lucy Michael (January 21st) to William Reville's article illustrates perfectly why a large number of people throughout Europe and the US feel ignored by the "liberal elite" and are turning to populist parties.
If our response to a person who expresses a concern about the implications of immigration is to refer to them as “fearmongering” and “xenophobic”, then we drive them into the arms of the those who will happily stoke their fears even further.
Surely the response should be to engage in a conversation with people, to understand where they are coming from and if possible alleviate their fears.
I do not agree with Prof Reville’s views but I think that it is sensible to attempt to understand the implications for future generations of the current trends in fertility rates and immigration.
For example, it should be acceptable to discuss the practical implications of how we integrate those who may be opposed to some of the hard-won freedoms of the past 50 years for women, LGBT people, etc. Engaging in this conversation does not automatically mean you are anti-immigration; it means that we are actively looking for ways to ensure that immigration works.
Many of those who expressed concerns about immigration in the Brexit debate were from poor or disadvantaged areas. I doubt that your correspondents from Killiney and Ulster University are particularly concerned about the impact of immigration on their housing or employment prospects.
However, there are people all over Europe who are concerned and if we dismiss them all as xenophobic then we lose the chance to engage with them and change their minds.
If the election of Donald Trump has taught us anything, it is that when the liberal left ignores the concerns of ordinary people, there are plenty of others ready to fill the vacuum. – Is mise,
KAY CHALMERS,
Douglas, Cork.