What do you think?
Rate this book
The Huddled Masses: Immigration and Inequality
Politicians from all sides compete to convince us they can fix our immigration “problem”, but all the solutions on offer look remarkably similar. Apparently, if we want less inequality at home, we need less immigration from abroad. But what if this assumption is wrong? What if the drive to restrict migration isn’t reducing poverty here, but creating a migration system that is actually exacerbating local inequality? In The Huddled Masses, migration researcher Katy Long shows why we need to rethink the relationship between immigration and inequality, and avoid pursuing policies that pit poor immigrants against poor workers at the expense of both groups. Drawing on cutting-edge research, Long offers an incisive analysis of our migration system that shows how our efforts to restrict immigration are actually widening the gap between wealthy corporation and ordinary citizens. She exposes how companies like G4S and Serco profit from a billion-dollar migration industry while locking their own workers into a low-wage, low-skill economy; how stringent minimum income requirements mean half of Britons no longer have the right to marry a foreigner and bring their spouse to live with them in the UK; and how the UK Government – despite being a vocal opponent of EU freedom of movement – has repeatedly refused to assist the EU in efforts to crack down on the exploitation of cheap “posted” migrant labour, citing the need to protect British “competitiveness”. The Huddled Masses assesses the real contribution that migrants make to the economy, exploding the myth that migrants “take our jobs”. The data presented makes clear that immigration plays a critical role – both in terms of human capital and tax revenue – in sustaining the social institutions that offer citizens real protection against widening social and economic inequality. The migration debate is usually presented as a national but as Long makes clear, we need to recognize migration is also a class issue. And this isn’t just about the it’s about us too. The Huddled Masses concludes by outlining a number of pragmatic, progressive migration policies – from a new agricultural workers’ scheme to an expanded refugee resettlement programme – that could form the basis for a new, positive post-2015 migration consensus.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
140 pages, Paperback
First published December 3, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 16, 2015
One of the issues that advocates of the rights of migrants have to deal with in their discussions with people active in the mainstream of politics is the important question of migration and its impacts on equality.
The accusation against migration is that it is one of the weapons that the political and economic elites have used to erode the welfare and security standards which citizens have gained for themselves over the course of generations of social advance. This progress has been embodied in an implicit social contract which is rooted in the shared experiences of a community which is explicitly national in character.
Somewhere along the way, the commentators who hew to this line argue, those on top managed to slip the leash and heads off in a direction which was all about their separate and distinct interests. The advent of globalisation meant that the bonds of citizenship were no longer sufficient in defining the common interests which were supposed to exist between members of the same nation and the institutions and customs which embodied this experience we allowed to wither on the vine.
People at the more liberal end of the spectrum have been kind enough to concede that migration has been only one of the several means used by the de-nationalising elites to achieve this end and it might be the case that rather more abstract processes, like floating exchange rates, the reduction of controls of the movement of capital, the huge leap in the financialisation of trade and commerce, have all played a greater role in weakening the welfare-providing role of society and thereby increasing inequality. But whatever the precise measure of their contribution to this process of erosion, the judgement has to be that migrants have to shoulder a share of the blame.
Given the influence of this argument it is refreshing to have come across a book which takes rises to its challenge and makes the contrary case that, rather than been cast as culprits in the promotion of inequality, migrants should be seen as the people who are at the forefront of the battle against its worst effects.
The book, The Huddled Masses: Immigration and Inequality, by the academic and activist Katy Long, is a rampantly polemical text which goes for the jugular of all those who argue that the promotion of the welfare of citizens requires the strictest of control over migration. She names the journalist David Goodhart as being the chief amongst her targets and cites his claim that immigration ‘exacerbated many of the undesirable aspects of British economic life: poverty, inequality, low productivity…’ as the claim she intends to demolish. In her words, “There is in fact overwhelming evidence that enabling freedom of movement can play a vital role in combating poverty and opening up opportunity, not just for immigrants and shorter-term foreign workers, but for the poor here too.”
Long makes the case for considering poverty not just in national terms, but as a factor in the global distribution of wealth. In this world, most people are poor for no better reason than the fact that they are born in poor countries. Their aspirations to be better off are hindered in the first instance by the fact their country has only limited opportunities to escape from its condition of dire need. Migration presents the best chance of changing the life chances of the poor both in terms of the advantages it gives to those who move, but also the people who are left behind. In this day and age the remittances which come from the wages of migrant workers provides one of the largest, most secure and reliable flows of investment available to developing countries.
But do the migratory processes which allow migrants to become better off offer anything to the native citizens of the country to which they are moving? Long agrees there examples of outcomes which show that those already settled can be placed at a disadvantage when newcomers arrive. However she insists that this arises not just because a cohort of fresh workers has entered the labour market, but from the terms and conditions which are attached to such factors as their legal residence status or their contracts of employment.
She lambasts the EU posted workers directive in this respect, for facilitating the conditions in which the export of explicitly low-wage labour is built into the business plans for firms which are seeking a competitive advantage from their increased rate of exploitation. But the remedy she advocates is not to limit the opportunity to migrate, but rather to strengthen the capacity of the native workers to extend the social and economic gains they have secured to cover the situation of the newcomers.
Long’s argument is essentially about the pressing need to advance the cause of equality in our society by securing the rights of migrants who are newly arriving, rather than limiting them. It is a logic that attacks a whole stream of mainstream political thinking which suggests that greater fairness will come about if we place migrants at a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with exploitative employers (for example, by deporting them if they protest against their conditions of work or prevent them from changing jobs), or limiting their access to public goods (social security and public services) which the rest of society considers to be a part of their standard of living.
The book is a slim volume, a mere 140 pages long. The author’s feisty style makes a virtue of this brevity, clearly intending to put the essential facts in the hands of people she expects will be using them in countless arguments up and down the country as they make the case for the strengthening of the rights of migrants as one of the means to advance equality, rather than degrade. If you are one of these people you should certainly consider downloading the e-version of the book, or buying the newly published paperback.
The accusation against migration is that it is one of the weapons that the political and economic elites have used to erode the welfare and security standards which citizens have gained for themselves over the course of generations of social advance. This progress has been embodied in an implicit social contract which is rooted in the shared experiences of a community which is explicitly national in character.
Somewhere along the way, the commentators who hew to this line argue, those on top managed to slip the leash and heads off in a direction which was all about their separate and distinct interests. The advent of globalisation meant that the bonds of citizenship were no longer sufficient in defining the common interests which were supposed to exist between members of the same nation and the institutions and customs which embodied this experience we allowed to wither on the vine.
People at the more liberal end of the spectrum have been kind enough to concede that migration has been only one of the several means used by the de-nationalising elites to achieve this end and it might be the case that rather more abstract processes, like floating exchange rates, the reduction of controls of the movement of capital, the huge leap in the financialisation of trade and commerce, have all played a greater role in weakening the welfare-providing role of society and thereby increasing inequality. But whatever the precise measure of their contribution to this process of erosion, the judgement has to be that migrants have to shoulder a share of the blame.
Given the influence of this argument it is refreshing to have come across a book which takes rises to its challenge and makes the contrary case that, rather than been cast as culprits in the promotion of inequality, migrants should be seen as the people who are at the forefront of the battle against its worst effects.
The book, The Huddled Masses: Immigration and Inequality, by the academic and activist Katy Long, is a rampantly polemical text which goes for the jugular of all those who argue that the promotion of the welfare of citizens requires the strictest of control over migration. She names the journalist David Goodhart as being the chief amongst her targets and cites his claim that immigration ‘exacerbated many of the undesirable aspects of British economic life: poverty, inequality, low productivity…’ as the claim she intends to demolish. In her words, “There is in fact overwhelming evidence that enabling freedom of movement can play a vital role in combating poverty and opening up opportunity, not just for immigrants and shorter-term foreign workers, but for the poor here too.”
Long makes the case for considering poverty not just in national terms, but as a factor in the global distribution of wealth. In this world, most people are poor for no better reason than the fact that they are born in poor countries. Their aspirations to be better off are hindered in the first instance by the fact their country has only limited opportunities to escape from its condition of dire need. Migration presents the best chance of changing the life chances of the poor both in terms of the advantages it gives to those who move, but also the people who are left behind. In this day and age the remittances which come from the wages of migrant workers provides one of the largest, most secure and reliable flows of investment available to developing countries.
But do the migratory processes which allow migrants to become better off offer anything to the native citizens of the country to which they are moving? Long agrees there examples of outcomes which show that those already settled can be placed at a disadvantage when newcomers arrive. However she insists that this arises not just because a cohort of fresh workers has entered the labour market, but from the terms and conditions which are attached to such factors as their legal residence status or their contracts of employment.
She lambasts the EU posted workers directive in this respect, for facilitating the conditions in which the export of explicitly low-wage labour is built into the business plans for firms which are seeking a competitive advantage from their increased rate of exploitation. But the remedy she advocates is not to limit the opportunity to migrate, but rather to strengthen the capacity of the native workers to extend the social and economic gains they have secured to cover the situation of the newcomers.
Long’s argument is essentially about the pressing need to advance the cause of equality in our society by securing the rights of migrants who are newly arriving, rather than limiting them. It is a logic that attacks a whole stream of mainstream political thinking which suggests that greater fairness will come about if we place migrants at a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with exploitative employers (for example, by deporting them if they protest against their conditions of work or prevent them from changing jobs), or limiting their access to public goods (social security and public services) which the rest of society considers to be a part of their standard of living.
The book is a slim volume, a mere 140 pages long. The author’s feisty style makes a virtue of this brevity, clearly intending to put the essential facts in the hands of people she expects will be using them in countless arguments up and down the country as they make the case for the strengthening of the rights of migrants as one of the means to advance equality, rather than degrade. If you are one of these people you should certainly consider downloading the e-version of the book, or buying the newly published paperback.
July 2, 2020
作者论述了移民和不均等之间的关系，主要关注了至英国和美国的移民流：有多少移民（通常是被低估了的数量）；他们是谁（寻求政治庇护；难民移民；技术移民；学生移民）；谁/什么机构在其中攫取利益（买卖公民身份；移民产业；非法人口买卖）。
作者就一普遍被支持的论点——保护公民的福利权益就要采用严格的移民政策进行辩论：她认为，很多证据数据能够说明移民自由能够对抗贫穷，不平等，带来更多机遇，不论是目的地国还是移民者本身。
移民能够给目的地国带来经济增长。比如，就移民这一块，它给英国（2001-2006）获益约占经济增长总值的15-20%。而决策者们，一方面也是由于大众的恐慌，用移民政策来约束限制移民者的福利权益，来最大程度上确保当地公民的权益，特别是当地穷人。而作者认为，这点顾虑需要从工人的技能培训上着手，要保护所有低技能工人：不是给当地的低技能工人筑起一道墙（阻挡外在的竞争），而需要给所有低技能劳动力们提供一个更好的就业平台。
于个人。据数据表明（The World Bank），一个人的出生所在地区/国家的经济水平就很大程度上（50%以上）能够决定这个人的经济水平。作者认为，从全球的角度来看，人力资本的流动能够给个人带来更多机遇，从而解决贫困问题。但，作者又强调了现在整个移民的过程是一个商品化交易的过程，你能否自由来去取决于你能不能负担得起这个价格。能够自由移动从发展中国家到发达国家的人大多数还是来自中产阶层的，即有资本且为了累积资本，转换达到社会阶层变化。所以，这还是一个阶层问题。
我自己的思考。这本书主要集中在了西方国家，由西方资本主义的一些逻辑而产生的一些矛盾点。就比如说，英国本土人认为home-care这个职业薪资低，如果薪资增加，那么自然会有更多当地人愿意从事这份工作；他们还认为是由于移民多了从而导致低薪资活着就业资源紧张。事实上，问题在于中央政府能够提供给地方的补助有限（这个职业约80%是政府补助的）。反观中国，经济迅速发展，国际影响力日益增强，即软硬实力也会吸引世界各地的人来华，学习，工作，生活。那么，这些问题：多少移民；他们是谁；谁获利；以及相应的移民政策等等需要与相对应的中国国情，地理政治进行思考。
作者就一普遍被支持的论点——保护公民的福利权益就要采用严格的移民政策进行辩论：她认为，很多证据数据能够说明移民自由能够对抗贫穷，不平等，带来更多机遇，不论是目的地国还是移民者本身。
移民能够给目的地国带来经济增长。比如，就移民这一块，它给英国（2001-2006）获益约占经济增长总值的15-20%。而决策者们，一方面也是由于大众的恐慌，用移民政策来约束限制移民者的福利权益，来最大程度上确保当地公民的权益，特别是当地穷人。而作者认为，这点顾虑需要从工人的技能培训上着手，要保护所有低技能工人：不是给当地的低技能工人筑起一道墙（阻挡外在的竞争），而需要给所有低技能劳动力们提供一个更好的就业平台。
于个人。据数据表明（The World Bank），一个人的出生所在地区/国家的经济水平就很大程度上（50%以上）能够决定这个人的经济水平。作者认为，从全球的角度来看，人力资本的流动能够给个人带来更多机遇，从而解决贫困问题。但，作者又强调了现在整个移民的过程是一个商品化交易的过程，你能否自由来去取决于你能不能负担得起这个价格。能够自由移动从发展中国家到发达国家的人大多数还是来自中产阶层的，即有资本且为了累积资本，转换达到社会阶层变化。所以，这还是一个阶层问题。
我自己的思考。这本书主要集中在了西方国家，由西方资本主义的一些逻辑而产生的一些矛盾点。就比如说，英国本土人认为home-care这个职业薪资低，如果薪资增加，那么自然会有更多当地人愿意从事这份工作；他们还认为是由于移民多了从而导致低薪资活着就业资源紧张。事实上，问题在于中央政府能够提供给地方的补助有限（这个职业约80%是政府补助的）。反观中国，经济迅速发展，国际影响力日益增强，即软硬实力也会吸引世界各地的人来华，学习，工作，生活。那么，这些问题：多少移民；他们是谁；谁获利；以及相应的移民政策等等需要与相对应的中国国情，地理政治进行思考。
February 13, 2015
Well-written, punchy book about the economic and normative truth behind immigration, but it does not meet expectations in terms of convincing sceptics. I feel it is preaching to the choir: those convinced by economic figures or global inequality are already in favour, and those against are unlikely to be swayed by rational arguments (regrettably). So a good read, but could've made a better emotive case.
April 18, 2016
Quite brief overview of migration essentially making the case that immigration is economically beneficial and regulations should be eased. Has some good facts and figures but not always clearly written. Some interesting practical suggestions for changes in law at the end.
August 5, 2015
Should we regard immigration as a good way of tackling inequality? Nicely argued rebuttal of many misleading stories about migration, responding in the best way - with facts.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews