Since last year’s Battle of Ideas debate, anxiety over immigration has continued to increase. Polls indicate that significant majorities believe there is an immigration ‘crisis’, and there is much handwringing over whether Enoch Powell’s predictions in his ‘rivers of blood’ speech 40 years ago will finally materialise. Against this backdrop, the UK government has introduced a points-based system awarding preference on the basis of migrants’ skill-level. But the arguments for and against immigration are political and moral as well as economic.

Those who want to restrict immigration think our borders are recklessly wide-open. They call instead for ‘managed migration’, arguing that we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens who face job losses thanks to competition from immigrants, with a recent Lords report insisting immigration has had ‘little or no’ positive economic impact. Moreoever, it is argued, open borders undermine concepts of sovereignty and citizenship, and weaken social cohesion. And while few express openly racist sentiments today, many worry about a xenophobic reaction from the white working class.

Advocates of a more liberal approach see the current immigration laws as inhumanely restrictive. They point to the economic benefits of immigration, and argue that in any case the character of migration is changing: we should see migrants as increasingly hyper-mobile commuters who enrich our society and culture, rather than settlers intent on transforming Britain. Furthermore, campaigners argue we have an ethical duty to asylum seekers, and even that free migration for all is a positive moral good in its own right.

Is the much touted tidal wave of immigrants a reality or an exaggeration? Would an open door be a boon or a bane? What kind of immigration policy should we adopt?