9 March 2015 Last updated at 11:58 GMT

Q&A: Why does immigration matter?

Recent polls consistently show voters think that immigration is one of the
issues people most want to see addressed in the UK general election
campaign.
That is true of Britain as a whole, as well as Scotland.

BBC Scotland takes a look at why that is the case, as part of a series called
Welcome to Scotland?

Why does immigration matter to voters?

Britain is changing. Many more people from outside Britain and outside the European
Union have moved to Britain since the start of the century.
In the decade between the last two national censuses (2001 and 2011), the
population of England and Wales went up 3.7 million, or 7%. More than half of that
was due to migration, some due to the birth rate.
In Scotland, the population rose by 5%.
This was the biggest single-decade increase in a century. The growth rate is
expected to continue through the current decade.
Some of the newcomers are refugees and asylum seekers. Some are extremely rich.
And many have come from other parts of the EU, from where migration is
unrestricted.

Ahead of the economic downturn, Britain saw an unprecedented influx of people,

most of them young, from the newer members of the EU, many of them from Poland
and the Baltic states.
People can see their neighbourhoods, towns or cities changing and some raise
concerns that there are too many immigrants.
That raises cultural fears, but also tensions over allocations of public funding - for
housing, welfare and health services.
Concern about immigration over the past 30 years has risen roughly in line with
immigration numbers.
The job market has changed over that time. Some people feel more insecure about
employment, feeling that their position has been undercut by the availability to
recruiters of incomers.
Some critics of uncontrolled EU migration say migrants are securing jobs which could
otherwise be done by people already based in Britain.

Who is most unhappy about immigration?

Analysis of polling results by Ipsos Mori found that there is a clear link with age.
It is not only that people born before 1945 were nearly twice as likely to want less
immigration than young people, but there is some evidence that people become
more opposed to immigration as they grow older.

There is also a link between social class, defined by work and skill level.
Professionals and managers are least likely to want immigration reduced, and skilled
manual workers are most likely to do so - though the gap is not as clear as for age
groups.

Surely those who live with the most ethnic diversity in their neighbourhood,
town or city are the ones who are most unhappy about immigration?
That's not what Ipsos Mori found. The areas with the most diversity have lower levels
of opposition to it among "white British" people. And even areas seeing the fastest
change, as diversity increases, are a bit less likely to oppose immigration than those
areas with the least diversity.
For London, for instance, which has seen the most rapid change in recent years,
there are only small numbers who want to see more immigration, a quarter think it
should stay as it is, and there is a clear majority who want to see less. But the
proportion who want to see a lot less is much lower than in other types of city or
neighbourhood.
And it is not only "native" British people who want to see immigration reduced, found
Ipsos Mori. Of those immigrants who arrived in the UK before 1990, a clear majority
think the same.

What's the view of immigration elsewhere?

Ipsos Mori found that British people have been clearly and consistently more
concerned about immigration than the average in Western Europe and Scandinavia.
Around the world, with many millions on the move, about 10% of people say
immigration is one of their top two concerns. In Britain, it has been around 40% for
the past four years.
And compared with other Western Europeans, the British have been far more likely to
see immigration as a problem than an opportunity.
One of the reasons which may explain those attitudes is that the British greatly overestimate the number of immigrants in the country. One poll late last year showed the
average guess about immigrants was 24%, where the officially counted figure is 13%.
But immigration is a significant political issue across much of Europe, including
France in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack and in Scandinavia, where
integration is creating tensions, partly because some immigrants challenge Northern
European liberal attitudes.

What is the political response to it?

As the public raises immigration as a major concern, the question of free movement
within Europe has become a hotter issue.

UKIP has raised its support while arguing that it wants to pull out of the European
Union, saying this would get back control of the flow of people into the country.
Some Conservatives want the same. And under pressure from his Euro-sceptic MPs,
David Cameron pledged to cut net immigration during this parliament.
Recent figures show that has not happened. On the contrary, net immigration has
increased.

One reason for that is that there is no control of the number of British people who
leave, which is part of the calculation of net migration.
Labour has publicly regretted that it was so open to immigration while in power
between 1997 and 2010 - the period when the gates opened to the new Europeans.
It is promising a tougher regime than before, delays for migration of workers from
new EU members, making it illegal for UK recruiters only to target people from
overseas, and longer delays before immigrants can claim benefits.
In Scotland, there has been a very different debate. While first minister, Labour's
Jack McConnell secured a cross-party consensus that Scotland had to turn around
its falling population.
He secured, though only temporarily, a Whitehall exception to work permit rules,
allowing "fresh talent" - those graduating from Scottish universities - to remain for a
short period in Scotland to get work experience.
The SNP government wants to see a similar plan reinstated. Nationalists and some
others argue that Holyrood should be able to set its own immigration policy, to meet
specific needs.
Scottish Conservatives follow the London line on making it tougher for immigrants to
claim benefits.
However, it continues to see the case for Scotland encouraging more in-migration in
order to tackle demographic change.
Like Labour, Liberal Democrats want tougher border checks, and emphasise the
importance of immigrants speaking English. They would be expected to 'earn' the
right to benefits.
UKIP accepts the case for some immigration, but wants net migration below 50,000.
It wants to see a points system targeted at high-skilled migrants. It wants to require
English language skills, and to deport asylum seekers more easily.
But is the Holyrood consensus in tune with a different set of views across the Scottish
public?

That is far from clear, particularly after the McConnell initiative appeared to work, with
a rise in the population after it was announced.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-31788499

Al Jazeera
Kait Bolongaro

Is multiculturalism good for Europe?

Despite its perceived failure, multiculturalism could offer the European Union the best
chance to integrate migrants.
Anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise, especially in the UK
On January 1, long-standing work visa requirements for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens will
be lifted in eight other European Union countries. Although the two newest members joined
the bloc in 2007, many countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany, have
kept restrictions for Bulgarians and Romanians, out of fear of mass-immigration.
While the 2008 financial crisis dimmed EU fervour across Europe, the UK has turned
particularly Eurosceptic. The British parliament rushed through a bill to limit unemployment
benefits for EU citizens before January 1. Under the new regulations, non-British nationals
will have to wait three months before receiving government aid in an attempt to curb so-called
benefit tourism: When EU citizens move to another member state solely to profit from
government aid. There is even a proposal to introduce a quota of 75,000 newcomers per year
for EU migrants.
Many of these fears stem from 2004, when 500,000 Poles emigrated to Britain, along with
thousands of others from the eight new Eastern European members. Prime Minister David
Cameron called for an overhaul to the Freedom of Movement, which currently allows EU
citizens to move to any country in the union. He also hinted that Britain might veto new
applications for membership into the bloc.
Media in other wealthy European nations have been quick to speculate on a large influx of
migrants and the strain they will put on government services and the economy, promoting the
image of a Bulgarian or Romanian boogeyman eager to take advantage of generous social
security systems. Media coverage and government policies show strong undertones of
intolerance with clear intentions of preventing "undesirable" migration.
Anti-migrant rhetoric is based on myth rather than fact. A recent study commissioned by the
European Commission disproved the benefit tourism theory. Researchers found that not only
did few migrants report engaging in benefit tourism, the number of jobless EU migrants

claiming benefits was negligible at less than 5 percent in most countries surveyed. Most new
arrivals came for work or family related purposes.

However, the mounting fear of migrants is hurting non-European Union citizens most. In
2011, 65 percent of Europeans polled by Ipsos agreed that there were too many immigrants in
their countries. Visa requirements and nationalisation laws have tightened, making it
more difficult to settle in Europe despite findings that the continent and its economies are
actually benefiting from immigrants - particularly Britain.
There is also the ever-pressing need to assist refugees and asylum seekers, yet European
countries are hesitant to accept refugees in even the direst circumstances. More migrants
arrive every day, escaping conflicts in Syria, Somalia, and other countries. Lampedusa, the
small Italian island 167 kms from Tunisia, is a key point of entry from North Africa. It has
struggled to cope with the increasing numbers and has asked other EU nations for help. Italy
is currently under threat of legal action from the European Commission over its maltreatment
of migrants.
With increasing pressure from immigration, there has been a recent rise of right wing political
parties around Europe. Such entities foster a hostile environment for would-be migrants of all
backgrounds by peddling a type of exclusive banal nationalism to the populous that creates
exclusive groups of us versus them.
According to the United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, there are over
232 million international migrants in the world, the most in recorded history. Europe remains
the most popular destination with 72 million people arriving. When combined with
globalisation and transnationalism, it has become nearly impossible to limit migration.
Despite strict regulations, migrants will come via authorised or unauthorised channels.
There has been a big debate in the European Union about how to best integrate migrants
pitting assimilationism and multiculturalism against one another. Are immigrants expected to
rescind the cultural traditions of their homeland and accept the values of their adopted country
to be considered a good citizen? Or are immigrants encouraged to keep their cultural
traditions from their homeland while embracing values of diversity and mutual respect for
different cultures?
European state leaders have described multiculturalism as a failed policy. German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and former French President Nicolas
Sarkozy have all said that the multicultural approach had failed to integrate migrants. The
Dutch, Danes and Spaniards are also becoming multicultural-sceptic. However, multicultural
policies may be exactly what European Union countries need.
The policy has proven successful in other immigrant countries particularly in New Zealand
and Canada. New Zealand's history has been defined by waves of migration. From the Maori,
to the British, to the newest arrivals from Asia, it is difficult to define who is a New
Zealander. In fact, it is the government's intention to create a rainbow nation of mixed origins
where diversity is valued.

Canada remains the best example of multiculturalism's success. The concept has been
enshrined into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensuring that the traditions of all
cultures are weaved into the broader Canadian social fabric. The policy is popular among
Canadians: nearly half the population identifies "multiculturalism" as a Canadian value.
Clearly, it has become part of the Canadian national identity and a cohesive element in such a
diverse country.
If Canada and New Zealand can successfully implement multicultural policies, so can
countries in the European Union. So far, most European efforts of multiculturalism have been
quickly thrown out as ineffective after a short trial period. Multiculturalism is a long-term
project that takes time to show results. It's certain that in an era of mass-migration and more
diverse societies, Europe needs more multiculturalism, not less.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/multiculturalism-good-europe2013123045413908478.html