Guest writer Henry Oliver, of Mulberry Finch, explains why contrary to expectations, the more people are exposed to immigration, the better their attitude to immigrants is.

Since the government was formed in 2010 changes to the Immigration Rules have been made to try and put a cap on immigration to keep the net figures in the tens-of-thousands, not the hundreds-of-thousands. An example recently upheld by the courts is that people applying for spouse visas must speak English; and the maintenance requirements for dependants are going to be increased. As well as this the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers have been extended until 2013.

And there are more changes on the way: Post Study Work visas are going to be restricted next year.

The economic benefits of migration are often debated, and in this piece we look at the evidence that shows people’s attitudes to immigrants have improved with time, and this is due to increased contact with immigrants. And this can affect the way people view the economic argument as well.

The greatest benefit of immigration is that it creates a virtuous circle; even though current policies might appeal to a section of the electorate that has a less favourable attitude towards immigration, the good news is that attitudes have been improving for a hundred years, and continue to do so.

That immigration reduces racial tensions might seem counterintuitive. It certainly goes against the presumptions of many people. But long-term integration will mean a reduction in racist attitudes, and increased acceptance of immigrants. This is called “contact theory”.

Richard Dawkins makes much the same point about religion. Psychology shows us that any form of segregation in children, such as the colour of their clothes, will create a prejudice.

In a test, if half the children are given blue hats and half are given red hats the children will develop what Dawkins calls, “in-group loyalty and out-group prejudice.” Children in red hats come to dislike the children in blue hats for the simple reason that they are wearing a different hat. The easy mixing of different racial groups overcomes the effects of this trait: the more you separate children of different races, the more they will assume they ought to be separate, and vice-versa.

There is plenty to suggest that a “them” and “us” culture is at the heart of opposition to immigration. For example, there is a correlation between countries with a small welfare state and countries with high immigration. It’s even true that American states with higher black populations have lower benefits. This shows us that people are only happy to pay out state benefits to those they deem or perceive to be nationals.

Similarly, figures from the Migration Observatory show that within the white UK-born population 61% want to reduce immigration a lot, whereas in the non-white or foreign-born population that figures reduces to 29%.

And among the 16 – 29 year-old group 51% want to reduce a lot; that goes up to 67% in the 50+ group.

And as if by magic we see that 56% of people who think people from different backgrounds in their local area get along well together want immigration reduced a lot; but in areas where the perception is the opposite that figure is 72%.

This shows us a lose but identifiable trend: people who are white, over 50, and think that racial mixing locally is not good are between two fifths and a half more likely to favour reducing immigration “by a lot” than the young, non-white, people who think racial mixing works fine.

And the Figure 7 graph (in the link above) is a good example of the trend over time: migration has become more and more acceptable to people throughout the generations: it breeds tolerance.

And according to the 2002/2003 European Social Survey, as interpreted by the Migration Observatory, “majority-group British respondents aged 55 and over in 2002 were more likely to have a preference for same-ethnicity migrants than under-55 respondents were, by a margin of 30% to 18%.” So as well as the overall effect being beneficial, the underlying “them” and “us” attitude is ameliorated as well.

As well as a basic “them” and “us” attitude there is evidence to show that people who are in lower-income brackets are more likely to oppose immigration because they see immigrants as a threat to their income. This attitude is also mollified by contact theory.

Henry writes the blog for Mulberry Finch.