The arrival of migrants from Eastern Europe after the expansion of the EU in 2004 prompted a heated debate about imigration [Ref:  Answers.com]. Since then around half of the one million EU workers who came to the UK have returned home [Ref: BBC News]. However, migration flows continue to break records [Ref:  BBC News], and 40 years on from Enoch Powell’s apocalyptic prediction of the consequences of mass immigration in his infamous ‘rivers of blood’ speech [Ref: BBC News] it remains a highly contentious issue. A House of Lords report [Ref: BBC News] found that immigration makes little contribution to economic well-being, although this has been contested. The government has refused to set a limit for immigration [Ref: BBC News], but recently introduced a points-based system [Ref: BBC News] designed so that only skilled workers are allowed into the UK from outside Europe. It is a debate in which the claim that society can’t cope with mass immigration is met with the charge that anti-immigration arguments are often racist. Immigrants are variously presented as benefit cheats or as decent people seeking to improve their lives. The consensus view is that large-scale immigration poses serious economic and social problems. Many countries take in limited numbers of asylum seekers [Ref: BBC News] and recognise the importance of migrant workers to their economies; few are prepared to consider a policy of open borders. A firm distinction is drawn between the small number of asylum seekers who are genuine refugees [Ref: BBC News] and ‘bogus’ economic migrants [Ref: BBC News]. However, as opposition to immigration mounts, a radically different position in the debate has also gained ground. Advocates of open borders – who include supporters of a global free market in labour and campaigners for immigrant rights – argue that we should abandon the idea of setting limits on immigration because of its damaging economic and social consequences. Both sides agree that a country’s policy on immigration says a lot about how it regards itself. Should we abandon restrictions and open our doors, or instead put up further barriers?

Should the movement of people be as free as the movement of goods and money?
While globalisation is characterised by increasing flows of goods and money, there are significant barriers to the movement of workers, with immigration policies tending to become more restrictive rather than less. Advocates of open borders argue that governments can’t possibly calculate the number of new workers that should be let in, and that this should be left to the market. Opponents of open borders say that the market has to be regulated and argue that people are very different to goods, bringing their families with them, consuming resources and taking advantage of welfare support.

Would an open borders policy be a recipe for anarchy?
Yes say opponents. If immigration restrictions were dropped huge numbers of people would move, increasing pressure on housing, damaging the environment, putting security at risk and making densely populated countries even more crowded. Supporters contest this. Emigrating is expensive and requires people to leave their families and culture. Furthermore, they argue, it is tight immigration controls that lie behind the huge market in illegal human trafficking and explain why immigrants tend to settle permanently. Open borders, which would still be monitored and have passport controls, would provide legal routes for migrants and allow temporary migration, with people earning money and then returning home.

Are the economic effects of immigration positive or negative?
It depends on who you listen to. First, there is the contested question of whether immigrant workers take jobs from local workers and lower wages. Some studies say this is the case; others suggest that immigrants mainly take jobs like seasonal fruit picking that local workers refuse to fill. Second, there’s the equally contested question of whether immigrants are overall contributors to the economy or a burden. Third, there’s a debate about whether immigration is a solution to the problems caused to developed societies by ageing populations. Finally, what is the effect of migration on the developing world? On one side of the equation are concerns about a brain drain [Ref: BBC News] from developing countries, while on the other side there are the remittances [Ref: BBC News] sent home by migrant workers, which exceed the sums that developing countries receive in foreign aid.

Is immigration a threat to our culture and national identity?
Immigration is about far more than just economics, and many economic debates are inconclusive, so the fundamental issues are moral and social. Opponents of open borders argue that a nation is defined by its right to police its borders and decide who it allows in. Advocates argue that free movement is a basic right: we wouldn’t stop people moving around within a country, so what’s the justification for stopping them moving between countries? At a social level, concerns about immigration focus on how it changes a country’s culture, and the claim that ignoring people’s fears about immigration creates tensions between different communities. While some say this is based on fear of change, blaming immigrants for problems that have other sources and ignoring the positive contribution immigrants make, many see this as an urgent problem.