Why We Keep Losing the Immigration Debate

Earlier this year, at a small private gathering of political and media leaders in Australia, I was asked what advice I might have for Australians with the power to shape their nation’s future. I had just explained that while their country is not as advanced as Britain and America in terms of its cultural malaise, it does appear to be on the same downward trajectory.

Having dispensed with the standard British response that I have no idea why any of them should listen to my opinion, I proceeded with the standard Russian response of telling them exactly what I think as bluntly as possible:

“The most important thing you can do for the future of your society is not allow immigration to become a moral issue!”

On the surface, this might appear to be a strange and somewhat esoteric response. Surely what politicians need to do is “take control of the border”, ensure “border security” and “stop the boats”? These populist slogans are great for retail politics and allow charismatic anti-immigration politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump to win votes. But no matter how many votes they win, culturally the fight for a sensible immigration policy is still being lost.

Why? Because immigration is no longer seen as a policy issue. It has become a matter of morality. You may recall my recent appearance on the BBC’s Moral Maze, in which I attempted to elicit from an academic his view of the negative trade-offs of mass immigration. I might as well have asked him about the negative trade-offs of curing cancer.

Of the very few skills I have to my name, understanding how to win a debate is, perhaps, one I can claim without false modesty. And I can tell you that as long as this framing is accepted in public discourse, those of us who want a sensible immigration policy will keep losing. What most people fail to understand is that you do not win debates with arguments – you win by setting the frame.

You saw the power of this technique during COVID with your own eyes – all the authorities had to do was set the frame correctly and your fellow citizens abandoned reason and rationality in the blink of an eye. How did they do it, exactly?

---

Have you considered buying gold to protect yourself in these uncertain times? My bullion dealer is The Pure Gold Company. Competitive premiums, terrific service. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them for ease and convenience.

---

In a battle, the deciding factor between comparable armies is often the territory on which the fight happens. A general who is able to place his troops in an advantageous position will usually win, even against a bigger, more powerful army. This is how Edward the Black Prince secured victory in the Battle of Poitiers or, for a more contemporary reference, how a small number of Spartans were able to hold back a Persian horde in the Battle of Thermopylae on which the movie 300 is based.

The same is true of a debate. The frame is the set of unspoken assumptions which determine how the conversation happens. Whoever controls the frame, controls the way the debate goes.

During the pandemic, the framing was simple: