The Spectator's leader contains (at least) two silly claims. First:
Nobody sane can be opposed to a managed migration system that functions well
Leave aside the fact that a well-functioning managed migration system is just impossible. Leave aside too the nasty and illiberal smearing of one's opponents as mentally ill. My gripe is that this claim is just false. Everyone's opposed to managed migration.
Put it this way. I'm hoping to migrate to Rutland soon. And no state functionary is stopping me. There's no border control on the A606 where some BNP-supporting leech on the tax-payer will ask me dickhead questions or lock me up. No-one is managing migration into Rutland. And no "sane" person thinks they should.
So, if a managed migration system is unnecessary in Rutland, why is it "sanity" for Britain? What's the difference?
One possibility is that immigrants to Britain put pressure on public services. But many migrants to Rutland put pressure on Rutland council's services; many move there for the schools. And insofar as immigrants claim welfare benefits, the solution is to deny them these, not to manage their entry.
Another possibility is that I'll not be bidding down Rutlanders' wages in the way immigrants bid down Brits' wages. But this is is just false; insofar as immigrants reduce wages for low-skilled workers, they'd do so even if they stayed at home.
A third possibility is that Rutland doesn't need an immigration policy simply because the numbers moving to Rutland are small. But say there were 600 people a year moving into Rutland. Would everyone really support immigration controls then? Unlikely. As many would welcome demand for their houses and services as would want to keep out Peterborians or Lincolnians with their funny accents and stinking food. But 600 migrants to Rutland is equivalent to over a million into the UK.
The second silly claim is this:
...the misguided creed of ‘multiculturalism’, the invention of white left-wing ideologues...
This is just illiterate boilerplate partisanship. If Matthew D'Ancona had read to the end of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia - a book not generally considered left-wing ideology - he'd have found a chapter, A Framework for Utopia, in which he says:
Utopia will consist of utopias, of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds of lives under different institutions...many particular communities internally may have restrictions unjustifiable on libertarian grounds.
This, surely, is multiculturalism. Sure, it's not precisely the left's notion of it. But the differences between Nozick's conception and the left's concern the limits of the state, not multiculturalism as such. Could it be that multiculturalism - in some senses at least - is not a left-wing ideology but just freedom?