Immigration vs indigenous births

If we're going to restrict immigration, shouldn't we also stop some people from having children?
I ask because there's a close parallel between immigration and indigenous births. Both increase the labour supply, which could (arguably) force down wages. And both introduce into society someone who might over a lifetime be a net cost to the rest of us.
So, if we're going to restrict one, why not restrict the other?
One reply won't do - that we can better predict which immigrants will be a drain on the tax-payer. New Labour thinks we can also predict the indigenous births that will be costly:

Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.

Low skill and criminality, he's said, are "often passed down the generations."
And remember - the costs to society of indigenous births can be much larger than that of immigrants, as we don't have to pay to put the latter through school.
Nor is it clear that arguments about liberty justify a distinction. Liberty suggests a case for free immigration - people have a right to live where they want, hire whom they want, and choose the tenants they wish. But it's not obvious that there's an equally strong case for giving people unrestricted freedom to breed, as this is an other-regarding action. John Stuart Mill was clear on this: 

The fact itself, of causing the existence of a human being, is one of the most responsible actions in the range of human life. To undertake this responsibility—to bestow a life which may be either a curse or a blessing—unless the being on whom it is to be bestowed will have at least the ordinary chances of a desirable existence, is a crime against that being. And in a country either over-peopled or threatened with being so, to produce children, beyond a very small number, with the effect of reducing the reward of labour by their competition, is a serious offence against all who live by the remuneration of their labour. The laws which, in many countries on the Continent, forbid marriage unless the parties can show that they have the means of supporting a family, do not exceed the legitimate powers of the State.

You might think there's an argument from practicality. It's just wildly impractical to stop the underclass from breeding. Maybe. But it's also expensive to curb immigration. It costs £1.6bn - and rising - to try to do so, and with limited effect.
Now, I'm not calling for the state to limit births. All I'm saying is that advocates of immigration control should - if they wish to be consistent - consider controlling indigenous births, because there are parallels between the two.
In fairness, the Stupid Party has seen this. Its recent document (pdf) on immigration said "we should certainly consider" "a wider population policy" (p30).

Comments

[Rob]

Natural human tribalism. People find it easier to trust and cooperate with people like themselves. Of course, "like themselves" is relative: before the ethnic cleansing of indigenous UK inhabitants from its cities,there were still rivalries between people from different areas and backgrounds. Chris himself claims to suffer from being of the traditional "Tory-hating" tribe.

Now, given mass immigration, our cities are filled with different ethnicities who generally despise one another. I myself have seen fairly large street fights between ethnic Greeks and Turks in North London which did not even make the local news, let alone stories I have heard from elsewhere.

Traditionally, the nation state is based on there being a shared feeling of tribal unity between its members, against all those suspicious foreigners out there. When your neighbours are more alien and suspicious as the people in the next country, you no longer have a nation state, but, in effect, an "empire" - a state that can no longer rely on a common feeling between its members, and can only use force and oppression to rule.

Unfortunately this is a cultural argument, and our elites no longer have any idea about human culture, but only economics. With restricted immigration it might be possible to build a common UK experience again in a generation or two, but this is unlikely to happen. Probably we will see an increasingly oppressive state ruling an ever more fractious nation, followed by a breakdown into antagonistic micro states, perhaps with purges of the weaker tribes.

[Gracchi]

Rob I disagree with you- different cultures can exist within countries- what is more dangerous an educated Saudi or a Wayne Rooney lookalike. Seems that Blair agrees with me. So I think that Chris's point still stands. Its a good windup.

[dearieme]

'it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" ': I trust that none of your readers will be so vulgar as to suggest that the offspring of Princess Toni and Ms Greedie Boot might be felt to be a fair bet.

[Tommac]

At the beginning it looked like a potentially amusing Modest Proposal; shame it turned into a rather boring article.

i) I liked this bit: "One reply won't do - that we can better predict which immigrants will be a drain on the tax-payer...Tony Blair has said..."
Even the most slavish Blairite would seldom try to disprove a point simply by saying "But Tony says...".

ii) Your whole article rests on your dismissal of the liberty argument, as this is clearly the main factor involved. But here you make a rather obvious mistake. There is clearly a difference between a State deciding on issues within the society which it governs, and a State deciding on who can join that society. All UK citizens have the right to stand for Parliament. Perhaps you think Japanese citizens should be able to as well?

iii) All of which is without mentioning the qualitative difference. Nothing in either the de jure or de facto aspects of the constitution or workings of Government suggests control of births is something the Government has competence over. Immigration is something it quite clearly does.

"the Stupid Party"...interesting. Philosophical paradoxes are fascinating, when they make you think. When they're self-congratulatory, they make for tedious blogging.

[Terri]

Actually, there is scant evidence to support the idea that "menaces to society" can be predicted.

Initially, much of the Home Office research was done by David Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge. He agrees that various factors increase the likelihood that a particular area will produce a higher-than-average incidence of problematic behaviour, and argues that it makes sense for resources to be concentrated on those areas. However, he dismisses as "fanciful" the idea that offending behaviour can be predicted in individual children, and also questions the morality and potentially negative effects of stigmatising them.

The government has more recently turned its attention to Leon Feinstein, reader in the economics of education at the Institute of Education. It was on his research (which can be accessed via: www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10033.asp)that Blair relied heavily in making his comments.

You can see from this research report that Feinstein asserts that criminality can be predicted with around 80% accuracy when there is 'full information'. This rate drops to around 40% when there isn't 'full information'. Given that these are the results from a research study, they are unlikely to be maintained if the exercise is extended to the population at large, when overworked health visitors, rather than well-motivated research team members, are trying to gather this 'full information'from families - who have not agreed to be part of a research project.

[stuart]

There is also scant evidence that the weather can be predicted.

There is also the moral problem of stigmatising July and August as "rainy" months.

[Chris Williams]

OK Stuart - do you promise to wear shorts and vest all through July and August, because the mean temperature implies that would be comfortable?

Rob "before the ethnic cleansing of indigenous UK inhabitants from its cities, there were still rivalries between people from different areas and backgrounds."

These are a thing of the past? Blimey - you go into North Braunston and claim to be from New Parks. Tell us how you get on. The fact that everyone concerned has a white skin makes no difference to the likely response.

England (let alone the UK) has _never_ been culturally homogenous, and that goes for regional as well as class, religious, and subcultural factors.

[Terri]

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make, Stuart. The evidence is very clear that the more a child is labelled, the more likely s/he is to live up to that label. See for instance the Edinburgh study of youth transitions: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/cls/esytc/

One of the more striking findings is that the greater the intervention from the youth justice system, the less likely a young person was to desist from crime.

We're not talking about the weather here; it's about human beings labelled purely on the basis of statistical probability. Whether or not you regard that as a moral problem is entirely a matter for you. There is, however, an evidential problem as well.

[Dan Kearns]

Because culture matters, even when we wish it wouldnt. Feelings of unity dont always follow as we might wish they might.