'You can't ignore the complexity' – how do we debate immigration?
Speakers interrogated the challenges to debating views on immigration as part of a new event series by the Global Cultures Institute.
Sunder Katwala, David Goodhart, Miranda Green and Professor Bobby Duffy at the Global Cultures Institute event How We Argue: About Immigration on 21 May 2025. (Image: David Tett)
On 21 May, How We Argue: About Immigration explored the reasons why society finds it difficult to discuss and recognise opposing perspectives on immigration. By bringing together attitudes from all sides, the discussion aimed to separate the points of an argument from the process of arguing.
The debate featured Miranda Green, Deputy Opinion Editor at the Financial Times; David Goodhart, Head of Demography, Immigration, and Integration Unit at Policy Exchange; and Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future. The event was chaired by Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute at King’s.
Heated arguments might make us uncomfortable, but we can’t ignore their existence, or the fact that people often feel very strongly about issues such as immigration. This illuminating panel helped us to understand that our goal doesn’t always have to be consensus. Instead, we might try to make our arguments more productive by avoiding the kinds of obstructions and frustrations the panellists identified so brilliantly.
Dr Jarad Zimbler, Director of Research, Global Cultures Institute
Immigration is a top three issue in polling, alongside the economy and health, so it is a significant issue for people in the UK. Debates on immigration can be contentious as they are not just about facts and direct experience but also about values and identity, said Professor Duffy. In elections, promises used to be economic – now they are cultural.
Evidence on opinions and realities are so often selectively used to try and win arguments or to try and sell particular positions to the public.
Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute
Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute. (Image: David Tett)
‘It seems harder today to have reasonable arguments’
Katwala emphasised the need to find common ground on issues that people will feel differently about. Some people feel that their points are unheard or shut down by the opposing side, which prevents dialogue from taking place.
He suggested following three relater tests for how we could argue better: focusing on the choices we have now, not choices made in the past; giving everyone a voice in the debate to find a coproduced solution; and recognising that not everyone will get all the policy they want, but that we should still respect others’ voices. Katwala suggests this approach can create a future for Britain that we all have a share in.
Goodhart highlighted how arguments on immigration have shifted to align with how political debate has evolved away from post-war socio-economic conflict towards ideas of security, identity, and national sovereignty. He suggested that these issues are more emotional and therefore harder to compromise on, and called for a "new type of politician” who can speak to all groups.
Immigration is emblematic of the problem of why it seems harder today to have reasonable arguments between people of good faith.
David Goodhart, Head of Demography, Immigration, and Integration Unit at Policy Exchange
He also cited how social media brings people with opposing views together in one place, which leads to more arguments, which Katwala reflected on.
Most people are balancers on this topic – except on the internet where people are on the polarised end.
Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future
Both Goodhart and Green suggested that the way immigration numbers are recorded and reported do not accurately represent the situation, which leads to problems for all sides of the debate.
Green went on to list “original sins” committed in the immigration debate that she feels should be abandoned in order to build policy that works for the UK. These include eradicating the use of “straw man” arguments based on false claims, shutting down the opinions of others, and labelling opponents in socio-economic or political terms as a way of delegitimising their points of view.
She also posed that other issues – the pandemic, the financial crash, austerity cuts and global uncertainty – are causing disquiet and unease about the sense of the community in the UK, yet often immigration is positioned as the sole cause.
You can't ignore the complexity as to why people are feeling this level of disquiet and alienation.
Miranda Green, Deputy Opinion Editor at the Financial Times
Audience member. (Image: David Tett)
‘Imposing an artificial consensus is not always ideal’
In the audience Q&A, attendees asked why the skilled worker health surcharge is never referenced in debates on immigration, whether to cut the emotional and personal out of the debate, and what is a better way to argue to move towards coproduction, if that’s the intended goal.
Other attendees questioned if deliberative democracy can ever answer these wide-ranging and emotional debates, how the system can better include the voices and lived experiences of migrants, and whether the issue is dominated solely by loud voices on the extreme ends of the argument.
‘Imposing an artificial consensus is not always ideal,’ said Green, highlighting that it’s healthy to leave questions as unsettled and open for continuous debate.
Professor Duffy concluded the event by highlighting that the series is about how to argue – not how to come to a consensus.
This is not going to go away from political discourse.
Professor Bobby Duffy
L-R: Dr Jarad Zimbler, Sunder Katwala, David Goodhart, Professor Daniel Orrells, Professor Bobby Duffy and Miranda Green. (Image: David Tett)
How and why do we argue? When is argument necessary, what forms does it take, and how do we judge whether it fails or succeeds?
These questions are pertinent to our efforts to talk across boundaries, whether national, cultural, political, or technological, and to our work as scholars and teachers, inevitably involved in provoking and managing disagreements in a range of contexts. To reflect on and explore these questions and model the conduct of arguments, the Global Cultures Institute hosts How We Argue, a series of conversations centred on areas of public life in which disagreements frequently arise.
Rather than merely talking around or about disagreement, each of these conversations focuses on a matter of contention. The purpose is not to stage a debate but to explore the ways in which arguments develop in response to particular topics and to reflect on what these arguments bring to light.
