Immigrants put an unnecessary strain on public services

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that immigration puts an unnecessary strain on already overwhelmed public services, particularly in countries with free healthcare, like the UK, and that it increases the tension on already stretched resources. The claim is not about any individual migrant's conduct but about arithmetic: services designed and funded for a given population come under strain when that population grows faster than the services do. The fiscal half of the argument concerns who pays. Many immigrants will spend time on social welfare whilst looking for work, which is expensive to the taxpayer, and on this view these services are reserved for tax-paying citizens, so support drawn before any tax is paid represents a cost the existing population absorbs. The infrastructure half concerns what cannot quickly be expanded. Many countries are already overcrowded and cannot easily produce extra housing to accommodate an influx of people, and this is particularly true of social housing, of which there is limited space. Housing stock takes years to build, so a mismatch between arrivals and capacity cannot simply be corrected as it appears. The same logic is then applied across the rest of the public estate. Public roads become crowded and create gridlock, while trains and buses are overwhelmed; extra people create extra competition for school places and hospital beds; and there will not be enough doctors or dentists per head of population if migrants are allowed in. Each of these is presented as a ratio problem rather than a resource that can be conjured, since the number of trained professionals per head falls immediately when the denominator rises, whatever is done later. The conclusion proponents draw is that we do not have the infrastructure to support an untold number of migrants. Because immigrants are costly in terms of taxation and put stress on local infrastructure, they argue, countries would be better off not accepting immigrants.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Immigrants do not put a strain on public services because they contribute tax money as well as receiving tax benefits. As the number of people grows, the tax revenue grows. Many immigrants are net contributors to the economy because, having moved in adulthood, they have not used costly educational services. Studies have found that immigrants are less likely to use welfare benefits than native citizens. Immigrants are a boon to infrastructure because they contribute to the skills gap by providing doctors, nurses, and other needed professionals, of which we do not have enough. Unscrupulous politicians who underfund public infrastructure frequently and unfairly lay the blame on immigrants. Poor public services are caused by persistent neglect and refusal to pay for them with higher taxes. Immigration does not necessarily cause overcrowding; it's poor planning and a lack of funding that contributes to overcrowding. Immigration allows in people who can be net contributors to the economy and provide much-needed skills.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Immigrants contribute more than they receive in taxes. [Rejecting P2] Immigrants contribute skills and tax revenue to existing infrastructure.