I’d highlight this with reference to my point above:
“Now, it may be that there is a small economic hit in slightly restricting the numbers and the type of people that are allowed to come here but then that is the price that we pay for government.”

Immigration boosts the global economy too remember and this would set off a whole multiplier effect which would generate further increased growth at home. There are major economic gain to be made by freeing up the labour market.

Anyway, consider if I said this:
“Now, it may be that there is a small economic hit in redistributing income through taxes but then that is the price that we pay for government.”

If I argue that case, as in taxing the richest people heavily and transfering that money to the poorly paid, libertarians (as I understand things anyway) will tend to say that I’m a typical leftie who’d rather have everyone poor and more equal even if that means everyone will be less well off in total. This characterisation, although obviously an exaggeration, is roughly what I do believe.

But if Libertarians are prepared to accept that some government intervention which limits economic growth is acceptable, and that the free market cannot be the ultimate arbiter of economics when it comes social issues, that is sort of in direct conflict with their principle on low taxes.

Economically, it is accepted that we’d all be better off if in the long term if we allowed the free movement of labour but this wealth should be sacrificed for social reasons. It’s the same argument I make for redistributive taxes.

On the face of it, UKIP style limits to immigration seem to me to be based on self-interest. Government intervention to protect our priveleged lifestyle (even at the cost of lower economic growth which is to the detrement of everyone) is OK but government intervention to reduce the disparity between rich and poor isn’t.

I see that there are pragmatic issues but are they not ultimately pragmatic issues of protectionist self-interest?

DK