CASE STUDY: HOW THE ALT-RIGHT IS DERANGING OUR IMMIGRATION DEBATE
I provide a case study exploring how the alt-right, characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics, seeks to derange the UK immigration debate whilst peddling lies and disinformation
The alt-right ideological movement is characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics, reliance on an alternative online media ecosystem to disseminate provocative content. This is oftentimes expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality. We have come to believe that the ‘alt-right’ is a uniquely American affair, sprouting out of the sclerotic and dysfunctional US political system. It’s the dark world of Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and Breitbart. But the tentacles of this angry patriarchal network of voices screaming about a lost ‘past’ (“make America Great Again”) is sadly reaching deep into the UK body politic. It then becomes critically important that we learn now to spot dishonest far-right actors, and spot the methods they deploy to disseminate their disinformation. With this in mind my piece today explores a public twitter tête-à-tête I had with the Deputy Editor of ‘The National Pulse’ - someone I was once an undergraduate with at Stirling University many years ago.
Nonsense claims of censorship
Meet Jack Montgomery, the Deputy Editor at ‘TheNatPulse’, previously Deputy Head of Comms at Leave.EU and former Europe editor at Breitbart London. He and I had a discussion which provides a case-study in how the alt-right distorts and deranges our ability to have a sensible discourse on immigration.
The trigger for our discussion was his claim that “leftists” render it impossible to debate immigration in Britain because they keep trying to “squash” certain issues. But the truth is, this was never about what Mr Montgomery and his ilk on the alt-right claim it to be about.
Misframing the immigration debate
Be under no illusions, it is a fiction that “leftism” (undefined) is shutting down reasonable debates relating to the immigration issue. Not least since the immigration debate is clearly not a simplistic left vs right discourse. There exists pro-immigration economic conservatives who prioritise labour market competitiveness butting heads with social conservatives fearing the impact of a loss of cultural homogeneity. And within the left there are the social liberals comfortable with higher levels of cultural heterogeneity facing off against traditional democratic socialists - such as Bernie Sanders - who warn about risks to employment rights and pay.
There are those on the economically conservative right who, alongside social liberals on the left take a more pro-immigration view, albeit due to differing motivations. Nevertheless the overlapping conclusions doesn’t render economic conservatives suddenly “leftists” anymore than the alignment suddenly turns social liberals into conservatives. Likewise there are social conservatives linking up with traditional social democrats taking a more sceptical view on immigration, despite both being motivated by differing concerns. So, clearly the immigration debate is not and has never been a simplistic ‘left’ censoring the debate versus a virtuous ‘right’ seeking free play of ideas; despite the charade by Breitbart variety demagogues.
But if this isn’t about what Jack Montgomery is claiming that it is, then what is it really about?
Using ‘alternative facts’
If the Deputy Editor at alt-right ‘TheNatPulse’ was really just concerned about having a debate around the merits or de-merits economically or culturally about immigration he wouldn’t need to engage in distorting the discourse. When I pressed him to clarify his claim that “leftism” has taken over the Daily Express on the basis it ran a pro-immigration article, Mr Montgomery was reduced to branding economic conservatives “fauxservatives”.
The idea being peddled being, if you are an economic free marketeer, small government advocate pushing for competitive labour markets, you aren’t a “real” conservative.
To alt-right writers and influencers such as Jack Montgomery, he cannot permit the possibility that a conservative case in favour of immigration exists; even if this means resorting to nonsensical Trumpian wordplay like “fauxservatives” to dismiss reality. That alone should tell you something about what the immigration debate is really about for Mr Montgomery and the alt-right choir. And it isn’t about a reasonable debate about the economics of certain immigration levels.
When our exchange took place we can readily see the retreat to ‘alternative facts’ (i.e. complete lies) to reinforce the myth the alt-right is peddling.
The selection from our exchange evinces a number of points worth highlighting. First, notice he brands the economic benefits of immigration as “mythical” and when I point out verifiable facts he responds by claiming “mass” immigration doesn’t increase GDP per capita. The reality is actually far more nuanced than Mr Montgomery would have any of you believe. For one thing, it is a 100% lie to say immigration categorically does not raise GDP per capita, it can and has. To quote the London School of Economics Professor Alan Manning
“If a migrant’s earnings generate the same profit per pound as the average, this would mean that any single migrant earning above £20k would raise GDP per capita. The lowest visa salary thresholds are currently slightly above this level.”1
Professor Manning explains there are caveats, given that reality is far more complex and nuanced than Mr Montgomery or the ‘Nat Pulse’ crowd would have you appreciate. Professor Manning outlines that whether or not the migrant has a non-working partner and child can raise the necessary earnings threshold required for a raising of GDP per capita:
“they [the working migrant] would have to earn over £60k to raise UK GDP per capita. Rules on rights to bring dependents, rarely discussed, make a big difference for the impact of immigration on GDP per capita”2
So now we can see that Jack Montgomery formerly editor at Breitbart and currently Deputy Editor at alt-right ‘TheNatPulse’ has told a lie. The truth is migrants can and do raise GDP per capita for the UK, providing we discuss the rules concerning dependents. But these are objective truths get in the way of the ‘alternative facts’ peddled by the alt-right.
Second point worth teasing out relating to the exchange above is Mr Montgomery’s pivot that he can’t be motivated by racism and bigotry because “A10 countries are European, so racism slur doesn’t stick”. This is another dog-whistle which is deeply revealing.
As with his nonsense claim about immigrants and GDP per capita, he is completely wrong on this score too. According to Professor Jon Fox of the University of Bristol, writing on the British Sociological Association website,
“The spike in hate crimes that followed the Brexit vote in the summer of 2016 serves as a poignant reminder that Eastern Europeans are still 'not-quite-white'. But at the same time this was a racism that was indiscriminate in its discrimination, targeting not just Eastern Europeans – the EU part of the problem – but racism's favourite targets of yesteryear as well. The toxic rhetoric surrounding immigration in the build up to Brexit allowed some Brexiteers to interpret the referendum results as endorsing their exclusionary views.”3
Professor Fox argument about the existence of racism in the UK against A10 Europeans (for example people from Lithuania, Estonia, Poland etc) is reinforced by a plethora of readily accessible evidence. Here are the findings found by Senior Research Fellow Naomi Tyrrell of Plymouth University:
“More than three quarters (77%) of our participants [eastern Europeans living and working in Britain] said they have experienced racism and xenophobia, and for one in five, these experiences happened “often” in school. A third also thought that their neighbours had some level of prejudice against Eastern Europeans, which made some feel unsafe and worried they might be attacked. Many said they adopted “blending in” tactics, like not speaking their own language in public or putting on a local accent.”4
The idea that racism against eastern Europeans is an impossibility is in of itself evidence of a latent racism, because it insists on pretending the findings of Senior Research Fellow Naomi Tyrrell does not exist. Jack Montgomery is asking you to call the victims of racism liars, so you need to ask yourself why he wants you to do this.
But Jack Montgomery’s retort to citations of objective facts and evidence is to engage in the pretence that if evidence is easily accessible it is somehow an argument against its validity. A position so insipiently stupid it doesn’t require my explaining it here.
What it’s really about for the alt-right
My motivation in providing this case study is how to spot the tactics and tools of the alt-right actor. In this instance we can see how it begins with a nonsense claim predicated on a false cry about ‘leftist censorship’ (never defined). This false claim that “leftism” is preventing an adult debate around certain issues regarding immigration relies upon a wilful misframing of the immigration debate itself. Suddenly economic conservatives advocating labour market competition are “fauxservatives”, somehow now part of “leftism” (that will be news to Thatcherites!).
And when the obvious ridiculousness is directly challenged it is supported by a heady dose of ‘alternative facts’ (ie lies). Which then leaves us confronting the reality that the alt-right demagogues are the very folk preventing the sensible, nuanced debate around immigration they are claiming to desire. It is readily obvious that it isn’t a serious debate on the merits and demerits of immigration they are seeking.
So what is it really about? Well the dog-whistles are pretty loud in this case study I’m providing you with today. The denial that eastern Europeans can even experience racism in the UK intermingles in a disgusting fashion with the insistent lie that immigrants can’t ever provide any actual economically positive contribution. The clarion call to label the victims of racism and bigotry as liars and the doubling down on obviously untrue claims highlights that this isn’t about a desire for a sensible discussion about the nuances of immigration.
The “certain issues” people like Jack Montgomery are mourning not being able to openly spout unchallenged is actually really simple. To some people they simply feel uncomfortable around too many foreigners. Too many Polish voices on the bus and the local delicatessen now suddenly selling a taste of Polish sauerkraut and Krakus Cucumber in brine touches a nerve inside them.
For Jack I reckon this was never about a rational debate seeking to find a balance between the economic benefits of immigration balancing off against a desire for cultural homogeneity to aide integration.
To some people there are simply too many foreigners living on their street.
My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated
Manning, Alan (2022, October 3), “The link between growth and immigration: unpicking the confusion”, London School of Economics, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-link-between-growth-and-immigration-unpicking-the-confusion/#:~:text=Before%20the%20pandemic%20disrupted%20the,pro%2Dgrowth%3B%20it%20depends.
ibid
Fox, Jon, (2017), “Eastern Europeans, Brexit and Racism”, British Sociological Association, https://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/latest-news/2017/may/eastern-europeans-brexit-and-racism/
Tyrrell, Naomi, (2017), “How Brexit is making young Eastern Europeans in the UK fear for their future”, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/how-brexit-is-making-young-eastern-europeans-in-the-uk-fear-for-their-future-98929