David Goodhart is far more dangerous than Nick Griffin

On 1 July David Goodhart, director of the think-tank Demos, and Guardian columnist Zoe Williams locked horns in a debate on immigration. You can watch a five minute excerpt of it here. Goodhart, who has also written a book entitled "The British Dream: successes and failures of post-war immigration" presented the 'respectable' face of the anti-immigration lobby. Zoe Williams challenged some of his arguments but let him off the hook in many ways. While Nick Griffin and British National Party are known for their demonisation of all things non-British, they remain a marginal fringe group and have never had an MP elected. But the views of David Goodhart are far more widespread and are therefore far more dangerous if they are left unchallenged.

Goodhart opens by stating that he takes issue with what he calls "the standard liberal account of immigration." The reality he claims, is that high levels of immigration have a negative influence on income and unemployment, and that in terms of education and employment, lots of people from minorities are doing better than the white population.

Zoe Williams retorts that the mainstream account of immigration both in the media and the political elite is far from liberal. On the contrary, we are constantly fed the myth that immigrants are to blame for the housing crisis and put a terrible strain on welfare and the NHS. According to statistics from the Department of Work and Pensions, only 5% of non-British EU citizens are on benefits compared with an average of 13% for Britons. A recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research stated "we find no association between migrant and inflows and claimant unemployment." And figures from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development show that immigration creates a net gain for the British economy.

The recent Home Office anti-immigration stunt to scare immigrants with mobile billboards proclaiming "In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest" reveal the true nature of the contemporary outlook on immigration. In the prime ministerial debates before the last election, all three candidates did their best to plug their anti-immigration credentials. The widespread anti-immigration sentiment is by no means confined to the Murdoch press - a quick glance at the comments beneath the video of the debate shows that plenty of "Guardianistas" are persuaded by Goodhart's argument.

Goodhart goes on to claim that "there are legitimate complaints about rapid social change." He maintains that nobody complains about moderate levels of immigration, but that it is perfectly reasonable to oppose the "large-scale" immigration we have today. Granted, the video is an excerpt but at no point does Williams challenge Goodhart to provide any statistics. According to research done by Fullfact net migration to Britain in 2012 was 153 000. In other words, immigration led to 0.3% increase in the population. Of course, immigration unevenly spread, but to talk of "large-scale immigration" is absurd.

The true level of net migration, which is in fact falling, shows up Goodhart's argument for what it is: scare-mongering based on no statistical evidence. Are we really supposed to believe that a 0.3% increase in the population is capable of paralysing our public services? Britain's housing shortage, infrastructural failings and budget deficit are caused by the financial crisis, a lack of investment and directionless government policies. The effects of immigration are negligible. Goodhart's economic argument against immigration has no statistical grounding whatsoever.

Which brings us to Goodhart's social argument. Net immigration figures conceal the fact that a total of approximately 500 000 immigrants come to Britain each year, and Goodhart believes that this is irrevocably changing British society. He refers to data from the 2011 census to back up his case. Apparently it showed that 620 000 white people had moved out of London, a rate three times higher than in the 2001 census. Goodhart calls it a "flight of familiarity" - white people moving out in droves because they no longer recognise their neighbourhoods.

There are several problems with this argument. First of all, he makes no mention of where the 620 000 people moved to. 347 000 people emigrated from the UK in 2012, most of them leaving for Australia, the USA, France and Spain. Once again offering no evidence, Goodhart simply assumes that people moving out of London did so due to the pace of social change. This may be a factor, but so are house prices, and emigrants heading to Australia or France clearly aren't too scared of social change. Secondly, it is ludicrous to blame social change entirely on immigration. Social change has equally been driven by urbanisation, globalisation, technology and the internet. Goodhart panders to the myth that without immigrants, the good old traditional way of life would be alive and well. Finally, Goodhart takes it for granted that rapid social change is a bad thing. But social change has also been a driver of female emancipation, workers' rights and the movement against racism, and one could make the argument that its pace hasn't been fast enough.

David Goodhart is certainly no racist and he portrays his case as a thoroughly reasonable one. This is what makes his ideas so much more appealing than those of the British National Party. But his argument is baseless and contributes to the widespread scapegoating of immigrants in Britain today. The likes of Goodhart have a much stronger influence on public opinion and government policy than Nick Griffin. Zoe Williams made some good points but she didn't win the debate. It is high time that the case against immigration is attacked with the facts.