Goodwin: Economic Argument for Mass Immigration Faces Growing Doubts

Download IPFS

Political analyst Matthew Goodwin has reignited the national conversation on immigration, asserting that the long-held economic justification for high levels of immigration is weakening. In a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) and a detailed article on his Substack platform, Goodwin highlights what he describes as diminishing economic returns from large-scale migration to the United Kingdom.

Goodwin argues that while mass immigration was once seen as a driver of economic growth, recent data suggests it is no longer producing the expected results. He cites stagnant gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and flat productivity rates as signs that current immigration patterns are failing to raise individual living standards. Despite record-high net migration estimated at more than 600,000 annually, notes that real wages have shown little growth, particularly among lower-income earners.

“Immigration is often defended based on its supposed economic benefits,” Goodwin wrote on July 30, 2025. “But for over a decade, productivity and wages have barely moved, while sectors like construction, care, and hospitality have increasingly relied on cheap foreign labor.” In this context, “labor” refers to the workforce in general, rather than a specific political party. He suggests that this trend has weakened job opportunities and wage growth for domestic workers.

In his article titled The Economic Case for Mass Immigration is COLLAPSING, Goodwin challenges policymakers who continue to support high immigration for fiscal reasons. While total GDP may rise with population growth, he argues this does not necessarily lead to higher GDP per capita or improved economic conditions for households. According to his analysis, the tax revenue generated by immigrants is outweighed by the rising demands placed on housing, healthcare, education, and other public services.

The think tank Migration Watch UK, which tracks immigration trends, supports Goodwin’s perspective. It argues that current immigration levels contribute to wage stagnation, housing shortages, and infrastructure pressure. In a recent statement, the organization said the country’s ongoing inability to manage net migration effectively has made it harder to accommodate the growing population without negative economic consequences.

Not all experts agree. Some economists contend that immigration still provides net benefits, particularly when migrants fill essential labor shortages or establish businesses that boost local economies. They also point out that aging populations in many Western nations create a need for a younger workforce, often filled by migrants. However, Goodwin argues that this line of reasoning overlooks deeper problems, such as persistent productivity stagnation, which he believes cannot be resolved by high immigration alone.

Though some critics have accused Goodwin of stirring division, he maintains that his conclusions are based on public data and widely acknowledged economic trends. He insists that questioning the economic impact of mass immigration should not be considered controversial, particularly when many working- and middle-class citizens report few tangible benefits from current policies.

As public interest grows, Goodwin’s viewpoint is resonating with those who believe the full economic and social effects of mass immigration have been downplayed. Whether these concerns will prompt a shift in policy remains uncertain, but the economic case for mass immigration is being examined more critically than ever.