AS predicted, Europe’s debate on immigration is getting nastier. It’s also getting extremely confused and complicated. Interestingly — and ironically — this time around, the conversation is not about keeping potential terrorists (of Muslim origin) out of Europe, it’s about closing the gates on the citizens of EU’s newest member states: Bulgaria and Romania.

Let’s first look at the bigger picture. There’s no doubt Europe needs immigrants — including from central and eastern Europe — to keep its economic machine humming along, compensate for the rising number of old people in ageing western Europe and fill all kinds of skilled and unskilled jobs that no one else wants. Immigrants bring skills and talent. Mostly, they also create jobs and generate income.

It’s true also that the continent — including Britain — is an increasingly diverse and multicultural place. ‘Foreigners’ own businesses and shops, work in offices, factories and restaurants, dominate the cultural scene and are entering the political sphere in ever-bigger numbers.

Every major European city has an exciting multicultural vibe: Turkish pita restaurants, Moroccan couscous cafés, curry houses and much more. Strange, however, that even as Europe becomes more diverse and inclusive, the political discourse on immigration is becoming more hysterical.

Mostly, it’s on politics and the upcoming elections to the European Parliament. With public opinion polls showing an immense increase in popularity of the far-right extremist parties, mainstream politicians are scrambling to be seen as equally ‘tough on immigration’.

But it’s also a fact that while they may recognise the benefits of immigration, no mainstream European politician has dared to come out openly and make a rational, unemotional, economic case for remaining open and tolerant.

Take British Prime Minister David Cameron. Most people who know Britain also recognise that London and other British cities are teaming with ‘foreigners’ of all colour, creed and ethnicity who feel perfectly at home.

British frontier police officers demanding to see passports are often Sikh, Muslim or black — and many of the women sport headscarves. The message is clear: Britain is a land of diversity and proud of it. Britain has also for decades been the biggest cheerleader for EU expansion and free movement.

Now listen to what Mr Cameron had to say last week about the need to shut the door on an expected influx of Romanians and Bulgarians early next year: he will restrict state benefits for the newcomers, ban housing subsidies for new arrivals and impose sharp limits on unemployment compensation.

The prime minister also said that Britain would deport EU migrants found to be begging or sleeping outside, barring them from re-entry for 12 months, a clear if unspecific reference to public anxieties, fed by politicians, about Roma, or gypsies, pouring into Britain.

Mr Cameron’s plan has the support of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats but — as expected — it has drawn angry complaints from EU policymakers who correctly insist that the free movement of EU citizens across the 28-nation bloc is a key principle of the Union.

Viviane Reding, EU justice commissioner, has warned: “If Britain wants to leave the single market you should say so. But if Britain wants to stay a part of the single market, free movement applies. You cannot have your cake and eat it, Mr Cameron.”

Laszlo Andor of Hungary, the European Commission’s employment chief, called it an “unfortunate overreaction” that could cause hysteria. The plans, he added, “risk presenting the UK as the nasty country in the European Union.”

Well, Mr Andor need not worry about Britain’s reputation. France and Germany have joined Mr Cameron in announcing new curbs on EU migrants, clearly sharing the British concern that the arrival of vast numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian workers would boost support for far-right parties in next year’s European Parliament elections.

Polls indicate that France’s far right National Front could lead in next May’s European elections; the anti-immigration and anti-EU UK Independence Party is also expected to do well in Britain. Following modestly in Britain’s tracks, France has demanded tougher controls on temporary cross-border workers. Meanwhile, Angela Merkel’s new grand coalition has said it will crack down on “unjust claims of social security benefits” to reduce incentives for migration. Interestingly, however, Merkel has also announced more significant plans to scrap rules under which young people with immigrant parents are obliged to choose between a German passport and their parents’ citizenship.

The deal “sends a signal that [immigrants] are welcome here. It’s a clear signal that we want these young people and they’re part of our society,” Merkel told reporters.

For Germany, the initiative is quasi revolutionary. People from migrant backgrounds who were born in Germany will for the first time be able to apply for dual citizenship, a development that is most significant for the country’s sizable Turkish population.

There are nearly 6.2 million foreigners living in Germany, about three million of whom are of Turkish origin. But back to Britain’s plans to close the drawbridge: in less than a decade, a million workers from Central and Eastern Europe have flocked to the UK. More are expected to follow next year, when the transitional controls that were imposed on Bulgaria and Romania after their 2007 accession lapse. The general consensus is that these immigrants have helped to bolster the British economy, not damage it.

The fact is that while Mr Cameron’s new line makes him look tough, his plan is unlikely to get any EU traction. More importantly, those in the EU who are so offended by the British leader’s plan should not just criticise him, they should come up with a convincing argument against Fortress Europe.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.