3 ms·
Except you don't look at regulations to judge whether immigration is high. You look at the numbers for actual inflows of people and compare to the past. Certain
by JetSetWilly 8y ago
Except you don't look at regulations to judge whether immigration is high. You look at the numbers for actual inflows of people and compare to the past. Certainly for eg. the UK the numbers for recent years are sky high compared to decades ago, so to claim that "immigration is restricted look at the requirements" is to ignore empirical reality.
- pjc50 8y agoThe original post I was replying to said "significantly restrict immigration". As we are finding out, to reduce immigration absolute numbers requires increasingly inhumane, bureaucratic, arbitrary and impractical processes. > decades ago Which decade did you have in mind?
- JetSetWilly 8y agoChoose any decade you want. UK immigration levels are at all-time highs, even over a mere decade ago, never mind before that. > As we are finding out, to reduce immigration absolute numbers requires increasingly inhumane, bureaucratic, arbitrary and impractical processes. It isn't inhumane to say "no" to economic migrants, and it doesn't have to be bureaucratic either.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> As we are finding out, to reduce immigration absolute numbers requires increasingly inhumane, bureaucratic, arbitrary and impractical processes. Why does it require any of those things? Immigration to the UK in 1995 was ~228,000 people. In 2017 it was ~550,000 people. Immigration to the UK in 1995 was no more inhumane, bureaucratic, or impractical than it was last year. It would be incredibly easy and practical to go back to 1995 levels. An order of magnitude easier than implementing UBI.