4 ms·
Quite a lot of innuendo in there. The person I responded to suggested that Britain only welcomed immigrants to help it because it was "on its back economically"
by barking 6y ago
Quite a lot of innuendo in there.
The person I responded to suggested that Britain only welcomed immigrants to help it because it was "on its back economically". I suppose that all would have been fine if, at worst, Britain was ranked exactly the same today as it was then but because it's actually ranked slightly lower (as I'd expected) the inference now is that I'm anti-immigration. Squeeze a bit more from the tube and you can openly brand me a racist and then you win. Anticipating that I might not oblige, you added your last sentence as insurance to cover that eventuality.
- hyko 6y agoI made that claim and I stand by it. Britain in 1945 was effectively broke and seeking to plug massive holes in its workforce. That’s the context in which Britain spent its Marshall Plan money trying to support the flagging empire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtm... I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour-market-effects-immigration/ https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour... I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.