3 ms·

A perceived mass immigration crisis, which has little to do with reality and much more to do with gas bags stoking fear and spreading nonsense. Here's reality:

A perceived mass immigration crisis, which has little to do with reality and much more to do with gas bags stoking fear and spreading nonsense. Here's reality: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/summary-of-latest-statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-...

fart-fart-FART 1y ago
[flagged]
- shpxbssanmvfphz 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw3467 1y ago
    >there's nothing you can do about it That is false.
  - fart-fart-FART 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - shpxbssanmvfphz 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Probably the case-study of how it caused America to collapse into a civil war in the next year or so, since the only way the Executive can continue its policy is by overtly ignoring rule of law and Americans appear to be growing weary of that from their Executive. That'll likely ice the ambitions of the ultra-nationalists in other countries historically close to America for a generation, much like Germany trying its eugenics experiment iced the previously-quite-vocal eugenicists in the US for about a generation.
      - fart-fart-FART 1y ago
        you are assuming the Executive would lose that civil war.
        shadowgovt 1y ago
        I'm actually not. I am assuming other countries would watch that war break out and consider how excited they are about doing that on their own soil. That kind of civil war wrecks the economy of a developed nation, and power brokers in most developed nations are a lot more interested in protecting their wealth than exclusive nationalist ideals. Practically, I strongly suspect a US that fell to civil war in this current climate would result in the country fragmenting, not entirely unlike the premise of the old "Cyberpunk 2020" fictional setting. DC would, for example, find it remarkably challenging to hold a California that blatantly broke off from it, especially if the federal military resources of that California defected. Especially if it caught allies in neighboring states upon that occurrence. The end result would be no real "winners;" it'd be the implosion of the United States of America as a national unit into something more approximating some agglomeration of the pieces outlined in https://www.twincities.com/2013/11/16/which-of-this-writers-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ https://www.twincities.com/2013/11/16/which-of-this-writers-.... But even if the end result were (not unlike the last American civil war) a reunification with new laws... The US lost about 2 solid years of its GDP to war. That's not good for business and would encourage those with resources to lose to expend them stifling their own domestic "purity" nationalists.
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        During The last American civil war, the North was the economic poeerhouse, and the slave states were relatively poor. This no doubt impacted the outcome. Today the blue states are the economic powerhouse, and the red states are relatively poor. Should it come to it, I would expect the wealthy states to win. We hopefully will never find out, though.
        pseudalopex 1y ago
        The urban centers in red states are blue. The rural areas in blue states are red. A civil war would not follow state lines.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  Yes, it is. Anyone concerned about that outcome probably shouldn't have allowed their ruler to declare herself Empress of India, creating a nation with a 10-to-1 ratio of "people living on a subcontinent" vs. "people living on an island." Along with many, many other decisions made by the UK in the past 400-odd-years. Point is, it's a bit late to complain about the "average Brit" not looking like a Viking took a Celtic bride anymore, yeah? Not after putting so much effort into being an empire that spot-welded as many different people under its flag as it possibly could for awhile?
  - fart-fart-FART 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Personally, I do not care. I'm not in the business of telling other countries how to run their affairs, generally. I am, however, in the business of calling out hypocrisy when a new age of isolationists ignore their own history, because that historically ends poorly.
FridayoLeary 1y ago
Thanks for that. Here's a more up to date link https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/summary-of-latest-statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-.... I reject that. There is a steadily worsening crisis, even the current labour government have acknowledged that pledging to take lots of action against it, both now and during the election campaign. Specifically small boat crossings, of which more then 43,000 have already arrived this year. There is not a single politician in this country who doesn't admit that there is a serious problem.
- jonway 1y ago
  Don’t you have a coast guard? This is a skill issue.
themafia 1y ago
Are the lives of immigrants better? Are we importing citizens or slaves? Why are we not interested in improving conditions in their home country? Shouldn't we focus on that first?
- danparsonson 1y ago
  Your rhetorical questions don't constitute an argument so forgive me if I misrepresent you but what I think you're saying is: 1. Conditions in the UK might not be good enough, so we should prevent people from immigrating, for their own good, and 2. Fixing problems that create refugees is more important and therefore another reason we should prevent people from immigrating. To which I say 1. That's a reason we should clean our own house, so we create a safe environment for people looking to come to the UK, and 2. That's a non sequitur at best, and honestly callous; you should try fleeing from war and persecution, and then see how you would feel about returning home to wait for a few more years while 'things get sorted out back home'. Again, correct me if I have misrepresented your implied argument.

fart-fart-FART 1y ago

[flagged]

shpxbssanmvfphz 1y ago
[flagged]
- throw3467 1y ago
  >there's nothing you can do about it That is false.
- fart-fart-FART 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - shpxbssanmvfphz 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Probably the case-study of how it caused America to collapse into a civil war in the next year or so, since the only way the Executive can continue its policy is by overtly ignoring rule of law and Americans appear to be growing weary of that from their Executive. That'll likely ice the ambitions of the ultra-nationalists in other countries historically close to America for a generation, much like Germany trying its eugenics experiment iced the previously-quite-vocal eugenicists in the US for about a generation.
    - fart-fart-FART 1y ago
      you are assuming the Executive would lose that civil war.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        I'm actually not. I am assuming other countries would watch that war break out and consider how excited they are about doing that on their own soil. That kind of civil war wrecks the economy of a developed nation, and power brokers in most developed nations are a lot more interested in protecting their wealth than exclusive nationalist ideals. Practically, I strongly suspect a US that fell to civil war in this current climate would result in the country fragmenting, not entirely unlike the premise of the old "Cyberpunk 2020" fictional setting. DC would, for example, find it remarkably challenging to hold a California that blatantly broke off from it, especially if the federal military resources of that California defected. Especially if it caught allies in neighboring states upon that occurrence. The end result would be no real "winners;" it'd be the implosion of the United States of America as a national unit into something more approximating some agglomeration of the pieces outlined in https://www.twincities.com/2013/11/16/which-of-this-writers-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ https://www.twincities.com/2013/11/16/which-of-this-writers-.... But even if the end result were (not unlike the last American civil war) a reunification with new laws... The US lost about 2 solid years of its GDP to war. That's not good for business and would encourage those with resources to lose to expend them stifling their own domestic "purity" nationalists.
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        During The last American civil war, the North was the economic poeerhouse, and the slave states were relatively poor. This no doubt impacted the outcome. Today the blue states are the economic powerhouse, and the red states are relatively poor. Should it come to it, I would expect the wealthy states to win. We hopefully will never find out, though.
        pseudalopex 1y ago
        The urban centers in red states are blue. The rural areas in blue states are red. A civil war would not follow state lines.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
shadowgovt 1y ago
Yes, it is. Anyone concerned about that outcome probably shouldn't have allowed their ruler to declare herself Empress of India, creating a nation with a 10-to-1 ratio of "people living on a subcontinent" vs. "people living on an island." Along with many, many other decisions made by the UK in the past 400-odd-years. Point is, it's a bit late to complain about the "average Brit" not looking like a Viking took a Celtic bride anymore, yeah? Not after putting so much effort into being an empire that spot-welded as many different people under its flag as it possibly could for awhile?
- fart-fart-FART 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Personally, I do not care. I'm not in the business of telling other countries how to run their affairs, generally. I am, however, in the business of calling out hypocrisy when a new age of isolationists ignore their own history, because that historically ends poorly.

FridayoLeary 1y ago

Thanks for that. Here's a more up to date link https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/summary-of-latest-statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-.... I reject that. There is a steadily worsening crisis, even the current labour government have acknowledged that pledging to take lots of action against it, both now and during the election campaign. Specifically small boat crossings, of which more then 43,000 have already arrived this year. There is not a single politician in this country who doesn't admit that there is a serious problem.

jonway 1y ago
Don’t you have a coast guard? This is a skill issue.

themafia 1y ago

Are the lives of immigrants better? Are we importing citizens or slaves? Why are we not interested in improving conditions in their home country? Shouldn't we focus on that first?

danparsonson 1y ago
Your rhetorical questions don't constitute an argument so forgive me if I misrepresent you but what I think you're saying is: 1. Conditions in the UK might not be good enough, so we should prevent people from immigrating, for their own good, and 2. Fixing problems that create refugees is more important and therefore another reason we should prevent people from immigrating. To which I say 1. That's a reason we should clean our own house, so we create a safe environment for people looking to come to the UK, and 2. That's a non sequitur at best, and honestly callous; you should try fleeing from war and persecution, and then see how you would feel about returning home to wait for a few more years while 'things get sorted out back home'. Again, correct me if I have misrepresented your implied argument.