10 ms·

> The issue is compounded by the fact that successive governments say they want to be tough on immigration, but actually do the opposite. There’s a simple expl

by foldr 6mo ago

> The issue is compounded by the fact that successive governments say they want to be tough on immigration, but actually do the opposite. There’s a simple explanation for this. Being “tough” on immigration would be bad for the economy, bad for the NHS, and bad for the country as a whole. So once a party is actually in government, they don’t want to do it, whatever they said in order to gain votes during the election campaign. Or, maybe massively restricting immigration is actually a great idea and the establishment is conspiring to prevent it. Just like with Brexit, right?

mytailorisrich 6mo ago
High immigration is the cheaper short term solution at the "cost" of other, deeper issues. Restricting immigration is only be "bad" for the economy because systemic issues are not tackled. The NHS relies on foreign workers. Why? Because salaries and conditions are shit so locals either do not train for those jobs or give up and moce to Australia at some point. It is cheaper to keep it that way. 12% of 25-34 years old are "economically inactive", which means deep systemic issues. Generally immigration also keep salaries lower and also productivity lower (and that's why the left is actually historically not too keen). This is difficult to debate seriously because there is always someone to cry "racist".
- foldr 6mo ago
  If you actually put the fixes for those “systemic issues” on the table, it’s obvious that no-one is going to vote for them, so they’re total non-starters. E.g. it would be great to pay nurses more, but no-one is going to vote for the tax hike required to fund it. If any of this is difficult to debate seriously, that’s because opponents of current immigration policy consistently appeal to the lowest common denominator (people’s prejudices) rather than framing a proper argument. Even in this thread, you can see someone trying (absurdly) to redirect the discussion towards some Nigerian nurses with fake qualifications.
pseudohadamard 6mo ago
There’s a simple explanation for this. Being “tough” on immigration would be bad for the economy, bad for the NHS, and bad for the country as a whole. So once a party is actually in government, they don’t want to do it, whatever they said in order to gain votes during the election campaign. You missed one important point: A rational party, or at least one with a rational leader. If you're dumb enough you will go through with it no matter how much it hurts your economy, your health system, and your country as a whole. I'm not in the UK but maybe someone from there could provide an estimate, on a scale of 0 to Trump, where does Farage rate?
- mytailorisrich 6mo ago
  Farage is a populist, no doubt about that. But on the other hand, claiming that, as mentioned, any alternatives to high immigration is bad for the country has to be BS because it does not pass the "smell test". I never understood this stance that countries must have high immigration, that high immigration is good (TM) and that anything else is bigoted and racist. Best theory is that anti-racism has mutated into a monster mixed with business interests only interested in an ever growing labour and consumers pool.

by foldr 6mo ago

mytailorisrich 6mo ago

High immigration is the cheaper short term solution at the "cost" of other, deeper issues. Restricting immigration is only be "bad" for the economy because systemic issues are not tackled. The NHS relies on foreign workers. Why? Because salaries and conditions are shit so locals either do not train for those jobs or give up and moce to Australia at some point. It is cheaper to keep it that way. 12% of 25-34 years old are "economically inactive", which means deep systemic issues. Generally immigration also keep salaries lower and also productivity lower (and that's why the left is actually historically not too keen). This is difficult to debate seriously because there is always someone to cry "racist".

foldr 6mo ago
If you actually put the fixes for those “systemic issues” on the table, it’s obvious that no-one is going to vote for them, so they’re total non-starters. E.g. it would be great to pay nurses more, but no-one is going to vote for the tax hike required to fund it. If any of this is difficult to debate seriously, that’s because opponents of current immigration policy consistently appeal to the lowest common denominator (people’s prejudices) rather than framing a proper argument. Even in this thread, you can see someone trying (absurdly) to redirect the discussion towards some Nigerian nurses with fake qualifications.

pseudohadamard 6mo ago

There’s a simple explanation for this. Being “tough” on immigration would be bad for the economy, bad for the NHS, and bad for the country as a whole. So once a party is actually in government, they don’t want to do it, whatever they said in order to gain votes during the election campaign. You missed one important point: A rational party, or at least one with a rational leader. If you're dumb enough you will go through with it no matter how much it hurts your economy, your health system, and your country as a whole. I'm not in the UK but maybe someone from there could provide an estimate, on a scale of 0 to Trump, where does Farage rate?

mytailorisrich 6mo ago
Farage is a populist, no doubt about that. But on the other hand, claiming that, as mentioned, any alternatives to high immigration is bad for the country has to be BS because it does not pass the "smell test". I never understood this stance that countries must have high immigration, that high immigration is good (TM) and that anything else is bigoted and racist. Best theory is that anti-racism has mutated into a monster mixed with business interests only interested in an ever growing labour and consumers pool.