3 ms·

The problem with this argument is that for essentially my entire lifetime, the UK population has wanted less migration. And what they have got instead is gross

by dash2 2mo ago

The problem with this argument is that for essentially my entire lifetime, the UK population has wanted less migration. And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year. If they are just fundamentally wrong on this and have been for 50 years, it seems like democracy is a bad idea. Alternatively, if you feel you have to accept democracy, then maybe it would be good to give people what they consistently say they want on this issue.

pamcake 2mo ago
No we haven't.
gopher_space 2mo ago
You're tied up in centuries of empire-building consequences and think "no brown people please" is a legitimate point of view?
- cindyllm 2mo ago
  [dead]
- dash2 2mo ago
  I think one of the most basic features of any "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" (as Rawls called the state) is who's going to be in the club. If that shouldn't be under democratic control, what should be? Also, I don't know why you think opposition to migration is driven by anti-brown-people racism. That opposition grew quite a lot when migration was coming mostly from Eastern Europe. I'd expect concerns over jobs, housing, public services etc. to be more important - I'm not claiming that those are correct, though I don't think they are illegitimate. Lastly, I am not sure why the empire is relevant. Is the story that because Britain had an empire, it's morally obligated to accept immigration? That could be true for e.g. Hong Kong or Ugandan Indians, but I'm not sure it need be true for all time and everywhere.
louthy 2mo ago
> And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year. LEGAL migration of 1 million per year. For one year only during Boris Johnson's term. Mostly it's in the 100,000s. Most migration is legal. People crossing the channel in boats is minuscule in comparison (tens of thousands). And, whilst people crossing the channel in small boats is certainly a problem (for their lives, if nothing else), it is not something that should be taking up so much political air. It's a side issue in the big scheme of things. Governments should certainly have more strategic plans for dealing with the legal migrants, like infrastructure building, and if they're unable to deliver the infrastructure, limit the legal migration. But the rest of it is often driven by political opportunists and bigots.
- mytailorisrich 2mo ago
  Yes most immigration is legal, so a policy choice. That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election as voters shunned them and voted Reform UK. Why? Because for years they say they wanted lower immigration but actually did the opposite. Arguably even illegal immigration is a policy choice at this point considering the clear reluctance of the government to do much about it. So this has a big symbolic and political impact. This public growing skepticism about immigration while successive governments have made the choice to support it is fuelling the Reform vote. This isn't unique to the UK, we see the same pretty much across Europe.
  - louthy 2mo ago
    > That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election No, it isn’t. Rampant corruption, parties at No.10, Liz Truss, and then inflation because of the Ukraine war causing a cost of living and cost of energy crisis. You know, “it’s the economy, stupid”. If it was about immigration, why did Labour get in, when they were accused of “opening the floodgates” to European migration in the past? It may be your biggest issue, it’s not the country’s. > This public growing skepticism You spelt “manipulation” wrong. This is raw unfettered populist manipulation. Sure, immigration comes with costs (also benefits), but it’s the rhetoric that’s made this a hot topic, not anything of substance. This country is a nation of immigrants. And whilst immigration should be managed properly, it is nowhere near the top of the list of things the government should be prioritising. But they’ll have to, wasting time and resources, to hold back this tide of nonsense.

by dash2 2mo ago

pamcake 2mo ago

No we haven't.

gopher_space 2mo ago

You're tied up in centuries of empire-building consequences and think "no brown people please" is a legitimate point of view?

cindyllm 2mo ago
[dead]
dash2 2mo ago
I think one of the most basic features of any "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" (as Rawls called the state) is who's going to be in the club. If that shouldn't be under democratic control, what should be? Also, I don't know why you think opposition to migration is driven by anti-brown-people racism. That opposition grew quite a lot when migration was coming mostly from Eastern Europe. I'd expect concerns over jobs, housing, public services etc. to be more important - I'm not claiming that those are correct, though I don't think they are illegitimate. Lastly, I am not sure why the empire is relevant. Is the story that because Britain had an empire, it's morally obligated to accept immigration? That could be true for e.g. Hong Kong or Ugandan Indians, but I'm not sure it need be true for all time and everywhere.

louthy 2mo ago

> And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year. LEGAL migration of 1 million per year. For one year only during Boris Johnson's term. Mostly it's in the 100,000s. Most migration is legal. People crossing the channel in boats is minuscule in comparison (tens of thousands). And, whilst people crossing the channel in small boats is certainly a problem (for their lives, if nothing else), it is not something that should be taking up so much political air. It's a side issue in the big scheme of things. Governments should certainly have more strategic plans for dealing with the legal migrants, like infrastructure building, and if they're unable to deliver the infrastructure, limit the legal migration. But the rest of it is often driven by political opportunists and bigots.

mytailorisrich 2mo ago
Yes most immigration is legal, so a policy choice. That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election as voters shunned them and voted Reform UK. Why? Because for years they say they wanted lower immigration but actually did the opposite. Arguably even illegal immigration is a policy choice at this point considering the clear reluctance of the government to do much about it. So this has a big symbolic and political impact. This public growing skepticism about immigration while successive governments have made the choice to support it is fuelling the Reform vote. This isn't unique to the UK, we see the same pretty much across Europe.
- louthy 2mo ago
  > That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election No, it isn’t. Rampant corruption, parties at No.10, Liz Truss, and then inflation because of the Ukraine war causing a cost of living and cost of energy crisis. You know, “it’s the economy, stupid”. If it was about immigration, why did Labour get in, when they were accused of “opening the floodgates” to European migration in the past? It may be your biggest issue, it’s not the country’s. > This public growing skepticism You spelt “manipulation” wrong. This is raw unfettered populist manipulation. Sure, immigration comes with costs (also benefits), but it’s the rhetoric that’s made this a hot topic, not anything of substance. This country is a nation of immigrants. And whilst immigration should be managed properly, it is nowhere near the top of the list of things the government should be prioritising. But they’ll have to, wasting time and resources, to hold back this tide of nonsense.