I always find funny how the new, supposedly progressive, arguments in favor of mass immigration run so close to the ones given against when slavery was abolished, that society can only exist with cheap,exploitative, labor.
Also it seems a teensy bit unfair to rob the developing world of its skilled workers so that we don't have to bother training them ourselves (plus they'll accept lower pay than natives).
It's because the arguments ultimately originate from the same place as they did back then: the elites who benefit greatly from the existence of said cheap, exploitative labor.
The sorts of "progressives" who unconditionally support mass immigration are just useful idiots being used as tools by said elites to enforce their narrative. Just have to push the idea that "disagreeing with this is racist" and they'll all support it without question.
I mean I support what could be termed "mass immigration" and hold no biases as to what kinds of work they would do. I see no reason they wouldn't find work in all sorts of fields. But one of the most common talking points against this kind of immigration is that because they're "unskilled" they won't find work and be a burden on our welfare programs and social services or whatever. So then you start to list jobs that are positive value to society and don't require specialized training—that even if I accept the (admittedly racist premise) that immigrants won't seek education and skilled positions that we will still be fine.
Its because both the left and right argue for extremes which are just the same energy with different wording.
I do not distinguish the far-left from far-right as they equally polarizing and extreme, and only seeks to pull people in the center towards them through violence, censorship and intimidation.
People in the center seeks a balance between the extremes. Some industries require immigration of labor force but it can't come with delusional ideologies that seek to manipulate the wages.
You should probably differentiate between those things, because they have almost nothing in common. Even the commonalities you listed are extrinsic qualities (i.e. They are qualities of how people respond to the thing and not of the thing itself).
This is a far-right talking point that ignores the other concerns of progressives that are bundled up in the argument.
Progressives (in the US at least) generally support immigration with protections and fair wages. They also recognize, rightfully, that systems built for decades upon exploitative practices (low wages, no protections) if removed overnight will cause mass disruption of those systems.
Neither of these is in any way supportive of slavery, modern or otherwise. The first - suggesting that immigrants be treated civilly and paid a living wage - has been fought tooth and nail by 'free market' literalists. The second - that there will be disruptions in social and economic systems when an entire workforce is suddenly removed from the systems that it has propped up for decades - is common sense and historically founded.
You're conflating these things to try to justify a talking point that was just created three months ago.
The fact remains that UK (or US) is well below the replacement rate. If your progressive society can continue to exist only because oppressed women elsewhere keep supplying the human material, then it's not that progressive after all.
Nothing in this talking point is remotely „far right“. Words have lost all meaning. You also haven‘t answered his argument one bit. In the end, all you say with your smart words is that indeed, someone has to pick the cotton and it won‘t be you.
Canada has legal immigration pathways for nurses, I don't see why any other country couldn't if there was strong demand. Gambling on illegal (and dangerous) border crossings to fill those sort of roles seems deeply irresponsible.
The US doesn't really have any interest in fixing the problem. Both parties benefit from the mess we have now.
That's what pisses me off about the whole thing. People buy the crap the politicians are feeding them and the immigrants are the ones that pay for it. You'd think people would have realized after decades of this crap that neither party is going to do a damn thing.
The only employment related categories on that report are the skilled worker visa and the health & care worker visa. I presume nurses would come under the latter.
For cleaners it's a little less clear which employment visa they'd have been more likely to use. Potentially either depending on the specifics of their job, their income and the precise definition of skilled worker.
I always find funny how the new, supposedly progressive, arguments in favor of mass immigration run so close to the ones given against when slavery was abolished, that society can only exist with cheap,exploitative, labor.
Who indeed will pick the cotton.
Also it seems a teensy bit unfair to rob the developing world of its skilled workers so that we don't have to bother training them ourselves (plus they'll accept lower pay than natives).
Aren't those nurses needed back home?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehignett/2023/06/07/uk-...
Unironically no because most of these countries have extremely young populations.
4 replies →
It's because the arguments ultimately originate from the same place as they did back then: the elites who benefit greatly from the existence of said cheap, exploitative labor.
The sorts of "progressives" who unconditionally support mass immigration are just useful idiots being used as tools by said elites to enforce their narrative. Just have to push the idea that "disagreeing with this is racist" and they'll all support it without question.
I mean I support what could be termed "mass immigration" and hold no biases as to what kinds of work they would do. I see no reason they wouldn't find work in all sorts of fields. But one of the most common talking points against this kind of immigration is that because they're "unskilled" they won't find work and be a burden on our welfare programs and social services or whatever. So then you start to list jobs that are positive value to society and don't require specialized training—that even if I accept the (admittedly racist premise) that immigrants won't seek education and skilled positions that we will still be fine.
Its because both the left and right argue for extremes which are just the same energy with different wording.
I do not distinguish the far-left from far-right as they equally polarizing and extreme, and only seeks to pull people in the center towards them through violence, censorship and intimidation.
People in the center seeks a balance between the extremes. Some industries require immigration of labor force but it can't come with delusional ideologies that seek to manipulate the wages.
You should probably differentiate between those things, because they have almost nothing in common. Even the commonalities you listed are extrinsic qualities (i.e. They are qualities of how people respond to the thing and not of the thing itself).
This is a far-right talking point that ignores the other concerns of progressives that are bundled up in the argument.
Progressives (in the US at least) generally support immigration with protections and fair wages. They also recognize, rightfully, that systems built for decades upon exploitative practices (low wages, no protections) if removed overnight will cause mass disruption of those systems.
Neither of these is in any way supportive of slavery, modern or otherwise. The first - suggesting that immigrants be treated civilly and paid a living wage - has been fought tooth and nail by 'free market' literalists. The second - that there will be disruptions in social and economic systems when an entire workforce is suddenly removed from the systems that it has propped up for decades - is common sense and historically founded.
You're conflating these things to try to justify a talking point that was just created three months ago.
The fact remains that UK (or US) is well below the replacement rate. If your progressive society can continue to exist only because oppressed women elsewhere keep supplying the human material, then it's not that progressive after all.
Nothing in this talking point is remotely „far right“. Words have lost all meaning. You also haven‘t answered his argument one bit. In the end, all you say with your smart words is that indeed, someone has to pick the cotton and it won‘t be you.
9 replies →
Canada has legal immigration pathways for nurses, I don't see why any other country couldn't if there was strong demand. Gambling on illegal (and dangerous) border crossings to fill those sort of roles seems deeply irresponsible.
The US doesn't really have any interest in fixing the problem. Both parties benefit from the mess we have now.
That's what pisses me off about the whole thing. People buy the crap the politicians are feeding them and the immigrants are the ones that pay for it. You'd think people would have realized after decades of this crap that neither party is going to do a damn thing.
The UK unemployment rate is 5%. That's around ~2 million people who are already here but can't find work.
Do you really mean to tell me that none of those people can work as cleaners?
Of course they CAN but no one with better prospects and good command of English even if you pay a great salary.
If they have "better prospects", why are they unemployed?
[flagged]
The only employment related categories on that report are the skilled worker visa and the health & care worker visa. I presume nurses would come under the latter.
For cleaners it's a little less clear which employment visa they'd have been more likely to use. Potentially either depending on the specifics of their job, their income and the precise definition of skilled worker.
„If we don‘t allow mass migration, who will pick the crops and wipe your mum‘s behind?“