Comment by dash2
13 days 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.
> 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.
I did say "gross migration", right? That was about a million in the most recent data, IIRC. Net migration was about 250K, sure, and about a million in the Boriswave.
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.
But weren't biggest sources of the "Boriswave" increase in immigration people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong, and an increase in skilled worker and care worker visas needed as a result of the loss of EU freedom of movement?
Helping people from Ukraine and Hong Kong is overwhelmingly popular. Loss of freedom of movement is much less so, but was an inevitable result of the Brexit vote. And the surge of Xenophobia in the past couple of years has come despite a huge drop in immigration.
It's almost as if it were being driven by demagoguery rather than anything to do with policy choices or delivery.
> 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.
4 replies →
You're tied up in centuries of empire-building consequences and think "no brown people please" is a legitimate point of view?
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.
[dead]
No we haven't.