Home Secretary branded "racist" for her immigration plans.

Reply 20

jambojim97

21

Nativist, not racist.

Reply 21

SHallowvale

14

Original post by Good bloke

There are always exceptions, but as a matter of public interest, companies should generally be encouraged to develop the British workforce in preference to resolving the unemployment problems of other countries.

If they employ foreign labour then it's probably due to practical and financial reasons. It's got nothing to do with ''resolving the unemployment problems of other countries.''.

In general yeah it would be better to develop the British workforce, but if they can't then they can't. That's why we have immigration, and shaming companies isn't going to make things better.

Reply 22

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Quantex

The rhetoric coming from the Conservatives suggests they want to turn the UK into a safe space to protect delicate Brits from nefarious foreigners and their undesirable characteristics like work ethic and willingness to migrate to obtain employment.

Lol, yes.

The sad truth is that the modern Tory Party is eager to get down into the gutter with UKIP and pander to the wave of bigotry systematically stirred up by the tabloids as a way to channel working class anger over economic conditions.

We are in a phase of extremely reactionary government. It's going to screw us economically, but the people at the top of the Tory Party, protected by taxpayer funds and hedge fund backers, don't care.

May is showing that her government is going to be engaged in a battle with UKIP to see who can sound the most fascist.

Reply 23

Good bloke

19

Original post by SHallowvale

If they employ foreign labour then it's probably due to practical and financial reasons. It's got nothing to do with ''resolving the unemployment problems of other countries.''.

Obviously. It is cheaper to get foreigners than it is to develop existing staff. The easing of other countries' employment problems is a by-product of the practice. it would be in British interests for British employment problems to be eased, and for British people to be trained and developed into the jobs concerned.

Wouldn't you prefer it if young Britons could get jobs more readily, and be able to move up the tree as they develop their skills through training rather than watch experienced foreigners come in to take that promotion out of their reach?

Another by-product, of course, is wage stagnation, as people from less-developed economies come in for a similar or lower salary to those in slightly more junior roles already here. Young people miss out again!

Reply 24

generallee

16

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Lol, yes.

The sad truth is that the modern Tory Party is eager to get down into the gutter with UKIP and pander to the wave of bigotry systematically stirred up by the tabloids as a way to channel working class anger over economic conditions.

May is showing that her government is going to be engaged in a battle with UKIP to see who can sound the most fascist.

If your thesis that concern about immigration is racist and bigoted is right (it isn't, but just for the sake of argument let's pretend) then the majority of the country is in the gutter, riding a wave of bigotry.

Check out why nearly half of those polled below don't trust Labour...

http://labourlist.org/2016/10/exclusive-leadership-and-spending-poll-reveals-why-people-dont-trust-labour/

I put it to you, that until the Labour Party accepts it was horrifically wrong on immigration, sincerely apologises for its grievous errors, and promises to introduce strict immigration controls (or promises not to repeal measures subesquently introduced by the Tories) it will never hold office again.

Reply 25

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Good bloke

Obviously. It is cheaper to get foreigners than it is to develop existing staff. The easing of other countries' employment problems is a by-product of the practice. it would be in British interests for British employment problems to be eased, and for British people to be trained and developed into the jobs concerned.

Wouldn't you prefer it if young Britons could get jobs more readily, and be able to move up the tree as they develop their skills through training rather than watch experienced foreigners come in to take that promotion out of their reach?

Another by-product, of course, is wage stagnation, as people from less-developed economies come in for a similar or lower salary to those in slightly more junior roles already here. Young people miss out again!

Putting up barriers to labour movement now is just another form of protectionism that works against economic growth and free trade.

Reply 26

Good bloke

19

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Putting up barriers to labour movement now is just another form of protectionism that works against economic growth and free trade.

How does it work against free trade? Free labour movement is only an EU contruct, insisted on by those who aspire to a united Europe superstate. Canada' proposed free trade deal has no such requirement.

The push for eternal economic growth is an unattainable dream. Earth's resources cannot support it.

The ultimate result of freedom of movement is a completely unsafe world in which nation states cannot protect their citizens, but which would be doted on by anarchists and other naive idealists.

Reply 27

generallee

16

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Putting up barriers to labour movement now is just another form of protectionism that works against economic growth and free trade.

One of the (many) ironies of the current immigration "debate" in our country is that it has turned left wing intellectuals into unabashedly unapologetic free market global capitalists, extolling the virtuous greed of the multi millionaire fruit farmers sucking in thousands of immigrant workers to pick strawberries at the minimum wage, to create unimaginable profits.

Are you Milton Friedman in disguise?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kx__dnAWqQ

:biggrin:

Reply 28

Trapz99

21

It's a good idea. As well as training workers to gain the skills that our companies need, we need to have an immigration policy that only lets in immigrants who have skills that Britain lacks and needs. A lot of our poorest people are unskilled and are looking for unskilled work- we can't let these jobs go to foreigners. We need to put British workers first and that's what Amber Rudd is trying to do.

Reply 29

sleepysnooze

3

in my opinion, in a generation where practically *anything* is seen as "racist" because of the regressive left plaguing our boundaries of freedom of speech, if a mainstream politician is labelled "racist", it honestly, probably, means that they're doing something right.

"racist" today doesn't mean what "racist" meant yesterday. "racist" yesterday meant that you dislike other races. "racist" today means that you aren't in favour of totally open borders, you're sceptical of how many of these "refugees" are actual refugees, you acknowledge the link between the middle east and islamist (and even terrorist in some cases) attitudes etc - being "contemporarily racist" as you might say (in a purely regressive liberal context) is good because it means that what you're doing is breaking down this god forsaken wall that closes off the ability of people to actually debate immigration, culture, foreign policy, etc. so "racist" donald trump and his will to prevent *illegal* mexican immigration is good because he is challenging the current paradigm that not accepting everybody into one's country is racism. "racist" nigel farage is good because he doesn't agree with allowing everybody from eastern europe in on the grounds of economics, housing, education, etc. essentially though, farage and trump and their "racism" is merely just liberal democratic politics interpreted by delusional hippies and misfits who are competing in an oppression olympics; they get their jollies from calling politicians and journalists insults like "bigot" and "racist" and practically nothing else because they live in the west in the modern era where there is pretty much nothing against their interests there. so they make up problems to make themselves feel more involved and relevant. it's quite sad.

mis-quote me all you want, cucks (Y) I bloody welcome it.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 30

username521617

17

I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Firstly, it's definitely not racist. Not even xenophobic, per se. It's perfectly reasonable for a government to want to resolve national unemployment issues and get more of its own citizens into work and gaining experience.

However, I also feel that if a employer wants to to hire foriegn workers, that's their business. The government shouldn't force force employers to hire certian people over others or force them to disclose their employees' citizenship (provided they are in the country working legally). Too authoritarian.

Reply 31

looloo2134

17

Original post by Dandaman1

I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Firstly, it's definitely not racist. Not even xenophobic, per se. It's perfectly reasonable for a government to want to resolve national unemployment issues and get more of its own citizens into work and gaining experience.

However, I also feel that if a employer wants to to hire foriegn workers, that's their business. The government shouldn't force force employers to hire certian people over others or force them to disclose their employees' citizenship (provided they are in the country working legally). Too authoritarian.

I pro-immigration of high skilled foreign workers from any country (e.g. teacher, sciences,nurse, doctor est) as there are more people in Britain who are pensioners than children and numbers of pensioner are going up each year.

However, low skillied foreign workers from any part of the world should only be allowied in on working holidays. Low skillied workers can stay if they got a skillied that needed in Britain e.g. a brink layer which we don't train another off.

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

21

Meh, these days unless you support anybody and everybody coming to Britain, even if they explicitly state intention to harm, you're an evil racist.

Reply 33

KimKallstrom

14

James O'Brien compared Amber Rudd's speech to Mein Kampf on LBC today. Someone on my FB feed agreed with him. Incredible*

Reply 34

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by KimKallstrom

James O'Brien compared Amber Rudd's speech to Mein Kampf on LBC today. Someone on my FB feed agreed with him. Incredible*

Surprised it wasn't declaration of being Alt-right, that seems to be the new overused, falsely used thing to describe somebody who doesn't fulfill the liberal left wing ideal rather than fascist.

Reply 35

jelly1000

21

I don't like the idea of making companies publish lists of foreign workers, that sounds too divisional- those who are here legally, working and paying taxes should be treated the same as Brits, not 'outed' like an enemy. However I agree we need to do more to help get Brits into work such as by equipping them with the skills they need- I believe big businesses especially need to do more in this by paying for training costs where necessary and not cutting corners with pay and standards which freedom of movement has allowed them to do.

Reply 36

viffer

16

Original post by Dandaman1

I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Firstly, it's definitely not racist. Not even xenophobic, per se. It's perfectly reasonable for a government to want to resolve national unemployment issues and get more of its own citizens into work and gaining experience.

However, I also feel that if a employer wants to to hire foriegn workers, that's their business. The government shouldn't force force employers to hire certian people over others or force them to disclose their employees' citizenship (provided they are in the country working legally). Too authoritarian.

If the State, or more specifically and directly taxpayers have to pick up the Welfare Benefit tab for unemployed British people then it absolutely does have justification to intervene. I flippin' well hope it does tbh

I have less of an issue with higher skilled people from other countries filling vacancies but there is really no excuse or justification for lower skilled posts to be filled with migrant workers.

There is of course the separate but very very long standing problem of some British people thinking some jobs are 'beneath' them. e.g. hospitality industry, cleaners, bottom wipers in the care industry.

I realise that this can't be solved overnight but it is definitely right (for the Government) to address it in policy terms

Reply 37

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Jammy Duel

Surprised it wasn't declaration of being Alt-right, that seems to be the new overused, falsely used thing to describe somebody who doesn't fulfill the liberal left wing ideal rather than fascist.

You don't share my point of view? Oh my god, that is like so literally Hitler, I like so don't even*

Reply 38

username471863

19

Original post by Good bloke

Another by-product, of course, is wage stagnation, as people from less-developed economies come in for a similar or lower salary to those in slightly more junior roles already here. Young people miss out again!

That is highly unlikely if the person from the less developed country is coming from a non-EU state. The Teir 2 visa policy requires that they be paid more than most young people would for entry-level/junior roles. So under these circumstances it would be cheaper to employ a Brit, as the average graduate salary isn't very high at all.