The Student Room Group

Why do the left rely on emotive arguments for immigration?

I'm a centrist on immigration, i.e. I want the skilled migrants we need for our economy, and believe our system should be based on that.

However, watching Question time, and from numerous other sources, it always seems that the left peddle emotive arguments when discussing immigration. Both Tim Farron MP and Owen Jones used statements about immigrants creating a more diverse society, how Owen's grandmother was cared for Lithuanian and Indian medics, and broad, empty statements about how immigrants benefit Britain. The only person who gave an objective pro-immigration argument was Hilary Devey, who referred to businesses needing labour.

Is this why the left have failed to convince the vast majority of the public on immigration? They've gone from making immigration a 'racist' subject to peddling broad and emotive arguments, often with anecdotes.
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Maybe its because some people feel things.

And so they express those feelings? :K:
Because it's easy to play on the emotions of people rather than enter a sensible debate about policy, as immigration policy is. What has happened over the last so many years is people have moved the immigration argument away from policy to an emotional argument, which has had a negative impact both on politics and wider society as a whole. The main reason for this is because the vast majority of the world adopt a sensible approach to immigration, a points system, and the EU doesn't want that as it continues its path to federalism. I would respect the EU more if they just came out and said, 'we want to become the United States of Europe or follow a similar model. If you want to be a part of this, then you can opt to stay in or leave' and let people decide. Instead, they're just chipping away gradually and assuming more control which is morally and politically corrupt and anti-democratic. I am actually a massive fan of the United States of Europe idea, although I'd want significant changes to what is in place in the USA model. Having said that, I'm currently opposed to the idea as it stands because of the way Brussels is run and the lack of transparency. The EU could get a lot more support from people if they were just open and honest about their long-term objectives.
Why do the right insist on an economic argument for immigration?
Original post by Lady Comstock
I'm a centrist on immigration, i.e. I want the skilled migrants we need for our economy, and believe our system should be based on that.

However, watching Question time, and from numerous other sources, it always seems that the left peddle emotive arguments when discussing immigration. Both Tim Farron MP and Owen Jones used statements about immigrants creating a more diverse society, how Owen's grandmother was cared for my Lithuanian and Indian medics, and broad, empty statements about how immigrants benefit Britain. The only person who gave an objective pro-immigration argument was Hilary Devey, who referred to businesses needing labour.

Is this why the left have failed to convince the vast majority of the public on immigration? They've gone from making immigration a 'racist' subject to discuss to peddling broad and emotive arguments, often with meaningless anecdotes.


Give me a second to read the OP but put off by your title.

Rely?

Maybe because supporting and promoting immigration is a major responsibility of an active leftist?
Reply 5
Original post by That Bearded Man
Why do the right insist on an economic argument for immigration?


Because a country progresses due to its economy, not due to empathy.
Reply 6
Original post by Bag of Peanuts
Give me a second to read the OP but put off by your title.

Rely?

Maybe because supporting and promoting immigration is a major responsibility of an active leftist?


OP is asking why is it that the vast majority of "supporting and promoting immigration" is done through the proposal of emotive arguments as opposed to economic ones?
Original post by That Bearded Man
Why do the right insist on an economic argument for immigration?


Because it's based on at least some objective criteria. Emotive arguments are subjective and less convincing.

It's vacuous and useless to say 'immigrants bring a wealth of benefits to this country' or 'immigrants harm this country immensely'. People want to know why, and for that to be based on some tangible evidence.
Original post by Kiytt
Because a country progresses due to its economy, not due to empathy.



Pro-tip: There is more to life than money...
The emmotive arguments are hollow when heard by people who have their own set of problems and are struggling to get by. Which is a large proportion of the population now a days.
(edited 8 years ago)
I think you find that the bigger question is: why is the same straw man asked on question time, more relevant.

And the question is 40% of staff in the NHS are immigrants, without them we would not have an NHS. To this I respond; No one has an anti-immigration policy, under a UKIP style immigration policy those working within the NHS would still be there. UKIP policy is more akin to that of the mid to early 90’s.
I think it's more about Entitlement and understanding 'Skilled Worker' status, that most people don't understand about immigration.

A lot of British people feel entitled to a job, welfare, healthcare, education etc. and let's be frank, many of them disrespect this privilege. We are not British by hard earned work, we just here by luck.

Meanwhile, an unskilled worker from abroad might never have had any of these privileges, and given the right opportunities, they could flourish and be an asset to society. You have to remember that it's harder to become a 'skilled worker' if you're from a less developed country. The opportunities are scarce and even if you end up in a high level profession like a Doctor, you'll have to retrain or even be demoted. Either way, closing the door on immigrants might save some money now, but in the long run, it significantly slows human development for the whole world.
Th right are good at using emotive reasoning. The reason Dave gets all sad about his child that died and the NHS. Emotions have more sway over people that facts and figures. If anything the mainstream "left" now is awful at this and is having its ass handed to them by the "right". The cons have certainly convinced the public they are the guardians of the economy, but that is based on emotion as well, certainly not facts and figures.

Politics is won on emotive arguments. Not facts. Unfortunately. Why should the left not use them? I think there is a tendency on the left to try and be objective and not all scarmongery which puts them at a disadvantage. This inability to not talk about immigrations and to always defend it complelty whilst calling "kippers" racist just alienates these people they need to be winning over. Which Owen Jones also mentioned. People who would have once supported left wing politics are only getting solutions offered to their problems from the populist right. So they go over there. Why on earth are you going to support the ones calling you racist?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Kiytt
Because a country progresses due to its economy, not due to empathy.


Yup. Looks at china. They don't waste time with this democracy crap. You go on strike? Say hello to prison.
I don't think this goes one way.

Left: We need more immigrants because without their enormous and vital contribution, social functions that obviously existed before there were many immigrants and still exist in countries like Japan that have not experienced much immigration would instantaneously collapse for some reason.

Right: Even though the unemployment rate was very low and steadily reducing during the Blair years' mass immigration, immigration is clearly the most likely reason why I don't have a job.

In fact pretty much every argument used either for or against immigration is stupid and the vast majority of stupid arguments of all stripes are emotive. The basic problem is that while the vast majority of those on the left believe there should be some restrictions on immigration, and the vast majority on the right believe that at least some immigration can be permitted, neither has come up with any convincing reason why there should be X amount of immigration and not X+1 or X-1. This is because neither can adequately define what immigration is meant to be for.
(edited 8 years ago)
Maybe because they're taking the morally correct position.

And actually the left use economic arguments as well.

If anything its the reactionary right that use fear based arguments that aren't founded in fact to win the debate.
Reply 16
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Yup. Looks at china. They don't waste time with this democracy crap. You go on strike? Say hello to prison.


Without democracy, it's unsustainable growth, though.
The right argue that immigration should maximize our utility, it is therefore a privilege that we grant.

The left believe that the inequity of being born in a poor country is wrong and therefore these immigrants have a right to come here. They also have some strange idea that diversity is good and don't value their own ethnicity.

This is why the left are more willing to accept these African asylum seekers while i as a capitalist wish to send them back because they add nothing.
Original post by mojojojo101
Pro-tip: There is more to life than money...


Tell that to all the people dying in poverty

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rakas21
The right argue that immigration should maximize our utility, it is therefore a privilege that we grant.

The left believe that the inequity of being born in a poor country is wrong and therefore these immigrants have a right to come here. They also have some strange idea that diversity is good and don't value their own ethnicity.

This is why the left are more willing to accept these African asylum seekers while i as a capitalist wish to send them back because they add nothing.




You are assuming everyone who is pro immigration is anti capitalist (again whatever that means, see the image above) which is nonsense. The farmer getting lots of cheap labour on his field will be fine with immigration. The free trade Adam smith types should be equally against arbitrary human made borders as well. This goes to everyone on here really, stop trying to stick everyone in neat absolute categories. most of the voting public don't really think in terms of left and right anyway or really know what it means. Just because someone thinks we should welcome refugees from **** places of the globe does not make them inherently against "capitalism", with again, what does that even mean?
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest