Immigration or Government?

Scroll to see replies

chelseagirl2002

I have chosen some sentences from contributors to this thread which I believe conflate to form the picture of whether or not immigration is to blame for straining public services. I believe that the main issue is due to Government austerity combined with higher levels of immigration - the two policies are incongruous as the population is increasing but spending is decreasing, meaning public services will be over-demanded and under-supplied. It is not the fault of immigrants as they are fairly paying taxes and working hard and should be rewarded with all the services they deserve, just as other citizens of this country are. However, I feel that people blame immigrants as a clear minority for buckling public services, which isn't entirely fair - it is not their fault because they pay taxes just as they should. Therefore, the Government should have updated their fiscal policy to the social changes (higher immigration), such as by increasing spending to prevent greater strain on public services if they couldn't implement immigration policies.

Based on this, what do you think of Brexit? As part of the EU, we couldn't have immigration controls so that means the budget deficit could not be decreased without damaging public services whilst the population increases. However, the EU provides many benefits. What do you think?

I agree with you on this one. My family would be considered 'immigrants' by many British people and they work and pay their taxes. The UK spends more than what they have and end up borrowing billions more because they can't afford to pay for the public sector. However, increasing government spending would put the UK in more debt than they already are in, so updating the fiscal policy wouldn't entirely work if taxes are already too high and the governemnt spending exceeds what they already have. Personally I believe Brexit will do more worse than good since spending will increase due to poor trade relations and there would be less immigrants paying taxes. The UK needed to sort out it's debt first before even thinking about a Brexit. That's their main concern, not trying to fulfill the wants of some British people that cannot stand watching immigrants 'ruining their country'.

Reply 21

Davij038

Original post by nulli tertius

@Koalifications

This. Now some will say that it is because these areas are full of ignorant hucksters who haven’t seen a minority in their life but that is no longer the case- white flight is s real concept; and also effects plenty of white liberals who love immigration but don’t want to live amongst it and can afford to leave.

Trying to blame hostility to immigration purely on materialistic factors such as the economy is wrong-headed. For example, Sweden has had a growing economy and record levels of spending but has suffered huge upset from the Swedish Democrats who are highly anti immigration. Now some of this is to do with concerns about the significant rise in crime that this influx of migration has brought,

The hostility to the policies of mass migration are not rooted in opposition to lack of spending but the view that their leaders are antagonistic towards them and are seeking their replacement and destruction of their identity.

People are quite willing to be slightly worse off economically if they are given dignity. Most Leavers knew that they would be economically worse off after Brexit (polling confirmed that Remain had decisively won the economic argument)

Reply 22

Davij038

Original post by chelseagirl2002

A: All countries are in debt and probably will be indefinitely

B: Wwll you may not like it, but those ‘some British people’ are the majority and have had their wishes expressed democratically.

Of course, you may think their wishes are stupid and that we should ignore democracy / many politicians agree with you. But you’re going to be getting more than you bargained for when you make that dangerous precedent.

(Incidentally- I voted Remain and am ambivalent about us leaving)

Reply 23

Joinedup

Original post by nulli tertius

The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't fit with the realities of geography. Much of the hostility to immigration has been in areas with very low levels of immigration. Services haven't been swamped with new demand from immigrants in those areas. Services have simply contracted. In part that is due to public expenditure reductions but that is by no means the whole story.

A generation of G.P.s is retiring and is not being replaced at the necessary rate, in part because that retiring generation had large numbers of immigrant doctors and the number of immigrant would be G.P.s is now much lower.

We still have surplus school places but they are areas where the population growth was in the 1950s-70s. These are now places with an elderly population.

People who want to see a policeman or councillor official have to travel many miles because usage of public enquiry counters has dropped like a stone. How do you justify making a service available to the tiny minority who will use it?

Well I think the people in those immigration hostile areas with low migrant populations would think they're acting to prevent another problem from coming to their area before their turn comes.
Most of the changes they've seen in their area in the past 30 or so years haven't been changes for the better.
They're looking at the closed down schools, GP surgeries and police stations and they're seeing that as signs their neighbourhood has not got a lot of resiliance left.

Reply 24

nulli tertius

Original post by Joinedup

I don't agree with that and I think Aaronovitch in the Times this evening (if you can penetrate the paywall) has it right

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gunboat-politics-won-t-solve-immigration-h5jgf8s3s

Reply 25

Joinedup

Original post by nulli tertius

Mmm - I'm not sure that the migrants crossing the channel in small boats to illegally enter the country are going to be our upstanding citizens of tomorrow. As you've pointed out yourself in the past IIRC, when they make it to our shores these chaps have no legal way of making a living and generally try to vanish rather than immediately present themselves for asylum.
tbh going from approximately nothing to 230 per month is imo rather a worrying trend, drunk driving in Essex otoh wasn't invented last year.
I think Javid might be right to crack down on it before it becomes well established route - and we're not likely to have any sensible sort of discussion about immigration if we get 500 coming across in January, 1000 in Feb and it looks like no one's getting a grip.

Although he's right about a lot of misdirected blame being aimed at immigrants he aught to also be hoping for a better, more prosperous and more secure future for the embittered northerners he doesn't quite seem able to bring himself to emphathise with.

Reply 26

nulli tertius

Original post by Joinedup

I wasn’t referring to the boat people aspect but to blaming immigrants for social changes. Essentially Thelma and Bob have won Britain and Brexit is Terry’s cry of anguish.

The problems in the Channel are on the French side. Brexit means the French are no longer interested in stopping folk taking to the water in small boats and the rioting means the French lack the manpower to do so.

Reply 27

Koalifications

Original post by ByEeek

Except they don't get the services they deserve. My colleague from Australia has just gone through the 18 month process of getting leave to remain. This person pays all their taxes but gets nothing in return. Minimal healthcare, but no benefits or national insurance. They don't qualify for several years.

I agree that the legal immigrants in this country who pay taxes and work should be given all the benefits that they deserve as British citizens, and many do not get what they deserve.

Reply 28

peterdxherty

For a start, I'd like to make clear that by being blunt about immigration's role in the late decline in UK public services, I'm not blaming the immigrants themselves. If they couldn't enter the UK, immigrants would have had many alternative destinations like in Europe or the US. Like you, I agree that what matters is citizenship, rather than nationality.

Anyway, the EU does have its draw backs. There are plenty of examples of where it has been corrupted by industry lobbyists in order to protect themselves from new innovations (but what country where policy, for hundreds of millions of people and an $18 trillion economy, is made in a single city isn't?), and the EU is not that innovation-friendly in general. EU regulation is the biggest reason as to why Europe lacks big tech companies in comparison to the rest of the world. It's almost shameful, really. It's also failed on its Common Agricultural Policy (which is one of the EU's primary functions), which has very good use but due to the intricacies that weren't quite thought through farmers receive more money to store excess harvest (for years with bad harvests) and they'll all go on strike if the EU tries to bring the payment down to the right level. Regardless, the UK pays about 1% of its GDP to stay in the EU, and I'd say that's a bargain price for all the benefits brought with it - peace, investment, students, labour, jobs.

Aside from that, though, I'd say that it's a wonderful thing. People forget that Europe has been one of the most turbulent regions in history and to somehow manage to unite all the different nationalities and cultures in peaceful unity is something we take for granted. Without that kind of unity, the continent divides very, very quickly. With the EU, the Single Market provides pressures strong enough to keep countries in check, therefore preventing the kind of domino effects that would lead to conflict. Freedom of movement stifles corruption and bad governance as citizens can emigrate with relative ease. This does have the opposite effect of draining less developed nations of there skilled workers, yet the EU spends about 40% of its budget on development through its schemes like Horizon 2020.

The EU is far from perfect, but to leave it is a huge mistake. It just needs reform. The immigration policy is perhaps the EU's most hated aspect which it'd do well to fix in order to quell the far-right movements that are tearing it apart. Yet, the root of the problem lies with stagnant incomes, austerity, and bad economic thinking. Don't forget that one of the most influential economics studies released in favour of austerity was found false due to the economists missing out a line of date in their spreadsheet (but by then it was too late).

Austerity would not have been necessary if the Conservatives weren't so reluctant to raise income taxes on the rich and introduce a wealth tax. Inequality is a proven fact and it gets exponentially worse the longer it goes without treatment - like a tumour. There is some evidence to suggest that soaring inequality and a broken social contract are all down to globalisation - and therefore worsened by the EU. Exposed to international competition from the '70s onwards, Britain's manufacturing base has quickly died off or been bought. Shareholders force management to maximise profits in order to stay profitable (otherwise they'll sell and invest elsewhere), leaving employees with wage freezes or cuts, employee benefits being stripped away, full-time workers being rehired at lower wages as part-time employees. The list is staggering, and convincing, though I haven't checked the data.

If I've gone from talking about immigration to shareholders, I've probably gone on a rant. I'll shut up now.