The conversation should be “it barely affects us like the media says and it should take a backbench to dealing with the cost of living and the lack of taxation of the rich”
A grown up conversation would not be using percentages to compare figures which are separated by a literal order of magnitude.
In 2023, boat crossings and asylum applications are approximately 68k, whilst net migration was 685k, literally 10x higher. It’s the 685k figure which covers those coming to the UK on visas to work or study, both of which require an existing job or uni place to be granted.
A grown up conversation would also not start with
Has the west turned decisively against immigration? If recent reports are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding “yes”.
Because if anything, the recent election results in the UK and France have actually been a resounding fuck you towards the culture warriors who are demonising minorities.
TBH I thought the article was actually particularly good because it specifically pointed out that “immigration” isn’t one homogeneous thing.
We end up with these worst-of-all worlds outcomes because we talk about immigration as if it’s one thing when in reality it is many very different things, because we refuse to confront trade-offs — and because each side has its own conversational no-go areas.
I think that point of refusing to discuss tradeoffs is also particularly pertinent. Significant chunks of the electorate will happily vote for Reform but then moan about the lack of staffing in healthcare. Or conversely, others will happily quote the stats that on average migrants are a net benefit to the country, but then refuse to investigate this thought further and realise that this is an average and those benefits may not be spread evenly (perhaps some areas are even negatively affected).
I’ll try to be brief, but essentially…
- with the demographic distribution we have, we have more British-born people leaving the workforce each year than joining it. This will continue for approximately the next 20 years as boomer’s retire, and is the main reason for work visas being issued
- A combination of significantly improved productivity and immigration is required to maintain the relative strength of the UK economy, and pay for stuff like the NHS - elder care is considerably more expensive than earlier stages of life
- The failures of government to build housing, etc, is not the fault of people who apply to, and secure, jobs and choose to move to the UK
- Equally, the continued failure of capitalism to do anything other than suck up all wealth in to the top 0.01% is not their fault either
- The history of these isles is literally defined by migration and social change. We aren’t even speaking a Brittonic language to have this conversation.
I get why people can be scared by change, and that unfamiliararity breeds suspicion and can be exploited by those who seek to divide and destroy rather than unite and build.
Society, as a concept, has been undermined for a long time now, including things like both adults in a home having to work to afford the rent. This, again, is not the fault of people who want to work here, or see the UK as safe sanctuary from persecution.
We don’t need to have a grown-up conversation about immigration. The grown-up answer is we need immigration the whole country’s economy is based on it.
What we need to have is a grown-up realisation of that fact, but that would require those on the hard right to admit they were wrong. It’s an impossibility I’m afraid.
But if you don’t write it on a bus, who is going to read it?
a country who spent about 400 years amassing wealth and fame by going to other countries, colonising them, and taking their resources shouldn’t be complaining about immigration.
Oh well, good job you’re here to sort that out then, you should be called to speak in front of the House Of Commons with your insights.
The country didn’t amass wealth, the bourgeoisie and aristocracy did.
