101–110 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Simply allow immigrants to vote. You've just given me a great business idea. Votes for hire. I bet I could charge a fortune, and I would only have to pass a small fraction of that on to the immigrants I employ.
Why is that different to money for votes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are refugees, not illegal immigrants at the US Border fleeing Latin American countries bulldozed by the CIA
When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
If they all settled at the point closest to their homeland that wasn’t “at war” I’m pretty sure there would soon be conflict there.
Britain is a rich, developed nation that is quite easily able to support our “fair share” of refugees along with the rest of Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them. It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is th…
> All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally. And then ? What’s wrong with population growth ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are refugees, not illegal immigrants at the US Border fleeing Latin American countries bulldozed by the CIA
When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I understand the point you are making. That everyone should be able to cheat the immigration system?
Mo Farah didn't cheat the system though. He was a victim of the trafficking and so the ops point is referring to not criminalizing the victim i think. Which makes sense. He didn't break the immigration law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are refugees, not illegal immigrants at the US Border fleeing Latin American countries bulldozed by the CIA
When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
They cease to be refugees when they have settled somewhere or voluntarily returned to their country of origin. See the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage dilution is an issue. It's the working and middle classes that are most harmed by immigration. Those who are in the position to not have their wages threatened by mass immigration policies are free to reap the rewards of cheap labor, but for those who are in the position of being outcompeted by incoming labor, immigration is a drawback not an asset. Naturally, policymakers are in the former category, and as such…
> It's the working and middle classes that are most harmed by immigration. Didn't farmers complain that British (working class?)citizens[1] weren't up for picking fruits after East Europeans hit the Brexit? The same working & middle class rely on cheap fruits, so it's not a simple equation where fewer immigrants = better jobs. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-61568286
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not, this is called the lump of labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Tragedy of the commons (or in this case mass immigration to the 'commons') https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impa... example 5
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage dilution is an issue. It's the working and middle classes that are most harmed by immigration. Those who are in the position to not have their wages threatened by mass immigration policies are free to reap the rewards of cheap labor, but for those who are in the position of being outcompeted by incoming labor, immigration is a drawback not an asset. Naturally, policymakers are in the former category, and as such…
No, it's not, this is called the lump of labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
> However, skilled immigrating workers can bring capabilities that are not available in the native workforce, for example in academic research or information technology. Additionally, immigrating workforces also create new jobs by expanding demand, thus creating more jobs, either directly by setting up businesses (therefore requiring local services or workers), or indirectly by raising consumption. As an example, a greater population that eats more groceries will increase demand from shops, which will therefore require additional shop staff.
If that's the "fallacy" then it's not much of a rebuttal. The UK has an immigration system that allows in quite easily the kind of people who do academic research and information technology. How that has any relevance to low paid workers in far more precarious professions (or no profession at all) who have to compete with low skilled immigrants who are unlikely to know their rights, thus pressuring conditions downwards, who are likely to find the low pay better than they could get back home (or worse, taking lower pay out of necessity because of their illegal immigration status) which again, pressures downwards the pay levels, you'll have to explain.
One of my friends is from a Baltic state and wasn't claiming for money she should've been paid, which suited her employer just fine (this story[1] turned up a week after I learned about this, about her industry and mirrored her situation) - do you think there was a reason my friend said all her colleagues were foreigners? I'll give you the two best reasons I think for that:
a) The company wanted to hire foreigners because it would be easier to scam them out of money and rights
b) Locals would be less inclined to put up with that kind of nonsense
How is any of this helpful to a country, the locals, or the immigrants?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them. It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is th…
> All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally. And then ? What’s wrong with population growth ?