In reply to thomasadixon:
> There's no rational connection between what you think and what they've said as far as I can see. They say - we know people want to reduce migration so we will aim to achieve that, however there are benefits from it and we need to plan to cover that (e.g. training up nurses), so we can't promise to do it immediately. How is that not balancing priorities?
That seems very naive to me. The numbers aren't still in the hundreds of thousands because the government have decided how many immigrants we need and this is the right number. The reason is because they do not have the policies to control the number. They've tried very hard to shut down much non-EU work-related migration, but you've got the student and marriage streams, plus of course the EU. Remember that the target was prior to Brexit referendum, Brexit is not a deliberate policy to achieve this aim, it's a total curveball. The numbers are not because of a plan that balances priorities (haha!), they're a result of the reality that it's just not within the government's gift to bring the numbers down like that.
> Can you support the assertion that immigrants "made Britain" in any meaningful way?
You introduced this ill-defined idea:
> all of those who loudly clap people's rhetoric over immigration having made the country are certainly uninformed.
> How do you square the idea that reducing immigration will have no impact, and at the same time point to major changes that have happened and claim that immigration is beneficial (i.e. non neutral, so must have an impact)?
Immigration has been critical at certain points in history. I don't think, taking a broad view across all sectors, that we're in that kind of period now - although if you look just at say nursing, you might argue that we are!
> It is a highly emotional subject. For some reason any time people say immigration should be controlled in some way,
It is already controlled, in fact very tightly for non-EU nationals.
> No one is saying all immigration is bad, no one is asking to close immigration immediately. You're boxing at shadows.
I'm not using that straw man. I'm saying that government is being dishonest about the target, that reducing immigration for the sake of it is stupid - we need to think about what outcomes matter, such as access to public services, first.
> It's emotional for some on both sides and it's certainly not a straightforward economic decision (as if such a thing even exists).
As I said,
> Some of the impacts are practical, e.g. people's access to housing, school places, GP appointments etc, but some of them are emotional: how it feels to see your community change from everyone being like you, to being full of people who look and sound different.
> Not to even discuss what the impacts are or how to deal with them, but to instead assume that the solution is to greatly reduce immigration is frankly nothing short of stupid.
Read again, the argument I'm making is not one-sided or simplistic in the way you portray it. I'm saying that there *are* problems, but announcing unrealistic reductions, and leaving the EU for the sole reason of reducing immigration is merely placating people at the emotional level, it's not addressing the problems - and in fact I think it will make the problems worse. I'm not arguing *for* high levels of immigration, I'm saying that the government response to concerns is completely wrong in many different ways.
> Care to answer Coel's question on the other thread about actual evidence of economic benefit?
There's stacks of research, and it's pretty clear that while it's bullshit that immigrants are a net drain on the economy, the overall economic contribution isn't overwhelming. The research doesn't all agree, so the effect can't be that enormous. The problem is that if you put in policies to significantly reduce migration, then you end up shutting off the supply of labour we really need. E.g. even though we're still in the EU, we've already cut off the supply of nurses!
Here's a summary on EU migration that should be pretty impartial:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-th...
> Immigration policy is about looking at what is beneficial and trying to judge that right, it's looking at the detail in the way you say it should do.
I used to work in immigration policy, and I concluded that it's about trying to convince the public that the government has some control when actually it has almost none. We've all been sold this idea that you can choose specifically exactly who you want, and that's exactly who you'll get, but it's so much more difficult than that given all the different routes that people come into the UK: not just workers, but spouses, students, asylum, etc. Close off one route and you see the number start to rise in another...
> Getting rid of free movement is doing exactly that, rather than having a free for all. Why is that a problem, and why does it cause such an emotional reaction?
It doesn't! It would be absolutely fine by almost everyone in the country to end free movement of EU nationals and put in some immigration criteria as for non-EU nationals. But the whole point of the Brexit debacle is that we don't have that option! It's either leave the EU - and suffer all the economic consequences, or keep the benefits but put up with free movement.
> Yes, the job of policy is to take into account everything. That includes how people feel and what they want, because that matters.
Yes. What I'm saying is that the weighting the govt has given to people's feelings about immigration, compared to the weighting of all the actual consequences, is inappropriate. It's inappropriate, because actually people would much rather have a job and some more Polish people moving in nearby, rather than no job and no Poles. Not that every Brexit voter is going to find themselves in that position, but some will, and that's why it's the wrong call. You don't pander to people's whining if in doing so you make their lives and their children's lives significantly worse. It's wrong.
Post edited at 23:04