If you consider yourself to be left wing

But you must know that this wouldn’t work right? If the uk had say 6 million people moving here per year instead of the (already too high )1 million per year it would just breakdown the system of governance, welfare state and institutions and wouldn’t benefit anyone except the very rich who could exploit cheap labour.
Thatcher believed in Global capitalism’there is no such thing as society’ and you seem to be bent on destroying the earnings potential of the working class.

The effect is not straightforward and seems to be positive, by raising the economic incentive to train in healthcare.

This paper on a sudden loosening in US nursing visa rules found that nursing enrollment in the Philippines jumped from 90,000 p.a. to 400,000, and the number of nurses working in the Philippines increased. It didn't completely plug the nursing shortages there though, because of low wages. Many of the 'surplus' nurses went to work as nurses in the Philippines, but many went to work in higher paying domestic sectors.

https://voxdev.org/topic/migration-urbanisation/brain-drain-vs-brain-gain-does-international-migration-deplete-poor

Now you could argue that even if NHS worker immigration doesn't deprive the source countries of healthcare workers, it's depriving them of the (eg) would-be engineers who decided to become doctors instead, because of the international earning potential.

But that seems flimsy unless you think that human talent has basically been fully utilized.

I see no evidence for that (though AI may change this very soon). There are billions of people who have the talent and drive to contribute more to the economy (and themselves and their families) but who lack the opportunity to do so. Essentially, a mismatch of talent and opportunity.

Immigration done right addresses that.

What we need to do is drop the squeamishness about discussing good immigration and bad immigration. Then design policies to maximise the former while limiting the latter.

Political difference will still exist on what counts as good and bad immigration, but that's the debate that should be had.

And unlock supply of resources! Housing reform, planning reform, NHS reform, so that supply rises to meet demand.

Otherwise most of the economic benefits of migration get captured by landlords, as owners of the scarce resource, and everyone else is left scratching their heads wondering where these supposed benefits have gone. They've gone to people like me who own property, because the government has imposed an artificial constraint on supply. That's not how the system should be working. It works for the people who vote though, so it stays.

It’s like some people never grew up and experienced the real world. Still stuck in sixth form.

Ironically, the utopia that these people promote so vigorously is exactly the type of hellhole that people leave in their millions when they experience it.

Ever heard of anyone fleeing the US to get into Venezuela or Cuba. Yet there seems to plenty of traffic going the other way. These amateur socialists wouldn’t survive a day in a socialist country. Which is why they can hold their luxury beliefs in countries like this one, because everyone else is paying for them hold them.

Where do you live? Inner city Birmingham? Manchester? You don't deserve a say honestly, unless you live in an area affected by such high levels of migration. Suck it up for a year and then come back to us.

I’ll have whatever you’re smoking, you loonbucket 🤡

You sound like you have a permanent Beatles cartoon playing in your head.

Meanwhile, back in the real world where murderously competitive human nature is alive and kicking…

Why do you think that? Surely we need to focus on skills and training here? Why on earth do you believe we need to import labour? Such a short sighted view. Let's put pressure on the powers that be to invest in upskilling out own population first.

Almost always the default position taken by people who have no data, argument or clue.

I'd call myself social democratic.

We should take in a Europe wide agreed amount of refugees straight from camps and mostly women & children.

We should limit the number of international students.

Spousal visas should be much harder to get. No 40 year old men marrying 18 year old uk citizens.

Economic migrants should only be able to enter upon having a job offer with the employer evidencing that they couldn't fill the post.

Absolutely no violent criminals should be allowed uk entry for any reason.

Most benefits are pensions. I don't see why we are giving £150 pwk to millionaires. Some even get their pension while also working full time!

UC is harsh enough now. We shouldn't have a 5 week wait or a 2 child limit. But there should be a cap on private landlord rents.

You are confusing workers with the entitled who want to benefit from the spoils of other people’s effort. Which is why your way of thinking has been shown to never work. Ever. Not one single example in history.

It protects workers from scurrilous and explorative employers. It’s a very good thing.

Your example ignores scope and therefore doesn’t work. Your front door doesn’t need to follow international agreements on asylum, it does not apply passport and visa controls and it does not require customs checks. There is no “principle” which unites these two different boundaries except that they are boundaries. I have clearly thought about it a lot more than you as your answer appears to be “er well they are both lines, duh”.

I am astounded that you think this is a good thing.

A border determines the end of one thing and the beginning of another. Of course they are to be restricted.

What I gave you seems simple because it is a principle. I gave you a principle because it can work regardless of scope and therefore allow you to be consistent.

It is obvious to the point of redundancy that a personal and national border are different in size and impact, yet that is all can give me. You haven't thought about this at all.

I think that’s a pretty basic and quite primitive view of national borders. As if they’re something you should restrict.

In my view there are massive differences and you have failed to recognise them.

Private property serves individual needs whereas national borders impact entire populations and global relations.

Private property is governed by local laws whereas national borders are regulated by international laws and humanitarian obligations.

Private property is directly controlled by the owner whereas national borders are managed by governments representing collective interests.

Exclusion from private property has limited impact but restricting national borders affects fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Private property decisions affect few humans whereas border policies influence national and global economies and demographics.

Private property decisions are personal whereas border control must address global responsibilities to refugees and migrants.

My personal stance is internationalist and dismantles national borders to balance global inequalities and gives all humans access to the same opportunities. Degrowth contributes to this by making life more sustainable, even if western lifestyles decline.

I would describe myself as left wing and I don't feel remotely awkward about not supporting the idea of limits on immigration or on benefits.

Because everyone who gets promoted deserves it. Sure.
🙄

Exactly. In my paradigm don’t expect to get paid for doing more.

Shhh, away with you and your thinking 🤔

Everyone knows there is one right and one wrong way to see everything and your political party tells MN all they need to know about your morals, intelligence, social class and worth.

We simply cannot cope with unlimited migration into the country when we ourselves have such limited options for migrating out of the country. Which obviously we’ve bought on ourselves with Brexit!

I agree massively with the poster who said we need to cap rents and that would help the benefits massively.

I am not far left but definitely left and I believe everyone should have an even playing field (benefits are good) and migration is good for us but it needs to be a 2 way street.

It's the constant striving for more output which is jeopardising the human race by making the planet an unsustainable habitat for ourselves.

If you want the minimum, do the minimum.

If you want more, do more.

It's that simple.

Lol

My house is filled with individuals who live here. I should have the right to control who enters and lives here, and I should have the right to defend it.
My front door should not be crossed without my permission, else that would be a crime.
I have this right because it is my house, which I earned through my labour, or by being native to it (inheritance). My children will in turn inherit this right.

My country is filled with individuals who live here. We should have the right to control who enters and lives here, and we should have the right to defend it.
Our border should not be crossed without our permission, else that would be a crime.
We have this right because it is our country, which we earned through our labour, or by being native to it. Our children will in turn inherit this right.

It’s only work. Do the work, get paid, have a life. No need to bust a lung.

Very naive thinking.

Say I am extremely good at my job, to the point where I bring in better results on my own than teams of 3 in the same job role.

If I were paid the same as each member of the team of 3, what incentive do I have to perform any better than anybody else? I don't.

Net result: less output.