If you consider yourself to be left wing

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Do you believe there should be limits on migration (as a net figure) and benefits (as total % of GDP/cap per household), or do you think there should be no limits at all?

I’m a centrist, but whenever these topics are discussed I notice people claiming to be left wing become a bit uncomfortable, and usually make aspersions on the person talking about it before trying to move the conversation on. It’s like they know deep down we can’t just allow them to spiral but equally they’re at loathe to actually say it out loud because of how it looks.

I am left wing and think we should:
have better systems for legal immigration - opening up safe routes

have much better processing of asylum claims

start building more houses and sort that crisis so there is space for all

some industries are dying without people to staff them eg hospitality, care sector, NHS, fruit picking etc. We need people to come here and help with these vacancies.

I was referring to irregular new arrivals in this post. Net inward immigration is in the hundreds of thousands, but these are regular (legal) immigrants

I’m not forwarding an argument – I don’t have a position on this.

I was just wondering if this is part of the argument as it seems like an obvious difference.

And tbh I think measuring over a time period is totally valid (and unavoidable). How small a time period is the here and now?

My post references a post from @Teentaxidriver at 12.11 referring to irregular immigrants only. Sorry for the confusion

Yeah. The problems in some of those countries caused by colonisation didn't go away then though.

There's 916,000 job vacancies (including some that are only part-time). But over 1 million people on jobseeker benefits. So there's fewer jobs than people looking for one.

And as the multiple threads about within-UK regional displaced 'blow-ins' show there's equal concern about that impact on jobs, housing, and public services.

That said, there's more than one option to address the impact both of regional within-UK 'blow-ins' and mass immigration (both especially affect the less advantaged).

There's a need to discuss in a calm adult way, without hate, and if the majority consensus is to continue to have mass immigration and or a lot of regional within-UK displaced 'blow-ins', then there's a need to massively invest in more social housing, public services, and job opportunities (with pay levels protected), that accommodates all who need it.

@PrimaDoner I meant politicians and think tankers used it, it wasn't directly aimed at you. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

But I stand by what I say. It's disingenuous. It also does nothing for the moral of a British worker to be constantly told the immigrants are net contributors. Well, yes if we're taking into account being born, schooling etc but it's stupid. You work a job and you either put in more than you take back out or you're not a net contributor. All those immigrants doing low skilled low waged work accessing benefits cannot possibly be net contributors any more than the Brit doing the same job, accessing the same benefits. The way some of our politicians keep hammering 'on average, immigrants are net contributors' home is frustrating in the extreme. It doesn't take many French bankers, for example, to completely skew the numbers and make that average look good. It's not truthful.

I think the real issue is the lack of investment in infrastructure together with mass migration. We need enough roads, reservoirs, schools, hospitals, houses, sewerage plans, doctors, dentists etc to support 600,000+ new people each year.

None of that is being done and hasn't been for the last decade or two.

This is why everything is being stretched and feels at breaking point and it looks like it will only get worse.

If you go back to the poster I was replying to, they clearly think anyone should be able to come here.

I was explaining the problem with that logic. I agree with immigration just not uncontrolled unskilled mass immigration

I would consider myself left wing and am pro immigration but also accept there is an issue with people trafficking, and more should be done to help people integrate into our culture while retaining theirs.

Im left of centre Im not anti immigration in fact with a declining birth rate and an ever increasing elderly population many with complex health needs that are expensive I believe we need hard working people to come here 1, to look after them and all the necessary infra structure and 2, work and pay taxes so that the state has more money.
I also believe that as late great Desmond Tutu once said
"There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in."
I think benefits should be sufficient for people to live on pay for food/utilities/ council tax/rent/car insurance etc and I don't believe any child should be penalised because their parents claim benefits/earn a low income and living in poverty in the UK. Would I pay more tax to achieve this? Absolutely.

Migrants and refugees tend to settle in different types of places where they already have some sort of a connection via an aunt, friend of a friend type thing. We have had a lot of migrants from Hong Kong who are polite, educated, work and have integrated well into local schools with typically 1-2 children each. We also have a lot of nice Ukrainians in my part of London, most seem to have settled in well too after the initial trauma, and that was obviously very difficult for many. Before this we had a lot of really lovely Polish and Romanian people arrive. I don’t think there is much anti immigration sentiment where I live, far from it. It is generally an international vibe anyway with lots of richer Europeans and successful people from places like India and China and Russia etc. and being mixed race is completely normal, in fact our school is far more multicultural than white British.

Meanwhile in Clacton where only 51% are economically active and poverty is awful and services are poor (but there do not even seem to be many migrants or refugees there?) the sentiment is very different.

I think a lot of people do judge on what they personally see or in the case of Clacton, simply fear. There is no one answer as to how people feel about immigration. When you have successful diversity like where I live and every NHS worker you encounter is not White British, then you probably feel a lot more pro immigrant than in other places. Which are either 1) not diverse at all but poor or 2) have an over representation of one migrant community that sort of threatens the cultural norms of those who were there first.

I completely agree with everything you say 👌

I think you mean Obama's wall.

Anyway, who says where your 'private space' begins and ends? Why do they get to say?

Who says which people are allowed inside that private space? Why to they get to say?

If you keep bringing in people who are net takers to supposedly look after the elderly and work in the health service, they then get old and need taking care of and need health services from day one. You then bring in more net takers.

That’s called a Ponzi scheme.

Where is this magic money tree paying for immigrants who are not earning enough to sustain the cost of service they use?

The numbers are clear. Immigration is a net cost to this country, not a net benefit. The reason the left doesn’t want to address the cost in numbers around net contribution is because it would force them to talk facts. Rather than waffling on about abstract nonsense to prove that they are more virtuous.

Immigration is simply no longer beneficial to this country. It is making people already here poorer. Because immigrants on average are not adding more than they take out. The numbers are there for all to see.

I’d describe myself as centre-left. I don’t want people, especially children, to die crossing the channel in dinghys. I want people to be able to come here to do the jobs that, quite frankly, British people don’t want to do. I want us to be able to put enough foreign aid out there so that people don’t have to make perilous journeys to get here, when they have no skills, little education and aren’t likely to have a good life here when they could be with their families in their own land.

This isn't true though. Migrants without children only need to earn £10,000 + a year to be net contributors. It's mainly migrants with children, who are net beneficiaries because of education costs, but this calculations ignore the future contributions of those children.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/

I want people to be able to come here to do the jobs that, quite frankly, British people don’t want to

I think that's arguably a right wing view.

It's usually not that British people don't want to do those jobs. It's that those jobs are low paid and people can't afford to do them. Especially with unaffordable housing (which is affected by higher demand). In the past people did those jobs and were able to manage because even if the job was low paid there was more social housing. And wages can be cut if there's increased competition for the jobs.

I don't see how it's left wing to see immigrants as a source of cheap exploitable labour, instead of paying decent wages and or providing more social housing.

But anyway there's more people on jobseeker benefits than there are job vacancies (that's not including people on disability or carers benefits). So there's less jobs available than people looking for jobs.

One thing's for sure. Whether or not people want mass immigration, there's a need for more social housing for all here who need it, and protection of wages and working conditions, and sufficient provision of (good and well-funded) public services.

@Teentaxidriver It is inevitable that something has to give

Let’s* *hope that “something” is the tories - immigration is a drop in the ocean compared with the billions they’ve spaffed on track and trace, unusuable PPI, Brexit, etc. But but but it’s the immigrants, stop the boats, 🙄 FFS

Obama’s / Trumps - exactly, both the same thing.

The private space of an individual is private and persists as long as they have the right of occupancy of that space. That individual decides who can and cannot access their space. When that individual no longer occupies that space they no longer have control of that boundary, the next individual occupant does.

But administrative boundaries outlast individual occupancies - they persist beyond individual lives.

I don’t think we can try to compare individual boundaries with national borders, it’s quite a different concept.

There's the issue that some areas have a lot more immigration than others. Often poorer areas. Or if a generally wealthy area, poorer people from that area are displaced (because of the added pressure on housing). .

Then we get multiple threads on here complaining about regional within-UK displaced 'blow-ins'...

Weirdly there's often contradictory attitudes. When immigration is discussed, people are deemed 'nasty' for being concerned about added pressure on housing, jobs, and public services. When it's regional within-UK 'blow-ins', there's often immense sympathy for those concerned about added pressure on housing, jobs, and public services.

If, after calm adult debate (that avoids hate), the majority consensus is to continue mass immigration, there needs to be either:

More equal settlement across the country, in every area. The unequal distribution is especially unfair on the less advantaged when you consider Labour's planned inflate house prices scheme. Because they're saying they want to give '"local people first dibs".

There also needs to be acceptance of regional within-UK 'blow-ins', who need to move areas for affordable housing or for jobs.

And definitely need massive investment in more social housing, good public services, and job opportunities (with wage levels protected). To ensure everyone, immigrant and people already here are sufficiently provided for.

Who gives them the right to that space?
Who chooses the next occupant?
Who sets the administrative boundaries?

I would argue that there is no intrinsic difference between an individual border - whatever that is - and a national border.

I think migration is an incredibly emotive topic and it’s almost impossible to get right. I don’t think there should be a cap per se, but I do believe it has to be managed somehow. I very much believe we owe a duty of care to those fleeing violence or persecution though.

I don’t think benefits should be capped per household no. I think people should get what they need to live healthily and comfortably. I think we should make working more attractive and more accessible though.

There is a huge difference. And you surely know how individuals get to occupy private space ? They buy or rent the property / space, which comes with certain rights of occupancy.

National borders are entirely different, they divide entire populations.

I agree that we need more social housing especially for key jobs like nurses, firefighters etc etc - I really do not understand why this is so difficult.

What I would do is create semi private public corporations where pension funds invest for a steady return in social housing that is managed fairly with no unsecure tenures and rent rises only with set criteria, set maintenance and absolutely no right to buy and zero tolerance on anti social behaviour.