To think it's hypocritical to hold both these opinions?

[Carla786]

It's interesting to me that some people say that poor immigrants should be brave and try to change the poverty and corruption of their countries, rather than leave, but when taxes go up here, they think high earners are well-justified to flee the "sinking ship' rather than fight for change, not cowardly.

I know many people hold one of these opinions,but not the other. I don't mean them. I agree with the first opinion somewhat myself.

AIBU to think it's hypocritical to hold both, though?

My question is do you know anyone that holds both opinions? I don’t think it’s hypocritical to hold both opinions depending on the circumstances. If you come from a country that his war torn, and dirt poor where staying would mean no improvement for yourself during your life time, and no actual chance of effecting change how can you blame them for leaving and wanting a better life? I think the way you posed the question is incredibly binary when in reality there is a really wide spectrum of circumstances to each situation that one cannot possibly answer the question accurately in a vacuum in a fair and considerate manner. Generalising is a sure fire way of taking away people’s individual circumstances so we can place them in a box with a label, which whilst I think that’s the human condition, it does not help any situations.

I don’t hold either view, so just in technical terms, it’s not hypocritical if the believer of both also believes that if you uproot yourself to someone else’s country you should bring something with you - money, talent, expertise - so that you are an asset to your new country and not a problem for them to solve.

Thanks, that's food for thought...will give a longer reply later.

No, because the two things are not the same.

Wealth is an asset, and countries with an eye to growth implement policies specifically to attract wealthy and/or highly skilled immigrants (look at brain drains, for example). Conversely, immigration of the poor and unskilled is not an asset but a (further) burden.

Also, what “try to change the poverty and corruption of their countries, rather than leave” means is “stay the fuck over there”.

Ime no one who says that is actually invested in seeing those problems solved, they just don’t want to be the ones having to deal with them.

It’s because their stance on immigrants is not out of genuine concern for their home countries.

They just don’t want immigrants here.

It’s the same who will say “if you don’t like it - LEAVE” at people who have an issue with where they live….but tell immigrants to stay in their home country and change it.

Or criticise migration as it “drains source countries of much needed human resources….” But have no issue with unfair trade that privilege us over a foreign nation.

It’s all inconsistent as it is all based on whatever keeps them away from us.

JACKPOT!! 💯

I would agree.. sorry, I'd forgotten this thread as was unexpectedly having to finish some stuff. Interesting replies which I'd like to follow up on.

I agree with brain drain arguments somewhat but agree also it's so often applied inconsistently & hypocritically. Agree with the rest.

I don’t care about “brain drain” as I prioritise individual freedom over the desires of the state.

But I can respect a consistent brain drain and honest brain drain argument. I have never heard one though - always inconsistent and disingenuous.