So does "far right" mean you're concerned about the impacts of mass immigration?

[genesis92]

Cause I'm far right if so then!

Genuinely interested to hear what people consider as being "far right". I put it in quotation marks cause the term is so over-used incorrectly, it's actually lost all meaning.

My husbands Kenyan. We had a hell of a time of it. We married nearly 30 years ago and getting him indefinite leave to remain and, later, citizenship was a pain in the arse. To put it mildly. At times it felt like we were bloody criminals.

I genuinely think having less people in the country than we currently have is a good thing both economically, environmentally and for society.

I think it's madness that the UK imports labour from abroad when there are 9 million economically inactive people of working age being paid benefits not to work.

If Amazon couldn't use cheap imported labour to deliver goods then they would have a choice of either paying more to those already resident in the country or not deliver goods and go bust.

This has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with basic economics.

@Goody2ShoesAndTheFilthyBeast Yes. They said that they felt like no one believed that they were in a real relationship, despite having two teenagers together! It’s unbelievable how people who are simply following the application processes are treated. 😡

How do you think we should get rid off people living here?

Just look at the graph- it is simply not sustainable in terms of infrastructure, health care, housing, education, transport to have the current levels of immigration, the vast majority of which is legal migration.

@username299

"How do you think we should get rid off people living here?"

Well for starters the current birth rate of 1.6 is below the replacement level of 2.1 births which without immigration would lead to a net decline in population.

Secondly there is emigration though if the UK restricts people coming in then other countries would presumably restrict Brits going to their countries.

As for forced deportation which I guess is the angle you are stirring for then in reality there is no practical or socially acceptable means of doing this.

Absolutely. That's why it is a mainstream concern and not a far right belief.

In Sweden they are paying people to go back to their countries: it saves them money in the long-run. In Australia they had a very effective policy saying that if you came into the country illegally "You will never make Australia your home" meaning that residence or citizenship would never be given to illegal immigrants.

When you said:

genuinely think having less people in the country than we currently have is a good thing

You knew it was pure fantasy.

I’m in favour of immigration, and I’m not a socialist.

But there are several distinct left-wing arguments against. I mostly disagree with the below but I can’t see how any of them can be called far right (except arguably the final one, on a horseshoe principle).

The most convincing, to my mind, is the idea that permissive migration and a strong welfare state are incompatible. Both on financial grounds and because migration tends to undermine the solidarity needed to win support for welfare. That seems to hold up empirically pretty well.

Another is that fairness, in a democratic socialist system, is owed first to the working classes of that demos. That immigration tends to undermine and compete with the working class, for the benefit of the capitalist classes. This view might limit numbers, or types of occupation a migrant can take up.

A third is that it leads to exploitation of migrants in the destination country. A version of the above, but out of paternalistic concern for the migrants. This view probably approves of many forms of migration, but still imposes limits and controls (eg on minimum wages a migrant could take). The migrant is taken not to be able to choose what is best for them.

A fourth is that migration allows the talented and mobile to opt out of their countries to seek their betterment elsewhere. That it brain-drains and hollows out societies, especially poor ones, holding back national development that benefits all, for the personal enrichment of those who leave and their families. That it’s fundamentally anti-communitarian.

A fifth is about cultural displacement (a sort of gentrification argument). I don’t think I’ve heard this from the left about the UK, but certainly about elsewhere. Usually concerns that migrants from a richer or more dominant culture (eg, Westerners, Chinese diasporas, Indians) are driving out or despoiling a local culture taken to be more worthy.

A sixth is about high-skill/rich migration. The anti-elite arguments (sometimes tied in with conspirisicm or antisemitism) about global capitalists and globalism.

And finally, though it’s not really an argument, the historical fact that several explicitly socialist/ communist governments in the 20th century have had extremely strict border controls, near-prohibiting people either entering or leaving.

Historically, left and far-left groups were often anti-immigration because they understood supply and demand e.g. more immigrants led to lower wages and more power to capitalists.

"Cesar Chavez was, in fact, deeply hostile toward “wetbacks,”. He was relentless in his efforts to halt immigration from Mexico and was active in pursuing the deportation of those already here. Chavez claimed that undocumented workers were driving down wages, and being used as strikebreakers. Both complaints had merit, of course."

My real experience:
My husband is right of central, with concerns over immigration. If this comes up amongst the majority of our left wing friends, and he voices his concerns, they label
him right wing or far right and it gets awkward to the point he has started to not share his opinions anymore.

It is happening. And I see it every day on social media too.

I am too. Let’s stop the bollocks and revise the facts. I was recently abroad and this subject came up with friends with left leaning views. Was very surprised they called the U.K. people naive. We have been gaslighted for so long. We have horrible gangs and criminals running our streets. A few people points out how there are documented evidence on tv and other sources.

No it doesn't only mean that, as well you know. Crafty, OP.

Some people use the term far right to hush anyone that dares to mention immigration. That’s bollocks though! In the same way they use ‘racist’ when anyone mentions immigration. They try to silence genuine concerns

@username299

"You knew it was pure fantasy."

Not necessarily- if the actual birth rate is below replacement levels and you restrict legal immigration then the population will naturally decline.

Illegal immigration is by definition illegal so you cannot prevent it entirely but you can make the UK a less attractive destination for illegal migration.

So you're not talking about immigration, you're talking about asylum seekers.

Seeking asylum is not illegal, no matter how you get into the country. Asylum seekers are only about 2% of immigrants into the UK.

You want to prevent 2% of people and continue to take in 98%?

Yes, I'm pretty aware of what a literal definition of far right is, but that isn't what I'm asking is it?

There is nothing wrong with a managed decline in population along with AI and robotics advances to help with ageing populations. Arguably England is over-populated and we are losing too much farmland and natural habitat.

Immigration for ageing populations is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. So we have 30 million old people and we need to import 40 million Africans and Asians to take care of them. But then the 40 million Africans and Asians will get old and we will have to import 50 million more to take care of them, and then the 50 million will get old....

Not to mention it is a well-established fact that immigrants from rich countries to Europe pay more than they receive in taxes but immigrants from poor countries are on average a burden to the taxpayer. They cost more than they contribute.

By far the largest group of ‘illegals’, as far as we can estimate, are visa overstayers (or people who overstay their visa-free period).

Exactly and they're a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of visas we give out per year.

I see it is in the press tonight that people from certain groups are being allowed to jump the queue at A & E to allow them to be seen with 15 minutes of arrival.

Are they? How many?

(We don’t have official numbers because the UK doesn’t do comprehensive exit checks, but estimates are about 90,000 per year. It’s a minority, but not really a drop in the ocean.)

So you think the levels of immigration over the last few years are a "net benefit"?.

Only a very small percentage (I think around 16%) of the vast immigration numbers come over on high skilled work visas. The rest are students/dependents etc.

I dunno, maybe the difference between say 50k and 1 million? Doesn't seem that hard to work out the difference