Personally I’m glad to live in a country where people want to come to rather than escape from. I like to list how immigrants and the children (and now possibly the grandchildren) of immigrants, enable and enhance my lifestyle. They deliver my morning paper, drill, fill and maintain what’s left of my teeth, cut my hair, clean my car, dispense my prescriptions, and provide about two thirds of my treatment on the NHS, the organist and about half the choir (and until recently the vicar) of the church I attend, two of my favourite restaurants, and much more besides. Grateful thanks to them all.
The last thing we need is a continuation of the "hostile environment" so beloved of Theresa May (astonishingly the daughter of a vicar who managed to get a picture in the papers of herself and her husband either attending or just leaving church about every other week during her period as Prime Minister) and her successors as Tory premiers.
Yet that is what the Labour party -THE LABOUR PARTY - appears to be about to introduce today. So much for "Workers of the World, Unite."
All of our principal parties should be standing up and loudly proclaiming the benefits which immigrants bring but, so far, the only one I've heard doing so is the Leader of the Scottish Nationalists. No wonder Reform, whose major policy seems to be to stir up resentment, is having such success.
Some ten years ago the pressure group "Global Justice Now" (successor to the World Development Movement) published a pamphlet called "Bridges not Borders" which makes the case for global free movement. In the next few days I intend to publish some extracts from it to counteract the xenophobic selfishness which is likely to dominate our media. Here's a start:
"Let's be honest, most people are already in favour of free movement . . .at least for themselves. We rarely hear opponents of free movement arguing to curtail their own rights to move live, work, study or travel where they please. Arguments for preventing free movement are always presented with the assumption that it's the movement of "others" bing stopped."
I'm a good example. I have lived and worked in three other countries in addition to the UK. As far as I know my contributions to those economies (and perhaps cultures) have been appreciated. I see no reason why people in the rest of the world shouldn't have the same experiences and opportunities if they so wish.
For further and better particulars see: globaljustice.org.uk/migration
Would you not agree that while it’s obvious that some immigrants have been a net benefit to Britain, it’s equally obvious that some have been a net drain?
ReplyDeleteWe can argue about whether immigration over the last couple of decades has been on the whole a net benefit or a net drain, but it seems unarguable to me that there are very few ‘average’ immigrants: there are ones who benefit us greatly and one who are a drain on the country.
And therefore whatever your position on the question of net benefit or net drain as a whole, you should agree that it would be better to be more discriminating about which immigrants we let in and which we don’t?
Because if you think that immigration has been a net benefit, then keeping out the immigrant who are a net drain while encouraging those who are a net benefit will mean that the net benefit of immigration gets even bigger and that’s got to be good, right?
Whereas if you think that immigration has been a net drain then keeping out the ones who are a net drain while encouraging the ones who are a net benefit might change the calculation so it is actually beneficial.
Would you not agree?
Let's be honest, most people are already in favour of free movement . . .at least for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI’m not in favour of free movement for myself. I can’t just decide that I want to go and live in, say, the United States, or Australia, and move there. And I think that’s quite right. I have no inherent right to live wherever I want. I think every country has the right to decide who gets to enter and stay, and that applies to me just as much as anyone.
In fact I think the writer of that article cannot have spoken to many people opposed to unrestricted migration, because I think my view — that it is perfectly fine for other countries to restrict my ability to go and live and work there — would be that held by the majority on that side of the debate.
Perhaps "opportunity" is a more appropriate word than "right." As I mention in the original post, I have taken the opportunity to live and work in three other economises in addition to my birth country. I suspect I have visited at leat 30 counties as a holidaymaker or tourist. Most people in the developed world take these opportunities and take them for granted. They are not available to those born in most poorer countries.The "Bridges not Borders" pamphlet points out that, at the time it was written, holders of a British passport were entitled to visit 173 countries without even a visa. For those from Afghanistan that number was just 28.
Deleteholders of a British passport were entitled to visit 173 countries without even a visa. For those from Afghanistan that number was just 28.
DeleteAnd do you not think there are good reasons for that?
The great post-war Labour foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, defined his ideal foreign policy as ". . .to be able to take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please!" I share his vision. Sadly the modern Labour Party doesn't.
ReplyDeleteThe great post-war Labour foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, defined his ideal foreign policy as ". . .to be able to take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please!"
DeleteThat was when we had an Empire and could tell other countries what to do. Sadly now other countries get a say.
But, the point remains. Do you think whoever wrote the article you quote had spoken to many people on the other side of the argument? It sounds to me like he hasn’t because, as I say, almost no one on the other side of the argument would agree with his opening statement there. And indeed they would probably see someone who made that kind of a statement as an over-entitled prig with an another too high opinion of themselves, who could do with being brought down a peg or two.
I therefore suggest that if the person writing the article is actually trying to change anyone’s mind, they have failed at the first hurdle.
(On the other hand if they don’t care about changing anyone’s mind but are just writing to make their audience of entitled prigs like themselves nod along in supercilious agreement about how morally and internally superior they are to anyone who disagrees with them, they’ve really nailed it).
internally superior
DeleteAuto-corrected from ‘intellectually superior’
I suppose I could, if you were interested, try to explain how people on the other side of the argument think. But I doubt you care about understanding them.
Delete