Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyko | Hacker News Reader

That’s why it’s all the more galling; the UK is trying to build a brand around multiculturalism while issuing BS passports for those deemed not British enough.

The UK establishment embraced multiculturalism when it was flat on its back economically; it has subsequently sold out many people who were loyal to it for shameful political expediency, e.g. the Ghurka and Windrush scandals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal

It’s an obvious chance to parlay some good from the UK’s colonial legacy, why would anyone oppose it?

View on HN

What are your country's policies around the issuing of passports? As for immigrants building the country up, for what it's worth, Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration from the former colonies began. Immigration gives you more people, that's all we can say for certain about its effects.

> Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration

Citation needed. I seriously doubt your balance of probabilities.

Britain pre-Windrush was on its knees.

Britain pre-EEC was "the sick man of Europe".

Please bring up some actual numbers to back your reactionary talking points, at the very least.

1960 Britain had the 4th largest economy in the world. 2015 it has the 5th largest economy in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_h...

The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600

Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?

You're trying to put words in my mouth. You're the one who was making claims.

Well these are your own words: "Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration"

So the question again is: Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?

Say you said using Wonderhair would prevent baldness and I said that there was no evidence for that and that in fact in the cases that I know of the people now have less hair than they had when they started using Wonderhair. Do I then have to defend myself from questions that infer I believe that Wonderhair causes hair loss?

If you're in a discussion where you write a comment that looks like you're saying "immigration is a cause of long-term economic decline" and someone asks if that's what you're saying ... then yes you should probably clarify whether this is an accurate interpretation of your comment

I'm not sure why you're coming up with a fictional hair-care product. If you aren't comfortable sharing your answer, then that's fine.

Quite a lot of innuendo in there. The person I responded to suggested that Britain only welcomed immigrants to help it because it was "on its back economically". I suppose that all would have been fine if, at worst, Britain was ranked exactly the same today as it was then but because it's actually ranked slightly lower (as I'd expected) the inference now is that I'm anti-immigration. Squeeze a bit more from the tube and you can openly brand me a racist and then you win. Anticipating that I might not oblige, you added your last sentence as insurance to cover that eventuality.

I made that claim and I stand by it. Britain in 1945 was effectively broke and seeking to plug massive holes in its workforce. That’s the context in which Britain spent its Marshall Plan money trying to support the flagging empire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtm...

I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour...

I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.

Lowest point? You were the cradle of the Industrial Revolution! Sorry to break the news to you, but as more countries industrialize, Britain's relative position will only go down. 1960 was the high point from this perspective. On the other hand, the UK will still be a developed country.

> The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point)

Windrush arrived in 1948. That "mass immigration" is literally what brought Britain to its highest point.

Then the rest of the world was de-colonized, started working for themselves rather than for Europe, and here we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com