Nigel Farage wants to build a British ICE. Starmer may have handed him the tools
thenerve.news
thenerve.news
While they were in EU, Home Office always had a tool to deport EU migrants - if person from EU is not self reliant after 3 months since coming to the country, EU law allows the host country to kick such person out. Home office never did anything and did not wanted you to register yourself.
And then they committed Brexit instead of applying 3 months rule.
After Brexit UK started rapidly importing migrants from South East Asia. And I expect that Home office will do nothing about these migrants as well.
This British ICE is pointless because Home office already have all the tools necessary, they just don't want to use them, because UK economy is reliant on cheap migrant labor.
Productivity, population growth (and impact on housing and services), population aging (and impact on social care and NHS), societal and cultural changes and conflicts, national identity, etc are all linked to immigration.
The issue is compounded by the fact that successive governments say they want to be tough on immigration, but actually do the opposite. This is what pushes voters to Reform UK and away from the Tories, among other things. Labour is now doing the same (relatively tough talk but no actual effective action).
It’s a topic, but not an “issue”.
There’s a simple explanation for this. Being “tough” on immigration would be bad for the economy, bad for the NHS, and bad for the country as a whole. So once a party is actually in government, they don’t want to do it, whatever they said in order to gain votes during the election campaign.
Or, maybe massively restricting immigration is actually a great idea and the establishment is conspiring to prevent it. Just like with Brexit, right?
The NHS relies on foreign workers. Why? Because salaries and conditions are shit so locals either do not train for those jobs or give up and moce to Australia at some point. It is cheaper to keep it that way.
12% of 25-34 years old are "economically inactive", which means deep systemic issues.
Generally immigration also keep salaries lower and also productivity lower (and that's why the left is actually historically not too keen).
This is difficult to debate seriously because there is always someone to cry "racist".
If any of this is difficult to debate seriously, that’s because opponents of current immigration policy consistently appeal to the lowest common denominator (people’s prejudices) rather than framing a proper argument. Even in this thread, you can see someone trying (absurdly) to redirect the discussion towards some Nigerian nurses with fake qualifications.
There’s a simple explanation for this. Being “tough” on immigration would be bad for the economy, bad for the NHS, and bad for the country as a whole. So once a party is actually in government, they don’t want to do it, whatever they said in order to gain votes during the election campaign.
But on the other hand, claiming that, as mentioned, any alternatives to high immigration is bad for the country has to be BS because it does not pass the "smell test". I never understood this stance that countries must have high immigration, that high immigration is good (TM) and that anything else is bigoted and racist. Best theory is that anti-racism has mutated into a monster mixed with business interests only interested in an ever growing labour and consumers pool.
For the other half of societies, the half you did not meet in college, it is a problem and they are voting for racist parties because the other parties have not reduced immigration it and they think the racist parties will.
Since Starmer hijacked the party and started expelling everyone left of himself it's now somewhere between Tories and Deform on most issues.
Must be fun to just speculate on pessimism instead of optimism. Gotta get subscribers somehow I suppose, prey on the unhappy and scared.
MAGA cheerleader openly admires Trump's methods and personality and seeks their endorsement, and openly plans on making structures similar to abused in the US for human rights abuses already.
They're openly preparing to do exactly that.
And some of the tools (that wouldn't be necessary if not for Fartrage campaigning as well) fit very well in their plans.
What part exactly you consider clickbait and not foreboding?