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.
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.