Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

Xenophobia is a tool of demagogues, not a rational policy.

So while it's an issue, it's not even in the top ten of of the UK's most important practical issues.

And the racism it generates - including Brexit, and currently the collapse of income from foreign students, which was a huge earner for the university sector - does huge and lasting harm.

It's a political shiny penny used for distraction, not a realistic solution to anything. And the people who make careers out of promoting it are provably cynical, corrupt, incompetent, and disinterested in solving real problems.

View on HN

The problem with this argument is that for essentially my entire lifetime, the UK population has wanted less migration. And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year. If they are just fundamentally wrong on this and have been for 50 years, it seems like democracy is a bad idea. Alternatively, if you feel you have to accept democracy, then maybe it would be good to give people what they consistently say they want on this issue.

No we haven't.

You're tied up in centuries of empire-building consequences and think "no brown people please" is a legitimate point of view?

I think one of the most basic features of any "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" (as Rawls called the state) is who's going to be in the club. If that shouldn't be under democratic control, what should be?

Also, I don't know why you think opposition to migration is driven by anti-brown-people racism. That opposition grew quite a lot when migration was coming mostly from Eastern Europe. I'd expect concerns over jobs, housing, public services etc. to be more important - I'm not claiming that those are correct, though I don't think they are illegitimate.

Lastly, I am not sure why the empire is relevant. Is the story that because Britain had an empire, it's morally obligated to accept immigration? That could be true for e.g. Hong Kong or Ugandan Indians, but I'm not sure it need be true for all time and everywhere.

> And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year.

LEGAL migration of 1 million per year. For one year only during Boris Johnson's term. Mostly it's in the 100,000s.

Most migration is legal. People crossing the channel in boats is minuscule in comparison (tens of thousands). And, whilst people crossing the channel in small boats is certainly a problem (for their lives, if nothing else), it is not something that should be taking up so much political air. It's a side issue in the big scheme of things.

Governments should certainly have more strategic plans for dealing with the legal migrants, like infrastructure building, and if they're unable to deliver the infrastructure, limit the legal migration. But the rest of it is often driven by political opportunists and bigots.

Yes most immigration is legal, so a policy choice. That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election as voters shunned them and voted Reform UK. Why? Because for years they say they wanted lower immigration but actually did the opposite.

Arguably even illegal immigration is a policy choice at this point considering the clear reluctance of the government to do much about it. So this has a big symbolic and political impact.

This public growing skepticism about immigration while successive governments have made the choice to support it is fuelling the Reform vote.

This isn't unique to the UK, we see the same pretty much across Europe.

> That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election

No, it isn’t. Rampant corruption, parties at No.10, Liz Truss, and then inflation because of the Ukraine war causing a cost of living and cost of energy crisis. You know, “it’s the economy, stupid”.

If it was about immigration, why did Labour get in, when they were accused of “opening the floodgates” to European migration in the past?

It may be your biggest issue, it’s not the country’s.

> This public growing skepticism

You spelt “manipulation” wrong. This is raw unfettered populist manipulation. Sure, immigration comes with costs (also benefits), but it’s the rhetoric that’s made this a hot topic, not anything of substance.

This country is a nation of immigrants. And whilst immigration should be managed properly, it is nowhere near the top of the list of things the government should be prioritising. But they’ll have to, wasting time and resources, to hold back this tide of nonsense.

Labour got in because people voted for Reform instead of the Tories for the reasons you mention but also because of the handling of immigration (remember it was just after largest net immigration on records) so Tories dropped and first-past-the-post did the rest. Corbyn got more votes nationally than Starmer.

Brexit, Torie implosion, Reform polling in first place or just about... clearly it isn't "my issue".

Your comment, and others, illustrates my original comment about some people absolutely refusing to acknowledge that immigration is a major issue, for some reason and even resorting to conspiracy theories.

(The UK has only seen mass immigration since after WWII, by the way)

> The UK has only seen mass immigration since after WWII, by the way

Pretty sure we have been invaded by: Vikings, Romans, Germanic tribes which gave us our name, Normans, Beaker folk, Huguenots, and our Empire past literally led to us giving out British passports after WW2 to get immigration from the former colonies to help us rebuild after the devastation of the war.

We are all likely the offspring of immigrants, there are likely very few ‘original’ Celtic bloodlines. Whatever the fuck ‘original’ means when it comes to being born in a place, like it matters.

I am not refusing to acknowledge the issue of migration. But if people like you were really serious about it, you would be talking about global causes of the migration: war, poverty, climate change. But let’s face it, most people are not interested in that, they’re interested in having fewer brown people in their line of sight.

There are pretty much no other visible artefacts of migration in daily life.

But weren't biggest sources of the "Boriswave" increase in immigration people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong, and an increase in skilled worker and care worker visas needed as a result of the loss of EU freedom of movement?

Helping people from Ukraine and Hong Kong is overwhelmingly popular. Loss of freedom of movement is much less so, but was an inevitable result of the Brexit vote. And the surge of Xenophobia in the past couple of years has come despite a huge drop in immigration.

It's almost as if it were being driven by demagoguery rather than anything to do with policy choices or delivery.

I did say "gross migration", right? That was about a million in the most recent data, IIRC. Net migration was about 250K, sure, and about a million in the Boriswave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com