I’m a bit hesitant to post this, but it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and of wanting a clearer understanding of the situation. Because trying to make sense of things through online resources feels like a minefield. My gut tells me that migration is a good thing, but I want some solid ammunition for when far-right idiots try to argue.

Firstly it seems like there is a large amount of conflation between ‘immigration’, ‘illegal immigration’ and ‘asylum seekers’. As far as I understand it, asylum seekers are coming into this country legally in order to apply for asylum. However, a lot come in via small boats which is an illegal method of entry. It seems that there are very few legal ways to enter if you’re an asylum seeker. Once you’re here though, I think it’s legal once you’re going through the asylum process? Either way as far as I can tell, asylum seekers make for a small portion of the overall number of immigrants. But when you see people protesting, they mainly seem to be concerned by people coming in via boats. Surely it’s fair greater number of legal migrants that are the ones more likely to put a strain on infrastructure?

And yes there definitely are strains on the NHS and other public services. The population is growing, and these services need to grow alongside that. But isn’t it more sensible to say that the fault lies not with migrants, but the fact that these services are being mismanaged and underfunded?

I’ve also heard that the UK has an ageing population. Without immigration we soon won’t have the workforce necessary to support the non-working portion of the population.

So is there actually an issue with immigration, or do the people that argue that case actually have it backwards? Is the problem actually our underfunded services, and the whole immigration rhetoric purely populist nonsense to get the far-right in power (who in turn, aim to give tax breaks to the rich and exacerbate the issue even further)?

And where exactly can I go to get factual information about this sort of thing?

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 month ago

    Immigrants skew young and unskilled. Read: working/childbearing age, and low wage, which is usually what advanced economies (like the UK) are in most desperate need of. Young people need dramatically less costly healthcare too.

    There is evidence that in the UK migration, while an overall economic boon, somewhat depressed the wages of the poorest. (Because they are generally competing for the same low wage jobs). In the UK I don’t think this has anything to do with citizenship - one of the problems post-Brexit was the large numbers of settled EU citizens who suddenly had to provide documentary evidence of their right to be in the UK and then, often, naturalise. That shows that all these people who were prior to that contributing a lot to society were doing so without being citizens.

    But we are talking about refugees and I don’t think the economic argument can be extended: how many have severe health problems (mental or physical) due to maltreatment in their home countries?

    One perpetual problem is culture clash, otherwise known as bigotry

    Calling culture clash “bigotry” is obviously wrong. I lived, for a relatively short amount of time, in another country with a culture similar to my own and a language which I spoke (not natively), and still the experience of being somewhere where I just wasn’t quite at home, wasn’t able to fully express myself, and was liable to be accidentally excluded, was very tiring. A base level of discomfort with change and difference isn’t something we can moralise out of humanity. You might not experience it, you might not think we should cater to it, but you should at least have enough empathy to understand someone who finds the experience of significant social change uncomfortable. As such, bigotry should be reserved for those people who don’t merely feel uncomfortable with such things but who harbour actual negative opinions, or take actual negative actions, against the people who represent that change.