Far fetched and not cool.
The current situation regarding small boats is not sustainable, particularly when it's proven that the majority are not fleeing persecution but are economic migrants. They're taking advantage of a system designed to help people in trouble, how could you defend that?
And when does it end? Will the UK always accept small boats ad infinitum?
I played by the (harsh) rules and got here legitimately. Why should I have bothered.
If they didn't want this, they could have just restricted it and it would have largely gone away as a topic of discussion, but current levels makes it inevitable it will become the main thing people think about
The refusal to accept these problems is what is creating a surge in far-right popularity. The very people that oppose them have inadvertently become their biggest cheerleaders.
Just because people like yourself happen to think it is uncouth to discuss, doesn't mean that it isn't part of the equation.
See figure 1.3a - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisor...
Note that to the best of my knowledge, these numbers don't include the Afghan resettlement scheme which would further lower the proportion of employment driven visas.
Fixed that for you.
Who indeed will pick the cotton.
For cleaners it's a little less clear which employment visa they'd have been more likely to use. Potentially either depending on the specifics of their job, their income and the precise definition of skilled worker.
not on a thread about vpn useage
> The current situation regarding small boats is not sustainable
the current situation regarding small boats is the inevitable conclusion to a badly implemented brexit policy and a negligent tory party rule over 13 years. Startmer took 5 months in power to talk to France and have them agree to tackle it on their side of the water. Also no brexit, no boats. The anti immigration chest thumpers caused the problem and then scurried like rats. Farage was impossible to be found the year after brexit won, dude aws the face and suddenly wanted to part of the "glory"
Do you really mean to tell me that none of those people can work as cleaners?
Aren't those nurses needed back home?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehignett/2023/06/07/uk-...
Gen Z have never experienced economic growth. They don't know what it means to get richer.
In the 90s in the UK, skilled working class tradesmen making huge amounts of money was such a stereotype that there was even a comedy character about it. I can't imagine seeing that happen again.
The sorts of "progressives" who unconditionally support mass immigration are just useful idiots being used as tools by said elites to enforce their narrative. Just have to push the idea that "disagreeing with this is racist" and they'll all support it without question.
Progressives (in the US at least) generally support immigration with protections and fair wages. They also recognize, rightfully, that systems built for decades upon exploitative practices (low wages, no protections) if removed overnight will cause mass disruption of those systems.
Neither of these is in any way supportive of slavery, modern or otherwise. The first - suggesting that immigrants be treated civilly and paid a living wage - has been fought tooth and nail by 'free market' literalists. The second - that there will be disruptions in social and economic systems when an entire workforce is suddenly removed from the systems that it has propped up for decades - is common sense and historically founded.
You're conflating these things to try to justify a talking point that was just created three months ago.
Ultimately you have to balance the incoming immigration with the demands that produces, and that's where a lot of countries fall short. For being as similar as they are, Americans and Canadians have radically different experiences and opinions on immigration from India, for example. Why? Americans mainly think of them as either business owners providing needed services (even if it's just as the stereotypical convenience store owner) or people working in cutting-edge and important industries, because that's who American immigration policy allows in from India. Canadians have far less charitable views, because over the last decade or so, Canadian immigration policy has been far less discriminatory. Whether it should or not, this produces social friction with people who have roots in the society that receives the immigration.
I do not distinguish the far-left from far-right as they equally polarizing and extreme, and only seeks to pull people in the center towards them through violence, censorship and intimidation.
People in the center seeks a balance between the extremes. Some industries require immigration of labor force but it can't come with delusional ideologies that seek to manipulate the wages.
They pay taxes (in Texas) through gas, property and sales taxes which fund much of the state.
Yes, immigrants are a critical component of several industries like healthcare.
Legal permanent residency/work visas should be easier for skilled workers who want to work in high demand jobs. And all wealthy nations should be more wary of unlimited, unchecked economic migration by poorer populations.
(IOW it's complicated)
I think social media is at least as big a cultural weapon against us, and if I had to choose between deport/imprison a small number of business and political leaders who abuse that weapon or four million undocumented US residents, I would choose the former.
Federally, no, they aren't getting assistance, but it's all a slush fund as money flows back and forth between local and the federal governments anyway.
And the UK welfare system isn't all that good. I'm a landlord, and at one point a letting agency told me they refuse to deal with anyone on the welfare system because it's simply too difficult to actually get the council, who are supposed to pay, to actually pay. The necessity for food banks is another big hint that the government system isn't covering basics.
And the UK healthcare system has for a while now only been free to UK permanent lawful residents and a handful of others: https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/visiting-or-moving-to-englan...
(As in: migrants will be asked to prove entitlement, it won't be assumed).
If you moved to the UK for work, you're paying twice for the NHS, because not only is it supposed to be covered by national insurance contributions, but there's also an NHS immigrant surcharge: https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-mu...
"The purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published."
This is an explicit restriction of free speech, in line with what's happening nowadays in the UK.
How about:
2018 - Sandhurst Treaty
2022 - Interior Ministers’/ Home Secretaries’ joint declaration of November 14th
2023 - UK-France Joint Leaders' Declaration
Yes, these did nothing. Starmer's/Macron's joint declaration will also do nothing. If you don't understand why, try starting with the past 204 years of anglo/French relations.
It's not about productivity, it's about the gross GDP numbers (and initially new labour were 100% OK with a demographic transformation project at the same time)
My comment on social media as the #1 catalyst of societal disassembly applies to the UK as well as the US.
"In Hobbes’ view, the sovereign had a crucial role in overseeing religious matters. This included the power to appoint religious leaders, regulate religious practices, and ensure that religious teachings were in line with the laws of the state. By doing so, the sovereign could maintain control over potential sources of dissent and prevent religious conflicts from arising."
https://polsci.institute/classical-political-philosophy/reli...
Same goes with restriction of free speech by the sovereign. I understand that you could say that it's fine and so on, but is clearly a slippery slope.
-------- Cash-like income
• CA Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) 2,400 ‑ 3 qualifying kids and earned income around $20 k → ~$2 000 CA + $400 YCTC add-on.
• Young Child Tax Credit (YCTC) under age 6 $1,080
• County “Breathe” Guaranteed Income Pilot $1,000
• Child Tax Credit (federal, kids=U.S. citizens) $6,000
• CalWORKs Stage 1 child-care voucher (parent copay $0) $8,500
• Los Angeles County General Relief (“GR”, undocumented adult) $2,348/yr 221 × 12 ≈ $2 650; actual monthly household max 2 adults = $442 (LAC DPSS 2023 schedule). Family with kids rarely gets full GR cash, so book 50 % = $2 348.
-------- Food
• CalFresh for 3 citizen kids $8,940
Max allotment for 3 children household = $780 / mo × 12.
Housing-subsidy value (Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher)
• Local Payment Standard (3-br in Central LA, 2024) 28,640 FMR $2 655 / mo × 12. Actual voucher covers 26 600 after utility allowance; market-value differential is tax-free.
-------- Medical care (only the kids qualify under “Restricted Medi-Cal”):
• Children’s Medi-Cal (MC+) HMO PMPM $3,600 ~ $3 000 capitation + dental + mental health wrapped.
-------- Education / daycare substitutes
• State Preschool slots, 3-4-year-olds (county rate) $8,520 6.5 hrs/day × 180 days × $14.50/hr teacher-cost ≈ $8 520 “value”.
• Title-I supplemental services at public school $1,500
-------- Energy / utility
• LADWP low-income discount (ELECTRIC, $0.11/kWh credit) $720
• SoCalGas CARE discount (≈20 %) $240
-------- Transportation
• LADOT universal student pass (DASH), 3 riders $360
TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFIT VALUE
Cash/benefits truly delivered: $2 400 + 1 080 + 1 000 + 6 000 + 8 500 + 2 348 + 8 940 + 28 640 + 3 600 + 8 520 + 1 500 + 720 + 240 + 360 = $73 848 / year
Market-value package ≈ $74 k rounded.
How does identity verification work for those if you can claim while being undocumented? How do you know the claimants are real at all?
this response implies that the country has lost ass sense and thus far-right polling has increased as an attempt to get back to sense.
This is straight from the guidelines
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. "
Bringing up immigration policy in regards to a new internet identification legislation seems less like a "discourageable tangent" and more of an "overt breaking of one of the few enforceable rules of the site"
your politics are none of my business.
My comment was responding to that and to pjc50's reply.
Study visas do not have a pathway to settlement. Students paying through the nose for the privilege of staying for a few years to study and then leaving (or getting work visas like everyone else) is hardly a bad thing.
Like, come on now. Give me a break. This type of reasoning is so caked with bullshit I don't think anyone on the right even buys it.
Sure, we can say maybe the left is arguing for exploitation, but certainly the right aren't champions of human rights. I mean, what's the big picture here? "Don't exploit the immigrants! Instead, violate their rights and force them into camps!"
We can solve the immigration problem overnight, if anyone cares. Just say that if you're found hiring undocumented people, you go to prison. I garauntee you, the problem will solve itself with such expedition it will leave you in awe.
But nobody on the right actually proposes this. Because they don't actually care about immigration. They care about populist messaging. They want you to believe there's an enemy within causing all your problems, and they they alone are the solution.
But no - they, too, directly rely on the exploitation. They won't ever patch it. It will always be lip-service, propaganda, and populist messaging.
Also, elephant in the room: California has the 4th highest GDP in the world. Clearly, what they're doing is working. So well that they provide what, 1.5x more federal dollars than they take?
I mean, Louisiana doesn't provide jack shit to nobody. And how's their economy holding up? Anybody check on them recently? Last I checked, despite providing fuck-all, Louisiana isn't even breaking even with federal dollars, let alone touching California's 1.5x ratio.
Immigrants are the populist scapegoat needed to get the authoritarianism. They're an easy to blame demographic that are physically marginalized - you can literally see them with your eyes.
Without immigrants, this populist messaging problem isn't solved. In the US, we just used black people before. Chinese people for a while too. Japanese people. We increased surveillance, built camps, required registries, you name it.
That's just how the right operates and how their populist messaging works. You need to convince poor "incumbents" (usually white people) that there's some other demographic coming for their money and they're dangerous. Don't let them into your neighborhood!
But don't worry, we can clean it up! Just give us unilateral power and a surveillance state, and we promise these pesky brown folk will be gone. And then, somehow that will magically improve the quality of your life!
It's the same story again and again, over and over. If we haven't already done this a bunch, I might be inclined to believe you. But we have. So when I hear about some new dangerous, untrustworthy, mostly brown demographic taking over your country I just yawn.
Yeah yeah been there, done that. Just give the authoritarian's what they want at this point, they're not even being slick.
This conflicts with basically everything else you wrote. Not sure if you meant to do that, or meant to say something else, but the immigration issue is definitely driving the messaging from Reform and, to a lesser extent, the Conservatives. If suddenly the boats stopped, the Afghans were beamed away back to Afghanistan, and ~30 years of mismanaged immigration policy was reversed overnight I don't see how a) reform exists, b) the election at the end of this 5 year term isn't just about funding NHS and Labour holds a majority with the rest split between the Tories and the Lib Dems.
>So when I hear about some new dangerous, untrustworthy, mostly brown demographic taking over your country I just yawn.
People say things like this as a cryptic way to imply the person they're talking to is just a racist bad person and therefore anything else that person said is wrong and "bad", and then they get to sidestep any meaningful discussion about policy.
Honestly that's pretty much how we got to the place where Reform is leading in the polls by 10 points, so bravo for a very meta comment.
Yes, my point is that we've already done this countless times.
The messaging doesn't go away if you get rid of these particular brown people. They just shift to some other demographic, because that's how right-wing populist messaging works.
Nobody would actually be satisfied if the immigrants were beamed away.
> People say things like this as a cryptic way to imply the person they're talking to is just a racist bad person
No, it's not, and I don't think you're racist.
To be clear, I'm from the US, so I'm speaking from the perspective of what we've done and we keep having this same thing happen again. And again. And again. For literally hundreds of years at this point.
That's the meaningful discussion. I yawn not because you are racist, but because you are unoriginal.
All those other right-wing populist dilemmas turned out to be hot bullshit. Looking back, I don't know how people were stupid enough to fall for them, but evidently they were and we implemented a lot of surveillance and authoritarian laws. Luckily, many repealed.
But, I have no reason to believe this particular demographic panic isn't bullshit. They've always been bullshit. Just based off of track record it's not looking good.
The reason I bring up brown people isn't to imply racism, it's to call into question the legitimacy of the basis for this outrage.
It seems to me that, coincidentally, just like every other right-wing panic, mostly brown people are targeted. Hm. Interesting. Look at that. So why is this panic real, and not fake like the other ones?
>To be clear, I'm from the US
I'm also from the US, and am still able to discern that these immigration levels are unprecedented in history, in either country. So ... hand waving it away because it's icky isn't sufficient. Your position amounts to "immigration, in any amount, does not matter" which is a much more extreme claim than that of the "far right", either in the US or the UK.
>The reason I bring up brown people isn't to imply racism, it's to call into question the legitimacy of the basis for this outrage.
I don't know how to parse this sentence, other than for it to mean that as long as the immigration is from countries that are "brown" (your words) it's not legitimate to criticize it.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/afr/afr...
If you were a French or a German doctor or an engineer, would you spend 3 months fighting with the Home Office for the questionable privilege of earning £50K per annum in a country where a half decent flat costs £2500 a month?
The guy below you, whom I replied to, is nowhere as good at dogwhistles as you and straight up brought up the boat conversation, which has 0 to do with vpns and honestly its just "build a wall" but for the sea, a conversation so boringly transplanted from american media is almost not wroth discussing.
You bragging about how you manged to say the things you shouldn't by talking around it and how many people either fell for it/or agree with you and know the dogwhistles is not something I would be proud of.
Just to be perfectly clear, the far right is surging because the demands of the lower and middle class are ignored, in serving both old money aristocrats, landlords, media moguls and foreign oligarchs all of which are economical leeches. We are in a post Tatcher "there is no society" world, not in some kind of left kumbaya "we are the world" reality. The far right is up because they thrive in dog whistles and anger like you are riling up, good at burning down Reichstags more than building any sort of succesful society.
Veen was in reply to pjc50, who also did not: >>44712105 — "they've seen US ICE snatch squads and internment camps and decide that they want some of that here."
("here" can be read as either being "the UK" or "all places outside the USA", but the one place it can't be read as is "the US" because the US already has that).
That's what pisses me off about the whole thing. People buy the crap the politicians are feeding them and the immigrants are the ones that pay for it. You'd think people would have realized after decades of this crap that neither party is going to do a damn thing.
"The use of the UN definition of long-term immigration means that whether someone should be counted as an immigrant or emigrant (and hence contribute to the net migration statistics) only becomes evident after 12 months.... Currently, the ONS publishes provisional estimates with a 5-month lag"
The discussion of international students is less relevant to employment related concerns, but still contributes to other aspects of population growth like rental housing demand or water consumption.
In all honesty, I thought I was being clever by swapping the sentences around to reverse the meaning, but I didn't spot the ambiguity.
The UK currently has a left leaning government. All governments love surveillance and authoritarianism.
thats the advantage of dogwhistling, is that you can always feign ignorance
> No one claimed that the far-right is the solution (or at least I didn't) but rather the consequence.
the consequence of the far right economic model of hyper individualism? So far right breeds more far right, and calling it out is just "making assumptions"?
> HN demographic is not even generally far-right
It is one of the more susceptible groups to fall for their spell though. HN tends to skew nerdy and libertarian, two groups that think of themselves as intelligent which means if you trick them into thinking something they tend to internalise it because they think they came to the conclusion themselves. It is also a highly targetted demographic by far right groups.
Or do you think its a surprise that the "far left hippie" Sillicon Valley reputation got shredded in a second when half of LA was in Trump's inaguration? We had tech bros in front of elected officials. Crypto, videogames all oriignally very HN areas are all now constantly under threat of "manosphere" influencers, all paid by the same 5 think tanks, and far right billioanires.
> he agreement comes from the fact that people understood the context of the comment
Sure, thats not an assumption, that is you being an all knowing entity that can analyse why 60 people upvoted something. I mean it could be one russian farm pushing for "destroy cultural identity" text recognition as they have been known to do on X and Reddit. Or it can be 60 hyper rational individuals all of which understood the context I clearly seem to miss. But your assumption is right of course.
Just to be clear, I am not accusing you of being far right, you are just repeating their talking points and strategies. If you are doing it on purpose and pretending to be unaware that bad. If you simply are unaware I am explicitely explaining how and why they do and say the things you said and did.
Your flipant attitude is either lack of self reflection or worse, you are aware of what youre doing and downplaying bad faith dogwhistling.
That might be a factor, but the main things I see is that British society is very sharply divided -- dangerously so maybe -- and that these new online safety rules might be an attempt to reduce the ability of one side of the division to influence the public discourse and to engage in collective action. If so, then immigration policy is relevant to this thread in that it is probably the issue most central or essential to the division.
NGOs engage in money laundering ops in the UK to give illegals handouts using a multi-step process to steal taxpayer wealth from Britons.
----
Primary Grantors:
UK government departments (DWP, Home Office, DLUHC)
EU Legacy Funds (2020-2023) via Shared Prosperity Fund
Lottery-funded charities (e.g., National Lottery Community Fund)
--
Key Recipient NGOs: Organizations registered with the Charity Commission targeting "migrant integration," "asylum support," or "poverty alleviation."
NGOs apply for high-value grants (e.g., £500k-£2M). Examples:
"Holistic Integration Project" (Home Office Fund)
"Urban Inclusion Programme" (DWP Social Mobility Grant) Documentation often includes inflated beneficiary counts and ghost project proposals.
----
Fictitious Expenditure Fabrication
--
Shell Vendor Creation:
NGO leadership registers dormant companies (e.g., "Community Outreach Solutions Ltd") as "service providers."
Invoices issued for fake deliverables:
"Cultural Sensitivity Training" (£120/hour)
"Temporary Shelter Management" (£2,500/week)
--
Fund Diversion:
Grants disbursed to shell vendors’ accounts → funds withdrawn as cash via "business expenses" loopholes.
Apparent spending: ~70% declared for "operational costs" despite <15% actual delivery.
Street-Level Handlers: Charitable workers / NGO affiliates directly distribute cash bundles (£50-£200/person).
Cover Mechanisms: Officially declared as "emergency subsistence stipends" (exploiting reporting gaps in small-sum transfers). Physical cash avoids AML scrutiny (<£10,000/transaction).
HMRC estimates £1.2 billion in fraudulent charity fraud annually (2023), with ~25% linked to migration sector schemes.
--
Confirmed Cases:
Refugee Action Leeds (2021): £370k diverted via shell company "Unity Lifeline."
London Sanctuary Network (2022): £890k laundered for cash-in-hand construction workers.
Charity Commission ex post audits detect fraud only after fund exhaustion (~18-month lag).
----
Trusteeship overlaps allow corrupt board members to approve fictitious vendor payments.
Underground Hawala Couriers: Shell vendors remit cash to illicit hawala brokers, who distribute to:
Landlords: Covering rent for illegals in overcrowded slums (£400/month cash).
Employment Fixers: Kickbacks to gangmasters employing illegals.
Direct Cash Distribution Points: Mosques/churches in African neighborhoods (e.g., Peckham, Birmingham) via coded vouchers.
----
AML Evasion:
Cash withdrawals <£10,000/month avoid automated reporting under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Tax gaps: £500 "<essential expense>" cash allowances weekly to illegals bypasses PAYE.
----
Non-existent grant audits through:
Front projects like "Go Green!" and "Ukraine Crisis Aid" masking London-Nigeria hawala flows.
Donation recycling: Public crowdsourced funds diverted into laundering flows.
If the same thing keeps happening and we keep being wrong, I lose faith in the premise. I have no reason to believe the right is faithful on these issues, so I don't care. I'm just going to assume they're making a big deal out of nothing and I'm probably right.
So the law isn't about little Johnny wanking it to PornHub. It's about control. It's a government that has proven time and time again the only thing it cares about is more control over the people it should be serving being able to get a little more control.
If you already have a faltering cultural and national identity, and immigration - both legal and illegal - is skyrocketing[0][1], it's basically a straight line to see a large cohort of people link the two and and vote for the people saying they will end it. It's also not a remotely "far right" opinion to think that people should not be allowed to come into a country illegally, and if you do come into a country illegally, you should be removed. The idea that this is somehow bad is itself the fringe opinion.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_Unit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_Unit...
Looking at the USA: the federal policies are currently as anti-immigrant as possible, and in the US states which support those policies the most, age verification has been passed into law.
I fail to see how being anti-immigration, no matter one's opinion on that matter, resolves the basic issue of a nanny state.
The reason immigration has cut through is it corresponds with people's own direct lived experience. It's not an abstract concept to people, it's visceral and real
Some politicians and certain parts of the media are blaming immigration for all of those issues. There's a constant barrage of talking points on the news and other forms of media. They cut through complex issues and appeal to 'common sense'.
People are directly feeling the pain. People are being given a reason for the pain. People feel that reason is the direct cause of their real pain.
