zlacker

[parent] [thread] 34 comments
1. spaceb+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-07-28 13:28:35
Only a small minority of immigrants to the UK come through the skilled visa pathway, even if the health & social care visa numbers were added.

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.

replies(3): >>12ian3+s8 >>dgrosh+uG1 >>mmarq+Jh2
2. 12ian3+s8[view] [source] 2025-07-28 14:27:50
>>spaceb+(OP)
what about nurses and cleaners
replies(5): >>dmix+cb >>Option+ae >>spaceb+if >>arrows+Bi >>j-krie+Nn1
◧◩
3. dmix+cb[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 14:43:56
>>12ian3+s8
Canada has legal immigration pathways for nurses, I don't see why any other country couldn't if there was strong demand. Gambling on illegal (and dangerous) border crossings to fill those sort of roles seems deeply irresponsible.
replies(1): >>spauld+cC2
◧◩
4. Option+ae[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 15:02:13
>>12ian3+s8
I always find funny how the new, supposedly progressive, arguments in favor of mass immigration run so close to the ones given against when slavery was abolished, that society can only exist with cheap,exploitative, labor.

Who indeed will pick the cotton.

replies(5): >>arrows+Pi >>Spivak+gs >>bakugo+sB >>mooxie+hC >>jjangk+EG
◧◩
5. spaceb+if[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 15:08:05
>>12ian3+s8
The only employment related categories on that report are the skilled worker visa and the health & care worker visa. I presume nurses would come under the latter.

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.

◧◩
6. arrows+Bi[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 15:30:35
>>12ian3+s8
The UK unemployment rate is 5%. That's around ~2 million people who are already here but can't find work.

Do you really mean to tell me that none of those people can work as cleaners?

replies(1): >>mike50+On
◧◩◪
7. arrows+Pi[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 15:32:32
>>Option+ae
Also it seems a teensy bit unfair to rob the developing world of its skilled workers so that we don't have to bother training them ourselves (plus they'll accept lower pay than natives).

Aren't those nurses needed back home?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehignett/2023/06/07/uk-...

replies(1): >>Der_Ei+EC
◧◩◪
8. mike50+On[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 16:02:42
>>arrows+Bi
Of course they CAN but no one with better prospects and good command of English even if you pay a great salary.
replies(1): >>arrows+UF
◧◩◪
9. Spivak+gs[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 16:30:13
>>Option+ae
I mean I support what could be termed "mass immigration" and hold no biases as to what kinds of work they would do. I see no reason they wouldn't find work in all sorts of fields. But one of the most common talking points against this kind of immigration is that because they're "unskilled" they won't find work and be a burden on our welfare programs and social services or whatever. So then you start to list jobs that are positive value to society and don't require specialized training—that even if I accept the (admittedly racist premise) that immigrants won't seek education and skilled positions that we will still be fine.
◧◩◪
10. bakugo+sB[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 17:18:53
>>Option+ae
It's because the arguments ultimately originate from the same place as they did back then: the elites who benefit greatly from the existence of said cheap, exploitative labor.

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.

◧◩◪
11. mooxie+hC[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 17:21:55
>>Option+ae
This is a far-right talking point that ignores the other concerns of progressives that are bundled up in the argument.

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.

replies(2): >>alexey+De1 >>j-krie+2o1
◧◩◪◨
12. Der_Ei+EC[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 17:23:50
>>arrows+Pi
Unironically no because most of these countries have extremely young populations.
replies(2): >>dudeof+wZ >>j-krie+Un1
◧◩◪◨
13. arrows+UF[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 17:42:17
>>mike50+On
If they have "better prospects", why are they unemployed?
◧◩◪
14. jjangk+EG[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 17:45:46
>>Option+ae
Its because both the left and right argue for extremes which are just the same energy with different wording.

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.

replies(1): >>immibi+xG8
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. dudeof+wZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 19:26:20
>>Der_Ei+EC
Why do they have a young population? What happens to the old people who live in those countries? Why would that not happen in the receiving countries if enough people are imported?
replies(1): >>niek_p+8o1
◧◩◪◨
16. alexey+De1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 20:47:54
>>mooxie+hC
The fact remains that UK (or US) is well below the replacement rate. If your progressive society can continue to exist only because oppressed women elsewhere keep supplying the human material, then it's not that progressive after all.
◧◩
17. j-krie+Nn1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 21:38:44
>>12ian3+s8
„If we don‘t allow mass migration, who will pick the crops and wipe your mum‘s behind?“
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. j-krie+Un1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 21:39:31
>>Der_Ei+EC
Unironically yes because most of these countries‘ population is sick due to low hygiene and water qualify.
◧◩◪◨
19. j-krie+2o1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 21:40:45
>>mooxie+hC
Nothing in this talking point is remotely „far right“. Words have lost all meaning. You also haven‘t answered his argument one bit. In the end, all you say with your smart words is that indeed, someone has to pick the cotton and it won‘t be you.
replies(1): >>const_+g32
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
20. niek_p+8o1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 21:41:51
>>dudeof+wZ
They have a young population because their birth rates are much higher than in (e.g.,) the U.K.
replies(1): >>dudeof+Dc2
21. dgrosh+uG1[view] [source] 2025-07-28 23:38:58
>>spaceb+(OP)
That chart is almost useless because it doesn't break down by settlement/non-settlement visa types.

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.

replies(1): >>spaceb+lC2
◧◩◪◨⬒
22. const_+g32[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 03:12:51
>>j-krie+2o1
The "far-right" propaganda comes in when we try to argue that actually the right cares about immigrants, and they want to deport them because they just care so damn much.

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.

replies(2): >>remark+c82 >>j-krie+bD2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
23. remark+c82[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 03:57:17
>>const_+g32
The right doesn't give a shit about the livelihood of the immigrants, but they have accurately observed the line that goes from "heavily increase low skill immigration" to "emergence of a low trust society" to "implement authoritarian surveillance state to manage the low trust". The left has no answer for this, because it requires them to admit that high levels of immigration have negative qualitative impacts on society that don't show up in GDP figures. They can't do that, because immigration itself is part of the ideology.
replies(1): >>const_+R82
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
24. const_+R82[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 04:04:30
>>remark+c82
No, the right just loves surveillance and authoritarianism. That's just what they trend towards if you leave them unchecked over time.

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.

replies(2): >>remark+V92 >>j-krie+pD2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
25. remark+V92[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 04:14:59
>>const_+R82
>Without immigrants, this populist messaging problem isn't solved.

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.

replies(1): >>const_+qa2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
26. const_+qa2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 04:21:27
>>remark+V92
> but the immigration issue is definitely driving the messaging from Reform

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?

replies(1): >>remark+Tb2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
27. remark+Tb2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 04:36:50
>>const_+qa2
>Yes, my point is that we've already done this countless times.

>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.

replies(1): >>const_+ch3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
28. dudeof+Dc2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 04:44:27
>>niek_p+8o1
In 1950 the birth rates in Africa were higher than today. Where are those old people?

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/afr/afr...

29. mmarq+Jh2[view] [source] 2025-07-29 05:46:02
>>spaceb+(OP)
Assuming these numbers are relevant and correct, there is a reason why qualified migrants prefer other countries.

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?

◧◩◪
30. spauld+cC2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 08:40:40
>>dmix+cb
The US doesn't really have any interest in fixing the problem. Both parties benefit from the mess we have now.

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.

◧◩
31. spaceb+lC2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 08:41:44
>>dgrosh+uG1
Somewhat annoyingly, this is the definition of long term immigrant per UN definitions cited in the report includes students:

"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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
32. j-krie+bD2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 08:49:13
>>const_+g32
Pointing out the hypocrisy of one side does not mean that the other is right. I still remember when the progressive pro-labour argument was against immigration to favour the increase of wages of the locals and I'm puzzled when they switched to "you know we need immigrants to work the shit jobs we don't want to do".
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
33. j-krie+pD2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 08:51:38
>>const_+R82
> No, the right just loves surveillance and authoritarianism. That's just what they trend towards if you leave them unchecked over time.

The UK currently has a left leaning government. All governments love surveillance and authoritarianism.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
34. const_+ch3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 13:42:48
>>remark+Tb2
The immigration is certainly not unprecedented, we've had significant chinese, polish, and even Italian immigrantion. And they too suffered prosecution.

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.

◧◩◪◨
35. immibi+xG8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-31 10:03:21
>>jjangk+EG
You should probably differentiate between those things, because they have almost nothing in common. Even the commonalities you listed are extrinsic qualities (i.e. They are qualities of how people respond to the thing and not of the thing itself).
[go to top]