The irony is that Brexit will almost certainly mean an increase in immigration from non-EU countries - which is bad economically (EU migrants tend to be contributors to the UK economy and non-EU migrants don't - mainly due to the latter moving later in life with families) and, I suspect, not what a lot of leave voters were actually wanting to happen.
This is an interesting point, which may very well be the end result of Brexit. However, what was the alternative?
The UK public have consistently asked their politicians to reduce immigration since the 60s and this has been reflected over and over again in poll data. However, politicians have always ignored this request and while the UK is in the EU politicians have very little control over total number anyway.
So basically what you're saying is despite the UK public not agree with the population replacement level of immigration currently occurring in their country, they have no choice because politicians either way are going to continue to replace the population through immigration. The only choice the UK people have to choice between between replaced by EU immigrants or non-EU immigrants... Well how brilliantly immoral. Have we learnt nothing from our past?
They absolutely haven't - policy has been rewritten over the past couple of decades to make immigration extremely difficult.
What I suspect is going on is that some people want the absolute number of non-"ethnically british" people reduced, which is ethically impossible given that many were in fact born here or already achieved ILR.
What's your definition of replaced? If Europeans didn't kill any native Americans, but just replaced them demographically despite the them not consenting would that be moral in your opinion? Because that's what's happening.
And are you suggesting the EU's free movement isn't a thing? What exactly makes it so difficult for someone from Eastern Europe to come to the UK?
As an immigrant to the UK from not-the-EU, I can tell you that Mrs. May's time at the home office has turned UK immigration policy into a clusterfuck that works against the interests of the country and forces smart people who the UK didn't have to pay to educate (from Australasia in my experience) to leave, despite them having good jobs and paying tax here.
@kypro It's not 'racially preferenced'. The UK is a member of a club of nations with certain rules, which it seems to be ignorant of - such as the ability to restrict free movement within the rules of FM.
The way the UK treats outside EU migrants is down to the hateful politics of the daily mail et al and has no basis in fact - look at Germany and the Blue Card for a contrasting example.
FWIW, I voted remain (as a Commonwealth citizen, ridiculously, I could vote, but UK citizens in the EU couldn't, despite the referendum affecting them greatly!)
It's not racially preferenced in the same way voter ID, or Trump's immigration ban of "high risk" countries isn't racial preferenced. It's effect is a racially preferenced immigration system for not good reason. There are many talented people from non-EU countries which the UK doesn't take because of unskilled EU immigration taking preference.
Why do you believe that low-skilled workers prevent high-skilled workers from migrating to the UK? Surely it should be the other way around because the high-skilled workers would get well-paid jobs that would price low-skilled workers out of the UK’s dysfunctional housing market?
Yeah, non-EU immigrants do get fucked over, because the immigration system is basically racially preferenced to European immigrants. Non-EU immigrants have to get through countless barriers those coming from the EU don't.
Skilled workers from non-EU country don't have many difficulties getting a work visa to the UK. And unskilled work doesn't usually compete with skilled work.
Every selection is biased in one way or the other, there's no purely fair way of doing that.
> Skilled workers from non-EU country don't have many difficulties getting a work visa to the UK.
Oh? That's interesting. There are people in this comment thread claiming that work visa are really awful and restrictive.
> And unskilled work doesn't usually compete with skilled work.
Well, no, but we are forced to accept a ton of unskilled (and unneeded) immigration from the EU which means we have to restrict the total amount of potentially needed skilled work from non-EU countries.
> Every selection is biased in one way or the other, there's no purely fair way of doing that.
Is an immigration preference people of certain nationalises fair? Can I assume you agree with Trumps immigration bans by any chance?
> There are people in this comment thread claiming that work visa are really awful and restrictive.
I'm not sure about their experience and my knowledge is 3rd party, still, YMMV.
> Is an immigration preference people of certain nationalities fair?
Not really, but no country does this fairly, and they're not wrong (within a limit). Key word: immigration. Is it fair that Canadians don't need a visa to visit the US but Mexicans do? No, but they're not wrong and Mexico is free to require a visa as well.
> Can I assume you agree with Trumps immigration bans by any chance?
The travel ban, not the immigration ban. And no, I don't agree that people with a valid visa (or even permanent residents, which was what the Supreme Court shot down first) shouldn't be allowed to visit (unless there's a specific issue).
