Blog powered by Typepad

« The Sunday Rumble: 5.5.19 | Main | Take cover - incoming 'luvvie-talk'! »

Monday, 06 May 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

When people of "talent" and those who are prepared to work hard want to migrate to a country and want to contribute to that country in a positive way then that country is obviously doing something right.

The opinions of "Lefty metropolitan prats" are largely irrelevant.

Her headline asks about an "emotional need" of liberal snobs. Liberals are governed by emotion as if it was a dietary staple. Proper standing among their peer group trumps(sorry)all.

If racism was normal then the word would be a compliment. It isn't a compliment because racism is rare.
Not so sure how welcoming the Poles are though.

Well. I'll be damned.

Apologies David for my previous mockery of your country's speech laws being so much harsher than my country's speech laws.

Were a poll to come out and say, "We showed the highest level of support of any country for qualified professionals coming to the UK with a job offer." The pollsters would immediately come under fire for being racists. And worse.

And probably lose their government issued license for future polls.

For sure they'd be making no appearances on The View.

Selecting only qualified professionals as immigrants for Blighty has three faults: -

1. The assumption that the state knows best which workers should come to this country.

Demand for qualified professionals vs unskilled workers fluctuates when the borders are open. The market decides whether Blighty is overstocked with white or blue colour workers. In the 1970's it was overstocked with white colour workers but the US was short, so we had the "brain drain" from Blighty to the US. In the 1980's it was the opposite, so we had the "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" generation of construction workers who went to Germany for work. And in the 2000's Blighty was short on unskilled workers with a solid work ethic, so Eastern European workers filled the gap.

The state can't run a flippin' whelk-stall, as pointed out frequently by me and others on this blog. Why on earth would you think that it could somehow out-perform the decision making of billions of employees and millions of employers in a global neural network of cost and benefit calculations?!

I mean, are you off your rockers?

2. It's Classist.

Yes, Classist. That -ist and -ism that at its worst put 120 million souls of MY CLASS into an early grave in the 20th century. No other discrimination in history comes close to its barbarity and evil ...

Why should one class of society be persecuted with global competition when the others are protected? What kind of equal society under the law is that? How is that not arbitrary power exerted by the executive against a minority?

Didn't those bad behaviours by the state and poor outcomes for individuals and "society" get roundly trashed by logic and reason in the Age of Enlightenment? Why the encore?

3. It's inconsistent with free trade.

If unskilled workers are to be protected in the service industries of Blighty against immigrant competition, why not in the product manufacturing industries also? Why not call a halt to free trade in products to protect domestic manufacturing industry?

Again, why the arbitrary favouritism towards service sector workers and against manufacturing workers? I can go out and buy a dirt cheap washing machine made in Taiwan that wiped out the washing machine industry and all the manufacturing jobs associated therewith in Blighty, but when I want a plumber to deliver and fit it I'm shafted by local workers only restriction?

So in proposing selective immigration you've just denied free trade also if you are to be consistent.

Selective immigration is protectionism, which you Dad's Army, Brexiteer, Country-Bumpkin types apparently abhor because you're into free trade, but also adore when it's applied to services. So you look inconsistent and silly.


The comments to this entry are closed.