verything was, very briefly, going

verything was, very briefly, going OK for the Labour party, and then it brought out its immigration mug. It was a simple red mug, with the words “Controls on Immigration”; it is one of the party’s five pledges. The others are either infuriatingly vague (“An NHS with time to care”) or pointlessly catch-all (“A country where the next generation can do better than the last”). But the immigration pledge is the worst, having neither any foundation in policy (bar some very mild notions of benefit-parsimony), nor any basis in politics. Plus, who would drink from that? The party doesn’t even understand what a mug is for.


Diane Abbott: Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs are shameful
Read more
This is the question that has plagued Labour for as long as I can remember: why can’t it talk about immigration? Half the time, it would have us believe that the free movement of human beings is an inherently racist topic, which no true progressive could ever discuss. The other half, the party bigwigs roll up their sleeves and bruise in, weaklings following Ukip thugs. The truth is, they stopped being able to talk about immigration the moment they stopped wanting to talk about solidarity, nationalism, compatriotism, human rights and, indeed, the fact that humanity has a value beyond money; without those things, it is really hard to talk about people. You end up talking about the rebalancing of the global labour market, while pretending that is about people. Here are the five questions that Labour needs to answer for itself before it will be able to convince anyone about freedom of movement.

What is a citizen?
This defence of immigration comes up a lot: immigrants aren’t a drain on any service or benefit, being on average fitter and younger than the indigenous population. Regarding hospitals, Adam Steventon, of the Nuffield Trust, found that, “admission rates were around half that of English-born people of the same age and sex”. Not only are they less ill, they are less encumbered, less needy – 60% less likely to claim benefits than British people – and better educated. A European Union Commission report last year underlined, also, that migrants were less likely to claim disability benefits. A 2013 University College London study [pdf] said migrants from the European Economic Area contributed £8.8bn more than they gained between 1995 and 2011 (“gained” – I can’t stand that word: it means “lived a full life, with dependants, had ups and downs”). Nobody disputes these figures; well, probably MigrationWatch does. I don’t. I respect and salute the people who compile them etc.

Surgeons at work Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Not only are immigrants less likely to be ill, but they contribute far more than they ‘gain’. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
However, the argument as a whole tries to sell us people as units whose value can be counted in economic productivity. Simultaneously, we see the native population bagged up and measured by who is healthy and strong enough to work, and who takes which benefits – so that shadow ministers say things such as “Labour isn’t the party for people on benefits”, and the governing parties use the language of parasites and dregs to talk about people who have simply been – in work or health – unfortunate.

Citizenship, in modern British rhetoric, is conditional upon the money you bring in. The moment you are not economically productive, you are not just a non-citizen but a drain on other citizens, an anti-citizen. The truth is, it is impossible to be born and to die in a country without spending probably 40 of those years needing something, “gaining” more than you “contribute”, being economically unproductive. So pretty well all indigenous people are going to cost more than people who arrive in a country as adults.

Consider, now, that 21% of people need housing benefit (most of them in work, some not) and that one fifth of working-age people are described by the political narrative in which they live as a kind of sub-species, whom nobody in the main parties wants to be seen to represent. In these conditions, to tell people to welcome immigration because migrants are healthier and better at making money is just … well, it’s just really dumb.

What has immigration ever done for us?
Philippe Legrain
Read more
Some loyalty to one another – beyond “what can I sell to you?” and “what service can you provide to me?” – is a precondition to freedom of movement, because people just won’t put up with newcomers unless they feel valued and protected. The loyalty isn’t ethnic, but it is based on place: you are allowed to care what happens to your neighbour. You are allowed to care more about what happens in Doncaster than what happens in Toulouse. The borders of your country are the borders of your democratic agency; you are allowed to want to build a society within it. You can believe, urgently, in freedom of movement between Doncaster and Toulouse, in the name of freedom and agency and fulfilment and the cross-pollination of ideas: but not on the basis that people from Toulouse are younger and fitter than people from Doncaster.

What is a nation?
“Far from being a burden on the NHS, immigrants are actually propping it up,” someone always says to rebut the “too many foreigners” argument. Migrants constitute 11% of health service staff, and 26% of doctors; add in auxiliary staff, and the health service is 40% staffed by migrants.

This is not an accident: in nursing, for example, there have been active recruitment drives for immigrant labour, partly undertaken directly by the government, partly brokered through agencies.

“It’s fairly well publicised,” Howard Catton, head of policy and international affairs at the Royal College of Nursing says, “that the NHS hasn’t planned the number of nurses particularly well over the years. We boom, we bust, we feast, we famine, we peak, we trough.” One government fails to fund nursing places, the next introduces a nursing target. So there is an urgent need for nurses, who have to be got from abroad.

I am going to assume that nobody here cares what colour their nurse is, nor what accent he or she has. This is, nevertheless, a senseless argument for immigration. Not because it denudes the nursing population of other countries (though it does) but because it does nothing to create a good society. We pay through the nose for agencies to recruit nurses from abroad and then complain about a “low-skilled” British workforce, which, in reality, is a lot of people (83% of them women) in their 30s and 40s, earning the minimum wage as carers, because there was no money to train them as more highly skilled nurses in 1995. What kind of a society comprehends looking after its ill people, yet cannot wrap its collective head around looking after its young?

Open borders or fair wages: the left needs to make up its mind
Paul Ormerod
Read more
I was on Pienaar’s Politics on Radio 5 Live with Nigel Farage. It was a Sunday morning in January, right after Amjad Bashir defected from Ukip to the Conservatives, so I thought he might look terrible, or be crying. He was utterly unperturbed. He said his policy would be to make nursing and medical degrees free for British students. On the radio, thank God, nobody can see you nod. But I do agree with him: the difference between us is that I think all higher education, not just that with an obvious social purpose, should be free. This is the question: do you want to educate the nation’s young at the nation’s expense? Do you conceive the nation’s wealth to be its people? If so, that’s nationalism. A party that’s afraid of nationalism finds it pretty well impossible to make a coherent case for free movement.

Nurse in hospital Facebook Twitter Pinterest
We’re told migrants do the work British people won’t do, but how fair is that on British workers? Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
What is a fair wage?
Advertisement

Immigrants do not bring down wages but behind that broad truth is a more complicated effect on the labour market. They are good for the economy because they create a need for goods and services. Studies admit a small effect – a 0.5% drop in wages for every 1% rise in the share of migrants – in low-wage sectors. In a sector with a large share of migrant labour – care, for instance, with 20% – that “small effect” will be pretty big.

Time and again, in industries where there is significant foreign labour, reports tell us that this is work “British people won’t do”, as the Migration Advisory Committee concluded in a 2013 report that British people would not do live-in seasonal agricultural work [pdf], and the Low Pay Commission said that British people wouldn’t do domiciliary care in London [pdf]. Whenever anyone ascribes some inherent characteristic – of sloth or unwillingness – to an entire race, even if it is your own, you should smell a rat. British people will do anything; but people are often reluctant to do work if they cannot live on the wages, and this drives the wages up, unless there is someone prepared to do it for less to escape a harsher economic reality elsewhere. In other words, anybody who can say in one breath “immigration doesn’t bring down wages” and, in the next, “this is work British people won’t do” is refusing to connect their own dots.

The insightful economist Jonathan Portes once compared immigration to coal mining. It was good for the country’s economy that the mines were closed down, even if it destroyed the communities that relied upon the mines. Well, OK, great: but you have to go back for those communities. There is no future for the country that doesn’t include them.

What is a voter?
Advertisement

That brings us neatly to the classic line that “anti-immigrant feeling is strongest where there aren’t many immigrants”. This is meant to be the killer blow, because it means that xenophobia is just

Resultater (Dansk) 1:

verything var meget kort, går OK for Labour-partiet, og så det bragt ud af sin indvandring krus. Det var en simpel rød krus, med ordene "Kontrolelementer på indvandring"; Det er en af partiets fem løfter. De andre er enten kreperlig vage ("An NHS med tid til at pleje") eller unødigt catch-all ("et land hvor den næste generation kan gøre det bedre end sidst"). Men indvandring løfte er det værste, at have hverken nogen foundation i politik (bar nogle meget mild forestillinger af benefit-parsimony), eller noget som helst grundlag i politik. Plus der vil drikke fra der? Partiet, der ikke selv forstår, hvad et krus er til.Diane Abbott: Labour's 'kontrol med indvandring' krus er skammelige Læs mereDet er det spørgsmål, der har plaget arbejdskraft til, så længe jeg kan huske: Hvorfor ikke det taler om indvandring? Halvdelen af tid, ville det have os til at tro, at den frie bevægelighed for mennesker er en i sig selv racistisk emne, som ingen rigtigt progressive nogensinde kunne diskutere. Den anden halvdel, part koryfæer rulle ærmerne op og blå mærker i, svæklinge efter Ukip bøller. Sandheden er, at de holdt op med at være i stand til at tale om indvandring i øjeblikket, de holdt op med at tale om solidaritet, nationalisme, compatriotism, menneskerettigheder og det faktum, at menneskeheden har en værdi ud over penge; uden disse ting er det virkelig svært at tale om mennesker. Du ender taler om afbalancering af det globale arbejdsmarked, mens foregiver at handler om mennesker. Her er de fem spørgsmål, som arbejdsmarkedets parter skal svare for sig selv, før det vil kunne overbevise nogen om fri bevægelighed.Hvad er en borger?Dette forsvar af indvandring kommer en masse: indvandrere er ikke et dræn på enhver service eller ydelse, der i gennemsnit montør og yngre end den indfødte befolkning. Med hensyn til hospitaler, Adam Steventon, Nuffield tillid, fandt, at "optagelse priser var omkring halvdelen af engelsk-født personer af samme køn og alder". Ikke kun er de mindre syge, de er mindre belastet, mindre trængende – 60% mindre tilbøjelige til at gøre krav på ydelser end britiske folk – og bedre uddannede. En rapport fra EU Kommissionen understreget sidste år, også, at indvandrere var mindre tilbøjelige til at kræve invaliditetsydelser. En 2013 University College London undersøgelse [pdf] sagde indvandrere fra Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde bidraget £8 .8bn mere end de har opnået mellem 1995 og 2011 ("erfaringer" – jeg kan ikke fordrage ord: det betyder "levede et fuldt liv, med pårørende, havde op-og nedture"). Ingen bestrider disse tal; Nå, gør sandsynligvis MigrationWatch. Jeg gør ikke. Jeg respekterer og hylder de mennesker, der kompilerer dem osv. Kirurger på arbejdspladsen Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ikke alene er indvandrere mindre tilbøjelige til at være syg, men de bidrage langt mere end de 'vinde'. Foto: Christopher Furlong/Getty ImagesHowever, the argument as a whole tries to sell us people as units whose value can be counted in economic productivity. Simultaneously, we see the native population bagged up and measured by who is healthy and strong enough to work, and who takes which benefits – so that shadow ministers say things such as “Labour isn’t the party for people on benefits”, and the governing parties use the language of parasites and dregs to talk about people who have simply been – in work or health – unfortunate.Citizenship, in modern British rhetoric, is conditional upon the money you bring in. The moment you are not economically productive, you are not just a non-citizen but a drain on other citizens, an anti-citizen. The truth is, it is impossible to be born and to die in a country without spending probably 40 of those years needing something, “gaining” more than you “contribute”, being economically unproductive. So pretty well all indigenous people are going to cost more than people who arrive in a country as adults.Consider, now, that 21% of people need housing benefit (most of them in work, some not) and that one fifth of working-age people are described by the political narrative in which they live as a kind of sub-species, whom nobody in the main parties wants to be seen to represent. In these conditions, to tell people to welcome immigration because migrants are healthier and better at making money is just … well, it’s just really dumb. Hvad har indvandring nogensinde gjort for os?Philippe Legrain Læs mereNogle loyalitet over for hinanden – ud over "Hvad kan jeg sælge til dig?" og "hvad service kan du give mig?" – er en forudsætning for fri bevægelighed, fordi folk bare ikke vil affinde sig med nyankomne medmindre de føler sig værdsat og beskyttet. Loyalitet er ikke etnisk, men det er baseret på sted: du får lov til at passe, hvad der sker med din nabo. Det er tilladt at bekymrer sig mere om hvad der sker i Doncaster end hvad der sker i Toulouse. For dit land grænser er grænser for dine demokratiske agenturet; Det er tilladt at ønsker at opbygge et samfund inden for det. Du kan tro, hurtigst muligt, i fri bevægelighed mellem Doncaster og Toulouse, frihed og agenturet og opfyldelse og krydsbestøvning af ideer: men ikke på det grundlag, at folk fra Toulouse er yngre og montør end mennesker fra Doncaster.Hvad er en nation?"Langt fra at være en byrde for NHS, indvandrere faktisk afstivningsmateriel det," nogen altid siger at modbevise argumentet "for mange udlændinge". Indvandrere udgør 11% af sundhed servicepersonale og 26% af læger; Tilføj i hjælpeansatte, og sundhedsvæsenet er 40% bemandet med indvandrere.Dette er ikke en ulykke: i sygeplejen, for eksempel, der har været aktiv rekruttering drev for indvandret arbejdskraft, dels foretaget direkte af regeringen, dels formidlet gennem bureauer.“It’s fairly well publicised,” Howard Catton, head of policy and international affairs at the Royal College of Nursing says, “that the NHS hasn’t planned the number of nurses particularly well over the years. We boom, we bust, we feast, we famine, we peak, we trough.” One government fails to fund nursing places, the next introduces a nursing target. So there is an urgent need for nurses, who have to be got from abroad.I am going to assume that nobody here cares what colour their nurse is, nor what accent he or she has. This is, nevertheless, a senseless argument for immigration. Not because it denudes the nursing population of other countries (though it does) but because it does nothing to create a good society. We pay through the nose for agencies to recruit nurses from abroad and then complain about a “low-skilled” British workforce, which, in reality, is a lot of people (83% of them women) in their 30s and 40s, earning the minimum wage as carers, because there was no money to train them as more highly skilled nurses in 1995. What kind of a society comprehends looking after its ill people, yet cannot wrap its collective head around looking after its young? Open borders or fair wages: the left needs to make up its mindPaul Ormerod Read moreI was on Pienaar’s Politics on Radio 5 Live with Nigel Farage. It was a Sunday morning in January, right after Amjad Bashir defected from Ukip to the Conservatives, so I thought he might look terrible, or be crying. He was utterly unperturbed. He said his policy would be to make nursing and medical degrees free for British students. On the radio, thank God, nobody can see you nod. But I do agree with him: the difference between us is that I think all higher education, not just that with an obvious social purpose, should be free. This is the question: do you want to educate the nation’s young at the nation’s expense? Do you conceive the nation’s wealth to be its people? If so, that’s nationalism. A party that’s afraid of nationalism finds it pretty well impossible to make a coherent case for free movement. Nurse in hospital Facebook Twitter Pinterest We’re told migrants do the work British people won’t do, but how fair is that on British workers? Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty ImagesWhat is a fair wage?AdvertisementImmigrants do not bring down wages but behind that broad truth is a more complicated effect on the labour market. They are good for the economy because they create a need for goods and services. Studies admit a small effect – a 0.5% drop in wages for every 1% rise in the share of migrants – in low-wage sectors. In a sector with a large share of migrant labour – care, for instance, with 20% – that “small effect” will be pretty big.Time and again, in industries where there is significant foreign labour, reports tell us that this is work “British people won’t do”, as the Migration Advisory Committee concluded in a 2013 report that British people would not do live-in seasonal agricultural work [pdf], and the Low Pay Commission said that British people wouldn’t do domiciliary care in London [pdf]. Whenever anyone ascribes some inherent characteristic – of sloth or unwillingness – to an entire race, even if it is your own, you should smell a rat. British people will do anything; but people are often reluctant to do work if they cannot live on the wages, and this drives the wages up, unless there is someone prepared to do it for less to escape a harsher economic reality elsewhere. In other words, anybody who can say in one breath “immigration doesn’t bring down wages” and, in the next, “this is work British people won’t do” is refusing to connect their own dots.The insightful economist Jonathan Portes once compared immigration to coal mining. It was good for the country’s economy that the mines were closed down, even if it destroyed the communities that relied upon the mines. Well, OK, great: but you have to go back for those communities. There is no future for the country that doesn’t include them.What is a voter?AdvertisementThat brings us neatly to the classic line that “anti-immigrant feeling is strongest where there aren’t many immigrants”. This is meant to be the killer blow, because it means that xenophobia is just

Resultater (Dansk) 2:

verything var, meget kort, går OK for partiet Labour, og så er det bragt ud sin indvandring krus. Det var en simpel rød krus, med ordene "kontrol med indvandring"; det er en af partiets fem løfter. De andre er enten infuriatingly vage ("En NHS med tid til at pleje"), eller unødigt catch-all ("Et land, hvor den næste generation kan gøre det bedre end sidst"). Men indvandring løfte er det værste, der har hverken nogen fundament i politik (bar nogle meget milde forestillinger om fordele og sparsommelighed), og heller ikke noget grundlag i politik. Plus, der ville drikke af det? Partiet ikke engang forstår, hvad et krus er for. Diane Abbott: Labours 'kontrol med indvandring "krus er skammelige Læs mere Det er det spørgsmål, der har plaget Labour, så længe jeg kan huske: Hvorfor kan det ikke tale om indvandring? Halvdelen af tiden, ville det have os til at tro, at den frie bevægelighed for mennesker er en iboende racistisk emne, som ingen sand progressiv nogensinde kunne diskutere. Den anden halvdel, den part koryfæer rulle ærmerne op og blå mærker i, svæklinge efter UKIP bøller. Sandheden er, de stoppede at kunne tale om indvandring det øjeblik, de holdt op med at ville snakke om solidaritet, nationalisme, Landsmandskab, menneskerettigheder, ja, det faktum, at menneskeheden har en værdi ud over pengene; uden disse ting, er det virkelig svært at tale om mennesker. Du ender taler om afbalancering af det globale arbejdsmarked, samtidig med at foregive, at drejer sig om mennesker. . Her er de fem spørgsmål, som Labour har brug for at svare for sig selv, før det vil være i stand til at overbevise nogen om den frie bevægelighed? Hvad er en borger kommer Denne forsvar for indvandring op en masse: indvandrere er ikke et dræn på enhver tjeneste eller fordele , bliver i gennemsnit montør og yngre end den indfødte befolkning. Med hensyn til hospitaler, Adam Steventon, af Nuffield Trust, fandt, at "optagelse satser var omkring halvdelen af engelsk-fødte personer af samme alder og køn". Ikke alene er de mindre syge, de er mindre belastet, mindre trængende - 60% mindre tilbøjelige til at gøre krav på ydelser, end britiske folk - og bedre uddannet. En rapport fra Kommissionen Europæiske Union sidste år understregede også, at indvandrerne var mindre tilbøjelige til at kræve invaliditetsydelser. En 2013 University College London undersøgelse [pdf] sagde indvandrere fra Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde bidrog £ 8,8 mia mere end de fik mellem 1995 og 2011 ("vundet" - Jeg kan ikke holde det ord: det betyder "levet et fuldt liv, med pårørende, havde op- og nedture "). Ingen bestrider disse tal; godt, sandsynligvis MigrationWatch gør. Jeg gør ikke. Jeg respekterer og hylder de mennesker, der udarbejder dem osv Kirurger på arbejde Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ikke alene er indvandrere mindre tilbøjelige til at være syg, men de bidrager langt mere, end de "gevinst". Foto: Christopher Furlong / Getty Images, argumentet som helhed forsøger imidlertid at sælge os mennesker som enheder, hvis værdi kan tælles i den økonomiske produktivitet. Samtidig ser vi den indfødte befolkning sække op og målt ved hvem der er sund og stærk nok til at arbejde, og som tager hvilke ydelser - således at skygge ministre siger ting som "Labour er ikke fest for folk på fordele", og regeringspartier bruger sproget for parasitter og bærme at tale om folk, der har simpelthen været - i arbejde eller helbred -. uheldigt Borgerrettigheder, i moderne britisk retorik, er betinget af de penge, du sætter i det øjeblik du ikke er økonomisk produktive, du. er ikke kun en ikke-borger, men et dræn på andre borgere, en anti-borger. Sandheden er, det er umuligt at blive født og at dø i et land uden udgifter sandsynligvis 40 af disse år har behov for noget, "vinder" mere end dig "bidrage", at være økonomisk uproduktive. Så temmelig godt alle oprindelige folk kommer til at koste mere end mennesker, der kommer i et land som voksne. Betragt nu, at 21% af folk har brug for boligydelse (de fleste af dem i arbejde, nogle ikke), og at en femtedel af arbejdsdygtige alder folk er beskrevet af den politiske fortælling, de lever som en slags underarter, som ingen i de vigtigste parter ønsker at blive set at repræsentere. I disse betingelser, for at fortælle folk at byde velkommen til indvandringen, fordi indvandrere er sundere og bedre til at tjene penge er bare ... godt, det er bare virkelig dum. Hvad har indvandringen nogensinde gjort for os? Philippe Legrain Læs mere Nogle loyalitet over for hinanden - ud over "hvad kan jeg sælge til dig "og" hvad service kan du giver mig "-?? er en forudsætning for den frie bevægelighed, fordi folk bare ikke vil stille op med nyankomne, medmindre de føler sig værdsat og beskyttet. Den loyalitet er ikke etnisk, men den bygger på plads: du har lov til at pleje hvad der sker med din nabo. Det er tilladt at bekymre sig mere om, hvad der sker i Doncaster, end hvad der sker i Toulouse. Grænserne i Deres land er grænser for dit demokratiske organ; du har lov til at ønsker at opbygge et samfund i det. Du kan tro, hurtigst muligt, i den frie bevægelighed mellem Doncaster og Toulouse, i frihedens navn og agentur og opfyldelse og krydsbestøvning af ideer: men ikke på det grundlag, at folk fra Toulouse er yngre og montør end folk fra Doncaster. Hvad er en nation? "Langt fra at være en byrde for NHS, er indvandrere faktisk afstivningsmateriel det op," nogen siger altid at afkræfte "for mange udlændinge" argument. Indvandrere udgør 11% af sundhedsvæsenets personale, og 26% af lægerne; tilføje hjælpeansatte, og sundhedsvæsenet er 40% bemandet med indvandrere. Dette er ikke en ulykke: i sygepleje, for eksempel, der har været aktive drev rekruttering til indvandret arbejdskraft, dels foretaget direkte af regeringen, dels formidlet gennem agenturer. "Det er ret godt offentliggøres," Howard Catton, leder af politik og internationale forhold på Royal College of Nursing siger, "at NHS ikke har planlagt at antallet af sygeplejersker særlig godt i årenes løb. Vi boom, vi fallit, vi fest, vi Hunger vi topper vi lavpunkt. "En regering undlader at finansiere sygepleje steder, den næste introducerer en ammende mål. Så der er et presserende behov for sygeplejersker, der skal være fik fra udlandet. Jeg kommer til at antage, at ingen her bekymrer sig hvad farve deres sygeplejerske er, og heller ikke hvad accent han eller hun har. Det er ikke desto mindre en meningsløs argument for indvandring. Ikke fordi det denudes sygepleje befolkningen i andre lande (selvom det gør), men fordi det gør intet for at skabe et godt samfund. Vi betaler gennem næsen for agenturer at rekruttere sygeplejersker fra udlandet og derefter klager over en "lavtuddannede" British arbejdsstyrke, som i virkeligheden er en masse mennesker (83% af dem kvinder) i 30'erne og 40'erne, tjener den mindsteløn som plejere, fordi der ikke var penge til at uddanne dem som mere højt kvalificerede sygeplejersker i 1995. Hvilken slags et samfund begriber udkig efter sin syge mennesker, men kan ikke pakke sin kollektive hoved rundt og leder efter sin unge? Åbne grænser eller rimelige lønninger : venstre er nødt til at beslutte sig Paul Ormerod Læs mere var jeg på Pienaar s Politics på Radio 5 live med Nigel Farage. Det var en søndag formiddag i januar, lige efter Amjad Bashir hoppede fra UKIP til de konservative, så jeg troede, han kunne se forfærdeligt, eller være gråd. Han var fuldstændig uanfægtet. Han sagde, at hans politik ville være at gøre sygepleje og medicinske grader gratis for britiske studerende. På radioen, gudskelov, ingen kan se dig nikke. Men jeg er enig med ham: forskellen mellem os er, at jeg tror, ​​at alle videregående uddannelser, ikke bare, at med en indlysende sociale formål, skal være gratis. Det er det spørgsmål: vil du uddanne landets unge på nationens bekostning? Har du forestille nationens rigdom at være dets folk? Hvis ja, det er nationalisme. Et parti, der er bange for nationalisme finder det temmelig godt umuligt at lave en sammenhængende tilfældet for den frie bevægelighed. Sygeplejerske på hospitalet Facebook Twitter Pinterest Vi fortalte migranter gøre arbejdet britiske folk vil ikke gøre, men hvor messen er, at der på de britiske arbejdere? Fotografi: Christopher Furlong / Getty Images? Hvad er en rimelig løn Annonce Indvandrere ikke bringe ned lønningerne, men bag den brede sandhed er en mere kompliceret virkning på arbejdsmarkedet. De er gode for økonomien, fordi de skaber et behov for varer og tjenesteydelser. Undersøgelser indrømme en lille effekt - et fald på 0,5% i løn for hver 1% stigning i andelen af indvandrere - i lavtlønnede sektorer. I en sektor med en stor andel af vandrende arbejdskraft - omsorg, for eksempel, med 20% -., At "lille effekt" vil være temmelig stor Igen og igen i industrier, hvor der er betydelig udenlandsk arbejdskraft, rapporter fortæller os, at dette er arbejde "britiske folk vil ikke gøre", da Migration rådgivende udvalg konkluderede i en 2013 rapport, britiske folk ikke ville gøre live-in sæsonbestemt landbrugsarbejde [pdf], og Low Pay Kommissionen sagde, at britiske folk ikke ville gøre hjemmeplejen i London [pdf]. Når nogen tilskriver nogle iboende egenskab - af dovenskab eller uvilje - til en hel race, selv om det er din egen, skal du lugter en rotte. Britiske folk vil gøre noget; men folk er ofte tilbageholdende med at gøre arbejdet, hvis de ikke kan leve af den løn, og det driver lønnen op, medmindre der er nogen parat til at gøre det for mindre at undslippe en barskere økonomiske virkelighed andetsteds. Med andre ord, nogen, der kan sige i ét åndedrag "indvandring ikke nedbringe lønninger", og i den næste, "dette er arbejde britiske folk vil ikke gøre" nægter at tilslutte deres egne prikker. Den indsigtsfulde økonom Jonathan Portes når sammenlignet indvandring til kulminedrift. Det var godt for landets økonomi, at minerne blev lukket ned, selv om det ødelagde de samfund, der påberåbes minerne. Nå, OK, stor: men du er nødt til at gå tilbage til disse samfund. Der er ingen fremtid for det land, der ikke omfatter dem. Hvad er en vælger? Annonce Det bringer os pænt til den klassiske linje, "anti-immigrant følelse er stærkest, hvor der ikke er mange indvandrere". Dette menes at være den killer slag, fordi det betyder, fremmedhad er lige

Resultater (Dansk) 3:

alt var meget kort, så ok for labour - partiet, og så tog sin indvandring krus.det var en simpel røde krus med ordene: "kontrol med indvandring". det er en af partiets fem kandidater.de andre er enten rasende vage ("en nhs med tid til at pleje") eller unødigt fange alle ("et land, hvor den næste generation kan gøre det bedre end den sidste").men indvandring løfte er den værste, som hverken har nogen institut i politik (bar nogle meget mild begreber til fordel for sparsommelighed), og heller ikke nogen basis i politik.plus, der drikker af det?den part, ikke engang forstå, hvad et krus er.


diane - arbejdskraft er kontrol med indvandring krus er skammelig (læs mere.det er det spørgsmål, som har plaget arbejdskraft, så længe jeg kan huske: hvorfor kan vi ikke tale om indvandring.halvdelen af tiden, det vil have os til at tro, at den frie bevægelighed for mennesker er en latent racisme emne, som ingen virkelig gradvis kunne drøfte.den anden halvdel, part stammehøvdinge smøge ærmerne op og blå mærker, svæklinge efter ukip bøller.sandheden er, -