Theresa May: Net effect of high immigration is close to zero

MJ12

It was a bit odd that Theresa May went on about how unjust it is that often the "wealthiest, the luckiest and the strongest" (asylum seekers) who managed to reach the UK are "rewarded" with asylum, and how priority should be given to "helping the most vulnerable people in the world's most dangerous places".


If we are letting people into the country, surely we would prefer those who have the strongest will and the most able bodies, those who survived the journey?:huh:

Sapphire

MJ12 wrote: »

If we are letting people into the country, surely we would prefer those who have the strongest will and the most able bodies, those who survived the journey?:huh:

Frankly, I'd be worried about letting in many of the 'strongest' (in terms of physical strength), for several reasons – they'd be likely to include, for instance, crooks of all kinds, rather than computer scientists, academics and the like…

padington

Lets take all the willing ones, train them to fight, and take them back in tanks.

princeofpounds

It strikes me a little odd that those who believe most in a free market dont want a free market in labour. Or perhaps not a little odd if one can gain votes by campaigning against those who are "not one of us". And how much easier to blame government failures on those nasty foreigners.

From the point of view of economics it is somewhat inconsistent policy perhaps.

But from the point of view of social politics it is not really that odd at all. It could only be so if importing a worker can be directly equated with importing goods, and I think we can all agree that it is a different proposition importing a thousand Syrian youths compared to ten thousand Syrian T-shirts.

Even in economic terms, there is a big difference between goods and services, and labour, which is a factor of production, or households, which are a specific economic entity.

Nor is economic labour mobility remotely equivalent to citizenship, although in practice one often eventually means the other.

Theory does tell you that having mobile labour is more economically optimal. But economic theory does not capture many things and is not necessarily the best method or the end goal of all policy. Nor is it universally agreed on many important points.

I say all that as someone who is generally in favour of labour mobility on the terms of the receiving country.

But I also do not think that objectors are being at all stupid and many of the points they make are valid and require mitigation. So I've never been fond of the comparison of free markets in goods and services and free markets in labour. It is crude to the point of invalidity.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can't say I agree with everything she says, or even the majority. But seems they are starting to get it.

Get what? That saying things that racists and little Englanders like to hear is popular... I think they knew that already; my only surprise is that May hasn't said something like this earlier, she'll jump on just about any populist bandwagon going if it's politically viable.

Use of infrastructure is economic Graham but I suppose it fits your blinkered mindset to assume all negatives have already been ignored in her statement, and thus must be piled on top, otherwise you'd have to reconsider your position.