General Politics Thread

[ayase]

I also think, as completely demented as he often sounds, people probably really like the way Trump speaks, he doesn't sound like a politician and he very successfully positions himself as anti-establishment when people are more distrustful of the establishment than ever.

It’s astonishing to me that most other politicians haven’t cottoned on to this yet and adjusted their attitudes accordingly. I think most Americans (and Brits) would at this point be fairly happy to see their leaders get Ceaușescu‘d for the endless grift we’re fully aware nearly all of them are involved in while the people get poorer. All the while, they continue to talk like the most important thing in politics is reasonable middle-class civility. Pro tip: People struggling to feed their kids or pay their rent do not care about being civil. They do not care about the lofty ideals of a “democracy” they can see in their bank balances is failing them. They care about surviving. I think we’re getting to the point where we’ve successfully sent enough people back to the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid that they’d be more than capable of tipping it over. And make no mistake the UK and USA are in this together, we have been since WWII, our governments follow the same trajectories even if one is a little further behind. Look at Thatcher and Reagan, or Clinton and Blair. They were cut from the same cloth. Our 14 years of Tories were their 8 years of Bush, Starmer is our Obama (a presentable, civil moderate promising change probably he won’t deliver, likely resulting in people being more jaded than ever by the end of his time in office) and if Labour doesn’t nut up and use that whopping majority to actually do something about inequality, it’s entirely possible Farage could be our Trump. Tory loss next time, which seems inevitable (particularly since a fifth of their voters will be literally dead from old age in five years) will probably kill them for good and open the door for a Reform takeover.

It baffles me why people like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn don’t just stand up on a stage somewhere and tell the truth about how corrupt the system is, how in hoc politicians are to lobbyists and billionaires, how the press are part of it and that’s why people are worse off and nothing ever changes. Take a page out of Trump’s book. But the liberal left is too full of champagne socialists more concerned with writing articles in the Guardian about gender politics or how the people for whom the cost of housing has increased six times above inflation in the last half-century should be funding reparations for colonialism neither they nor their penniless peasant ancestors had anything to do with (the upper classes were exploiting them as disposable factory labour just as much as any colonial people. Let’s not forget the Highland Clearances, the Settlement of Ireland or the Enclosures Acts, when poor British people had the land of this country stolen from them by the nobility just like Africans or Native Americans. The prototype for Empire was the British Isles. Hell, the Liberal Democrats still have “The Land” as their anthem which is all about this, not that they ever seem to talk about it now). Out of touch does not begin to describe it. The success of people like Trump and Farage is their failure, but they still haven’t woken up, which is ironic.

Didn’t I say Corbyn should have purged the right of the party just like he himself has now been purged along with the left? He wasn’t tough enuss, and that’s the real problem with the left in the Anglosphere. They aren’t willing to shout loudly enough about the real problems and their causes (let alone actually tackle them) which allows the Trumps and Farages of the world to pin it all on immigrants and the “liberal media” (which is actually anything but) while riding those same lobbyists’ and billionaires’ waves of cash into office and proceeding to continue allowing the rich to get richer and the poor poorer. You have a massive cohort of angry, angry people with very little to lose in both Britain and America and all someone has to do is rile them up and point them in the right direction. And that direction is Parliament/Capitol Hill but as long as the inhabitants of those places can keep those angry people divided and at each other’s throats, they’re eating well (and sending the bill to their donors).

 

[Dave1988]

Trump gained power and already got Nintendo to announce the Switch 2, this man is a fast worker.

The trump effect

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

Just seen some more stats from the US election. Harris lost so much ground, even in safe blue states:



That swing in New York is just crazy.

 

[Vashdaman]

@ayase I agree with much of that. That's my big concern too, that if Starmer's Labour doesn't learn some very valuable and important lessons from this election, it might not be too long until something similar plays out over here and we get a Farage PM. Tinkering around the edges and trying to maintain the status-quo will lead us to that American style hellscape future. Starmer has been in power how long, and he's already utterly despised and distrusted as far as I can see. If he doesn't succeed in actually making people's lives substantially better, this is what will happen. Unfortunately I am rather sceptical and can't help but worry the completely wrong lessons will be learnt from this, and they'll do what seems to come much more comfortably and naturally to them and try to lean more towards the right, nicking bits of their policies and rhetoric, and again hoping a re-calibrated centrism is the answer. I really don't think this incarnation of labour have it in themselves to do anything else but that. I suspect the Democrats will likely learn the wrong lessons from this defeat too, sadly.

I think Corbyn does talk about all the things you mentioned above though, corruption, lobbies, media etc. But I agree with you that he wasn't strong enough and he really should have purged the Labour right before they got to do it to him. Corbyn's personality I guess seemingly never connected with the country in the way Trump's vulgarity and narcissism does with the American public. I'm really not sure why. A big part of it was all the media smearing Corbyn of course, and I'm not sure if the American media went softer on Trump than the British media went on Crobyn (I suspect that probably is the case) but Trump seems largely impervious to the media, the sense of a witchhunt actually helping him if anything. I think similar to Boris Johnson, people take to the stupid confidence and like the fact he's kind of funny and outrageous. So maybe you're right, maybe the left does need someone who is able to say what Corbyn says, but in a more bombastic sort of way? I don't know.

 

[ayase]

but Trump seems largely impervious to the media, the sense of a witchhunt actually helping him if anything.

And that right there is what I don’t understand about today’s left. If Trump can do that, so can they. If the press are calling you an anti-semite just turn around and loudly denounce them as losers and liars in the pockets of the rich, it’s not even inaccurate. But they’re too hung up on civility to do it.

I notice James O’Brien (another lefty more concerned with appearances than action) almost got it this morning. He’s at least asking the question “Why are gas prices more important to voters than the survival of liberal democracy?” The answer (fairly obviously I would have thought, though perhaps not to someone on six figures and that’s part of the problem) is because under the last few decades of “liberal democracy” they’ve seen their costs rise, their living standards deteriorate and social mobility grind to a halt. What are people supposed to believe is worth saving about a system where they’re worse off than their parents and their children will be even worse off than them? Seriously, the last time the average home cost this many times the average worker’s salary, Queen f’ing Victoria was on the throne.

People on the left hyperbolise about Trump and Hitler, but they seem to have forgotten that the Nazis didn’t get into power because all the Germans who voted for them were all genocidal racists. They got into power because the dire economic situation of the great depression led Germans to become so desperate they were willing to chuck other people under the bus to save themselves. The Weimar Republic’s “liberal democracy” did not seem worth saving to those for whom it had produced nothing but unemployment, homelessness and starvation. We’re not quite there (yet) but that is the important parallel, that’s the lesson our rulers should be taking from history; that when people have nothing to lose they cease to care about higher ideals and start supporting whatever and whoever will promise them concrete action to improve their lives, everyone else be damned. That’s obviously not a positive direction for society, but that is what happens when governments fail to address their people’s concerns.

 

[serpantino]

America really seems to dislike women's rights & I think there was an element of sexism in the voting.

It's a bizarre kind of stupid for them to vote in someone who wants to impose elements they've claimed to be against & even fought against in the past & who's a fawning superfan of despot daddy Vladi.

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

The US is just a different demographic and culture to the UK. For one thing, they are a lot more religious than we are, so topics like abortion are a lot more contentious there, than they are here, for example. British political commentators just can't comprehend why the US has voted for Trump, again.

I tipped Trump to win the election, but only to edge it over Harris. I was not expecting the huge blowout, him to sweep the swing states, and to win the popular vote.

I agree with a lot of what @ayase has said. The liberal elite have lost their way. There's only so many times you can say "orange man bad" before people start looking at you and thinking: wait a minute, what have you done for me? Have you improved things? What are your principles and policies?

Trump spent hours and hours on unscripted podcasts like Joe Rogan and others, where (whether you agreed with him or not) he stated his opinions and views on a variety of topics. You couldn't find Harris outside of a scripted or edited interview or performance. Was she going to be more of Biden or was she going to go her own way? No one one really knew. This is why young and undecided voters broke for Trump.

Democrats can no longer guarantee support from ethnic minorities at their usual level; look at the gains Trump made with Black males and Hispanics especially, compared to 2020. The argument of "I'm black, you're black, you should vote for me" doesn't fly anymore. 51% of White women and 44% of all women still went Republican; I think the whole abortion issue was vastly overestimated as a key issue by the Democrats. Exit poll, after exit poll showed that the economy was the biggest issue for voters and that the majority of voters felt no better or worse off than four years ago.

We may think we're above this changing tide of politics in the UK because we currently have a centre-left government in power. However, Labour are only being propped up by our first past the post system; Labour's 'landslide' is built upon one of the lowest turnouts in British election history and on the lowest vote share ever of any sitting British government.

Centrism seems to be offering uncontrolled mass-immigration, wage stagnation, no hope of owning a home, a lower quality of life, and less social mobility. I'm not surprised by the result of the US election, but I am surprised by the margin of victory. Let this be a lesson for Labour; you have five years to start turning the corner and kick-start the winds of change. If you fail, Farage and company are waiting to pounce.

 

[Anj]

It's all so very sad. The environment is screwed for one thing, his country per capita is far and above the biggest polluter on the planet and he plans to make it worse.
I don't know enough to pass comment on the other stuff but it is dark times ahead for the whole world now.

 

[ayase]

I notice James O’Brien (another lefty more concerned with appearances than action) almost got it this morning. He’s at least asking the question “Why are gas prices more important to voters than the survival of liberal democracy?” The answer (fairly obviously I would have thought, though perhaps not to someone on six figures and that’s part of the problem) is because under the last few decades of “liberal democracy” they’ve seen their costs rise, their living standards deteriorate and social mobility grind to a halt. What are people supposed to believe is worth saving about a system where they’re worse off than their parents and their children will be even worse off than them?

I agree with a lot of what @ayase has said. The liberal elite have lost their way. There's only so many times you can say "orange man bad" before people start looking at you and thinking: wait a minute, what have you done for me? Have you improved things? What are your principles and policies?

Trump spent hours and hours on unscripted podcasts like Joe Rogan and others, where (whether you agreed with him or not) he stated his opinions and views on a variety of topics. You couldn't find Harris outside of a scripted or edited interview or performance. Was she going to be more of Biden or was she going to go her own way? No one one really knew. This is why young and undecided voters broke for Trump.

Democrats can no longer guarantee support from ethnic minorities at their usual level; look at the gains Trump made with Black males and Hispanics especially, compared to 2020. The argument of "I'm black, you're black, you should vote for me" doesn't fly anymore. 51% of White women and 44% of all women still went Republican; I think the whole abortion issue was vastly overestimated as a key issue by the Democrats. Exit poll, after exit poll showed that the economy was the biggest issue for voters and that the majority of voters felt no better or worse off than four years ago.

Does the man himself lurk here? Because today these posts of @BrokenPhoenix and myself might as well have been O’Brien’s script. He even began with “it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?” almost exactly like I did (after seemingly not finding it so obvious the day before). Spooky.

By Jove, I think he’s got it. Trump didn’t win because Cletus, Jamal and Jose the Wal-Mart shelf stackers (if they even have a job that hasn’t been outsourced overseas) are all misogynist xenophobes who hate women, immigrants and democracy, he won because the thing they have in common is they’re all poor and getting poorer. The fact this proves you can unite people of different backgrounds out of a desire to improve their situation (which it’s very unlikely Trump will actually do) should be your inroad, leftists. Right f’ing now is the time to wise up and start talking about (and in Labour’s case, start doing something about) economic inequality and leave all the poisonous idpol behind.

 

[RadFemHedonist]

Abortion rights (and the right to choose/reproductive rights more generally) are a very important topic (and I'd remind posters here that I am at a major risk of serious injury or death if I were forced to carry a pregnancy to term because of my myriad health issues) and so is racism (esp the blatant hateful variety), I'm not a hardcore identitarian but there's a difference between toxic idpol and acknowledging discrimination and gendered/racialised/etc. violence and abuse exist and are really bad but I agree 100% that assuming everyone who votes for Trump is a racist/misogynist/transphobe/etc. who agrees with him on those topics is a big mistake both in that I'm sure it's not accurate and also in that it will not help bring people together to unite to help make things better for the majority of people.

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

Oh wow, I did not expect that kind of introspection from James O'Brien, of all people. I think Trump being re-elected is finally making those on the other side of the aisle actually think again and re-evaluate. Perhaps Trump winning in 2016 was simply put down to people stepping out of line. Maybe those on the other side thought: right, you've had your fun now and you've seen what a Trump presidency looks like, we're going back to "normal" now with Biden. However, the fact that Trump got re-elected I think is really making the liberal elite and their supporters think again. Neo-liberalism isn't working anymore.

Trump is a problem for the US Democrats. Like @ayase has said, he has managed to unite people from a number of different demographics behind a simple message; a message that Harris and her party failed to communicate during the campaign.

In the key battleground states, Trump ended up getting:

21% of Black men (which for a Republican candidate is incredible: double the number of Black men voted for Trump in the battleground states compared to 2020)
60% of White men
53% of White women
55% of Latino men (Trump gained 13 percentage points in the Latino/Hispanic population overall)
The difference between adding up all the other races was only two percentage points in favour of the Democrats (D: 48%, R: 46%).

There was also notable gains in the Asian demographic for Trump compared to 2020, up 4 points and up 12 points with "Other".

Even younger voters shifted away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans; Harris went down 5 points with 18-29 year olds, whereas Trump gained 6 points.

The Democrats were hoping that they could make inroads in Texas, but it went even more for the Republicans this time around, which wasn't on the cards according to the polls. Even safe, deep blue states like New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, etc, swung towards the Republicans, as you can see by the shift map:



Probably the best stat out of the US election I've seen so far is in Starr County. This is a county in Texas, which is right on the US-Mexican border:



1892! This is indicative of other similar counties on the border; where they've seen huge numbers of illegal immigration. From what I've read and heard, legal immigrants hate illegal immigrants more than anyone! If you've gone through all the legal processes to enter the US and you've managed to get a job, work hard, and build a life for yourself, I can see why you'd disagree with the state of the US border and move towards someone whose message was that they were going to reduce and stop illegal immigration.

I'm no politician or campaigning expert, but it's difficult to see where the US Democrats go from here. Abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights, whilst are important in principle, these aren't the issues that win general elections. The Democrats seriously need to burn the current party to the ground and rebuild it from the ground up. They cannot simply pick candidates because they feel it's "their turn". They need a candidate with some political nous, who can go toe-to-toe with Trump (or whoever his successor is), and one that is ultimately voted for in a primary, rather than simply selected.

Whether you agree with Trump or not, what he has done is quite astonishing politically. He has turned the US Republicans into the party of the people and the working class. Whilst the Democrats are seen as the party of the political class and the liberal elite.

 

[ayase]

(and I'd remind posters here that I am at a major risk of serious injury or death if I were forced to carry a pregnancy to term because of my myriad health issues)

That would of course be horrible but I think the likelihood of that happening, particularly here, and even in the US is very small. Nearly all of those states that have “banned” abortion (an action I personally don’t agree with, it’s anti-freedom and is a liberty issue rather than an identity issue) retain exceptions for the health of the mother, rape and incest and I think any federal ban would surely retain those exceptions unless they actually want liberal states to start seceding.

Of course we can acknowledge other forms of inequality and take steps to address them, but I think they’re blown massively out of proportion by a media populated with people for whom economic security is simply not a concern, so they move on to the next step without bothering to address the concerns of the masses for whom economic struggle is the concern. Probably a lot of those women who, as @BrokenPhoenix has just pointed out, voted for Trump anyway do not see abortion as their problem because they can’t see themselves ever needing one other than in those exceptional circumstances, or their own sense of personal morality would stop them from getting an abortion even without a ban. Other than particularly hardcore religious believers who want to impose their morality on everyone else (and I doubt that extends to 53% of white women) they likely didn’t vote based on that issue at all. What did they vote for? And the answer still seems to be an improvement in their economic prospects. A lot of women are never likely to get anywhere near a boardroom, not because they’re women but because they’re working class and the best they can hope for is a factory opening in their town instead of closing. When the media talks about issues that are never likely to affect them and which they only see as improving the prospects of people who are already better off than them, they’re not likely to care.

 

[ayase]

From what I've read and heard, legal immigrants hate illegal immigrants more than anyone! If you've gone through all the legal processes to enter the US and you've managed to get a job, work hard, and build a life for yourself, I can see why you'd disagree with the state of the US border and move towards someone whose message was that they were going to reduce and stop illegal immigration.

Left wing unions used to be some of the loudest voices against illegal immigration in the US, not because of xenophobia but because they (quite rightly, I think) saw it as a process by which employers could hire workers without giving them the rights afforded to citizens. That obviously creates a scenario in which unionised workers are being undercut by a black economy of illegal labour in a race to the bottom of workers’ rights, which we’re seeing the fruits of now.

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

Left wing unions used to be some of the loudest voices against illegal immigration in the US, not because of xenophobia but because they (quite rightly, I think) saw it as a process by which employers could hire workers without giving them the rights afforded to citizens. That obviously creates a scenario in which unionised workers are being undercut by a black economy of illegal labour in a race to the bottom of workers’ rights, which we’re seeing the fruits of now.

Yes, I think even those who subscribe to more left-leaning policy would have a hard time arguing that illegal immigration and even legal immigration in unsustainable numbers hasn't been a detriment to the working classes.

Traditional Labour leaders would have been vehemently against such a policy. However, we saw a shift politically in parties such as Labour, which was really brought about with the introduction of Blair's New Labour in 1997 and continued by Cameron and the conservative party from 2010 onwards.

This is why I am of the opinion that Labour and the Tories are a uni-party of our political class; both really come under the umbrella of centrism and are largely indistinguishable from each other (aside from a few wacky characters like Boris and Corbyn). Neither party seem to be for the interests of the common person.

 

[Vashdaman]

Trump's talk of mass deportations is truly despicable and inhumane. And I don't think that's what Americans voted for when they voted for him, at least I really hope not. It's fine to point out that illegal immigrants are exploited by unscrupulous employers, I don't think many on the left disagree with that. But the answer to that isn't mass deportations or stupid stuff like building a wall or whatever. It's offering more legal routes of immigration and giving people living illegally a pathway to legal citizenship (and I believe polling seems to show most Americans actually support this!). Or at least that has to be a big part of the solution. And the Democrats failed to do this. If you want to stop the exploitation of illegal workers then that has to be part of it. Forgetting ideals for a second, just being realistic building walls and all that nonsense never actually works does it, what country does have "secure enough borders" and is able to successfully prevent illegal immigration? And it's only going to get harder and harder as climate change becomes worse and if the middle east continues to destabilise as is looking very likely (and hey guess what, the US is responsible for that!). I don't think anyone really has a great solution for what we're going to experience in the coming years, but surely our only hope is to get our heads out of our arses and realise that we're going to have to let people from other countries into ours and to stop blaming all our woes on them because it's the easiest thing to do.

 

[Just Passing Through]

If you're talking mass deportation and you don't have the infrastructure ready for it, that means internment camps. It will be like the asylum seeker detention backlog in the UK times 1000. Stuff will spiral out of control real quick in situations like that, and then the UN will be throwing out accusations of crimes against humanity.

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

Trump's talk of mass deportations is truly despicable and inhumane. And I don't think that's what Americans voted for when they voted for him, at least I really hope not. It's fine to point out that illegal immigrants are exploited by unscrupulous employers, I don't think many on the left disagree with that. But the answer to that isn't mass deportations or stupid stuff like building a wall or whatever. It's offering more legal routes of immigration and giving people living illegally a pathway to legal citizenship (and I believe polling seems to show most Americans actually support this!). Or at least that has to be a big part of the solution. And the Democrats failed to do this. If you want to stop the exploitation of illegal workers then that has to be part of it. Forgetting ideals for a second, just being realistic building walls and all that nonsense never actually works does it, what country does have "secure enough borders" and is able to successfully prevent illegal immigration? And it's only going to get harder and harder as climate change becomes worse and if the middle east continues to destabilise as is looking very likely (and hey guess what, the US is responsible for that!). I don't think anyone really has a great solution for what we're going to experience in the coming years, but surely our only hope is to get our heads out of our arses and realise that we're going to have to let people from other countries into ours and to stop blaming all our woes on them because easiest thing to do.

Trump definitely ran on a platform of reducing and stopping illegal immigration; he spoke about the sheer numbers that were illegally crossing the border and the fact that some who entered illegally were already criminals. By entering a country illegally, you are already breaking the law of said country.

I'm not sure how popular providing citizenship to people living illegally in the US would be. As I said in a previous comment, legal immigrants have to go through an arduous process to enter the country as an economic migrant, and then a further process to then acquire US citizenship. Handing out citizenship to people who just happened to have jumped over the border would be political suicide in my opinion. Especially considering the shift to the right we have seen in this US election. A policy like that would be a kick in the teeth to those that arrived via the legal route. You'd likely never get their vote again.

I think most reasonable people in the US, and even here in the UK, want a fair and efficient immigration system; where those who have essential skills, and who can benefit the country, economy, and most importantly the citizens, are allowed to come in. I think every country should have the right to decide who it allows in and who it deports. The issue that the US and Europe is facing is that the people entering countries illegally tend to be low-educated and low-skilled individuals that are a net drain on the state financially, which doesn't benefit the individuals themselves (as they end up being exploited in the shadow economy), the governments, nor the citizens of these countries.

If a country has weak borders and absolutely anyone can freely enter illegally, then it is no country at all in my view. You can never totally stop illegal immigration, however, you can make efforts to reduce it and make it harder for people to enter illegally, and to even dissuade people from even trying.

I watched the most recent episode of Question Time on BBC iPlayer today and they had Bonnie Greer on, who is an American-British playwright, novelist, and broadcaster. She gave some insight into the mindset of Americans. To sum it up, she said a lot of Americans haven't been anywhere (as in they haven't travelled outside of the states, or even their immediate area), and that they don't want to go anywhere. She goes on and says the US is between two ocean walls geographically, and a lot of sentiment in the US is about feeling enclosed, protected, and safe; which is what Trump appealed to in his campaign (i.e., reducing immigration, stopping illegals entering, securing the border, tough on crime etc). The US is a country that was founded by people who were escaping from Europe so that they could do their own thing and live their way, protected by their fortress and the ocean walls. To add on to that with my own thoughts: people are welcome to join them legally, on the condition that they can provide some kind of benefit (e.g., in demand skills) to the country and the people already living there. Those who enter illegally are not only breaking US law, but are also not satisfying the cultural requirements to join the country. Putting it this way, it's easy to see why a lot of counties on the US-Mexican border overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

As for the future, who knows what is going to happen, or what further wars and conflicts may arise. I do not think the current immigration system in western countries is sustainable though. Even in the UK, we see poll after poll that says the majority of the public think immigration is and has been too high; it is clearly not something that the majority of people want at the current level.

 

[Dave1988]

Trump definitely ran on a platform of reducing and stopping illegal immigration; he spoke about the sheer numbers that were illegally crossing the border and the fact that some who entered illegally were already criminals. By entering a country illegally, you are already breaking the law of said country.

I'm not sure how popular providing citizenship to people living illegally in the US would be. As I said in a previous comment, legal immigrants have to go through an arduous process to enter the country as an economic migrant, and then a further process to then acquire US citizenship. Handing out citizenship to people who just happened to have jumped over the border would be political suicide in my opinion. Especially considering the shift to the right we have seen in this US election. A policy like that would be a kick in the teeth to those that arrived via the legal route. You'd likely never get their vote again.

I think most reasonable people in the US, and even here in the UK, want a fair and efficient immigration system; where those who have essential skills, and who can benefit the country, economy, and most importantly the citizens, are allowed to come in. I think every country should have the right to decide who it allows in and who it deports. The issue that the US and Europe is facing is that the people entering countries illegally tend to be low-educated and low-skilled individuals that are a net drain on the state financially, which doesn't benefit the individuals themselves (as they end up being exploited in the shadow economy), the governments, nor the citizens of these countries.

If a country has weak borders and absolutely anyone can freely enter illegally, then it is no country at all in my view. You can never totally stop illegal immigration, however, you can make efforts to reduce it and make it harder for people to enter illegally, and to even dissuade people from even trying.

I watched the most recent episode of Question Time on BBC iPlayer today and they had Bonnie Greer on, who is an American-British playwright, novelist, and broadcaster. She gave some insight into the mindset of Americans. To sum it up, she said a lot of Americans haven't been anywhere (as in they haven't travelled outside of the states, or even their immediate area), and that they don't want to go anywhere. She goes on and says the US is between two ocean walls geographically, and a lot of sentiment in the US is about feeling enclosed, protected, and safe; which is what Trump appealed to in his campaign (i.e., reducing immigration, stopping illegals entering, securing the border, tough on crime etc). The US is a country that was founded by people who were escaping from Europe so that they could do their own thing and live their way, protected by their fortress and the ocean walls. To add on to that with my own thoughts: people are welcome to join them legally, on the condition that they can provide some kind of benefit (e.g., in demand skills) to the country and the people already living there. Those who enter illegally are not only breaking US law, but are also not satisfying the cultural requirements to join the country. Putting it this way, it's easy to see why a lot of counties on the US-Mexican border overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

As for the future, who knows what is going to happen, or what further wars and conflicts may arise. I do not think the current immigration system in western countries is sustainable though. Even in the UK, we see poll after poll that says the majority of the public think immigration is and has been too high; it is clearly not something that the majority of people want at the current level.

Its not a labour priority, they have no intrest in it either, they couldnt give two hoots who comes in, look at thay psycho who threatened to come into this country and go after farage, he is now here, a week or two on from that threat, uk is not a safe country, neither is the u.s,most places are like ghettos, look at you strange if you walk through, like it their territory, why is it all these helpless people(who are supposedly escaping war or being gay is a new one now) not going to the closest safest county? Surely if they are escaping war any country will do? Seems they always find themselves in wealthy countries as they know places like uk they strike gold via taxpayers
Its never going to be put "british first" as those in power dont care, as it doesnt affect them, also, why you think hardly any of those people who cross on a dinghy never get kept near those in westminster or posh area? Always get thrown in deprived areas? I have within a 1 mile radius, 8 turkish barbers and probably 10 mini europeon markets, then in few weeks they get raided and drugs found, uk will never be the same as it was 20+years ago, now, its just a free for all no one gets deported, nothing

 

[Vashdaman]

@BrokenPhoenix If you google it you can easily find loads of polls about American attitudes towards immigration, they show a mixed picture but it seems to be the case that support for expanding legal pathways to enter the US is actually fairly high. You say a policy that extents citizenship to people who arrived illegally would feel like a kick in the teeth to those who came legally but not everyone is so hard hearted as to feel that way. Certainly some do, and create hell spawn like the Sunaks and Bravermens and Badenochs of the world who want to pull the ladder up after them, but not every immigrant family are such twats. People who enter countries illegally in pursuit of a better life usually go through way more toil and hell than anyone and do still contribute to society, even if you only view them (and even legal low-skilled workers, it seems) as a drain. I think people with low-skills, and even no skills, can still contribute a huge amount to society if we could provide a a welcoming environment where they could be allowed and helped to become more skilled and to flourish. A hostile environment is the thing that is clearly a drain, we all lose.

Anyway, I disagree with everything you wrote in that post so I won't go through every single point. But crucially I think the idea you have about how simple and straight forward it is to deter and prevent immigration is pure fantasy. What further deterrents would you actually like to see implemented? What country do you think is successful in this regard? And unfortunately we do know what will happen in the future, irrespective of wars. Climate change will guarantee an influx of immigration Phoenix, and if you think it's bad now just give it a few more years. People like you and @Dave1988 are going to have to eventually come to terms with this, it's an inescapable reality

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

@BrokenPhoenix If you google it you can easily find loads of polls about American attitudes towards immigration, they show a mixed picture but it seems to be the case that support for expanding legal pathways to enter the US is actually fairly high. You say a policy that extents citizenship to people who arrived illegally would feel like a kick in the teeth to those who came legally but not everyone is so hard hearted as to feel that way. Certainly some do, and create hell spawn like the Sunaks and Bravermens and Badenochs of the world who want to pull the ladder up after them, but not every immigrant family are such twats. People who enter countries illegally in pursuit of a better life usually go through way more toil and hell than anyone and do still contribute to society, even if you only view them (and even legal low-skilled workers, it seems) as a drain. I think people with low-skills, and even no skills, can still contribute a huge amount to society if we could provide a a welcoming environment where they could be allowed and helped to become more skilled and to flourish. A hostile environment is the thing that is clearly a drain, we all lose.

Anyway, I disagree with everything you wrote in that post so I won't go through every single point. But crucially I think the idea you have about how simple and straight forward it is to deter and prevent immigration is pure fantasy. What further deterrents would you actually like to see implemented? What country do you think is successful in this regard? And unfortunately we do know what will happen in the future, irrespective of wars. Climate change will guarantee an influx of immigration Phoenix, and if you think it's bad now just give it a few more years. People like you and @Dave1988 are going to have to eventually come to terms with this, it's an inescapable reality

Yes, creating a more efficient system for people to acquire citizenship and to make the legal route more accessible is a good thing. However, this proposition is different from awarding citizenship to people who broke US law by hopping over the US-Mexican border illegally. I would imagine making it easier for skilled individuals to enter legally and acquire citizenship would be quite a popular idea with the US population, because in that scenario the skilled migrant benefits (i.e., they get to enter the country) and so does the country (i.e., they gain a skilled individual that is a net benefit to the country). What I think wouldn't be as popular is giving citizenship to those who had essentially skipped the queue, so to speak, by crossing the border illegally. In those situations, it would be a kick in the teeth to those that had gone through the legal means.

A government must weigh up the cost and benefit of large numbers of unskilled individuals entering the country, especially ones that enter illegally. For example, low-skilled workers (migrant or not) are a net fiscal drain on the taxpayer, meaning that the state pays out more to them than they pay back. Too many low-skilled workers and the government is suddenly spending a lot more money and will thus have less money to spend in other areas. We can't completely control the number of low-skilled workers within the British population already here, but the government can control the number of low-skilled workers we allow in through our immigration system.

The trouble is, we already have a lot of low-skilled people in our population already, many who cannot find consistent work or no work at all. Adding more to the population via the immigration system drives down wages and increases competition for jobs for the poorest in our society. The only people who benefit from high levels of immigration are big business.

I didn't say that stopping or reducing illegal immigration is simple. Like with any political issue, its solutions will be complicated. However, one case study that comes to mind is Australia. They had an issue with boat crossings, similar to what we're dealing with in the UK. Between July 2012 and July 2013, Australia saw around 25,000 people arrive by boat. By 2015, this number had been reduced to 0.

How did Australia do that? Well, the government at the time introduced a law that stated those who arrived by boat would not be allowed to settle in Australia. This immediately deterred people from trying to cross into Australia via boat crossings. They also set up agreements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru, if people did arrive by boat, then they would be sent to these countries where their asylum appeals would be heard. Further, the Australian navy also began to return people trying to cross into Australian waters via boat crossings. With these measures in place, those trying to cross realised they wouldn't get anywhere and the number of people attempting to cross dropped dramatically. Australia has shown that it can be done, if there is the political will for it.

I am aware of the possibilities of huge migration because of climate change and other natural disasters that may occur. I am worried about it and I genuinely hope that I am dead before it becomes really bad. The country can barely cope today, even further levels of migration due to climate change or natural disasters in the future will mean our infrastructure and public services collapsing.

Don't mischaracterise me, I have no issue with immigration or immigrants themselves (I am the descendant of immigrants) when it is done fairly, robustly, effectively, and most importantly, legally. Any modern country needs a certain level of immigration, but it has to be the kind of immigration that benefits the country and her citizens. My grandfather on my father's side fought in the second world war for the Polish army and after the war, was invited by the United Kingdom to help rebuild the country. However, what we're seeing in 2024 and recently, is unprecedented levels of mass-immigration (large parts of which are resulting in a net drain on the British taxpayer) and an asylum seeker system that isn't fit for purpose. I would love to help everyone in need; but a government's number one priority should be toward its citizens.

Ultimately, it is the failures of the Democratic party in the US and their inability to listen to the concerns of ordinary people that has led to a man like Trump winning a second-term in the White House. Discussion on these topics has become too divisive; you are either for open-borders or no immigration at all, we have lost all nuance. I think my position is clear on this topic: we need an immigration system that is effective at selecting migrants that are more beneficial for our economy and society. We also need an asylum system that isn't abused by small boat crossings. We should also be accepting genuine asylum seekers that are fleeing horrible situations, and providing them with asylum, of course. However, we also need an efficient asylum system that weeds out the fakes quicker so they can be removed and deported.