←back to thread

525 points alex77456 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.351s | source
Show context
motbus3 ◴[] No.45387247[source]
Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants? How big is it compared to, for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine.

Or are those things somehow related? I would be crazily scared to know that immigrant care workers will leave NHS as most hospitals relies on them. The government already made clear they won't pay people more nor will give more benefits for NHS workers and I am quite sure not Brits will take those spots when Tesco express pays more for less hours of work with more benefits.

replies(2): >>45387745 #>>45392143 #
astonex ◴[] No.45387745[source]
>Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants?

This minimises the problem. The UK voters have consistently voted for reduced immigration, with polls showing the preferred number to be somewhere between 0-100,000. Those elected have consistently ignored them which has raised tensions.

In the last few years, the UK had around 1 million people net per year. 1 million people is bigger than most cities in the UK for comparison, so imagine a new city of people, every single year. The infrastructure could not, or did not keep up and has contributed to worse living standards through overly-subscribed national services, increased living costs, etc.

>for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine.

The NHS is already the single biggest expenditure of the UK's taxes. I remember it being more than 25% of the total budget. How much should be spent on the NHS? 50%? 90%?

The cost of defending democracy and freedom from a tyrannical Russia is also barely a drop in the bucket, while having huge meaning for many. Only 2% of the budget for the entire Armed forces, let alone just some support for Ukraine, compared to the 25+% on NHS. It's nothing.

replies(2): >>45389399 #>>45394029 #
benrutter ◴[] No.45389399[source]
I think there's some conflation happening here (not necessarily from the above comment).

Those figures relate to general immigration, which wouldn't be affected by ID schemes since people are given approval by the government to arrive and work in the UK. If the government wanted to reduce regular immigration, it could just decide to award less visas.

The ID scheme would only affect irregular immigration which is much lower (approx 50,000 a year by the governments stats, obviously hard to know how accurate that is, but much lower than 1 million[0]).

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-...

replies(1): >>45395863 #
1. rglynn ◴[] No.45395863[source]
You are absolutely right to point this out. However, I don't think many people in this thread are actually confused. It's rather clear that this scheme has about as much to do with immigration as the Online Safety Act has to do with protecting children. The UK government is just getting more and more bald-faced about these sorts of things.