-
It is jarring that Labour is a party that has a problem with immigration.
Do they? (Genuine question)
Also I think your moral case is less clear cut than you think and based on a number of presuppositions - such as the importance of that disadvantage; An Austrian banker is disadvantaged by the very limited local employment opportunities compared to London due to their place of birth - to what extent should we give a fuck about that inequality?
or - the resolution to that inequity; why is relocation of the able motivated individual to a more wealthy country the acceptable solution? Or is the logic that if you flood wealthy countries with poor people from outside they will resolve the disparity?Personally I am very pro-immigration. But that has probably been hugely shaped by any numbers of life factors such as being descended from immigrants on one side, growing up in London, exposure to foreigners through friends/family/studies, and no doubt random superficial things like semi-consciously thinking mixed societies end up with more attractive people.
You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hugo7
Sorry, I've just re-read that article and it is a lot more accelerationist than I remembered it being. I agree that framing FOM exclusively on a left/right-wing basis is foolish, but the moral case for FOM should be clear: all people are of equal worth, but people are economically and socially disadvantaged because of where they are born. It is jarring that Labour is a party that has a problem with immigration.