I asked for an argument against current levels of immigration that was neither based primarily on economic considerations nor racist/xenophobic. I really don't think there is any such argument. Unless you're really saying that people are opposed to immigration because they're worried about houses being built on the greenbelt.
Overcrowding of the country is a valid concern, for more than purely economic reasons, the south east is one of the nost densely populated parts of Europe already.
As I say, if you want to see racism everywhere, and if you presume that the economic arguments are all won then fine, you just carry on shouting everyone down as mad and racist, and watch as your political viewpoints fail to gain traction over and over again.
Again, I'm not really here to argue the merits of Brexit or Trump, I voted for neither. But I am taking great delight in the frustration of those who hector, judge and shut down all discussion, shouting loudly about virtue while in fact practising all the bigotry they claim to despise.
Ah yes, "overcrowded". Like the posh restaurant that’s “fully booked”, or the country club that’s “not accepting any new members at the moment”.
If people were really worried about overcrowding, they’d be advocating for a one child per couple policy, not trying to reduce already rather moderate migration figures.
Now that is some fucked up thinking. Deeply fucked up.
Firstly, natural population growth in the UK is at around 150k per year, under half the net migration figure. Secondly, are you kidding me? People should favour continuing migration pver having their own children?
The 300k net migration figure is bogus, as I already explained. The effect of natural population growth and immigration on the size of the population is roughly equal (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...), and natural population growth could be cut much more than immigration. You're illustrating perfectly that people don't really care about "overcrowding" at all. If they did, they wouldn't find the idea of limiting natural population growth outrageous. My reference to a one child policy was hyperbolic, but more funding for family planning would probably do the job.
Family planning, to allow people to choose, is a far, far different proposition from the one you put forward.
In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers.
It's a position almost beyond parody and so far out of touch with human wants and needs. I repeat - are you human?
Your figures are interesting but not conclusive, over half of population growth between 1991 and 2014 was due to migration. The latter years of that period saw far higher rates than the early and middle years, and it continues to be over 300k pa, according to the ONS.
Regardless, I'll say again, you're not talking to a die hard brexiter or Trump supporter. I voted to stay in the EU, for a start.
You're talking to someone who thinks that the bigotry of calling anyone that disagrees with you a racist is political poison, and that it will continue to set back progressive politics.
>In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers.
I don't want to limit population growth in the first place. You're the one who was suggesting that it's a problem.
But someone who really did want to limit population growth would obviously be interested in policies that would reduce the number of births. So, at minimum, they'd support lots of extra funding for teen sex education and family planning, since a significant number of births are unplanned. But of course we don't hear a peep about that -- only about immigration.
"Changing the face of the country" just means "there are too many brown people and foreigners here".