Chomsky on Trump

[french frank]

I’m not sure anyone knows what is exactly going on with all this. It could equally be said that migrants, being younger have younger larger families and thereby put far more pressure on schools and the education budget. Whereas older permanent residents put no pressure on this £85 billion area of the public purse. Migrants are also generally in lower income jobs and will not pay enough tax to cover their costs in education and the NHS usage, if they have children of school age - apparently a £30 salary is the threshold

It is very complex. But it's not correct to generalise and say migrants are generally in lower paid jobs; and they don't necessarily bring families with them.

We have an ageing population, at the stage where they take far more from the state than they contribute: younger people are needed to support them, and in the absence of 'natives', migrants should be welcomed. The studies that have been done, in any case, show that the state across the board benefits economically - and that includes calculations of services used and taxes paid.

There are different studies with different findings so arriving at definite statistics is virtually impossible, but what does seem reliable is:

"Immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits and other state assistance, on average. That’s based on research analysing the years from 2001 to 2011 [the main expansion of the EU came in 2004 and 2007].

"For those from the EU the picture was most positive: they were estimated to have contributed £1.34 for every £1 they took out. This what the headline claim refers to."

[Serial_Apologist]

Those younger immigrants working in the services essential to the health and welfare of the elderly are generally on salaries which are income taxed - and they would possibly be taxed more were they paid the sorts of rates we most of us think are deserved by all employees in the NHS and care services!

[Lat-Literal]

It is very complex. But it's not correct to generalise and say migrants are generally in lower paid jobs; and they don't necessarily bring families with them.

We have an ageing population, at the stage where they take far more from the state than they contribute: younger people are needed to support them, and in the absence of 'natives', migrants should be welcomed. The studies that have been done, in any case, show that the state across the board benefits economically - and that includes calculations of services used and taxes paid.

There are different studies with different findings so arriving at definite statistics is virtually impossible, but what does seem reliable is:

"Immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits and other state assistance, on average. That’s based on research analysing the years from 2001 to 2011 [the main expansion of the EU came in 2004 and 2007].

"For those from the EU the picture was most positive: they were estimated to have contributed £1.34 for every £1 they took out. This what the headline claim refers to."

Yes - it is not correct to say that migrants are generally in lower paid jobs and they bring families with them. However, no one apart from some UKIP and some Conservative voters would argue against immigration. Teresa May as Home Secretary did very little to address the numbers of non EU immigrants who are very slightly the majority of immigrants presumably because she considers that they are not a bad thing. Boris Johnson is of a similar view but often avoids the question. Vince Cable is right on this matter. Freedom of Movement in a scenario where it is not regarded as right to send people home after three months isn't logical or sustainable. A fair immigration policy - fair to current citizens and especially fair to migrants themselves - is one that sets a pace which enables assimilation. I think we had that situation before Blair, Straw and Cook pushed for EU expansion after which the EU immigration figure per annum multiplied ten times. On the returns, I am not wholly impressed by £1.34 coming in for every £1.00 taken out. For example, I think my parents qualified for child benefit when I reached the age of 15 or 16. That was a part of the slippery slope in which wealthy employers could reduce wages time and again on the grounds that taxpayers would pay the rest of it. Ditto housing allowances some of which make the mind boggle. It lets the very rich off the hook and it weakens the welfare state.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-its-time-end-eu-free-movement

[P. G. Tipps]

Listening to David Davis in Parliament today I cannot understand how he was allowed to get away with repeatedly saying that the 'experts' were completely wrong by what would happen to the economy if the country voted to leave the EU. Talk about an 'alternative fact'!

SOLID FACT: The pound has slumped around 15% in value since the Referendum and was already sliding in the first six months of last year at the very prospect of Brexit, so the true slump is probably nearer 20%. Major companies in both manufacturing and finance have already said they are making plans to move at least some of their UK jobs to the Continent. When this was gently pointed out to Davis he mentioned McDONALDS and GOOGLE were actually talking about increasing jobs in the UK.

So much for all those higher-paid jobs to replace the low-paid ones (all caused by immigrants of course!) promised by the Brexiteers ... and, remember, we haven't even left the EU yet!

The Brexiteers in Government seem to be continuing the type of dreamy fantasy that promised the nation an extra £350m-a-week for the NHS?

Yet HM's Official Opposition has all but capitulated to the 'will of the people' bullying by Tory MPs and the media seems to have conveniently forgotten about those pre-referendum promises. The thoroughly admirable and brave Gina Miller won her court case today despite death threats and other horrible abuse, our judges have been called 'enemies of the people', and one Remain MP was even brutally murdered by a right-wing maniac with memories of that atrocity apparently just petering out.

Deeply worrying times for every honest and decent person in the UK whatever their political views, imv ...

[Sir Velo]

It is very complex. But it's not correct to generalise and say migrants are generally in lower paid jobs; and they don't necessarily bring families with them.

We have an ageing population, at the stage where they take far more from the state than they contribute: younger people are needed to support them, and in the absence of 'natives', migrants should be welcomed. "

Even assuming that all migrants pay their fair quotient of tax and are net contributors to UK Plc which has to be open to doubt to say the least, that view fails to take any consideration of the impact migration has on the housing shortage, the continued erosion of the green belt, integration with the rest of the community and many other issues too numerous to enumerate here!

[Serial_Apologist]

Even assuming that all migrants pay their fair quotient of tax and are net contributors to UK Plc which has to be open to doubt to say the least,

What evidence can you present to support your doubt?

that view fails to take any consideration of the impact migration has on the housing shortage,

Not the fault of immigrants but of the way the housing market is set up.

the continued erosion of the green belt,

...a matter of efficient planning, conservation, and use of brownfield sites and the innumerable properties left empty by councils, but mainly absentee landlords.

integration with the rest of the community and many other issues too numerous to enumerate here!

...a matter of central government allocating the funds needed for their integration, rather than leaving it all up to local authorities to take the flak.

[french frank]

Even assuming that all migrants pay their fair quotient of tax and are net contributors to UK Plc which has to be open to doubt to say the least, that view fails to take any consideration of the impact migration has on the housing shortage, the continued erosion of the green belt, integration with the rest of the community and many other issues too numerous to enumerate here!

Surely, it does? The housing shortage and underfunding of the NHS have not been caused by immigration.

The break-up of marriages and consequent 'new' families is one explanation for the need for new housing, plus the number of students leaving home to study and preferring to live in private accommodation. And the 'native' (hate this concept) population is increasing - but people are living much longer. And standards expected of accommodation have risen, so people don't put up with overcrowding. You may have alternative facts on the economics of migration where it comes to the economy?

But attitudes are strange: among those who voted to leave in large numbers, relatively, were the South Asians. Why?

"For months before the referendum, everyone I spoke to in Newham – the local grocer; the Asian barbers; the chicken shop employees; the restaurants owners; estate agents; the underpaid workers; the tax-avoiding shop owners – supported Brexit. The arguments were the same: the rent prices, the NHS, the benefit cuts. The blame: immigration. More than this, there was the hope that once European migration stops, migration from South Asian countries can restart."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/11/03/why-did-south-asians-vote-for-brexit/

The argument is perceived to be that the underfunding - for the NHS or welfare - is because immigrants are a drain. Yet, according to this article (and it isn't scientifically researched) it was the older Asians who were most like to be pro-Brexit (even though they were more likely to become, progressively, more of a drain); younger, first generation contributors were pro-Remain.

[Serial_Apologist]

But attitudes are strange: among those who voted to leave in large numbers, relatively, were the South Asians. Why?

"For months before the referendum, everyone I spoke to in Newham – the local grocer; the Asian barbers; the chicken shop employees; the restaurants owners; estate agents; the underpaid workers; the tax-avoiding shop owners – supported Brexit. The arguments were the same: the rent prices, the NHS, the benefit cuts. The blame: immigration. More than this, there was the hope that once European migration stops, migration from South Asian countries can restart."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/11/03/why-did-south-asians-vote-for-brexit/

Unlike the Windrush generation of the late 1940s/50s, the Asian immigrants who succeeded them were courted by the establishment, whose colonialist forbears had encountered an already thriving entrepreneurial trading culture when usurping the Indian subcontinent that would be handed down. Britain had used the Asians whose descendents were chucked out of Uganda by Amin for their administrative knowhow; most of the mainstream tabloids championed the incomers as hardworking, whether in the declining textile mills of Lancashire, qualifying in medecine or the law, or setting up grocery stores. Only the extreme right claimed, mendaciously as it happened, that immigrant numbers were exceeding those leaving the UK in the 1970s. What was noteworthy to those joining the Anti-Nazi League to combat the National Front was the relative acquiescence of the Asian community to fascist attacks (Paki bashing) on their communities, mosques etc., at any rate up until the police killing of Blair Peach in Southall in '77. Of the ethnic minorities it was the Asians who strongly supported Labour, but it was the right wing of the Labour Party that got the plaudits, not the left, perceived as we were to be non-commital on the question of family values, for which Labour, like conservatives in society in common, extolled the example to the British Way of Life of how Muslims raised their children to be obedient and hard-working. One only has to look at present-day Newham to see how this Asian in part right wing takeover of the labour Party under Kinnock and Blair has fared.

In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that much of that once-extolled sector of the Asian community should take up a similar pull-up-the-drawbridge attitude to followers on to that of much of the white indigenous population, and now look down on those of Eastern European origin taking the low-skilled, low-paid jobs.

[jean]

"...there was the hope that once European migration stops, migration from South Asian countries can restart."...

A very specific hope there, as Indian/Bangladeshi restaurateurs find it more and more difficult to bring in chefs from the subcontinent.

[Lat-Literal]

But attitudes are strange: among those who voted to leave in large numbers, relatively, were the South Asians. Why?

Brexit is predominantly an English phenomenon. That awful phrase "Full English Brexit" underpins it. It is predominantly English with much of what that entails. That is to say it isn't necessarily a white English phenomenon. Anecdotally, I detected two clear strands of Brexit support. One, white Brexiteers I knew were people who had rarely travelled outside Britain, who rarely wished to travel outside Britain and who had very few cultural interests outside Britain unless that culture was American. Two, there were other people who had settled in England or were the offspring or grandchildren of those who had settled in Britain. The ones I spoke with were often in two minds. But there was in some a small/medium scale entrepreneurial way which veered towards conservative economics. There was a sense of unease about the prospect of extensive immigration from Europe leading to negative attitudes towards themselves. In some cases the latter had a Muslim dimension - that is, some Hindus etc felt concerned about the possibility of more Muslims coming from Europe.

I think too that in many ways, the Indian etc Brexit vote is a testament to the extent that immigration has been a success. People felt strong enough to say that they were worried for "our" country every bit as much as white Brexit supporters. Plus as Vince Cable points out, there was a feeling among some that EU immigration policy favoured Europeans over members of their families so there were also personal gains to be made by a change. The complex mixture of a strong sense of assimilation/patriotism and uncertainty/worry was not necessarily just among voters. I undertook an exercise in which I listed the most well known 30 or so Brexit MPs and in all but two cases they were not as English by long-term background as I am, ie they or at least one of their parents or grandparents had been immigrants themselves or originated in Scotland or Northern Ireland even though the MP himself/herself was what might be described as overtly English. As someone who voted to Remain, I was fascinated by that discovery of their personal/nationalistic re-enforcement.

(Incidentally, I would say that many English West Indians not always knowingly perceive themselves in cultural terms as International First, hence the stronger Remain vote there)

[Conchis]

After his disastrous (in media terms) first weekend in office, people are talking optimistically about Trump's probable removal in eighteen months' time, if not before. The logic is that the Republicans will use him to secure tax cuts and environmental deregulation, then ditch him when he crashes and burns in the mid-term elections.

This is worrying: it probably means this time next year, he'll have a 60% approval rating and be re-elected in 2020.

[ahinton]

After his disastrous (in media terms) first weekend in office, people are talking optimistically about Trump's probable removal in eighteen months' time, if not before. The logic is that the Republicans will use him to secure tax cuts and environmental deregulation, then ditch him when he crashes and burns in the mid-term elections.

This is worrying: it probably means this time next year, he'll have a 60% approval rating and be re-elected in 2020.

Maybe, but do you really fear that such issues might all happen quite so slowly?

Anyway, I'm waiting (albeit not with baited breath) for Trumsky on Chomp.

Coat's on already...

[teamsaint]

On which this article is interesting, published in 2012:

"Problem No. 1

It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This is more than a theoretical possibility.[] It has happened at least four times out of the 56 presidential elections, or more than 7 percent of the time, which is not such a small percentage, and it created a hideous mess every time. The most recent occurrence was 2000."

In the EU referendum, the question of franchise was the subject of objections, on at least three different counts, before the vote took place - not to mention the constitutional status of the referendum - on which the government has again lost on one count.

Of course FPTP and the electoral college both carry a disincentive to vote ,for supporters of a party that is almost certain to win in a particular constituency , so the national vote can't really be relied upon to give a true indication of preference.

and that is before, well, you know......

[aeolium]

Even assuming that all migrants pay their fair quotient of tax and are net contributors to UK Plc which has to be open to doubt to say the least, that view fails to take any consideration of the impact migration has on the housing shortage, the continued erosion of the green belt, integration with the rest of the community and many other issues too numerous to enumerate here!

Precisely, as well as the impossibility of planning for public infrastructure when the numbers arriving, and their destination, are unpredictable - as was shown in the post-2004 period where the government hopelessly underestimated the numbers. And it doesn't take into consideration the denuding of skilled labour from poorer countries which desperately need it. It does beg the question why unrestricted immigration is to be preferred to controlled immigration which operates in most countries in the world.

To me the EU now represents the realisation of several paradoxical self-inflicted wounds. Free movement which was in part intended to bring the peoples of Europe together has brought division among many of those peoples. Open borders has brought insecurity. Monetary union which was intended to bring the economies of the different countries closer together has intensified the differences, as well as bringing high unemployment, stagnant growth and crushing public debt to the south. Though ostensibly a promoter of democracy, the EU in reality negates democratic pluralism in its own institutions: no popular democratic vote can either remove its executive or fundamentally alter the nature of policy, in contrast with what can happen in nation-states. And political union, which still remains the stated ultimate objective of the EU, could only conceivably result in nationalist and populist upheavals compared with which the current populism would seem like a breeze. And perhaps the final paradox is that the defacto hegemon in an organisation originally created in part to prevent the future hegemony of Germany in Europe, is - Germany.

[french frank]

To me the EU now represents the realisation of several paradoxical self-inflicted wounds …

All well argued points, though it's not clear whether you see a return to smaller, individual states as the desirable alternative - a scramble to the top (with Germany, as likely as not, still at the top). The poorer states of Europe were not (economically) impoverished in the first place by joining the EU, and competition with stronger states won't benefit them.

As for the EU's particular democratic deficit: I'm not sure that it's less democratic than the 'plurality' of the UK's system of democracy in which a succession of minorities change the government (though only to switch from A to B and B to A most of the time). Or a narrow majority losing an election, if you're speaking of the 'popular vote'.

But there's never much one can do, seemingly, about hatred of 'the other'. Except give in to the people of violence, however unjust that may be. Give them what they want.