I'm a bit hesitant to post this, but it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and of wanting a clearer understanding of the situation. Because trying to make sense of things through online resources feels like a minefield. My gut tells me that migration is a good thing, but I want some solid ammunition for when far-right idiots try to argue.
Firstly it seems like there is a large amount of conflation between 'immigration', 'illegal immigration' and 'asylum seekers'. As far as I understand it, asylum seekers are coming into this country legally in order to apply for asylum. However, a lot come in via small boats which is an illegal method of entry. It seems that there are very few legal ways to enter if you're an asylum seeker. Once you're here though, I think it's legal once you're going through the asylum process? Either way as far as I can tell, asylum seekers make for a small portion of the overall number of immigrants. But when you see people protesting, they mainly seem to be concerned by people coming in via boats. Surely it's fair greater number of legal migrants that are the ones more likely to put a strain on infrastructure?
And yes there definitely are strains on the NHS and other public services. The population is growing, and these services need to grow alongside that. But isn't it more sensible to say that the fault lies not with migrants, but the fact that these services are being mismanaged and underfunded?
I've also heard that the UK has an ageing population. Without immigration we soon won't have the workforce necessary to support the non-working portion of the population.
So is there actually an issue with immigration, or do the people that argue that case actually have it backwards? Is the problem actually our underfunded services, and the whole immigration rhetoric purely populist nonsense to get the far-right in power (who in turn, aim to give tax breaks to the rich and exacerbate the issue even further)?
And where exactly can I go to get factual information about this sort of thing?
Basically nowhere. Meaning you can get numbers, but even those are under "don't trust statistics you haven't falsified yourself".
Everyone is working with different sets of assumptions and morals and rules.
There is a tldr at the end.
One economic angle is that "we need immigration" because of jobs. However it's undeniable that any amount of workers, be they "home grown" or immigrants, always increase the supply of labor and therefore drive down the price that people can negotiate. So, naturally, everyone who wants to employ people for cheap or weaken union negotiation leverage will want immigration.
The same economic angle from the other side is that "we need immigration", because there are a number of jobs where not enough people are applying and working and the economy and society as a whole does depend on that work being done.
One option is to not allow immigration, let prices rise, which will price out some people out of some services (like elderly care), but will also raise the standard of living for the workers working those jobs.
The other option is to allow immigration, keep prices low and affordable, but also implicitly exploits people doing the work and keeps them with less negotiation power.
Which is which, is up to you.
Then there is the moral / integration angle.
On the one hand, taking people in, when they need help is good. That's the basis for the Asylum system.
On the other hand, what actually is the limit of taking people in? Is it 10.000 per year or is it 100.000.000? Clearly some limit does exist, but who sets it?
To use a totally overblown scenario: the government could force people to shelter migrants in their own homes, use bunkbeds and recreate conditions that existed during the industrialization. For some asylum seekers, that would still be an improvement to being persecuted in their countries of origin. But obviously everyone who likes NOT having bunk beds of strangers in their living room, wouldn't like it. In an abstract sense, they would still have a moral obligation to help, but it's difficult to stand by that if it's about people's living rooms.
Some people may say, less than 5 people per living room still leaves plenty of space, for others even 1 is too much. The "limit" is subjective.
And the rest is more or less that issue, although it's not literally about people's living rooms:
I'm leaving out a huge chunk about culture, but that's also equally subjective.
It's a problem, because people feel it is a problem and because they voice that. If it's a "fake concern", but "real outrage", the outrage is still a problem for the country, even though the motivation may be nonsense.
It doesn't have to be rational.
There may not be a solution that's acceptable to everyone. If so, how much forcing which perspective is acceptable?