I'm not claiming to have answers, other than education on the matter for the populace at large, as it's undeniable that many people just aren't that familiar with immigration, past the headlines. Even I'm just a reasonably-informed layperson on the matter with a cynical stripe when it comes to policy, which I don't think is unhealthy given the last fifteen years
As I've said, immigration is a complex problem and simple answers like caps etc just aren't serious solutions to it. I'm not picking on you specifically Jimmy, I'm really not, but you have put out some common ideas on the matter that get floated about, that are relatively straight-forward to critique with fairly common knowledge once you start to look into it - it's nothing more than that.
"Idealistic Solutions are generally unsuccessful" and "Realistic solutions are often unpalatable but generally successful"
I don't really think I've said anything particularly idealistic, maybe it comes across that way - I think I've pointed out where "simple" policies have demonstrably failed here and elsewhere - either practically, or where they would fail when challenged in court if put against international conventions we signed up to, should an organisation like the Law Society or a well funded refugee oriented charity pick it up on someone's behalf, etc. (as Gavster alluded to, without such orgs, the conventions are kinda useless if a Govt wants to try to sidestep them)
The thing is, we've not had realistic solutions in this country (nor have many Western countries during this most recent bout of "I'm A Celebrity" politics) the last twenty odd years we've had a lot of populist rhetoric that plays well in the press and on social media - and a complete lack of responsibility from politicians of most stripes to actually tackle the problem in a serious manner (including how it's presented in the press and disseminated on social media), and that's broadly what has got us where we are today.
The only solution I've really suggested is education on what immigration is and how it works practically and legally (and yes, including abuse of the systems as that's important to quantify if you're going to have a
successful system supported by an informed public), because if people are less knee jerk about it, maybe we can actually
find a realistic solution to the issue.
But the way it is now, that's seems unrealistic as a small, noisy subsection of society (for clarity, no-one on here IMO) have been told that we don't
need immigration, and that immigrants are bad for the last forty years (longer than the populism) and they believe it. And why wouldn't they - both by the press and both sides of the political divide have done this - because it's convenient and easy votes for politicians, and sells newspapers (and these days, gets clicks), for the press.
Untangling that is
another complex problem that I don't really have an answer for either other than, broad 'inform people' suggestions - I dunno, full page ads in the press? Primetime ads? Documentaries? Public Service announcements? Classes in school? But educate and inform we must because otherwise we're going nowhere.
It won't impact the rioters or the people who think we can just stop immigration cold and we'll be back in the 50s (the sort of slightly racist, often retired, typically Conservative or Reform voting type), but for the majority of people who are concerned and want a solution rather than something to rail against - more like us - it'll give a more informed position on the matter, and maybe we can have a chance at finding a decent middle ground at least, without so much rhetoric.
And when we do eventually come up with a realistic solution (which we seemed to have, as Dave!! notes, in the past, before the press got all race baity in earnest, before society seemed to get more divisive with social media, etc) I'm sure that plenty of people will find fault with it, but it's gotta be better than it being used as a political football to get votes - as it it's been used for up till now - with no apparent serious intent to fix
anything.
Maybe that is idealistic. But it seems like a pretty low bar to clear, no?
it inserted a healthy dose of pragmatism into theoretical ideals.
