Hey, seriousness follows.

I was reading the Economist's special briefing on the upcoming election, and I skim over the section about immigration, which reminded me of a rant I wanted to do a while ago. And here's the thrust.

Is there ONE decent reason why their should ever be any limits on immigration?

One, if people are seeking asylum, why should there be any limit to the numbers we can accept, as a developed country that cares about the well-being of people in poorer, tougher or criminal states. Two, if people want to come to our country to work, then the more the merrier. Three, if, as the more conservative papers would have us believe, there are people coming into the country to "sponge" of our welfare state, then surely it's not just immigrants that are doing it but the natives as well, and so that is the "fault" of the social security system.

To my mind, a well designed social security system provides a decent standard of living for those who for whatever reason could never earn much because they can not contribute much to society (or are not able to, or are not given the chance to) WHILE not giving disincentives for those who are more able or productive to contribute to our society. It should be an insurance against misfortune, where the risk is borne entirely by the state, who can afford to, not the individual, who can not. That way, everyone is better off.

Now, if their are individuals who are coming to the country just for our welfare state, why are they any different to the natives in terms of choosing to work or not? Why would they react differently to the options this country presents? The only reasonable conclusion is that they are like those not working in the UK that they can either not find work, or have little to offer in terms of productive ability, in which case they are better off just taking social security. And these people must move because wherever they are from, we provide for the worse off better than all the other countries they could live in. We are very good at charity, as the Tsunami appeals showed, but somehow it seems we are only OK with sending money and aid, not helping people have better lives for daring to ask to live amongst us like they are the same.

So what actually happens? Asylum seekers may be turned away for fear they may be bogus, and those that are allowed in struggle to find work, or aren't allowed to work, so they have to rely on state help (the little there is) to survive. Still, near starvation is so much better than political or religious persecution, so they should be thankful, right? People resort to desperate tactics to sneak past borders because they can't make it in through legal channels because we're clamping down. And we treat these people like criminals, rather than the victims. If everyone who wanted to come to Britain could come to Britian, there would be no people smuggling, not trafficking, not senseless deaths and exploitation of women and children desperate to leave their homeland and get into a place they think may look after them better. All there would be is a chance for people to make a better life for themselves.

Which brings me to my final point. Why is there such a thing as looking after your own first? I think, correct me but I think, that we all one people inhabiting one planet and because of that no-one has the right to claim someone deserves a different shot at life simply because they were born somewhere else. They don't just have to accept that. We don't just have to accept it. Looking after our own is fucking EVERYONE.