Because some of the worsening life conditions are caused by migration. On other fronts it may provide a benefit but people need to get their head out of their ass if they don't think some qualms are legitimate.

▲

Timon3 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To what degree? I'm sure migration is statistically responsible for some percentage of worsening life conditions, but I doubt it's the biggest cause for anything specific getting worse. The far bigger cause is the ever-increasing inequality and subsequent extraction by the powerful.

If migration is responsible for 5% of an issue, and other causes are responsible for 95%, it's far too easy to make the population imagine the numbers are swapped.

▲

nothercastle 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Migrants are always an issue when the pie shrinks. You bring them in when the pie is growing but during contraction it goes the other way.

	▲	Timon3 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Since migrants aren't a major cause of the shrinking pie, this doesn't really help. It can actually hurt, since the pie can start shrinking faster.

▲

zahlman 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Inequality" cannot reasonably be blamed for Rotherham or any other similar situations; it cannot be blamed for the findings of Lowe's report; it cannot be blamed for any of the video evidence recently surfacing of clear two-tier policing.

Rounding things off to "migration" is ignoring the state's role in all of this, deliberately, in order to present complainants as racist.

	▲	Timon3 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But you can be reasonably blamed for relentlessly bringing up anecdotes, without engaging with the words of others. If you feel attacked by the word "migration", take it up with modo_mario.

▲

tsss 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

20% of the whole population are immigrants. In the big cities, where problems are worst, it is far higher than that.

	▲	Timon3 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I can't respond to your point about problems in big cities, since you don't specify what they are, but rural areas have a whole host of problems that cities don't face, so I'm gonna need more than a vague assertion. Though it still won't help your argument, because 1) correlation != causation, and 2) there are literally thousands of comparable correlations, so why is it immigrants, and not any of the others?

▲

panick21_ 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except that most evidence points against that. The people who don't live next to immigrants are generally much more angry then those that do. And the general places where people are angry about living conditions are former industrial economic heartland that have de-industrialized for reasons that have literally zero to do immigration.

Even in Japan people claim immigrants are the problem even if they are a group that barley exists at all.

▲

gadders 12 hours ago | parent [-]

>> The people who don't live next to immigrants are generally much more angry then those that do.

Lol. Ask people in Crowborough and Piddington if that's true.

▲

panick21_ 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Using individual example instead of overall statistics is an indication that you are not actually seriously engaging with the topic.

Individual examples are results of specific circumstances and not indication of a universal trend.

▲

zahlman 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How come you get to argue by assertion but your opponents don't?

▲

gadders 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They very much are.

	▲	Timon3 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are literally millions of examples against your position.