Cummings says the UK has “completely uncontrolled immigration”, which is not true. There are a bunch of ways the UK government is effectively controlling immigration right now.
You call it a “nondiscretionary immigration policy”, which is also not true. Only ¼ of immigrants came through channels where the UK doesn’t have discretion over (e.g. through international treaties).
If you think something the UK immigration policy is wrong or not properly enforced, why don’t you point to the specific thing that you think is going badly. It’s true that most of the public dislikes immigration for various and sometimes fuzzy reasons, but I listen to your podcast because I believe that you and your podcast guests can do better.
The amount of legal migrants entering the country will from now on be capped at 1% of the native birth rate each year. This includes all sources: skilled migration, intl. athletes, asylum seekers, spouses, etc. That’s 5,947 per year at current birth rates.
Accept no illegal entries at all, ever. Not a single one. Not their children. None. They should stay and try to reform their countries. Contrary to popular opinion, illegal entries are not as big a problem as they appear.
Stop destabilizing the countries which the migrants are coming from. No more bayoneting Gadaffi in his asshole. No more support for Al Qaeda in Syria. Ditch Israel as an ally. Stop sanctioning Venezuela. Ruthlessly and publicly shame all neoconservative people in government and their think tanks.
A large amount of what needs to happen is cultural and spiritual. The people love to blame government and business but rarely hold up a mirror to themselves. We have become vain, shallow people who just parrot what the talking heads say on the idiot box. We need to make reading non-fiction cool again.
Yup, this is a classic "Mott & Bailey" tactic. It's also Jordan Petersons one trick, make a broad, sweeping statement that establishes the ideology but cannot be defended, then when pressed, retreat to the fortified interior of a singular argument which can only defend part (if any) of the original claim. Unfortunately, it works really well with charismatic, pushy debaters, and especially in our informational sound-bite economy - open with the clip of the broad statement, then cut to the one tiny piece of it they successfully defend later in the debate.
If you want to see it get brutally dissected, watch Jordan Peterson on "Jubilee".
Dominic Cummings being a paragon of truth and pushing business leaders to form a truth platform is certainly a take
Cummings says the UK has “completely uncontrolled immigration”, which is not true. There are a bunch of ways the UK government is effectively controlling immigration right now.
You call it a “nondiscretionary immigration policy”, which is also not true. Only ¼ of immigrants came through channels where the UK doesn’t have discretion over (e.g. through international treaties).
If you think something the UK immigration policy is wrong or not properly enforced, why don’t you point to the specific thing that you think is going badly. It’s true that most of the public dislikes immigration for various and sometimes fuzzy reasons, but I listen to your podcast because I believe that you and your podcast guests can do better.
Three things:
The amount of legal migrants entering the country will from now on be capped at 1% of the native birth rate each year. This includes all sources: skilled migration, intl. athletes, asylum seekers, spouses, etc. That’s 5,947 per year at current birth rates.
Accept no illegal entries at all, ever. Not a single one. Not their children. None. They should stay and try to reform their countries. Contrary to popular opinion, illegal entries are not as big a problem as they appear.
Stop destabilizing the countries which the migrants are coming from. No more bayoneting Gadaffi in his asshole. No more support for Al Qaeda in Syria. Ditch Israel as an ally. Stop sanctioning Venezuela. Ruthlessly and publicly shame all neoconservative people in government and their think tanks.
A large amount of what needs to happen is cultural and spiritual. The people love to blame government and business but rarely hold up a mirror to themselves. We have become vain, shallow people who just parrot what the talking heads say on the idiot box. We need to make reading non-fiction cool again.
As always, start with the man in the mirror.
Yup, this is a classic "Mott & Bailey" tactic. It's also Jordan Petersons one trick, make a broad, sweeping statement that establishes the ideology but cannot be defended, then when pressed, retreat to the fortified interior of a singular argument which can only defend part (if any) of the original claim. Unfortunately, it works really well with charismatic, pushy debaters, and especially in our informational sound-bite economy - open with the clip of the broad statement, then cut to the one tiny piece of it they successfully defend later in the debate.
If you want to see it get brutally dissected, watch Jordan Peterson on "Jubilee".
Really? Ppl still giving him a mic??
I’m so tired of these people and their microphones.