Hacker News Reader

Comment by modo_mario | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Because there is a VERY clear causal relationship between population increase and increased competition for housing and jobs. You'd have to be blind and deaf not to see that.

"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.

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.

Over here in Belgium the majority of our prison population, ludicrous unemployment/innactivity statistics, rising land/house prices (non linear), etc, etc

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.

>> 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.

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.

They very much are.

There are literally millions of examples against your position.

Yes, that's why Reform, Restore, Conservatives are surging in popularity.

It's funny how you can jump around between ideas, without ever letting the same standards be applied by anyone else. What are you trying to gain out of these discussions?

Because to me, it sure looks like you're only here to spread your agenda, and not to have any meaningful conversations.

It's not "an agenda", it's a policy position.

I'm not sure why you think I'm jumping around between ideas.

Because as soon as someone applies your standards equally, you don't engage with their response, and instead jump to another idea. I don't know how you don't see this, maybe spend some time reading your own comments?

> It's not "an agenda", it's a policy position.

No, it's not a policy position, it's an agenda you push. And it's one I've been seeing you push for months, if not years. You never really engage with critical responses, you just keep jumping to the next idea so you can keep pushing your agenda.

>>Because as soon as someone applies your standards equally, you don't engage with their response, and instead jump to another idea. I don't know how you don't see this, maybe spend some time reading your own comments?

Yeah, ok bro.

>>No, it's not a policy position, it's an agenda you push.

I'm not sure how you define the difference. Is it an agenda if you disagree with it?

It is an agenda when you show zero interest in actually discussing the arguments for your policy position. You just jump to the next argument, because you're here to advertise your policy position.

Doubly so when every argument you regurgitate boils down to the exact same talking points being disseminated through far-right media outlets. What can anyone learn from your comments, that they couldn't get by e.g. opening Breitbart?

Just so you don't feel shouting into the void: I completely agree with your assessment.

It's also notable that there are several accounts in this thread doing the exact same thing.

Thank you! :)

Through fear and little actual contact with "the others" though.

> Lol. Ask people in Crowborough and Piddington

Awww, you guys have stopped citing Luton then?

‘I feel perfectly safe’: white Lutonians on the town’s supposed no-go zones - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/08/luton-white-...

that's the way, just move onto another UK backwater and claim that as the new hotbed of brown people plotting against the King.

>>Through fear and little actual contact with "the others" though.

I have a rape gang enquiry report you should read.

>>Awww, you guys have stopped citing Luton then?

Not sure what "guys" you are referring to. I'm referring to the fact that dropping 1,250 male asylum seekers from countries with a completely different culture (such that need to be given brochures saying women need to consent to sex) next to a village with a population of 350 is one of the most appalling ideas ever.

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

Because its a well known pattern that anybody who spends 5min looking at the data knows. Most immigrants live in cities that mostly vote left. The places that vote right are rural places that barley have immigrants.

Hence you have places like Fox news run coverage about cities all the time, telling you how they are lawless places full of crime. Scaring rural people about what all these immigrants will do once they final start to move to bum-fuck nowhere.

You seem the same pattern in most democracies.

There is no correlation between contact with immigrants and anti-immigrant voting.

This gets pointed at here in Belgium as well....except the share that is a migrant, has it as a background, in a relationship with, etc more than accounts for difference in opposition to more endless migration. It's also like people are not mobile nowadays. I've worked and lived in Brussels and the like where I'm now a small minority.

It turns out if they have mind boggling unemployment and inactivity numbers (majroity non eu working age women are housewives), make up the majority of prisoners, cost a load of money and put pressure on certain groups of wages, housing/land prices, alongside a host of other issues then what's the point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com