The Enormous Contradictions Behind the Mass-Immigration Debate – or – How to Win Any Argument With Style

by Mark Angelides

We have all heard the arguments and the figures relating to the benefits of mass-immigration from poorer countries to richer countries. The advocates have shown us “irrefutable figures” that detail the economic benefits; they have berated us for our lack of morality. And the sad truth is, the argument can never be won by throwing statistics and numbers back at them. Because numbers, as they know all too well, can be interpreted almost any way you wish.
The only way to win is to show up their arguments for what they really are: weak veils for an agenda that is riddled with paradoxes and non sequiturs. Here are just a few of my favourite rebuttals (with the occasional number just for fun). Please feel free to leave your favourite arguments in the comment section below.
Large Scale Migration from Mexico Benefits the US Economy
If the “X” amount of people coming from Mexico to the US benefit the US economy, then surely, them leaving their home country is a drain to the Mexican economy. Why would you want to destroy the economic prosperity of a developing just to make a few corporations richer?
Mexican Immigrants Do the Jobs that Americans Don’t Want to Do
Would you pick fruit for a million dollars? Sure. So it is not the work, but the pay that puts Americans off. We have lots of US citizens in low-paying jobs, if the jobs traditionally done by migrants from Mexico paid more, wouldn’t Americans choose these higher paying jobs? By supporting the Mexicans doing these jobs, you are ensuring that they forever remain on “slave wages”. Do you really support slavery?
Our Industries Would Collapse Without Immigration
(I actually use the example for the UK’ National Health Service (NHS) here. The main argument used by all British political parties to support mass EU immigration is that the NHS would “shut down” if it weren’t for EU migrants). “Figures show that while the EU born population of the UK is 4.9%, the amount EU born NHS staff is 4.75%. This means in literal terms that if the EU born people were not here in the first place, the NHS in terms of patient numbers would actually be marginally better off.”
The point being, that if the immigrants were not there in the first place, there would not actually be a need for immigrants to do work that serves the expanding population. Not only that, but the oversupply of cheap labor means that the Minimum wage becomes the Maximum wage. Do you really want the poorest in society to have no Social Mobility?
These arguments do not suggest that immigration is bad. Just that if politicians want to justify mass immigration, then they need to give us a proper reason. Not lies. By repeating the same old lies, they are either showing us that they are incompetent (not fit for purpose), or that there is no good reason for it.