Immigration and Ireland - MEGATHREAD *Mod Note Added 02/09/25*

It's in the OPs link. Towards the end.

The first 13 odd minutes is him moaning about energy costs whilst spewing all sorts of inaccuracies.

He fails to mention the billions he has received in cash and subsidies from the UK tax payer and various other European countries.

The reality is Jim's Empire is built on unsustainable debt acquired by poor management and acquisitions. The vultures are circling. Jim is desperate, so he is bullshítting and blaming everyone else but himself. The fact is everything he touches turns to debt.

Basically Immigrant receiving billions in benefits bemoaning people on benefits.

You couldn't make it up.

No. You simply don't target in the same way those who actually come across as genuine low risk cases given the fact that they have at least used their time making actual positive steps to contribute to society — such as proactively undertaking qualifications in nursing care (an industry where we are facing critical staff shortages in a country where more and more of our young people are getting qualifications which enable them to pursue roles in more technical or intellectually rigorous careers) and ensuring that their children are attending school and participating positively in their community. You'd also be sending the message that if you are coming here lounging around and doing nothing to transpose the assistance you have been given into positive participation by you and / or your children in Irish society, you will be pursued as a higher priority.

It's a question of picking your battles. If you want effective, lasting tougher migration policy that becomes accepted as a necessary norm across enough of society to ensure its permanence, you need to think carefully about which hills you want to die on and when you choose to do so. This has always been a problem with Right-leaning politics — great at shouting angrily about stuff, but not so great at winning hearts and minds once the angry shouting has to be turned into lasting policy.

Pursuing this lady, along with her children, may feel satisfying from a purist perspective. It may feel consistent. But pursue enough cases like this one and you lose the applause, you lose hearts and minds and you lose your policy.

Yes, he probably should.

However it still doesn't negate the point being made.

Ratcliffe can be wrong to not be paying the tax he should and yet at the same time he can be 100% correct that there has been far too much immigration to the UK in recent decades.

Immigration didn't cause the UK's problems. Austerity and Brexit did. Immigration is what's propping up the economy here. I have no intention in taking criticism from a hypocrite like Jim Ratcliffe. He doesn't love this country at all. If he did, he'd be here trying to make it better and paying taxes.

Ratcliffe can be wrong to not be paying the tax he should and yet at the same time he can be 100% correct that there has been far too much immigration to the UK in recent decades.

Your missing the point, he is bemoaning people on benefits whilst he receives 100s of millions in benefits which enriches himself further.

His Colonization remark is just inflammatory nonsense which is beyond tone deaf.

FFS. He literally has a knighthood from an institution which enriched itself through actual Colonization and continues to fleece the British Tax Payer for 100s of million, much like Sir Jim actually.

There has been too much immigration to the UK and it has caused a strain on the country. This is undeniable. It's also had negative cultural impacts.

Why can't he say this though, admittedly he's a massive hypocrite himself and should be called out for it but it doesn't change the fact that what he's said is accurate.

The problem is the media have decided to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself, Keir Starmer came out (or whoever runs his twitter account) and asked for Ratcliffe to apologise while at the same time not actually stating that the point he was making is wrong. Nobody has actually been able to come out since he made his comments and say that the argument he has made was wrong, because the truth is it isn't and that's why they've attacked him because he's articulated the truth and the pro infinity immigration types don't like hearing it.

In fairness, it's easily deniable when there's no evidence presented. Repeating something does not make it true.

I live here. The only negative cultural phenomena I see are efforts from the right to defend racism, imperialism and colonialism as part of a culture war waged to protect wealth and screw over the working class.

The argument is nonsense and Ratcliffe is just another hypocrite spouting racist dreck. It's very simple.

But that's not all he said. He didn't just make some sober statement as to immigration simply being too high and that's not what he is being criticised for primarily. Starmer himself has expressed such sentiments, see here for example.

There is a constant narrative that those who say immigration is too high are cancelled, or labelled as racists or bigots by the so-called "Left". Yet there you have Starmer saying it, so it's clear that there is something more to what Ratcliffe said.

Ratcliffe said the UK had been "colonised" by migrants. Now, I am not a person who believes that people should be treated as if they have pre-audited every utterance that comes from their mouth. We can all say things that come across badly in the moment. But Ratcliffe is a smart man, he knows the meaning and nuance of the term 'colonised' — he knows what its inference is and he knows his words in interviews carry weight. And he used the term twice. If he were to come out and apologise and state that it was poorly-chosen language, I would give him some leeway.

Ultimately though, there's only so much leeway you can give the guy, because he's a guy complaining about the very migration system that everything he represents has propped up and he profiteers from it.

Yes, lets use a Danish study to make conclusions on the UK

Also, and individual specific mnet contribution to a country does not reflect thier overall value. A roadsweepers net economic value is impossible to measure.

It's funny. I remember the same publication claiming that the UK wasted over a £100 billion annually on the NHS. It's a service. It costs money. I had to unsubscribe from it as the quality of their work has been going downhill for quite some time.

I mean, for the love of God, his business at Man United is literally fronted by a squad full of migrant workers who get paid obscene amounts of money to kick a ball about on grass.

Honestly, once he started stating that the UK should be ran like he runs United, I had to check it wasn't an AI fake.

His tenure so far.

Worse performance of the team in living memory.

He personally put 450 people on benefits.

His key hires which were going to make United "Best in Class", he fired them all at the cost of 10s of millions.

He did away with concessions for Pensioners and Children, making them poorer if they actually want to watch the team play.

Heaped more unstainable debt on the club.

Oversaw revenues plummet.

Purchased exclusively players who are immigrants, not one UK player.

Wants the British Tax Payer to finance his New Stadium.

It will down in folklore as one of the daftest interviews ever given by a entitled rich tax exile and probably the main catalyst for the a fan base who already can't stand him to get him out.

That's exactly what it is. If you've no evidence, then this can be dismissed.

It doesnt though. Low paid jobs are neccessary for the functioning of society and immigrants are overrepresented in these roles. The value provided by someone working in one of those jobs cannot be as simple as you imply.

He builds his bleeding Land Rover rip off in France. Just a perfect example of how Britishness is just a fake veneer for entitled classes who supported Brexit.