It's not as simple as 'uncontrolled migration good; opponents of uncontrolled migration bad'
Re: Sutton Bridge reader (Letters, January 15). I’d be grateful to be permitted to reply.
It is just as I said in my letter. If you dare to attempt to discuss the effects of uncontrolled EU freedom of movement migration and also non-EU migration you get called names.
I did clearly state that blame was with successive governments for not increasing investment in the NHS and schools and that this lack of investment is not the fault of individual migrants.
But common sense says that, along with any positives, an increase of six million people over the last 12 years must have had some negative effect on people already living here.
Some of the things I discussed in my previous letter were not entirely the fault of the government.
The ones that stand out are pressure on rented accommodation, and the increase in houses of multiple occupation, many of which are merely overpriced, often illegal, sordid properties whose landlords take advantage of migrants.
Wage deflation is yet one more. I spoke recently to a roofer who told me his daily rate has halved because of increased competition for jobs and contracts.
In an environment where work is not consistent he told me this drop in income means falling back on state benefits to look after his family. There is a cost!
Please note, Sutton Bridge reader, that uncontrolled immigration has delivered a significant number of migrants into the arms of modern slave traders, gang masters and unscrupulous employers.
But virtue signalling must have its way and condemn anyone who would have a sensible debate on immigration.
You can’t just say supporters of uncontrolled migration good; opponents of uncontrolled migration bad; and win the argument.
Editor’s note: Correspondence on this particular issue is now closed.
More by this authorFenland Citizen Letters Editor