All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 15, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:03:37
Jimmy the Giant is LYING About Immigration

Crazy how the post-woke brigade are so in favour of neoliberalism, isn't it?

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The left are lying to you about mass immigration, and sometimes they'll tell you the truth while still telling you the exact opposite of what the actual reality is regarding immigration.
Now, this is a bit of a problem for them because they're essentially trapped in a kind of double bind.
They desperately want to play as revolutionaries, to cosplay as people being against the system, whilst being its most vociferous defenders.
And they will point to the right and say, see, it just can't be done that we reduce immigration because of all of the things that we want and not the things that you want.
And so I thought we'd examine this through the lens of a video by Jimmy the Giant called, They're Lying to You About Mass Immigration, in which Jimmy lies to you about mass immigration.
And we'll pick apart a bunch of the things that he said.
But one of the things I find most interesting about this is that Jimmy tries to play a kind of sleight of hand game here, where he admits that the right's critiques of immigration and the things that they're saying are all completely true, whilst acting as if they're not completely true.
Because fundamentally, Jimmy is committed to the system that the mass immigration upholds.
And that system he would describe as neoliberal capitalism.
Anyway, let's get into it.
He begins by mocking you for thinking that immigrants are taking your jobs or costing you money or making the country worse.
You can't get a job?
Migrants.
Your wages aren't growing?
Migrants.
Crime is on the rise?
Migrants.
And it's these arguments that were made all the way back in the 70s that are basically the exact same arguments that are being made to this day.
So what we're going to do is put on our debunk hat and let's tackle them head on.
The reason these arguments were being made back in the 70s and are still being made now is because fundamentally, they're true.
And Jimmy admits this throughout his video, actually.
And where he doesn't admit it, we're going to go through the data.
But yes, it is completely correct that migrants are in fact depressing your wages.
They're in fact taking your jobs and they are causing the crime rate to rise, especially in particular ways, which we will get into in a minute.
So why does Jimmy approach this with this dismissive, sarcastic attitude?
Well, I think it's a couple of reasons.
The first thing is, of course, he's in favor of migration.
And like, look, me on a personal level, I'll be honest, I quite like immigration.
I'm fine with it personally.
And the second thing is he's very much against whatever it is the right have said, even if he has to concede that the right are correct about everything.
And so to avoid making himself look like he is a right-winger and forced to agree with what the right is saying here, he has to wear this mask of not being in favor of you or the system.
However, his position does default back to being in favor of the system.
Let's take this clip, for example.
Immigrants are going to go to a place where there's a demand for their labor and their skills.
A demand that isn't currently being filled by the local domestic labour force.
And that labour shortage can be a result of the fact that we may have not trained up enough people to do the job.
Like in England, we don't have a lot of welders and we don't really invest a lot into our doctors.
And so those industries employ from nations that did train up those workers.
Now, Jimmy is saying that no, foreigners aren't stealing your jobs here.
It's just for some reason the UK government and whoever in the private sector just won't train the sufficient number of people to do those jobs in the first place.
Let's draw from one of the examples that he mentioned.
How about doctors?
In the UK, we train loads of doctors, but we also import loads of doctors.
In fact, we're getting to the point now where we import more foreign doctors than train people in this country, which seems kind of mad because it's not like we actually have a lack of people in the country.
We could train doctors if we want, and we do.
And yet for some reason, nearly half of the doctors that we have joining NHS England are hired from abroad.
There doesn't seem to actually be any need to do this.
And it speaks to a strange kind of moral and emotional dependence on the concept of immigration that this is being done.
And so junior doctors in England have actually just voted to go on strike by a very large number because two-thirds of them have no jobs available after they complete their training.
There are 30,000 candidates and only 10,000 jobs.
And yet still we are importing tens of thousands of doctors from overseas to fill positions on the NHS.
The NHS is facing months of potential disruption after first year resident doctors overwhelmingly voted to strike in a row over jobs.
Or no jobs.
Whilst no dates for a walkout have been set, the British Medical Association says two-thirds of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors, are left without a job at all after their specialty training.
There's two reasons for this.
The first, there has not been a meaningful expansion of training numbers for over a decade.
And secondly, we have been prioritising, we have not been prioritising graduates from this country.
We've been having applicants from overseas applying for a very small number of training jobs.
Two-thirds of applicants are from doctors that have trained overseas.
As a result, we have thousands and thousands of British doctors who are not in work at the moment, who are disenfranchised working here at the moment and are going overseas and abroad.
It is wasteful and it is immoral.
This doesn't make sense, but this is very clearly an example of foreigners actually taking your jobs.
And these aren't even the sort of low-rent, low-wage, crappy jobs that British people don't want to do.
No, people are signing up in their tens of thousands to become doctors.
It's just for some reason the government is importing tens of thousands of doctors to prevent them from becoming doctors in their own countries.
And so obviously loads of them just then leave Britain because what are they going to do?
They actually can't get a job as a doctor in this country because foreigners have literally stolen their jobs.
The thing is so ridiculous that even the Labour Health Secretary, West Streeting, back in May was like, yeah, why are we doing this?
Why don't British doctors actually get priority over foreign doctors when applying to become doctors in Britain?
I mean, that is just bizarre, isn't it?
The fact that this system is so addicted to immigration that we've actually arrived at this point where the government have step in and go, hang on a second, maybe we should just hire our own.
And while I'm here, there's this continual canard that you'll hear.
Oh, well, if we don't hire foreign doctors for the NHS, the NHS will collapse.
That doesn't appear to be true.
It seems that about 18% of the UK is foreign-born.
Now, it's probably slightly more than that because of illegal immigration and various reporting of statistics inaccurately.
But let's just assume for the sake of argument that's correct.
Well, 19% of the NHS is foreign-born.
That's almost a one-to-one ratio of foreigners working for the NHS and living in the country.
So it stands to reason that if we just didn't have this 19% of foreign-born people in the country, we wouldn't need 18% of the NHS to also be doctors because they actually make up a proportionate load on the NHS as they do the number of people in the country.
It's crazy that this is just the policy.
Just bring in infinite numbers of foreigners because otherwise the foreigners that are here won't be able to get a doctor.
So we need to hire a bunch of foreign doctors to prop up the health system that we're paying for for a bunch of foreigners.
It's like, why are we doing this, guys?
This is mad.
And actually, if none of these people were here, the NHS would be fine because actually we can train our own doctors and we have done so.
And it's our weird addiction to immigration that turns the NHS into this perpetual black hole.
We're constantly hearing about, oh, the NHS is underfunded.
The NHS is underfunded.
But the NHS has never had a funding cut.
The NHS is costing us unbelievable amounts of money, about $170 billion a year, and there's no end in sight because we keep cramming people into the country.
And so the more the population grows, proportionally, the more the NHS has to grow in line with it.
And I don't know whether you've noticed, but things aren't exactly going great for the NHS right now.
In fact, maybe a pause in the population growth of the country might be required for the NHS just to survive what we're doing to it.
So the next subject that Jimmy tackles in his video is whether immigration suppresses wages.
Now, it is a fairly straightforward law of economics that supply and demand regulate the amount that a thing costs.
If there is an excess supply of labor, then the demand for that labor is easily satisfied by the supply.
And therefore, the people who are hiring the labor don't need to hire in a competitive way.
And therefore, the wages don't need to go up because there is sufficient supply of the labor.
And Jimmy admits this in his video.
And there are studies to show it.
One of them found that immigration reduces wages by about 0.01 pence to 1P per hour.
Other studies found something different.
There was one that found that there is a minus 0.5% wage suppression on the lowest 10% of earners in society.
However, the same study found that there was a neutral or even a positive effect on everyone else.
However, there is a very recent study that showed that in low-wage professions, they found a 1.6 to 1.9% dip in wages.
It showed it in very certain sectors.
So things like hospitality, cleaning, food production.
It showed that in those low-wage jobs, there is a small percentage squeeze on wages.
Notice how Jimmy tries to minimize this issue.
When in fact, that's a massive issue that is actually affecting the people he purports to care most about, which is, of course, the people in the lowest paid jobs in the country, which we would call the working class.
This is catastrophic for them because to say, well, I mean, it's a very small amount that your wages are being suppressed by.
Well, I mean, I don't really want my wages suppressed by any amount.
How much would you accept your wages being suppressed by Jimmy?
But more importantly, this lack of growth in wages is a real issue when inflation has been through the roof.
As in, I don't know whether you've gone shopping recently, Jimmy, but everything costs a fucking fortune.
And if my wages haven't been growing in line with this inflation, that means I get poorer.
That means I'm being stolen from by the excess competition from migrant workers that is ruining my prospects in the labor market.
And for some reason, you're like, look, guys, it's only a little squeeze.
It's only a small amount.
It's like any amount is bad and unacceptable.
But for some reason, because Jimmy is a leftist and for some reason leftists hate the native population and actually want them to suffer, he's trying to frame this as if this is actually an acceptable thing to have done to you.
As if you don't deserve wages growing year after year after year because he likes immigration.
And it's confusing because very obviously, like most people will notice, that wages have stagnated at a much, much higher rate than even what the highest estimation from those studies have shown us that is caused by immigration.
So if it's not immigration that is suppressing wages, then what is?
He will literally tell you to your face that immigration is suppressing and stagnating wages.
And then just turn around and say, well, it's not immigration that's depressing the wages.
So what's the problem?
If you want to know who has your wonger, then it's worth noting this.
Between 1980 and 1989, corporate profits as a share of national income jumped from 17% to 26%.
Go on, bros, whilst pay for workers increase 18%.
It's genuinely crazy that he can't put two and two together here.
Yes, if the corporations have access to an unlimited pool of labor that depresses wages, prevents them from rising, and yet inflation is rising, so everything costs more, then yes, that money can be taken by the top end of the corporation, the CEOs, the shareholders.
That can increase corporate profits at the expense of the workers.
These two things are directly connected.
It isn't that the immigrants didn't depress your wages and somehow miraculously corporate profits went up.
It's that, as you said, Jimmy, the immigrants did depress your wages and therefore corporate profits have gone up.
And this could be easily solved if we just stopped bringing in millions of people to depress the wages of the regular people working in these jobs.
Like, it sounds so stupid, but for some reason, Jimmy has this weird left-wing double think in his head where he can't bring himself to actually connect the two together.
The corporate profits are only possible because of the excess competition in the labor market, Jimmy.
If they had to take a share of that and increase the amount that they paid to their workers to give them competitive wages in order to actually get the laborers into their job and not to another job, then this would be good for the people doing the labor.
This would reduce the corporate profits that you hate so much and would actually improve the amount of money that the laborers themselves were making and create what I think would be a much more balanced economy.
But for some reason, you are morally committed to flooding this country with fucking immigrants and you have admitted that this is hurting the average worker.
Now, Jimmy tries to explain this away by waving the magic wand, which is the word union.
Oh, half of people in Britain used to be in unions.
And now only 22% of people in Britain are in unions.
And therefore, it must be the lack of unions that is the problem.
In the 70s, half of all UK workers were in a union.
Today, the amount of people in unions has fallen to 22%.
That's overall.
Like, if we go into the private sector, it's about 12.8%.
What were the unions for back in the 70s, Jimmy?
Back then, you would have things like wage councils.
So if you had a low-paying job, things like agriculture, these wage councils demanded a certain wage for all workers, but these were abolished.
Now, if you work a low-paid job, they can just pay you a handshake and a sandwich.
No, they can't because we have a national minimum wage in this country, which, and I say this as an employer, you have to meet.
No matter what the job, it doesn't matter what job that you are doing.
If you are 21 and over, the national minimum wage is £12.21 an hour.
They actually have to pay you a reasonable amount of money.
And that works out if you work a full-time job for four weeks a month.
That works out as just under £2,000 a month, so £24,000 a year.
The government has instituted in law what you are claiming that the unions used to do.
And beyond that, if you want people to have the opportunity to have competitive wages, as we've already covered, perhaps make the labor market a seller's market rather than a buyer's market.
And it is this, the destruction of unions and collective bargaining that made it possible for big businesses to exploit cheap migrant labor.
I don't know what he's talking about.
You have it in law at the moment that you are legally allowed to join a union and collectively bargain.
Specifically, this comes from the Trade Union and Labor Relations Consolidation Act of 1992, which guarantees your right to join the trade union and not be penalized, your right to collective bargaining, your protection from dismissal for union activity, and your right to strike.
I don't know what you're talking about, Jimmy.
It seems to me that most people aren't in unions because they actually receive the protections that union provided from the laws themselves.
The laws have been updated since the 1970s to provide most of what was argued for then by the unions.
So you can't say that the unions used to protect people from exploitation from evil capitalists.
And it's the lack of unions that are allowing the capitalists to exploit foreign workers.
Well, again, they have to pay the foreign workers a minimum wage.
And if there weren't millions of foreign workers in this country competing for work with our native-born British workers, then they wouldn't need to be worried about that because the capitalists, those evil fat cats, would have no choice but to raise the wages of the native workers.
You've completely deformed the labor market through mass immigration.
And you're wondering why the fat cats are making so much money.
And yet you're completely committed to the idea of immigration in the face of all of the evidence against it.
Why would you be like this if you weren't just a tool of the system?
You claim to be a socialist.
You claim to be someone who's against the way that things are, except you support all of this.
You completely support.
You would never get rid of any of these laws that protect labor rights.
And so why would you then be like, well, I guess the problem is just they're exploiting them.
No, not really.
There's a very generous minimum wage that's in place, actually.
The problem is just the nature of immigration itself.
So after talking himself around in his like hour-long video on this section about immigration and wages, he concludes by saying, yeah, okay, everything that the right was saying about immigration depressing wages was true.
And I did show the evidence of that.
But I've got to, for ideological reasons, conclude that the problem is not immigration.
So I want to go into this because this argument is one of the most compelling about immigration.
As there's kernels of truth to it.
In this country, it is possible for companies to pay dog shit wages.
And if their workers accept them or they don't, it doesn't really matter.
Because successive governments have allowed these big businesses to recruit overseas, handing out work visas to people that will take these terrible wages.
No, I know what you're thinking, right?
You're hearing this and you're going, hang on a second, Jimmy.
I thought you just said that immigration doesn't suppress wages.
And like, yeah, sort of kind of, but like, just think about it like this.
If you get punched in the face and your jaw breaks, you don't blame your jaw, right?
You don't blame your jaw for breaking.
You blame the guy for punching you in the face.
He's to blame, right?
Immigration isn't the problem.
It isn't the reason for wage suppression.
The problem is the lack of worker protections and the incredible control and power of corporate lobbyists who have complete control over the government.
This is kind of crazy because the workers in Britain are really well protected.
They have loads of really, really strong worker protections.
And you've already provided the evidence that shows it is mass immigration that's depressing the wages.
Because actually, what you call exploitation is just the normal labour market working as intended.
The problem is the excess amount of labour that has been injected into the market, which is allowing corporations not to have to be competitive with the wages that they offer.
And you've already shown us this.
When Jimmy says that the workers in Britain are not protected and that they are being exploited by these giant evil corporations, I actually don't really know what he's talking about.
Britain has loads and loads of employee and worker protections, and they're accessible to everyone.
No one is outside of these, apart from self-employed people, but we'll worry about them another time.
And so it's really hard to understand what he's really getting at here, because he seems to live in this kind of left-wing fancy of the we're essentially living in Victorian times where the evil Rothschilds can just exploit, like, deprive people of pennies or something.
But we've got such a long list, I'm actually going to have to look at the list to remember all of them in order to accurately read them out.
So in chronological order, you have the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974.
And this makes sure that employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practical, the health, safety, and welfare of their employees.
Employees must take reasonable care for their own and other safety.
And it establishes the Health and Safety Executive for Enforcement and Inspector.
It covers safe systems of work, training, employment, and workplace environment.
Then you have the Employment Protection Act of 1975.
And this gives a right to maternity leave and pay, the right to redundancy payments, strengthen protection against unfair dismissal, and created the employment tribunal system.
Then you have the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, which promotes gender equality at work.
Then you have the Race Relations Act of 1976, which protected racial equality at work and created the Commission for Racial Equality.
Then you have the Wages Act of 1986, which protects against unlawful wage deductions.
Then you have the Employment Act of 1989, which adjusted union and working rights to protect workers' freedom not to join a trade union, because remember, this was mandatory and joining a trade union costs you money, and set up provisions on health and safety exemptions and equality law enforcement.
Then you have the Employment Rights Act of 1996, which consolidates all of this.
So the employer has to provide a written statement of employment particulars, so proper contract, unfair dismissal protection, redundancy pay, protection against unauthorized wage deductions, statutory notice periods, itemised pay statements and continuity of employment rules, time off rights, and is the foundation of modern UK employment law.
Then you have the National Minimum Wage Act of 1998, which created the national minimum wage enforced by HMRC.
This gives workers the right to receive at least the minimum wage for every hour worked.
So where does the exploitation come in, Jimmy?
And again, in 1998, you have the Working Time Regulations Act, which ensures that the employer can only impose a maximum of a 48-hour working week on you, although you as an employee can opt into a longer working week, paid annual leave of 5.6 weeks, daily and weekly rest periods, which is 11 hours a day, one day weekly, and limits on night work and mandatory rest breaks.
Then in 1998, again, you have the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which protects workers who disclose wrongdoing in the public interest.
So whistleblower protections.
In 1999, you had the Employment Relations Act, which guarantees the right to trade union recognition and collective bargaining for large employers if you want to engage in it.
It also protects from detriment for union membership or activity, or the right to be accompanied that are disciplinary on grievance hearings, and it introduced parental leave and time off for dependents.
And then in 2000, you have the part-time workers' prevention of less favourable treatment regulations, which ensured that part-time workers must not be treated less favourably than comparable full-timers unless they can be objectively justified.
In 2002, you have the Employment Act, which introduced statutory paternity and adoption leave and pay, extended maternity leave and pay, introduced flexible working requests for parents and carers, and revised disciplinary and grievance procedures in the favour of the worker.
In 2010, we had the Equality Act, which just unified and modernised all of the anti-discrimination law that was already in place.
In 2010, you had the Agency Workers Regulations, which made sure that after 12 weeks in the same role, agency workers gained the same pay and basic working conditions as permanent staff.
In 2015, you had the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act, which banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts, strengthened enforcement of minimum wage and employment tribunal awards, and increased transparency in corporate reporting.
In 2015, you had the Modern Slavery Act, which of course tackled forced labor and exploitation, which is something we didn't actually need in the past.
I wonder why we need it now.
In 2016, you have the Trade Union Act, which required ballot thresholds for lawful strikes, sets notice and turnout rules for industrial action, and protects lawful union activity from unfair treatment.
So the unions themselves got protection under the law.
In 2018, you had the Personal Data Protection Act, in which employees' personal data must be collected, used, and stored lawfully and transparently, and gave the employee the right to access, correct, and erase personal data.
I just don't know what you think employers can do to workers or employees that creates this evil capitalist dystopian hellscape.
It actually seems that people have loads of rights that are enunciated in the law, and there's no getting around that.
These are laws.
These apply to everyone working in the UK.
I don't know why you think that we have some sort of Victorian sweatshop circumstances going on here.
In fact, that's why the third world has been out competing us industrially for a very long time.
Because they don't have all of these things, and we do.
But for some reason, Jimmy thinks that the migrant workers who come here are basically slaves and have no rights of their own.
And I guess are put on plantations, and yet he's still in favour of immigration.
I too have a problem with this type of immigration.
I think it's very exploitive.
I don't think you're a bad person if you look at that and you think it's immoral.
To have a class of people with literally less human rights than you have who we treat worse than everyone else, all because they will accept low pay and worse working conditions.
I mean, if that were the case, why would they come?
Why wouldn't they just get a low-paying job in their own country or some other country?
Why would they come here if things were as bad as you were making out?
If you treat migrants like humans and respect their human rights, you will actually see less low-wage jobs that need an exploitable migrant labor force.
It's so weird that Jimmy thinks that migrants in this country don't have access to the same suite of human rights that he does.
Like, in what way are they not able to claim the protection of the law?
In what way are they not able to gain access to the same employee rights and worker rights than you do?
They have all of these things.
I don't know why you're saying this.
Again, this seems to be some kind of leftist ideological fear-mongering because of a frankly false depiction of the nature of the relationship between the state, the corporations, and the workers.
And actually, if you really wanted to help the workers and strengthen them against the corporations, the state would intercede in the raw number of people that the corporations had to pick from to hire to do these jobs.
But as you pointed out, well, the corporations lobby the state for mass immigration, which hurts the workers.
So you're in favor of immigration because otherwise, what, that would be unprogressive?
That would be immoral in some way.
That would be bad if we didn't just import millions of people to undercut the wages of the native working class of this country.
No, the issue is that the state is lobbied by the corporations not to reduce the human rights of workers, because that's obviously not happened, but it is to open the borders, to bring in as many foreigners as possible, to make sure that the wages of the workers in this country don't have to go up and therefore to maximize corporate profits.
An honest leftist would actually have to be against mass immigration if, in truth, what they actually wanted was better wages and working conditions for the working class of their country.
And the only reason I can conclude that they're not against mass immigration, even though they know it hurts the wages of the working class, even though they know that this is the project of the corporate lobby itself, this is what they demand, is because they are in favor of it.
And they are not actually in favor of the working people of this country.
I don't think there's any other reasonable conclusion to draw from this, no matter how many ideological hoops that they jump through.
It just seems to me they're in favor of the status quo, which is international corporations, big money, the millionaires and billionaires, importing unlimited foreign cheap labor in order to hurt us.
The next thing we're going to come to is Jimmy's thesis about restricting migration.
If you restrict migration, migration goes up.
Truth is, restricting immigration increases immigration.
The reason he says this is because Jimmy can't explain the Boris Wave.
Jimmy can't understand why it is that when the British public voted for Brexit, and in part that is a vote for lower migration, as we have done at practically every single election that we've had since the middle of the 20th century, for some reason we ended up with more.
More and more and more and more, until most recently, we got the Boris wave, which is the big spike in the graph that he shows now.
We put the walls up, you know, we said, no, no, no, no more migrants.
And then somehow, migrants just fuck it skyrocket.
What the fuck?
What the how the hell did that happen?
Like surely, right?
If you make the rules harsher, if you put up barriers, walls and checks, do points, got point-based system, surely immigration will go down, right?
I don't want to be the guy to break this to you, but it just doesn't.
What I enjoy about Jimmy is when he just admits that he just doesn't know.
And this is one of those kinds.
Well, I mean, who can explain the mass migration that came after Brexit?
It must just be something natural.
It must just be a tidal force of nature that can't be held back.
If you do something, then something else happens.
And this is just the way the universe works.
Except we do know why the Boris Wave happened.
It happened because of Boris.
Boris let it happen.
He stabbed us all in the back.
It isn't actually that waves of migrants are overcoming our defenses because we didn't actually put up any barriers.
We voted to lower immigration and the government raised it.
It wasn't that there was some sort of mechanical fault.
It was that the people in charge chose to do it.
Boris recently admitted this on a podcast with The Telegraph.
The problem we had with the back end of COVID, though, was that it looked as though, and we couldn't see the numbers, we were flying blind, and we couldn't see how many were coming in.
All we could see.
Which is weird.
The Home Office should have the numbers.
No, they're not in real time.
They don't.
No.
And so all we could see was inflation.
So by the end of 2021, beginning of 22, inflation is suddenly getting into double figures.
And you know what?
That's a very, very bad.
And that one, it was, I think the Treasury basically believed that that was being caused by partly by the labour market seizing up and, you know, people couldn't get a pair of hands to do the jobs that they needed done.
And there had to be a fix for that.
And Dominic Cummings himself told us that this was because he wanted the Financial Times to speak well of him, which goes back to Jimmy's earlier point.
Yes, the corporations are lobbying the government because they want cheap foreign workers to depress the wages of the people in this country.
And as a leftist, you'd think you'd be against that.
But instead, you throw up your hands and say, well, it's just how the system works.
It can't be explained.
It can't be altered.
It just has to be that forever and ever we have migrants coming over here, stealing your jobs, making the country worse, depressing your wages and being more criminal.
You see what I mean?
This, well, I mean, the corporations want the migrants and therefore we're just going to have them and therefore nothing can ever get better.
And therefore, this is the way that the system has to work.
The people who claim to be against the system because they're for communism or whatever it is there are, socialism, whatever it is they're arguing for, are actually the most staunch defenders of neoliberal economics.
Even though they would claim that they're not.
They wear their false virtue like a mask.
Oh no, I'm against neoliberalism, except for everything that neoliberalism does and the precise way it operates.
And any amount of trying to resist that is just doomed to fail.
It's just the way the system works, bro.
It's incomprehensible to understand how it could be that, in fact, restricting immigration increases immigration.
And therefore, it's just one of these facts of life.
It's a natural force.
But the answer is actually no, that's not the way it works.
Because if you put up a physical barrier to stop immigration and you do not actually allow foreigners to come into your country, then it turns out that foreigners don't come into your country.
And we have a really great example of that in Poland.
Belarus tried to jam loads of foreigners through into their country recently and it didn't work because the Poles literally met them with force at the border.
The EU tried to impose migrant quotas on them and the Poles literally just said no.
And this has made sure that Poland has not yet been flooded with millions and millions of immigrants.
Now they have taken some, I'm not saying they haven't, but it's very controlled for them.
But these are all things that are completely within their power.
They actually have the ability to make these decisions.
Take Donald Trump closing the southern border in the United States.
Apparently, it turns out that the application of force to the border actually stops it from being porous.
And it stops people from coming because they realize, oh, I will just be intercepted and sent home.
I will not be allowed to come.
So I won't bother going in the first place.
So it turns out that actually restricting immigration restricts immigration.
But in the case of Britain, what happened is that people said, could we have immigration restricted, please?
And the government said, no, we're going to permit it in greater numbers than ever before.
So it's not the restriction of immigration that restricts immigration.
It's the fact that our government is staffed with traitors.
Don't know if you'll remember this, but after Brexit, right, where we tried to get rid of the migrants, but a lot of them are coming to like pick fruit in the summer, we ran this scheme called Pick for Britain, where we tried to get native workers to go and pick fruit.
I do not doubt that the work would be unglamorous and at times challenging, but it is of the utmost importance.
And at the height of this global pandemic, you will be making a vital contribution to the national effort.
So I can only urge you to pick for Britain.
About fucking 10% of the jobs got filled and most people just left after a day because it's back-breaking hard work for shit money.
It resulted in UK farms losing 22 million pounds worth of fruit literally because they had a lack of people picking them.
And it's this, right?
It's this just economic fact, this need for labor, which is why every single politician that ever comes in and tells you they're going to reduce immigration, it's this that is why they can never do it.
So there are a couple of points here.
First things first, aren't you just saying, well, the system's completely in hoc to these mega corporations who are going to strong arm the government and for some reason we're just going to have it so that it's fine for the neoliberal system to import millions of people to use as just human labor against the working class and that's not a problem.
I as a socialist am fine with that.
I completely have come to peace with it.
And this prevents the system from actually having to change.
Now I would have thought as a socialist you were in favor of the neoliberal system not being the neoliberal system, that you would like one day to get to a different system.
And so surely propping up the old system is not the way to arrive at the new system.
Surely making the old system change is the way to get to your fabled land of milk and honey.
So for example, if the farmers can't find fruit pickers in the fields, that gives them a couple of options, right?
The first option is, well, we just don't plant strawberries, right?
And so when you go to Waitrose or Sainsbury's or Tesco's or wherever, you don't have British grown strawberries in the shops.
Not brilliant, but if people were to then get British grown strawberries in the shops, they would be much more expensive.
They'd become a luxury item.
Or you can import cheaper strawberries from overseas.
Or, and I think this is the one where we should really be focusing, could we not automate this?
There are actually loads of farm machines that can pick fruit, that can take things out of the ground or off of trees and actually deliver them into a big bucket where they can be sorted and then eventually go through the process to arrive on the shop shelves.
We actually have this option.
For some reason, the socialists who are completely in favor of the rich destroying the prospects of the working class have nothing to say about the automation and mechanization of these jobs, even though the technology clearly exists and is being used.
Why aren't we investing in that?
Why can't we invest in that?
Why does it have to be that the corporations are allowed to lobby the government to bring in a million, millions and millions of foreigners in order to ruin our country and ruin the prospects of our own working class when this is an option on the table?
We don't actually need the surf class that you think has no rights but does to do that work.
We could get machines to do it.
But let's indulge a fiction, right?
Let's assume that we've got a based right-wing politician in power.
Now, we can't expect a base left-wing politician in power because as we've already covered, the left-wing generally is completely in favor of the neoliberal system and the things that it provides.
So we're going to have to lean into the based right-wing politician to bring about the end of neoliberalism.
What would it do?
And let's even pretend you get someone who says no, right?
Some politician that comes along and says, no, we're not going to do that.
We're going to do the whole no-migrant thing.
And if you had a politician that refused to do that, I can guarantee you what their solution will be, will be to gut the entire welfare state.
No social housing, no NHS, no disability benefits, no out-of-work benefits.
What they would do is get rid of all of that to make life so miserable that you are forced to take these terrible jobs that pay you dog shit.
Yes, hello, base department.
Yeah, I've got something you really need to hear.
This is just pretty stock and trade left-wing fear-mongering.
I mean, as we've already covered, we don't have to abandon the NHS.
The NHS probably would be okay if we just made sure that it was actually run in a lean way and employed British people rather than foreigners and wasn't accessed by an international audience.
If it wasn't an international health service, then actually I think it would probably be all right.
At the very least, it would have a longer shelf life than what it's going to have at the moment, and it would be less cripplingly expensive for us now.
But notice how Jimmy has revealed his hand here.
No, I want neoliberalism.
I want infinite immigration.
I want the corporations controlling the government to lobby for excess immigration for all of time because I want social benefits.
Well, you know what, Jimmy?
I don't want social benefits.
I actually don't want these things.
I don't want people living in social housing.
I don't want people getting loads of my money for nothing.
I don't want them to just have that.
I'm happy.
I can accept a sort of minimum level of welfare in society.
And that would have been a reasonable compromise.
But the thing is, and this is going to truly blow your mind, more than half of people in this country live in households that receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
This is fucking preposterous and obviously unsustainable.
And I would suggest that if we have, in fact, an unsustainable system, that which cannot go on forever will not go on forever.
And instead of propping up the neoliberal system for all of time to save socialism or whatever it is you think is happening, maybe we should actually come to peace with the idea that this can't last and we need to think of something else to do.
And the reason why, the reason why they can't do anything about it is because these politicians are tied to neoliberal economics.
Their form of capitalism requires cheap, exploitable labor.
And their big donors and the big corporations that fund these politicians will never allow them to just simply reduce immigration.
They need that labor force.
This is a deeply ironic thing for him to say because his welfare state is directly tied to neoliberal capitalism.
And he would never consent to a reduction in immigration because he would lose the benefit system that neoliberalism props up.
He is as much a supporter of the neoliberal capitalist system as any die-hard business magnate.
He and the business magnate are of one on this.
They agree the system of mass immigration has to continue forever in order for them to both get the benefits out of it.
One side gets unbelievable profits and the other side gets an unbelievable welfare state.
And squeezed in the middle are muggins like me and you, normal people who work, entrepreneurs, people who own small businesses, those people who are actually paying more in taxes than they pay out of the system.
We could call him Nicholas 30 Anns.
And the absolute burden that he has to carry, that burden is just going to increase.
Because otherwise, oh, we don't get all the benefits.
Or the corporations don't make the profits.
And there's no way out of this because moral approbation.
But for the people that are against it, they are in a bind because in order to actually reduce immigration, you would need to raise worker protections, increase unionization, and tax rich people to afford the welfare state.
And the anti-immigration politicians are against doing all of those free things.
So Jimmy has given us his set of remedies for the neoliberal system.
But they're all things that the neoliberal system already does.
Obviously, we've got all of the worker protections we could ever need, and we have access to unions, it's just people choose not to use them, probably because the government is providing all of those things the unions used to provide.
And then his next one is tax the rich.
Well, the thing is, the rich are being taxed really heavily.
Taxes in this country are absolutely absurd.
And that's because we have the highest tax burden since World War II.
It's absolutely true that we have never paid more tax in our lifetimes, Jimmy.
But moreover, it's because the state spending is ridiculous.
At the moment, state spending is 44.7% of GDP.
Nearly half of everything the country earns is spent by the state.
That is ridiculous.
And suddenly you can understand why we're not getting the growth we were expecting.
I mean, we were told, oh, migration needs growth.
Population numbers mean growth.
But actually, that's just not true.
This bizarre canard that we should tax the rich, because the rich don't pay taxes, is just left-wing propaganda.
This is just nonsense.
60% of tax income is paid from the top 10% of earners, and 30% of that comes from the top 1% of earners.
It is not that these people are not paying taxes.
It's that the system that they are paying taxes into can never be satisfied because it is constantly expanding.
This, I would have thought, would have been a cardinal sin of neoliberalism.
Infinite expansion in a limited ecosphere.
But for some reason, Jimmy and the rest of his socialists believe that no, we should have infinite expansion to provide for the infinite welfare state for the infinite number of people we're bringing into the country.
And so at the moment, state spending is preposterous.
It is 44.7% of the GDP.
Of all of the money that this country makes, nearly half of it is spent by the British government.
That is mad.
And it's unsurprising that you look around and go, wow, this place is looking dilapidated.
Everyone's poor.
Nobody can afford anything.
Well, I wonder why?
Because we're being taxed on everything.
And there's only so much you can be punitive towards the rich before they decide, you know what, this isn't worth it.
I'm just going to move my assets elsewhere.
I'm sure you've all seen the famous graph of the number of millionaires that Britain is losing and the number of millionaires other places in the world are gaining because they are not in the grip of this insane welfare state.
This is not a sustainable system.
It is one that is ruining us.
It is bankrupting us.
It is driving us into the ground.
And all Jimmy and his fellow post-woke leftists can do is say, well, look, guys, this has got to be the way it is to prop up the system of neoliberalism.
If we don't do this, then the welfare budget doesn't get paid.
Then the welfare doesn't get paid into people's accounts.
And therefore, that aspect of neoliberalism ends, forcing a change in the system in its entirety.
And if there's one thing I don't want, it's a change in the system in its entirety.
I'm very committed to this part of it.
Thank you very much.
And it's also worth pointing out that actually the immigrants themselves are contributing to the massive tax burden by drawing from the welfare state that they have access to for some reason.
I mean, I personally would have it so that someone born overseas would just never in their lifetime ever have access to the welfare system.
You're here to work and if you don't work, you go home.
But for some reason, we do allow that.
And so there have been studies done by the Danish and Dutch governments to find out, well, how much are these people actually contributing?
And it's not good, actually.
In the case of Denmark, people from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and Turkey are just never net contributors.
They never contribute more to the system than they take out.
And so for their whole lives, they are a drain on the Danish taxpayer.
Even those other non-Western immigrants from outside of those areas are only for a very brief period of time actually net contributors, meaning that they are overall a net burden on the state.
And it's only Western European immigrants and the Danish population that are actually keeping the system afloat.
So this fantasy that we need immigration to keep the system operating or else the system itself will collapse is nonsense.
These people are a burden that we are carrying.
And we can tell because of the amount of money we have to spend on benefits.
We spend a billion pounds a month on benefits for people born overseas.
At the moment, in London, nearly half of the social housing is occupied by people who were born overseas.
We are paying for people to live in this country and getting nothing in return from it.
Well, at least nothing good anyway.
We're getting lots of consequences of it.
Very few of them are to our benefit.
It doesn't make any economic sense to do this.
But the thing is, and this is what The Economist said, Denmark's defense of its welfare state is ruthless and, as critics say, racist.
Because that's the real problem, isn't it?
If we distinguish between them and us, well, you're a racist.
And Jimmy, like all of the other post-woke left who pretend not to be woke and don't really, they realize that the days of just screeching racist that you were over and that doesn't work, they still think that.
They still think it's Nigel Farage who has made people anti-immigration.
It's not the experience in living in a heavily diversified society.
It's not the experience of watching themselves paying more and more tax each year while a bunch of foreigners are just hanging around the town centers on benefits, sucking up money, doing nothing, and wondering, why am I doing this?
Why am I allowing this system to persist?
Why am I a part of this?
I think actually I'm going to try and vote in the direction of ending immigration and sending these people home.
At the time I'm recording right now, immigration is Britain's number one concern.
If you poll people, it's the top issue you'll hear back about.
It didn't used to be, you know, we can probably point to a few people as to why this is.
But yeah, it is the issue that's on people's minds at the moment.
This brings us to Jimmy accepting that actually not all immigrants are the same.
Because this is the real important point.
Immigrants are actually all very different.
Every country is different and the people in them are different from one another.
And therefore, really, if we were going to have immigration, we should have a highly selective immigration system that accepted that actually some cultures just don't care about women.
Some cultures just don't care about telling the truth.
Some cultures don't care about hard work.
Some cultures think you're a fool if you don't exploit the benefits system.
They are just not like us.
And this is something that Jimmy really struggles to grapple with because of course in his perspective, migrants are just migrants, bro.
There is a case of a thing called negative assimilation.
This is a minority of second-gen immigrants who perhaps, I don't know, don't get on very well in school.
Maybe they struggle, maybe they have some learning difficulties.
And there is evidence that that minority of second-gen immigrants are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to join gangs and even more likely to join extremist groups.
There's been a lot of research into this and largely it comes down to this sort of social alienation.
Often these second-gen immigrants can feel discriminated by mainstream society and they develop a feeling of being neither British nor, you know, wherever they came from.
These ones who are falling behind, say, academically or career-wise, they can feel like they don't really belong anywhere.
And because many migrant groups tend to migrate into poorer parts of Britain, these people who may just have, you know, difficulties like anyone else would, they are also in poorer communities that have less resources to help them.
Now, you know, there could be things you could do to help this.
You could offer more support.
Perhaps don't allow areas to become run down and criminal.
Perhaps ensure employment, invest into people, but you can't do that because that is woke communism and that is bad.
So he accepts, no, there are actually negative consequences from plucking people out of their social context, forcing them to raise children in society that they aren't familiar with.
And the problem with these dependents, these criminals who are dependent on us, is that we just haven't given them enough of our money.
It's like I think we have actually given them enough of our money.
And in fact, what we should probably be doing is just sending them home if they don't fit in here because this is an alien society to them.
Actually, giving them more of our money isn't what we should do to fix this problem.
It's sending them back to where they came from.
They'd be happier there.
We wouldn't have to pay for them.
Everybody wins.
But Jimmy does concede that, in fact, this causes criminality.
But it's not unreasonable to believe that if you force men to live in a hotel full of other men for two fucking years about the ability to work and they have to live off of £49 a week, it's not far-fetched to say that some of them might start nicking some shit or selling some drugs.
It's not unreasonable.
Now, he'll say, well, they're only getting £50 a week to spend.
No, they get everything paid for and then £50 a week.
And they're still criminals.
But what I'd like to know is what are the socio-economic factors that causes them to be such a bunch of rapists?
Why is it that the more diversified this country has become, the more rapes have increased?
What is it about the lack of economic opportunity that makes them rape women, Jimmy?
That's what I really want to know.
Why is it that since we've had them coming here, rapes have literally gone up by five times more than they used to be?
In the year 2000, there were 36,000 sexual offences in this entire country, which is bad.
Not good.
I would prefer there to be zero.
But by 2024, there were 205,000 and around 35% of those.
So 71,227 of them were rapes, Jimmy.
Why is it that there are more than twice as many rapes than there were sexual offenses before this country was diversified?
What is it about the socio-economic conditions that are forcing them to become rapists?
And my God, aren't they just the most savage people in the world?
Like literally raping a woman to death on a park bench, attempting to kidnap people, stabbing them to death just as they're walking through the streets.
Like these people, Jimmy, are not like us.
They have made our societies far less safe.
They shouldn't be here.
They don't contribute to the GDP.
They are not in any way enriching our society.
And you can say, well, I like migration personally, and I'm sure that for some reason you do.
But I think all of the rape victims are probably a bit less inclined towards migration, actually.
And I'm old-fashioned this way, but I actually do think that we should care about the women and children in this country before we care about the opportunities of rapey and stabby foreign men.
I know, I know I'm a throwback.
I know that's racist.
I accept it.
But I'm not prepared to budge from my commitment to the protection of my wife and daughters over the opportunities of a bunch of foreign rapists.
I'm just not prepared to do that.
I know, I know, parochial, backwards, deeply, deeply misogynist probably, but I'm just not going to give up their safety.
I'm not prepared to compromise on it.
I had a brief chat with Jimmy about this on Twitter, and he came to the conclusion that actually unlimited foreign rapists is necessary for the economic system because he doesn't understand the economic system.
He is convinced that, in fact, if we just implement an incredible wealth tax that destroys the economy even further than it is, then we can actually lower immigration.
And the only alternative to this is have 70-year-old women begging on the streets.
Once again though, Jimmy has identified a feature of the neoliberal system that he supports.
We already have beggars everywhere, and in fact, an increasing number of beggars.
So how is that different to what we have now?
But let's assume that it boils down to an unlimited number of foreign rapists who kidnap, rape and murder young women on the streets, or 70-year-old women begging in the streets like we have now.
Well, I would choose the latter.
And I expect that 70-year-old women would also choose the latter.
Because while the latter is, of course, not good, we have homeless shelters.
We can set up homeless charities.
We could actually do something to help these people.
However, when a young woman gets kidnapped, raped and murdered, it's too late to help her.
The help that she needs is preventative.
The help that the old lady needs is actually post hoc.
It can be delivered after the circumstance has happened.
And we can help her.
We can save her from her position.
So if I had to have it drilled down into one of these two positions, infinite foreign rapists or 70-year-olds on the street, yeah, I'm sorry, it's 70-year-olds on the street.
And I think it's very strange as well, because, I mean, if you actually look into it, 70-year-olds are the most wealthy demographic in society.
And actually, vulnerable young women are not the most wealthy demographic in society.
But for some reason, Jimmy is convinced that, no, it's actually the 70-year-olds that need to be taken care of, whereas the young women can be exposed to an infinite number of predators and best of luck, ladies, as well as all the capitalist exploitation that comes with the open market, with the fact that they're in competition for the entire world's labor market.
This is just very backwards, don't you think, Jim?
I think this is just wrong.
And actually, I think that the millennials have a very strange perspective on the elderly anyway.
At once, to them, they are incredibly wealthy and also incredibly poor and vulnerable.
I mean, you had Lewis Goodall recently saying, yeah, well, we should have 100% wealth tax.
What?
So your parents' wealth doesn't come to you?
Why?
Well, to prop up the pension system, of course.
There are other ways of doing these things.
And actually, Jimmy himself proposed them.
Jimmy, in his video, does explain to us why things have become this way.
And from this, we can infer what would have to be undone for things to be fixed.
70s, women have entered the workforce.
Historically, women spent most of their time at home raising children, but also doing unpaid and informal labor.
As in many cases, they were pretty much locked out of the job market.
So, you know, they spent their time raising children.
That is a full-time job.
It's very hard.
Whilst they were doing that, they might have also been looking after elderly family members.
And maybe on top of that, even did like a side job as a cleaner.
Maybe they worked in like a textile factory or some sort of small job that wasn't paid very well, but they'd make a few quid on the site.
You see, as women's rights progressed, they started to enter the labor force.
They started to aspire for bigger, higher-skilled professions.
But this meant that they had less time to do all of that unpaid work that they were doing in the past, which created a massive labor demand.
these jobs that women were doing in the past that were vital, but no one really wants to do them because the ladies were doing for free.
And so on top of these changes in education and expectations, there was another fucking spanner that was thrown in the works and that was...
So we're coming to the end of all of this now.
We're coming to the final sort of conclusions where we have to look at what's happening and say, okay, why has it become this way?
And what can we do about it?
And it's become this way because of a series of commitments that were made during the 20th century that are unsustainable, that simply cannot be upheld, that simply do not work on a civilizational level for any extended period of time.
And so the question is, what are we going to do about it?
Now, Jimmy, being committed to the neoliberal system and the morality that brought it about and justifies how it works, can't change his mind.
He is locked into the idea that actually an infinite number of foreign men can come here, no matter how dangerous they are to the native people, no matter how much they are damaging the prospects of the native people, and they can stay forever.
Because otherwise, women might not be extracted from the home and churned into the corporate environment to support the profits of the neoliberal capitalist exploiters.
And if women aren't shoved into the meat grinder of the capitalist exploitation to work for a minimum wage so those fat cats can exploit maximum profits, then that's unprogressive in some way.
Old people.
World is getting older.
How much older?
By 2050, the number of people over 65 will triple.
There are now more over 65s than ever before.
18.6%.
In England, the places with the most over 65s are here in North Norfolk and rather in East Sussex.
Basically, the old people, they were top shaggers, right?
They had a lot of kids.
Them baby boomers, it's in the name.
You know, them bros are getting freaky.
Every single generation, right?
As life has got more expensive and more demand for people's time and work, etc., every single generation seems to have less and less kids.
This has resulted in a plummeting birth rate.
Back in the 70s, women were having about 2.5 kids on average.
Now in 2023, it's about 1.56.
So in the 70s, the ratio of working-age people to old people was much different.
There was around about 4.3 workers per every pensioner.
Now it's dropped down to three workers.
And it's expected to drop down even lower to just 2.1 by 2050.
And this is a problem, right?
Because to afford their sort of end-of-life care, it gets more and more expensive.
They become more, they're not working anymore.
And they're claiming a state pension.
They use the NHS more.
And so we are currently having a very top-heavy society of old, economically inactive people and a shrinking worker force.
There just mathematically isn't enough people to cover the costs of pensioners.
And so this has created major, major labor shortages.
And you know what that means?
Migrants.
He even admits that the whole system is a pyramid scheme.
If you have more and more and more old people and fewer and fewer people providing this labor as domestic work, then yeah, the system is unsustainable.
It can't go on forever.
And so a new settlement has to be come to.
A new way of running society has to be established.
Now, this is going to sound pretty bloody radical, someone now, but once things have gotten so much worse, once the system, unfundable as it is, is on the verge of collapse, people will be forced into choosing a new way of living in this country.
It's not going to be comfortable.
It's not going to be necessarily fair in every case.
But if you want people to be provided for, then something has to change.
You can't just argue for more of the same and expect a different result, which is what you're doing, Jimmy.
You will hide, but oh, I want increased rights.
I want worker protections.
I want higher taxes.
But we've got all of those things.
And more of those things is not going to provide the resources that people actually need.
More of those things is not going to be a panacea to the problem that an excess of those things is already creating.
What we need to do is be honest about the experiment of the 20th century and return to a more traditional way of life as you enumerated in your video.
So yeah, in some ways you could say immigration is destroying the West.
But it's not because of migrants or immigration.
Immigration is just a natural process that will always happen.
It's because the elites right now are using it as a distraction.
They are pulling apart society to make us lose our minds about immigrants.
All whilst they try and tear down everything that our grandparents fought for.
Workers' rights, public services, community and dignity.
And I know that sounds pretty peak, right?
But it doesn't have to be this way.
We can use this sentiment as an argument to stop exploitative working conditions, to bring about stronger unions, to repeal the anti-union laws, to increase wages and give people more rights, not less.
And it's worth noting at the very end of this that Jimmy admits that immigration is destroying the West.
He just thinks that the elites are using it as a distraction.
Whereas actually it's the entire system that is destroying us.
▲
Export Selection