In a recent discussion between two individuals with contrasting views on migration and social responsibility, Michael, a data engineer and former history teacher, shared his thoughts on the UK’s immigration policies. He reiterated that the government’s first obligation is to those it serves. He stood for balanced migration policies that put the interests of people already living in the country first. During my visit, I had a stimulating roundtable discussion around a meal that included Sophia. She’s a self-described gender abolitionist, and she wore communist pins, which made for a spirited discussion of ideas.
Michael articulated his belief in individual autonomy, stating that he believes everyone should have the right to be left alone. He talked about his transition from Canada to the UK. He detailed the long legal processes he went through, like standing in line at immigration centers. He was particularly worried that others wouldn’t have to face the same level of scrutiny coming into the country.
“We need growth but how are migrants going to generate that?” – Michael
This is telling, because it reveals his pessimism about the economic contributions of migrants, for this is a theme throughout his conversation with Sophia. He would view it as an unjust hit. It seemed unfair that some foreign students are able to exploit the UK’s generosity while others are subject to draconian procedures.
Initial Impressions and Political Views
When talking to them, Michael shared the impression that he got upon meeting Sophia for the first time. He’d been telling himself she would be older, so it hurt to discover the truth. He critiqued her in-your-face, public embrace of progressive politics as a purposeful straw man. This graphic representation of her ideology really felt like it was foreshadowing their very different perspectives.
Michael said that he would normally vote Conservative, but sat out the last two elections. He feels like the parties are all generally the same, and he expressed his extreme disgust with the ongoing two-state solution with Israel and Palestine. He insisted that the idea of rewarding Israel for its bad behavior is just outrageous on its face. This position runs counter to his view and support of strong democratic governance.
Despite their differences, Michael attempted to maintain civility throughout their conversation, choosing to stay for the duration of Sophia’s meal. He was indisputably cognizant of the ideological gulf that divided them.
A Clash of Ideologies
Sophia made her argument passionately, succinctly framing her position as a gender abolitionist. She stated, “I quite like that people use labels, because that makes it feel more real, as opposed to people thinking they’re abnormal.” This point of view ran totally counter to Michael’s more classic takes on identity and governance, which were always pretty rudimentary.
Their dialogue revealed a deeper philosophical divide. If Michael is searching for a single, democratically run, state, Sophia seems less committed to any one form of expression or institution. This encounter brought into sharp relief the deeper culture war issues around migration, national identity, and political expression.
Michael seemed to be against the idea of a two-state solution throughout their exchange. He argued that it serves to entrench inequity rather than to create genuine peace. His background as a historian shaped his views on these issues, as he consistently compared the exclusionary practices in contemporary global governance to previous historical injustices.
Personal Reflections and Future Implications
As their conversation progressed, Michael reflected on the implications of migration policies not just for newcomers but for existing citizens. First, he believes that any immigration changes made after Brexit should focus on looking after the interests of people already living in the UK. His lived experience processing immigration transition has led him to be particularly sensitive to the difficulties in undergoing such a transition.
Through Sophia’s fervor for her convictions, Michael had to reflect on how approaches rooted in left versus right political philosophies shape our conversations within communities. While he may not agree with her views, he recognized the importance of engaging with diverse perspectives to foster understanding.