A fierce clash erupted on GB News when businessman Charlie Mullins advocated for prioritising British workers in employment, prompting economist Jonathan Portes to accuse him of employing racist rhetoric.
The heated discussion arose whilst debating whether Britain should adopt similar measures to America's newly announced immigration restrictions.
Mr Mullins enthusiastically endorsed the concept, stating "It's a great idea" and arguing it would prevent "a lot of the rubbish coming here."
He further claimed that each immigrant arrival leads to ten additional people entering the country.
Mr Portes clashed with Mr Mullins on GB News
|GB NEWS
Mr Portes immediately condemned these remarks as "explicitly racist language," specifically targeting Mr Mullins' characterisation of immigrants as "rubbish."
The economist challenged Mr Mullins directly, asserting he held a position of responsibility and was misleading the programme's audience.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
- Ed Davey woos anti-Reform Tories as Nigel Farage tipped for dozens of defections in blow to Badenoch
- Labour MP rages during GB News debate as he is told 'protect your constituents from migrants'
- Corbyn's hard-left Your Party plunged into chaos as Sultana calls in lawyers over 'baseless attacks'
The confrontation intensified when Mr Mullins declared that "immigrants and migrants are ruining this country," doubling down on his controversial stance.
He maintained his position despite the backlash, insisting that individuals who fail to contribute to Britain should not be welcomed.
Mr Portes responded with sharp criticism, telling Mullins "You ought to know better" and accusing him of spreading falsehoods to viewers.
The economist specifically challenged claims about benefit eligibility, stating "You can't come here to work and claim benefits."
The exchange grew more personal when Mr Mullins retorted "If anyone is being stupid, it's yourself. I'm not a liar," whilst reiterating his view that non-contributors were unwelcome.
This prompted further condemnation from Portes, who maintained that such language was unacceptable from someone in Mr Mullins' public position.
Applicants to the H-1B visa programme for skilled foreign workers will have to cough up an $100,000 (£74,000) annual fee in America
| GETTYThe debate extended beyond rhetoric to economic arguments, with Mr Portes attributing America's recent job creation struggles to Trump's restrictive immigration stance.
He characterised the new measures as "another part of his ongoing campaign against immigrants of all kinds in the United States" and warned Britain against following suit.
Their disagreement highlighted fundamental differences in understanding immigration's economic effects. Whilst Mr Mullins insisted on protecting employment opportunities for British citizens, Mr Portes disputed core assumptions about immigrant benefit claims and their societal contributions.
The discussion occurred against the backdrop of President Trump's dramatic immigration policy shift, including a newly imposed $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applicants.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defended the measure, claiming it would prevent foreign workers from "taking jobs away from hard working Americans."
The Trump administration's immigration overhaul includes introducing a "Gold Card" visa programme alongside the H-1B fee increase. Individual applicants can fast-track residency and citizenship for $1 million, whilst corporations must pay $2 million to expedite sponsorship of foreign workers.
White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf described the H-1B system as "one of the most abused" visa programmes, explaining the hefty fee would "ensure that the people they're bringing in are actually highly skilled and not easily replaceable by American workers."
MrTrump expressed confidence the measures would be "very successful" and generate billions in revenue.
Lutnick emphasised the policy reversal from what he termed the previous administration's "disastrous agenda" of "flooding the country with illegal aliens."
He stated the new requirements would guarantee foreign workers provide "significant benefit" to America rather than exploiting the economy without meaningful contributions.