Thread: lies on immigration Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028043
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The thread on UKIP unfortunately got derailed, and closed, but I was reminded of it by a journalist friend, who was arguing with me that UKIP do well where immigration is low.
I haven't had time to check this out thoroughly, but I did notice during the Clacton by-election, that Clacton has low levels of immigrants. Same is true I think of the next by-election, Rochester.
Anyway, the thesis of my friend is that areas such as this are economically at a low level, have low wages, under-investment, and a general feeling of neglect from central government. Compare London with very high levels of immigrants, and high wages.
Does this get displaced onto immigration?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The lies on immigration are everywhere, but I suspect that people who haven't experienced life with a large immigrant community in the same town are more likely to fall for the lies, because they have little direct experience of the truth.
On Facebook the other day I had a message from David Cameron wanting my views on immigration. Well, I have quite strong views on immigration so thought I might as well share them with the PM if he's being so kind as to ask me. Only thing was he didn't want my views on immigration, he wanted me to answer some leading multiple choice questions, where none of the answers would represent my views on immigration and indeed would be seriously distorting my views. So I refused to answer - which of course means that when they analyse the results it's going to be skewed in favour of the answer they want, but if I'd filled in the stupid questions it would still have been skewed in favour of the answer they want.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Certainly the low wages ad economic development play a strong part: "All they're doing is coming over here, taking our jobs and cluttering up our surgeries and schools" is the common rant.
Could it be, though, that people living in very mixed areas where no one migrant group predominates, such as London, have simply stopped regarding people as "incomers" and now just respond to them as "people"? I think this is a bit different to areas such as Peterborough or Boston which have seen very rapid immigration of folk from a few specific foreign countries.
(Of course, those folk who claim that migrants clutter up the surgery conveniently forget how the NHS would collapse without immigrant staff!)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Certainly the low wages ad economic development play a strong part: "All they're doing is coming over here, taking our jobs and cluttering up our surgeries and schools" is the common rant.
In my experience, all they're doing is coming over here, picking our fruit and vegetables, serving us coffee, teaching our children and healing our sick.
Is Outrage!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You forgot to add, "And propping up the Exchequer with their taxes"!
[ 28. October 2014, 10:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Certainly the low wages ad economic development play a strong part: "All they're doing is coming over here, taking our jobs and cluttering up our surgeries and schools" is the common rant.
Could it be, though, that people living in very mixed areas where no one migrant group predominates, such as London, have simply stopped regarding people as "incomers" and now just respond to them as "people"? I think this is a bit different to areas such as Peterborough or Boston which have seen very rapid immigration of folk from a few specific foreign countries.
(Of course, those folk who claim that migrants clutter up the surgery conveniently forget how the NHS would collapse without immigrant staff!)
Yes, I remember in Oldham that there was/is a big disconnect between the white population and the Bangladeshi people, which is geographical; I mean they live in different parts of town.
But again, Oldham is economically depressed. If it was booming, with high wages and low unemployment, I wonder if anybody would care about immigrants?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Compare London with very high levels of immigrants, and high wages.
High wages my arse! Yes, the average wage may be higher than in other parts of the country, but the cost of living is much higher too, and there are also a lot of people in London on minimum wage.
In the Borough of Croydon, which is where I live, there are over 12000 people in full time employment on minimum wage who have to claim benefits in order to make ends meet and I suspect it's much the same in a lot of other London boroughs.
Many (most) of these people are immigrants, so when immigrants get castigated for being "benefit scroungers", bear in mind that most of them are doing the right thing by working for a living. It's just that immigrants tend to get shit jobs on shit pay.
[ 28. October 2014, 13:05: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I suspect there is a connection. The places where there are not jobs, a depressed economy, it is unlikely to attract immigrants. Because they don't have the experience of immigrant populations helping to support the economy, and they may be struggling to find work, they find someone to blame.
Places with jobs may attract immigrants, but they are not seen to be taking jobs, because there are plenty. Over time, as they integrate into the community, they are no longer seen as "outsiders", even if there are economic difficulties.
This seems to be reflected in the places I have lived, through different economic times and situations. The rather conservative area I currently live in has had immigrants for some time, but there is very little unpleasantness towards them. I wouldn't say none, but they are accepted as part of our city.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Certainly the low wages ad economic development play a strong part: "All they're doing is coming over here, taking our jobs and cluttering up our surgeries and schools" is the common rant.
Could it be, though, that people living in very mixed areas where no one migrant group predominates, such as London, have simply stopped regarding people as "incomers" and now just respond to them as "people"? I think this is a bit different to areas such as Peterborough or Boston which have seen very rapid immigration of folk from a few specific foreign countries.
(Of course, those folk who claim that migrants clutter up the surgery conveniently forget how the NHS would collapse without immigrant staff!)
Yes, I think you have something there. Certainly as someone from a very diverse Midlands city, we were just so used to incomers that while you do get anti-immigration rhetoric, it's much lower-level than in smaller or more ethnically-divided places.
Shame on those spreading these lies, particularly those claiming some kind of (often nominal but still) Christian faith. Not sure what our refugee Lord would make of it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Compare London with very high levels of immigrants, and high wages.
High wages my arse! Yes, the average wage may be higher than in other parts of the country, but the cost of living is much higher too, and there are also a lot of people in London on minimum wage.
In the Borough of Croydon, which is where I live, there are over 12000 people in full time employment on minimum wage who have to claim benefits in order to make ends meet and I suspect it's much the same in a lot of other London boroughs.
Many (most) of these people are immigrants, so when immigrants get castigated for being "benefit scroungers", bear in mind that most of them are doing the right thing by working for a living. It's just that immigrants tend to get shit jobs on shit pay.
OK, fair enough. I am just wondering why London is such a bad place for UKIP, since it probably has one of the highest levels of immigrants. In some ways, it contradicts the whole UKIP thesis.
Also, Fallon's argument that British towns are swamped and under siege from immigration should apply to London, more than place like Clacton, which have low levels of immigrants.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am just wondering why London is such a bad place for UKIP, since it probably has one of the highest levels of immigrants.
Surely that's exactly the reason why London is a bad place for UKIP: that the voting population, indigenous, immigrant, and second generation, can see through the lies in a way that low-immigration areas can't.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am just wondering why London is such a bad place for UKIP, since it probably has one of the highest levels of immigrants.
Surely that's exactly the reason why London is a bad place for UKIP: that the voting population, indigenous, immigrant, and second generation, can see through the lies in a way that low-immigration areas can't.
Yes, that's how I started off with this - the observation by a friend that UKIP votes stack up in low immigrant areas.
But it may not be always true; there are probably other factors, such as how recent immigration is. In London, it has always gone on, obviously.
I need to find a map which analyzes all these factors, quite complicated.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... Fallon's argument that British towns are swamped and under siege from immigration should apply to London, more than place like Clacton, which have low levels of immigrants.
Clacton, like many towns in Eastern England, has a very high level of immigration, only they have come from London. Norfolk and Suffolk are swarming with ex-Londoners who have pushed house prices up so far that ordinary hard-working Norfolk people can't afford a home there. Lincolnshire and the outer reaches of Cambridgeshire are affected similarly (I know, I've lived there and have family in those areas).
Just don't tell these incomers, who are prime UKIP-fodder, that they too are immigrants.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm in Fallon's constituency. Sevenoaks seems to be swamped with upper-middle class whites, though it has recently got a fairly upmarket Lidl, and does have a food bank. I don't think I've seen anyone obviously from elsewhere. New Ash Green does have some more variety, very few visibly not white, and a lovely German woman who came over as a refugee in the middle of the last century, I think. Also some non-immigrant unloved people to whom I will return. Swanley I don't know so well, but its Aldi customers don't look like the collection of black and eastern European people seen in Gravesend, or the much blacker clientele in Catford.
I had thought that the Lincolnshire and Fens incomers who pick veg and fruit have taken the place not of local residents but people who themselves were reviled, like our little enclave of travellers who can no longer travel, so cannot follow the crops around the country.
It's the only group of whom people use a derogatory name without a qualm of breaching PC rules.
I notice the Archbishop has come out to criticise the tone of the immigration debate.
[ 28. October 2014, 18:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Clacton, like many towns in Eastern England, has a very high level of immigration, only they have come from London.
Indeed. I've never been to Clacton, but I thought a lot of residents were former East Enders who have moved out (for whatever reason). If White Flight has driven them out then they might well have strong views on immigration?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Clacton, like many towns in Eastern England, has a very high level of immigration, only they have come from London.
Indeed. I've never been to Clacton, but I thought a lot of residents were former East Enders who have moved out (for whatever reason). If White Flight has driven them out then they might well have strong views on immigration?
What's 'White flight' got to do with it? How many would prefer to spend their retirement in an admittedly past its best seaside town to, say, Dagenham?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Oh I'm sure Dagenham is delightful at this time of year.
My point was that if mass immigration to London was a push factor, driving a white working class family away from the city towards, say, Clacton, then that now-resident of Clacton might hold views on immigration. But I don't know whether newer residents of places like Clacton have a residual feeling that London is 'home' or not.
More generally, is it so surprising that people who aren't keen on mass immigration don't live in areas with lots of new immigrants? I wonder, for example, how many people opposed to nuclear power stations actually live near nuclear power stations?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Clacton was not a lovely place when I was at college there in the early 60s, in the winter. And Jaywick Sands was like Peacehaven* without the architectural merit, the last resort of those without resources. I doubt the constituency has improved.
*For the benefit of non-natives. Peacehaven I believe its development led to imporvements in planning law.
[ 29. October 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The trouble with immigration as a subject is two-fold:
First, there is the almost knee-jerk reaction of some to label racist those who are concerned at the apparent high numbers of people being allowed to settle in the country.
Second, there is the more fundamental problem that no one knows the number of people being allowed to settle. Yes, sounds weird but its true.
'Immigration' numbers are made up of people from several sources:
(a) people applying for permission to move to the UK;
(b) people applying for leave to join an already resident spouse or other family member;
(c) people claiming permanent leave to remain having claimed political asylum;
(d) people who have been resident illegally who are given permission to remain;
(e) children born to British parents abroad with the automatic right to residence who choose to exercise that right as UK passport holders after the age of 18.
Figures for (a) are easy to ascertain because every person who wishes to move to the UK permanently and goes through the legal channels to get permission fills in forms, except in the case of children under the age of 18, and since separate application is made on their behalf by parents they too can be accurately counted.
People seeking to join a spouse or other family member (b) are also fairly easy to enumerate because of a fairly robust - although not necessarily fair - application process.
Accurate figures for (c) are almost impossible for the simple reason that a person deemed to be a 'head-of-household' an cover an almost unlimited (in theory at least) number of people: wives (yes, polygamous wives are allowed in), children, elderly parents, etc, etc, etc. On paper only one person will be listed but the actual number is anyone's guess.
(d) Numbers for those people who have been resident illegally who are given permission to remain are not gathered centrally by the ONS since permission is given on a case-by-case basis.
Numbers for children born to British parents abroad (e) cannot even be guessed at since, as holders of British passports, they won't be checked at an immigration gate.
Why can I state the above with reasonable confidence? Well, if you go to the ONS website and look at the various tables you start to notice something curious: virtually every table includes the word 'estimate' in the title. If you then call them and ask for an explanation the answers you get refer you back to the same estimated tables - but if you have a friend who works there you get the answers as summarised by me above.
All of the UK's immigration statistics are (and I quote from the ONS here) "The International Passenger Survey (IPS) is the prime source of long-term international migration data, providing estimates of both inflows and outflows, but it does not cover all migration types. The IPS is a continuous voluntary survey conducted at all principal air and sea routes and the channel tunnel. It is a sample survey and the resultant figures are grossed up by weighting factors dependent on route and time of year. The figures produced are therefore estimates, not exact counts. A copy of the latest IPS questionnaire can be found in Appendix B of the Methodology paper on the ONS website."
As for just who is or isn't an immigrant - again, I quote the ONS "The UN recommendation for defining an international long-term migrant is used. That is, a migrant is someone who changes his or her country of usual residence for a period of at least a year, so that the country of destination effectively becomes the country of usual residence. This definition does not necessarily coincide with those used by other organisations."
For the period 2001 to 2010 the original figures given by ONS for immigration into the UK were that 1,967,000 people moved here; this figure was later revised to 2,323,000, a difference of over 18% - to give some idea of scale, the population of Northern Ireland is reckoned to be 1,811,000.
As for there being a link between high numbers of immigrants and low wages - this assumes that immigrants work in the area where they have settled, but if you look at places with a high proportion of immigrants, such as Slough, it is a commuter town and a lot of the population travels elsewhere to work so it is dangerous to make too strong a link between local wage levels and immigrant numbers.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
First, there is the almost knee-jerk reaction of some to label racist those who are concerned at the apparent high numbers of people being allowed to settle in the country.
But there's a relatively easy way to sort out the committed racists from the lazy racists: ask them what percentage of the population are actually immigrants.
If they answer somewhere in the 20%s (average answer on being asked this question is 24%), then they are lazy racists. If they answer correctly (13%) and are still concerned that it's too much, then they're probably going to be committed racists belonging to Migration Watch. Supplementals can include the % of Muslims (actual: 5%, average guess 21%) and % of those of working age and unemployed (actual: 7%, average guess 24%).
The key word here is 'apparent'. If your political opinions are based on prejudiced guesswork, then don't complain when decent folk call those opinions racist.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
'Immigration' numbers are made up of people from several sources:
(a) people applying for permission to move to the UK;
(b) people applying for leave to join an already resident spouse or other family member;
(c) people claiming permanent leave to remain having claimed political asylum;
(d) people who have been resident illegally who are given permission to remain;
(e) children born to British parents abroad with the automatic right to residence who choose to exercise that right as UK passport holders after the age of 18.
Figures for (a) are easy to ascertain because every person who wishes to move to the UK permanently and goes through the legal channels to get permission fills in forms, except in the case of children under the age of 18, and since separate application is made on their behalf by parents they too can be accurately counted.
People seeking to join a spouse or other family member (b) are also fairly easy to enumerate because of a fairly robust - although not necessarily fair - application process.
Accurate figures for (c) are almost impossible for the simple reason that a person deemed to be a 'head-of-household' an cover an almost unlimited (in theory at least) number of people: wives (yes, polygamous wives are allowed in), children, elderly parents, etc, etc, etc. On paper only one person will be listed but the actual number is anyone's guess.
(d) Numbers for those people who have been resident illegally who are given permission to remain are not gathered centrally by the ONS since permission is given on a case-by-case basis.
Numbers for children born to British parents abroad (e) cannot even be guessed at since, as holders of British passports, they won't be checked at an immigration gate.
My wife and my youngest son are in category e)! Should they be allowed to remain in the country?
That's two immigrants out of the five people in our household. I'm sure even The Daily Mail, UKIP, Britain First and the BNP don't think 40% of the population are immigrants.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
SS
You'll note I don't say whether I consider immigration beneficial or not because, frankly, I don't think its possible to make a blanket choice like that.
What I'm saying is that the figures which are bandied about should be viewed with great caution (my ONS friend would describe them as guesswork) and basing any hard-and-fast policy on them is likely to end in tears.
What I do know from having lived in an area with a large immigrant population is that people from some areas/traditions who move here from outside the UK seem to make strenuous efforts to continue living here without learning the language or adopting the more obvious signs of western/ european lifestyle, such as dress and that we ignore the effects this can have on the indigenous population who may be living in close proximity with these people at our peril; mono-culturalism doesn't just exist in the white British population.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
SS
You'll note I don't say whether I consider immigration beneficial or not because, frankly, I don't think its possible to make a blanket choice like that.
What I'm saying is that the figures which are bandied about should be viewed with great caution (my ONS friend would describe them as guesswork) and basing any hard-and-fast policy on them is likely to end in tears.
What I do know from having lived in an area with a large immigrant population is that people from some areas/traditions who move here from outside the UK seem to make strenuous efforts to continue living here without learning the language or adopting the more obvious signs of western/ european lifestyle, such as dress and that we ignore the effects this can have on the indigenous population who may be living in close proximity with these people at our peril; mono-culturalism doesn't just exist in the white British population.
And I've seen white British people move to another part of Britain and make even less effort to fit in. They have one culture, the existing inhabitants another.
But then they are themselves white and British, so maybe it doesn't matter. It looks like you allow white British people to do as they please and expect others to fit in to some abstract 'British culture'. You can call that what you please, but I know what it looks like.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I remember this in Oldham - the white people saying about the Bangladeshi people, oh, they don't want to mix. OK, how much have you tried to mix? But that's different, this is our country.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What I do know from having lived in an area with a large immigrant population is that people from some areas/traditions who move here from outside the UK seem to make strenuous efforts to continue living here without learning the language or adopting the more obvious signs of western/ european lifestyle, such as dress and that we ignore the effects this can have on the indigenous population who may be living in close proximity with these people at our peril; mono-culturalism doesn't just exist in the white British population.
There's a family down the street from me that I occasionally overhear speaking in a language I don't recognise, such as when they are near the driveway. I had no idea I was in such peril from not being able to stick my nose into a conversation nobody invited me to be part of. And just think, they might be preparing food in their kitchen that I've never tried! Horrifying.
The effects on me are truly profound. I haven't been able to eat fish and chips for weeks because I'm so disturbed about not knowing whether the neighbours are also having meals appropriate to my background.
[ 29. October 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What I do know from having lived in an area with a large immigrant population is that people from some areas/traditions who move here from outside the UK seem to make strenuous efforts to continue living here without learning the language or adopting the more obvious signs of western/ european lifestyle, such as dress and that we ignore the effects this can have on the indigenous population who may be living in close proximity with these people at our peril; mono-culturalism doesn't just exist in the white British population.
Well now. Where I live is also where the largest Yeshiva in Europe is. The Orthodox Jews have a radically different style of dress from non-Jewish locals, almost all live within a few streets of each other, and speak in an English/Yiddish/Hebrew patois. They have a separate education system and their own shops. They've been here since the 1920s and have singularly failed to integrate.
However, I feel unimperilled, and indeed, along with many of our other non-Jewish residents, feel actually quite proud to host this community who live and work amongst us but more or less separate from us. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.
Silly, silly Doc Tor. It is absolutely vital that other people validate your existence by copying your behaviour.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
And now the Mail and the Express are stepping up their campaign against truth and human decency by reporting that the mayor of Calais described Britain as El Dorado for migrants.
No she didn't, she said that lots of migrants think it is El Dorado because they don't understand how shitty it really is.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I was not implying that the white-British don't have to make an effort, nor was I saying that people shouldn't keep their own culture alive - my own children were able to sing Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Land of my fathers) in Welsh long before they got to grips with God save The Queen.
But a perception of 'otherness' or failure to absorb or take up at least some of the indigenous culture or language is a different thing: this can include things such as going to meetings of the school PTA, helping out with playgroups, joining local Sunday League football teams, etc.
A good place to look at is Slough because it has a large population of second and third generation immigrants from the Commonwealth plus a large number of more recent arrivals from Eastern Europe. Slough Borough Council's own report (The Story of Slough 2014) makes for interesting reading: quote:
Residents want to live in a town that celebrates its diversity, that is inclusive and which provides access to services and support for all. Four-fifths (81%) agree, either very or fairly strongly, that people from different backgrounds get on well together. Just one in ten actively disagree. When asked what stops communities ‘getting on’ with each other, the most commonly quoted reason (39%) was felt to be cultural difference/ religion or discrimination. The next highest reason given (27%) was that language/ communication stops people getting on well together; however, for eastern European residents, this reason rises to 40%. The third factor overall (16%) was seen to be Anti-social Behaviour (ASB), however a significant barrier to social cohesion was identified as people not ‘pulling together to improve the local area’; on average 27% disagree that people pull together to improve the local area; however, this falls to just 11% amongst residents from an eastern European background and 15% of African respondents, rising to 30% of White British residents. Volunteering is an indicator of community involvement and in Slough, 22% of residents have recently volunteered.
The last point about things like volunteering is particularly important because it is through activities outside the home such as involvement with extra-curricula activities for children that families become integrated into the wider community. If you have a community where women are actively discouraged from mixing outside the family or cultural circle integration becomes much more difficult.
As for Stamford Hill Doc Tor, I have relatives and friends there - and I know about the row a few weeks ago when the posters saying 'Women should walk on this side of the road only' were put up for a Torah procession (and I wonder if the local council would have known about them if they'd only been printed in Yiddish).
Me? I find the situation completely baffling - but then my melting-pot family defies most pigeonholing since we have Welsh, Welsh/Irish, Welsh/Chinese, Welsh/Israeli-Yemeni, Jamaican-Welsh/Chinese, Tanzanian-Welsh/Irish, Welsh/Israeli-Iraqi/Kurdish and the religions followed are Christian, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and Islam, plus a few of no faith.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What I do know from having lived in an area with a large immigrant population is that people from some areas/traditions who move here from outside the UK seem to make strenuous efforts to continue living here without learning the language or adopting the more obvious signs of western/ european lifestyle, such as dress and that we ignore the effects this can have on the indigenous population who may be living in close proximity with these people at our peril; mono-culturalism doesn't just exist in the white British population.
Yes. Well said.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
This is interesting to me, as I am an immigrant. I am currently living in NZ on a work visa, I am white British, speak English and could easily be mistaken for a Kiwi before I open my mouth.
Personally I find that no one objects to me coming to NZ, no one sees me as a threat and I haven't found it hard to integrate. But I have heard some awful racism and bigotry directed at people of Asian origin which really gets my gall. I've taken to responding to attitudes like this with a wry smile and a comment about 'those evil immigrants' which tends to make the person shut up and reflect on how stupid they're being.
People by in large are extraordinarily ignorant of the processes and hoops people must jump through to move from their home country to another one. There's a housing crisis in Auckland right now which is way more down to a lack of capital gains tax and sheer greed than it is to immigration but still you get shrill and ignorant people demanding that the government encourage immigration away outside of Auckland (completely missing the fact that this already does happen)
There's a two fold process for successful immigration, firstly the immigrant MUST respect and make an attempt to understand the culture to which they have come. I have had to shut up and listen quite a number of times to learn about and understand the Maori cultural practices which are integral to NZ. Whenever I have found these strange, puzzling or irritating I have told myself I am new here and I should be the one changing not them and this has helped me to grow. Secondly the native population (here I am talking about Britain not the colonial era of NZ) needs to make the effort to support people to integrate. Government programs don't cut it, if we don't go around and reach out to people ourselves and try to break the fear/suspicion and ignorance nothing will ever change.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But a perception of 'otherness' or failure to absorb or take up at least some of the indigenous culture or language is a different thing: this can include things such as going to meetings of the school PTA, helping out with playgroups, joining local Sunday League football teams, etc.
Ah, our old friend perception. How often have we found perception to be utter bollocks. I'll tell you how often, about as often as it doesn't tally with our own prejudices and preconceptions. That's most of the time and it's why acting on perceptions is a lousy way to run organisations, countries, football leagues, PTAs and playgroups. Action should follow solid evidence, not loudmouth ranting whether by individuals, mobs or in newspapers.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Our church Women's Group visited the area's second largest employer last night; fifty per cent of their employees are from eastern Europe. This is an area of high employment and businesses who need employees willing to work anti-social shift patterns etc simply couldn't function if they were relying on local workers. The business owner was singing the praises of eastern European immigration.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I think the UK causes many of the problems with its amateurish approach.
In the US all people wanting either a green card or full citizenship must take citizenship classes which cover US history and the English language. The US government is going to make these free of charge from 2015 but at the moment there are many available free from non-profit organisations. The US history part of the test is pretty rigorous and requires fairly good knowledge of the division of powers between Washington and the states, plus an idea of the geography of the US.
In Australia there is AMEP - the Adult Migrant English Programme - which can provide up to 500 hours (I think) of language lessons to give immigrants the best chance of entering the labour market. There is also a fairly rigorous citizenship test with a 75% pass requirement.
In the UK the test is pretty simple and the language requirement is best described as basic - the knowledge of English needed certainly wouldn't be enough to enable you to look for a job. There is government funding for the language element in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (not England) but it is means-tested and can be difficult to track down.
If government - of any political party - was really serious about encouraging and facilitating integration of immigrants there would be free language lessons and citizenship classes, with creche facilities, and the citizenship test element would focus less on the requirement for a TV licence and more on the history of the UK (though in a serious way, not with jokey questions about 'Bloody Mary' and Henry VIII's six wives).
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
more on the history of the UK (though in a serious way, not with jokey questions about 'Bloody Mary' and Henry VIII's six wives).
What aspects of the UK's history would you suggest that immigrants know? Would you start with pre-history, or the Romans, or the start of feudalism, or the Union of the Crowns, or... (perhaps this could be a Purg thread!)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But a perception of 'otherness' or failure to absorb or take up at least some of the indigenous culture or language is a different thing: this can include things such as going to meetings of the school PTA, helping out with playgroups, joining local Sunday League football teams, etc.
I've spent another night being completely terrified by the 'otherness' of the family down the road. I found myself desperately worried that my ability to speak English would be compromised by being near people who spoke something else.
Seriously, are you LISTENING to yourself? There's a reason why particular paragraphs of your posts are the ones being picked and quoted. It's because they're the paragraphs that contain traces of bizarre irrational notions about how one might be affected by the fact that your neighbour is not your clone.
Are people really this insecure about their own sense of self? Are there vast swathes of the population that can only cope with their own life 'choices' by being surrounded by other people making the same 'choices', thus making a complete mockery of the word?
Yes. Yes, apparently there are. There are people out there that can only deal with a world where everyone around them looks like them, talks like them, eats like them, relaxes like them.
And we have to wring our hands and say "oh the poor dears, however will they cope if faced with the reality that the world is full of different approaches to life".
Or we could tell them to just grow the fuck up. We're not talking about sheep. We're not talking about 3-year-olds who need to hide behind Mummy's leg or be given a cuddle. We're talking about fully grown "adult" human beings here. And if a fully grown human being can't cope with the fact that the family down the road eats different food and wears different clothing and follows a different sport and prays on a Friday instead of a Sunday, then fuck me we are in serious trouble.
[ 30. October 2014, 08:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It's just that immigrants tend to get shit jobs on shit pay.
But that must be why they come here then! Surely shit job is way less shitty than the jobs in their own country, and the shit pay is significantly less shitty than the pay in their own country.
They want to come here and do our shit jibs for shit pay. Fine. No need to worry about them then. Fuck them, in fact. If they come here voluntarily to do a shit job for shit pay, well, they have their wish.
This thread is a prime example of when the ship is collectively in agreement, salving their own consciences, and as ever, completely on the wrong side of the overwhelming majority.
Sorry, but you are. Never mind about all those shining examples of multi-cultural societies where UKIP doesn't do well; they don't do well because turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and most, if not all, non-immigrant British people (and don't bother trying to define it as all "all British are ultimately immigrants!" You know perfectly well the people I mean) in those places just get on with things out of politeness, job-keeping, staying within the law, and self-preservation.
Of course UKIP and before them the BNP does well in white areas. The people in those white areas are worried they will become non-white if they don't do anything. It is a symptom of the problem.
If we were to stick some device into one of those non-immigrant - white if you like - Britons brains and get to the core of their thoughts before those thoughts are filtered up through the layers of conditioning, politeness, legal considerations and so on, what would the thoughts about immigrants be I wonder?
It is not pleasant but it is reality... the majority of British people don't like immigrants from a non-white, non-Christian culture. Again don't start pointing out that the west is mainly secular. Once again, you know exactly what I mean, and what kind of "Christian" culture I am talking about. We don't like immigrants who are too different from us.
Is that unusual? No. Of course not. as was said upthread A Britain settling in New Zealand is accepted. An asian is not.
There is no point in getting angry about it. The ship will do of course because 99% of its inhabitants all see things the same way, but sadly 99% of the real world disagrees with them.
We have had mass immigration into the UK since the fifties, getting on for seventy years now. If it was welcomed and successful, why are we still having the debate? Why is it an issue? And why is the ship so angry about the "lies"?
The fact is that most British people have become more tolerant of immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe, not because we have actually become more tolerant, but because we have been forced to become more tolerant. We have had to filter our true desires through the social niceness, the law, the self-preservation.
Of course this debate isn't going away. It will continue as long as immigrants from places that are "not like us" keep getting off planes and ships and trains.
Is there a solution? Well partly yes. We can stop benefits to healthy working age people, so they do the shit jobs for shit pay. It may be that more people in Britain might then get worked up enough to do something about the shitiness, but whilst it is "the immigrants" getting the shit pay for doing a shit job then who gives a fuck.
Perhaps we'll pay an extra 20p for a carrot if we know it's been picked by a white Britain, but it seems as though we won't if we know it's been picked by a Romanian.
One more thing. If all those immigrants leaving their own countries to work here is a good thing, what is happening in their own countries? Are they actually able to rebuild themselves and turn themselves into stable economies when their prime workforce is in Bradford, Oldham or the Fens?
I've no doubts about the response this post will get, but frankly I think the ship really needs to get out and smell the coffee on this issue, because in the main it is overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the real world debate.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The people in those white areas are worried they will become non-white if they don't do anything.
Then the people in those white areas are infantile morons with no minds of their own who live out empty meaningless lives copying the other sheep around them.
[ 30. October 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
orfeo wrote:
Or we could tell them to just grow the fuck up. We're not talking about sheep. We're not talking about 3-year-olds who need to hide behind Mummy's leg or be given a cuddle. We're talking about fully grown "adult" human beings here. And if a fully grown human being can't cope with the fact that the family down the road eats different food and wears different clothing and follows a different sport and prays on a Friday instead of a Sunday, then fuck me we are in serious trouble.
Good post. Yes, it sounds rather infantile. But I think these fears of the Other also mount up, when there is economic pressure, e.g. high unemployment, and a sense of insecurity.
But a lot of this seems like fantasy. I remember again in Oldham, the number of fantasies that spread about immigrants, some of them bizarre. I suppose it amounts to demonization.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The people in those white areas are worried they will become non-white if they don't do anything.
Then the people in those white areas are infantile morons with no minds of their own who live out empty meaningless lives copying the other sheep around them.
I suppose it makes a change from worrying about areas becoming Jewish.
(nb, that's hardly Godwin; anti-Semitism has a long and dishonourable history in the British Isles. The Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, having never enjoyed the protection of Magna Carta)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think these fears of the Other also mount up, when there is economic pressure, e.g. high unemployment, and a sense of insecurity.
Which makes them no more rational. I mean, yes, will the brown man down the road compete with you for jobs? Of course.
But FFS so will the white bloke who went to school with you. Hell, if the local employers are idiotic racists like yourself, the white bloke you went to school with is more of a competitor for a job!
I know it's not driven by logic, and the last thing that politicians who benefit from these irrational emotional reactions want is for the sheep to think, but dear God, someone needs to be out there telling them to think instead of just constantly pandering to them in a popularity contest.
I referred to children precisely because any sane parent doesn't just constantly give a child what they want. Not unless they want to raise an unholy terror who will be completely unable to function once they have to interact with other human beings and are no longer the centre of the universe.
You want to see how it's done? Paul Keating. Australian Prime Minister. Responsible for introducing laws to recognise that Aboriginals had rights to the land they had lived in for thousands of years before Europeans turn up.
Watch this. Listen to this. Listen to how he handles talkback radio callers. This is famous stuff, because he dared to tell a voter he was prejudiced. And it's really worth following on to part 2 to hear him call another voter racist.
[ 30. October 2014, 09:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
We have had mass immigration into the UK since the fifties, getting on for seventy years now. If it was welcomed and successful, why are we still having the debate? Why is it an issue? And why is the ship so angry about the "lies"?
We've had mass immigration for much longer than that. In the C19th we had the Irish, with their non-Protestant religion and strange ways of educating their children. We're not debating the ongoing effect of C19th Irish immigration now. Then we had the Italians, with their ice-cream shops encouraging questionable meeting places for not-quite-respectable young people to meet up. We're not debating the ongoing effect of Italian immigration now.
And so on, and so on.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The people in those white areas are worried they will become non-white if they don't do anything.
Then the people in those white areas are infantile morons with no minds of their own who live out empty meaningless lives copying the other sheep around them.
You would know all about sheep wouldn't you.
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
Do you have a big immigration problem? Fair few million from Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan queuing up to get in anyway they can are they?
Or maybe it doesn't affect you at all and you are pontificating from no knowledge whatsoever?
You really are a leftist twat of the first order. You did well getting your "ignore the causes, weep about the effects" badge.
No answers except a plaintive cry of won't somebody think of the children.
You are a real bell-end.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Orfeo
Are you READING? I don't say that 'otherness' - or whatever - is something I have difficulty with: and if you read my other posts you might get some inkling why.
quote:
Or we could tell them to just grow the fuck up. We're not talking about sheep. We're not talking about 3-year-olds who need to hide behind Mummy's leg or be given a cuddle. We're talking about fully grown "adult" human beings here. And if a fully grown human being can't cope with the fact that the family down the road eats different food and wears different clothing and follows a different sport and prays on a Friday instead of a Sunday, then fuck me we are in serious trouble.
I was saying that there are people who find difference difficult to deal with. And rant and scream all you like, that is fact: whether or not the attitude is seen as unreasonable or infantile is immaterial, it exists.
Where have you got this thing about food? I haven't mentioned it - maybe because the one thing the British seem to have taken to is food from different cuisines, even if they do put their own twist on it.
The point about sport is not that people follow something different but that some cultures won't allow participation at all and that can affect school participation in sports leagues, as well as having an impact on fitness; and failure to take-up swimming lessons in school is worrying because people do drown.
There is reason for concern if school PTAs fold because of lack of support because all schools, and all pupils, need involvement in their child's education by the parents, and being an active member of the PTA is part of that. Similarly, the research is out there to show the link between parental involvement in education, including being read to, and later academic achievement: if the schooling is taking place in a language that the parent(s) don't have fairly fluently then the child may not get the help and support it needs.
If you go back and read my posts you'll see that I haven't mentioned religion other than to note those followed within my own family.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
We have had mass immigration into the UK since the fifties, getting on for seventy years now. If it was welcomed and successful, why are we still having the debate? Why is it an issue? And why is the ship so angry about the "lies"?
We've had mass immigration for much longer than that. In the C19th we had the Irish, with their non-Protestant religion and strange ways of educating their children. We're not debating the ongoing effect of C19th Irish immigration now. Then we had the Italians, with their ice-cream shops encouraging questionable meeting places for not-quite-respectable young people to meet up. We're not debating the ongoing effect of Italian immigration now.
And so on, and so on.
Both examples of white and Christian. Not non-white, and muslim.
Oh, and where are the Irish and Italian communities? Oh yes, integrated.
And finally Irish and Italian immigration slowed to a trickle rather than exponentially growing.
Your answer is implying the whole situation will settle down if we give it long enough. Perhaps, if like the Irish and Italian situation we stop the immigration and let the whole lot settle.
And any Irish or Italian immigrants these days are more than likely decently educated and certainly from a culture like ours.
Maybe Afghanistan needs to turn itself into a tourist resort and we can go there for a few decades, get used to them and then we will welcome them.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But a perception of 'otherness' or failure to absorb or take up at least some of the indigenous culture or language is a different thing: this can include things such as going to meetings of the school PTA, helping out with playgroups, joining local Sunday League football teams, etc.
Birmingham was not happy with the Muslim volunteers in their schools
I work across a number of areas in London and see parents volunteering, foster carers and other professionals from all backgrounds (last professionals meeting I attended two of the foster carers were Urdu speaking from Asian backgrounds, as were the children being fostered.) I know of local councillors from all backgrounds. Not sure where you're finding this lack of volunteers.
Statement of interest: my father and both maternal grandparents come under category (e) on your list - born abroad (in Egypt and India respectively) with British passports from their parents who were serving overseas. I can trace my family back to Domesday on my father's side and a very long way back on my mother's side (not so easy in Scotland).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Curiosity Killed quote:
Not sure where you're finding this lack of volunteers.
Information partly from a publication from Slough Borough Council, partly from my experience when living near there and having some school involvement, from a friend who runs a charity in the Thames valley, etc, etc, etc.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Both examples of white and Christian. Not non-white, and muslim.
My Scottish history is better than my British history, but I can assure you that there were huge religious tensions when Protestant Scotland had to cope with an influx of Roman Catholics, who wanted separate education for their children. There were areas of Scotland (Dundee, for example) where, very quickly, 30% of the population were Irish born, living in Irish only communities, not marrying outwith the Irish community (because to do so would have meant marrying a Protestant), educating their children in schools with no Scottish-born teachers (because there weren't enough Scottish born Roman Catholic teachers.)
There are still some residual tensions around football (Rangers and Hearts being the Scottish Protestant teams, and Celtic and Hibernian both coming originally from the Irish Roman Catholic community) but those tensions aren't about C19th immigration.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Your answer is implying the whole situation will settle down if we give it long enough.
Yes.
Perhaps the history of wave after wave of immigration could be included in l'Organists history education for current immigrants?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
I think I can safely say that I have done nothing whatsoever to harm the native Maori culture of my country.
(No, no... let the poor sweet dear work it out for himself if he can.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I always get the impression that right wing/racist people don't want immigration to work. In the case of some politicians, this makes sense, as they can get votes by doing scare stories.
But what about others who are right-wing? Do they want immigration to fail; do they want conflict to develop?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Orfeo
Are you READING? I don't say that 'otherness' - or whatever - is something I have difficulty with: and if you read my other posts you might get some inkling why.
quote:
Or we could tell them to just grow the fuck up. We're not talking about sheep. We're not talking about 3-year-olds who need to hide behind Mummy's leg or be given a cuddle. We're talking about fully grown "adult" human beings here. And if a fully grown human being can't cope with the fact that the family down the road eats different food and wears different clothing and follows a different sport and prays on a Friday instead of a Sunday, then fuck me we are in serious trouble.
I was saying that there are people who find difference difficult to deal with. And rant and scream all you like, that is fact: whether or not the attitude is seen as unreasonable or infantile is immaterial, it exists.
Yes, it exists, and I am reading because I'm well aware you weren't saying that this was your own thoughts. But I am responding to the notion that we should give such concerns the time of day.
We shouldn't. It's as simple as that. The sum total of the credence we should give to such concerns is to ridicule them as I was doing, to show how utterly ridiculous they are. To show that it simply isn't true that the different dress or different language of the person down the road has any meaningful impact on my life.
What we get instead is a bunch of politicians anxious to coddle and mollify and say "oh, I understand your concerns" because telling people that they have a good point is how you get their votes.
I find talk of things like PTAs folding because of the race of the parents utterly bizarre. My sister runs her school PTA. My sister frequently tears her hair out in frustration at the difficulty in getting volunteers for any activities, despite the enthusiastic agreement to having the activities.
My sister is surrounded by busy modern parents who either can't or won't contribute meaningful time and effort to school-related activities. And guess what? Most of them are white Anglo-Celts.
It's technological and social change that's driving the loss of various physically-based community groups. Not the bloody colour of people's skin. It's the fact that you're sitting at your computer discussing issues with a bloke in Australia instead of discussing issues down at the school hall with your neighbours. It's the fact that you can entertain yourself for hours on a home entertainment system with Netflix and 900 channels and have no need for the local amateur dramatic society. It's the fact that you can buy most of what you need on the internet and can bypass your local shop. It's the fact that entire generations of families have discovered that iPads can be used to avoid talking to people.
The notion that these changes are best attributed to the ethnicity of the locals is exactly the kind of slightly racist nonsense that we need to start calling slightly racist nonsense before it blows up into full-on racist voting.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
I think I can safely say that I have done nothing whatsoever to harm the native Maori culture of my country.
(No, no... let the poor sweet dear work it out for himself if he can.)
Oh you're a fucking Ausie aren't you, not a
Kiwi. Same difference though innit? You all talk funny and have either a failure or a criminal in your backgrounds (because nobody who is a success in their own country does actually emigrate). Shall we ask how many Aborigines you've mistreated then instead.
Nice of you to not address the issue though. It highlighted in a nutshell what is wrong most of the ship. As well as confirming you as a real bell-end.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think also that some people are actively working to defuse tensions over race and immigration. For example, in Oldham again, there are various organizations which go into the Asian and white communities, to discuss all the problems and fears, suggest ways in which more mixing can happen, and so on. For example, you now get mentoring schemes in schools, where an Asian kid mentors a white kid, and vice versa. This seems to me to be preferable to passively watching and predicting disaster. The biggest lie is that we are doomed.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I always get the impression that right wing/racist people don't want immigration to work. In the case of some politicians, this makes sense, as they can get votes by doing scare stories.
But what about others who are right-wing? Do they want immigration to fail; do they want conflict to develop?
Right wing? Where do you think the conflict will develop? Henley-on-Thames or Bradford? It will be your precious "working" classes who will start any conflict.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
I think I can safely say that I have done nothing whatsoever to harm the native Maori culture of my country.
(No, no... let the poor sweet dear work it out for himself if he can.)
Oh you're a fucking Ausie aren't you, not a
Kiwi. Same difference though innit? You all talk funny and have either a failure or a criminal in your backgrounds (because nobody who is a success in their own country does actually emigrate). Shall we ask how many Aborigines you've mistreated then instead.
Nice of you to not address the issue though. It highlighted in a nutshell what is wrong most of the ship. As well as confirming you as a real bell-end.
Which issue would that be then? The utterly false figures you've presented about how many people are seeking to emigrate to Australia?
They're utterly false. There ya go.
I've been exposed to people from other cultures my entire life. Why the hell should some more arrivals be a problem? My closest friend in first grade was a recent Chinese immigrant who spoke broken English. I spent almost my entire schooling with a Muslim girl from Bangladesh. I went to high school with the daughter of the Indian ambassador, and she observed Ramadan. I spent years in a church with lots of Southern Sudanese people in it. I played in the church soccer competition with them. HALF MY FUCKING TEAM SPOKE TO EACH OTHER IN ARABIC.
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet, surrounded by people who've come here because they or their families are connected to embassies, and you think I don't know what it's like to deal with foreigners? It's precisely because I do know that I'm calling you on your shit.
[ 30. October 2014, 10:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I always get the impression that right wing/racist people don't want immigration to work. In the case of some politicians, this makes sense, as they can get votes by doing scare stories.
But what about others who are right-wing? Do they want immigration to fail; do they want conflict to develop?
Right wing? Where do you think the conflict will develop? Henley-on-Thames or Bradford? It will be your precious "working" classes who will start any conflict.
Eh? Are you saying that working class people can't be right-wing? Come to Oldham, I will show you different.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I always get the impression that right wing/racist people don't want immigration to work. In the case of some politicians, this makes sense, as they can get votes by doing scare stories.
But what about others who are right-wing? Do they want immigration to fail; do they want conflict to develop?
Right wing? Where do you think the conflict will develop? Henley-on-Thames or Bradford? It will be your precious "working" classes who will start any conflict.
Eh? Are you saying that working class people can't be right-wing? Come to Oldham, I will show you different.
But don't you expect those sorts to vote Labour?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
There are times I wish these arguments were face to face, not on t'internet.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, I expect them to vote UKIP or EDL or BNP - well the kids I work with would chose those parties to vote for, even the mixed race White-Afro-Caribbean kids who are complaining about Bangladeshi immigration.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
I think I can safely say that I have done nothing whatsoever to harm the native Maori culture of my country.
(No, no... let the poor sweet dear work it out for himself if he can.)
Oh you're a fucking Ausie aren't you, not a
Kiwi. Same difference though innit? You all talk funny and have either a failure or a criminal in your backgrounds (because nobody who is a success in their own country does actually emigrate). Shall we ask how many Aborigines you've mistreated then instead.
Nice of you to not address the issue though. It highlighted in a nutshell what is wrong most of the ship. As well as confirming you as a real bell-end.
Which issue would that be then? The utterly false figures you've presented about how many people are seeking to emigrate to Australia?
They're utterly false. There ya go.
I've been exposed to people from other cultures my entire life. Why the hell should some more arrivals be a problem? My closest friend in first grade was a recent Chinese immigrant who spoke broken English. I spent almost my entire schooling with a Muslim girl from Bangladesh. I went to high school with the daughter of the Indian ambassador, and she observed Ramadan. I spent years in a church with lots of Southern Sudanese people in it. I played in the church soccer competition with them. HALF MY FUCKING TEAM SPOKE TO EACH OTHER IN ARABIC.
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet, surrounded by people who've come here because they or their families are connected to embassies, and you think I don't know what it's like to deal with foreigners? It's precisely because I do know that I'm calling you on your shit.
I have four questions...
1. Yeah?
2. And?
3. So?
4. What?
I'm not interested in your shinning example of oneness. It may surprise you to learn that here in the UK we don't give a fuck about you lot. Except that on occasions we get the odd news report about how you sink the odd ship with immigrants on. Or something. It's usually before the sport so I'm not really listening.
I'm more interested in dealing with the problems here in the UK, and you have no answers except "ooh, look at me. I'm really good. Be more like me". But nobody over here wants to be a donkey's prick like you.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet
You live in Washington, D.C.? Somehow I thought you were a Brit...
[ 30. October 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: jbohn ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I always get the impression that right wing/racist people don't want immigration to work. In the case of some politicians, this makes sense, as they can get votes by doing scare stories.
But what about others who are right-wing? Do they want immigration to fail; do they want conflict to develop?
Right wing? Where do you think the conflict will develop? Henley-on-Thames or Bradford? It will be your precious "working" classes who will start any conflict.
Eh? Are you saying that working class people can't be right-wing? Come to Oldham, I will show you different.
But don't you expect those sorts to vote Labour?
Why the fuck would they vote Labour? Come on, trying being real.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet
You live in Washington, D.C.? Somehow I thought you were a Brit...
That was Orfeo's quote you numpty. Not mine.
NB I've been to DC many times. Shite-hole. I can see why we tried to burn it down. But that's off topic I guess.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Oh well, deano has joined the thread, so everything will be about him now, and his baiting. End of thread really.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why the fuck would they vote Labour? Come on, trying being real.
Dunno. Perhaps because the Labour Party - being full of socialists - see's the working class as it's mainstay vote. Or is it only young professionals who live in mobile phone adverts that form the core of the Labour vote these days.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, deano has joined the thread, so everything will be about him now, and his baiting. End of thread really.
Oh, you mean because I don't agree with you you're going to sulk? You really are an adolescent teenager aren't you son?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, deano has joined the thread, so everything will be about him now, and his baiting. End of thread really.
Oh, you mean because I don't agree with you you're going to sulk? You really are an adolescent teenager aren't you son?
I just think that most threads that you join, start to revolve around you, and your various attempts to bait people. It doesn't make me sulk; it's just a shame that a serious discussion is sabotaged again by you.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, deano has joined the thread, so everything will be about him now, and his baiting. End of thread really.
Oh, you mean because I don't agree with you you're going to sulk? You really are an adolescent teenager aren't you son?
I just think that most threads that you join, start to revolve around you, and your various attempts to bait people. It doesn't make me sulk; it's just a shame that a serious discussion is sabotaged again by you.
That may be true. But, having people pop up and say "hey, there's deano! Let's start talking about him! that'll be the end of the thread" really helps us to not talk about deano. Yeah right.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How are the Maoris fairing these days? Treating them well are you?
I think I can safely say that I have done nothing whatsoever to harm the native Maori culture of my country.
(No, no... let the poor sweet dear work it out for himself if he can.)
Oh dear Deano, oh dear...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm more interested in dealing with the problems here in the UK, and you have no answers except
My answer is that it's about time you got it in your head that human beings are human beings wherever they are and whatever they look like. My answer is that treating the UK like an isolated little pocket of the world that can ignore the rest of the world if it wants is fundamentally wrong. My answer is that if you think you can cordon off your piece of the planet the way you cordon off your house and garden you are kidding yourself.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by ORFEO ACTUALLY:
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet
You live in Washington, D.C.?
I'm not going to expend a lot of energy again trying to present data as to why the USA is actually relying on the situation from 50 to 100 years ago to construct it's ongoing mythos of itself as the world's great cultural melting point, because last time I presented the actual facts about the proportion of people from overseas in various countries it had zero effect.
Believe what you want to believe. Heaven knows, Americans believing they're exceptionally multicultural is a lot smaller problem than the other untruths about immigration being discussed here. Because you are, in fact, quite multicultural. You're just not more multicultural than everybody else. From memory you're about 4th.
[ 30. October 2014, 12:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
That was Orfeo's quote you numpty. Not mine.
Mea culpa.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
NB I've been to DC many times. Shite-hole. I can see why we tried to burn it down. But that's off topic I guess.
As have I, though I don't share your thoughts on it, or the failed invasion (cf. the Battle of New Orleans, etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by ORFEO ACTUALLY:
I live in the capital city of the most multicultural country on the planet
You live in Washington, D.C.?
I'm not going to expend a lot of energy again trying to present data as to why the USA is actually relying on the situation from 50 to 100 years ago to construct it's ongoing mythos of itself as the world's great cultural melting point, because last time I presented the actual facts about the proportion of people from overseas in various countries it had zero effect.
Believe what you want to believe. Heaven knows, Americans believing they're exceptionally multicultural is a lot smaller problem than the other untruths about immigration being discussed here. Because you are, in fact, quite multicultural. You're just not more multicultural than everybody else. From memory you're about 4th.
I didn't see that you'd presented it the first time. Interesting, though. My (admittedly anecdotal) response was based on the children in the school district I work in speaking (last I heard) around 100 different languages and/or dialects - and I'm not even in one of the largest cities in the country.
Didn't mean to annoy you, though - just thought I had a chance to tweak deano a bit, nothing more. Which, it turns out, I bolloxed up. Humph. Must have more coffee... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Didn't mean to annoy you, though - just thought I had a chance to tweak deano a bit, nothing more. Which, it turns out, I bolloxed up. Humph. Must have more coffee...
That's the problem. deano isn't stupid. If you give him any room, he'll come back at you, spitting and snarling. If you have him stitched up, bang to rights and without a way to fight back, he says nowt.
It can be very frustrating when Party A wants a genuine debate and Party B wants a verbal punchbag. When the punchbag punches back of course, Party B is stuffed.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, deano has joined the thread, so everything will be about him now, and his baiting. End of thread really.
Oh, you mean because I don't agree with you you're going to sulk? You really are an adolescent teenager aren't you son?
I just think that most threads that you join, start to revolve around you, and your various attempts to bait people. It doesn't make me sulk; it's just a shame that a serious discussion is sabotaged again by you.
That may be true. But, having people pop up and say "hey, there's deano! Let's start talking about him! that'll be the end of the thread" really helps us to not talk about deano. Yeah right.
Gosh, it must be wonderful to have such an exalted sense of disinterest. How do you do it?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Like SS said, I'm not stupid. The response to my thread has been exactly as I thought it would go. The ship is nothing if not predictable.
If it were to be a debate SS, then some of my points need addressing.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'm surprised that London didn't feature as the most ethnically diverse capital city. According to the London Councils there are over 300 languages spoken in London and:
quote:
[a]round 3.3 million of London's population are Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and 4.9 million are White. The White population of London is forecast to remain at around this number throughout the next decade and increase slightly thereafter to 5 million in 2041
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That's the problem. deano isn't stupid.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Dead nuts wrong a lot of the time, yes. Stupid, no.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
A 100 different dialects or languages is nothing. It is true of where I live, in a city centre suburb of a small northern city in England. If there is a half way decent university then this is usually true due to the internationalism of Higher Education. However, there are also places in Africa where the capital cities can manage this with just the native population of the country. On that scale the only developed country with equivalent diversity is Canada.
Jengie
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There was all that trouble under Ethelred Unraed, when the English took against the Danish immigrants because they took baths on a Saturday, and so the English girls found them more attractive in church* on Sunday. Leading to the St Brice's Day massacre of Danes, including, rather foolishly, the sister of the King of Denmark.
*As I heard the story - it is possible that they were not, at the time, Christian. But certainly whiter than the resident English.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There was all that trouble under Ethelred Unraed, when the English took against the Danish immigrants because they took baths on a Saturday, and so the English girls found them more attractive in church* on Sunday. Leading to the St Brice's Day massacre of Danes, including, rather foolishly, the sister of the King of Denmark.
*As I heard the story - it is possible that they were not, at the time, Christian. But certainly whiter than the resident English.
Ahh, but they did become Christian after a sustained period of prosthelytising them. Are you suggesting we be allowed to do the same in the muslim communities.
I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker. In fact it might be a start.
Also, do read my original post in the thread about not being silly about what an immigrant is or that Britain is made of them. As I said, we know precisely the classification of immigrants we are talking about in 21st century Britain.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The key word here is 'apparent'. If your political opinions are based on prejudiced guesswork, then don't complain when decent folk call those opinions racist.
And if your argument against immigration is based on the Lump Labour Fallacy, then you are a moron. Bonus points if you then accuse the Left of economic illiteracy.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Plus if you think there is some liberal conspiracy to suppress views calling for tighter immigration controls, then you are a dangerously delusional moron. The Mail, the Express and the Telegraph are hardly samizdat publications.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There was all that trouble under Ethelred Unraed, when the English took against the Danish immigrants because they took baths on a Saturday, and so the English girls found them more attractive in church* on Sunday. Leading to the St Brice's Day massacre of Danes, including, rather foolishly, the sister of the King of Denmark.
*As I heard the story - it is possible that they were not, at the time, Christian. But certainly whiter than the resident English.
Ahh, but they did become Christian after a sustained period of prosthelytising them. Are you suggesting we be allowed to do the same in the muslim communities.
I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker. In fact it might be a start.
I know of two churches in my city that took on clergy of Muslim ancestry specifically to help them minister to Muslim communities, so this idea that Muslims musn't be approached by the gospel is untrue. It would be truer to say that most churches have no serious interest in doing this work. It's extremely hard, I imagine. And if we're honest, most churches want to stay just as they are, with a perhaps a few more people in the pews and signed up for the rotas. Too many Muslim converts really wouldn't serve that purpose!
Regarding immigration in general, I do think that the growth in recent decades has been too high in some respects. Immigrants haven't been given the time or the means to get to know and feel comfortable with 'the British way of life' as more and more people arrive. Because they're all housed together they don't meet enough of the indigenous population - who, if they're able, are continuing to move away to less multicultural areas, which exacerbates these problems.
There are other issues to do with stress on public services and/or competing with indigenous people or longer established ethnic minorities for low-paid (and not so low-paid) jobs, but I suppose they have to be weighed up against the fact that employers are obviously happy to have a wider pool of applicants to choose from, and we all want businesses to do well and to fund economic growth....
Finally, it's hard for Christians to argue against immigration when immigrants have boosted church attendance. In the large cities it's not just the 'ethnic' churches that have benefited, but mainstream denominations too.
[ 30. October 2014, 19:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, it must be wonderful to have such an exalted sense of disinterest. How do you do it?
It's this spiritual exercise I've been developing, it goes something like .... oh, I'm just not interested enough to explain.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Orfeo--
FYI: it's "melting *pot*", not "melting point".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Orfeo--
FYI: it's "melting *pot*", not "melting point".
My brain knows this. It's possible it doesn't always talk to my fingers.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Is Angela Merkel bluffing here? My view is that while she doesn't want to see the UK leave, she feels that an EU without Britain, but with free movement, will be stronger than an EU in which countries can demand special privileges.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although an EU nation has the power to veto another nation joining the Union (well, that's what we were told a few months ago, in that case Spain would veto Scottish EU membership) I don't think a single nation (even Germany) has the power to eject another nation from the EU. So, there is a certain bluff there.
On the other hand she has a good point. The EU has evolved from it's roots as a free trade zone, but it is still at least a free trade zone and if it ceases to be a free trade zone then that marks a very significant change in the EU. An EU which is a free trade zone except for the UK would be a very strange beast that would put a lot of stress into the system, and cutting off the UK would create a lot less stress for the rest of the EU. Whether the loss of the UK would cost more than the benefits of not having a part of the EU that's not in the free trade zone is another question.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
The article doesn't say Merkel's going to try to eject the UK - it says that if Cameron tries to introduce a quota on immigration from EU countries, she's going to stop efforts to keep it from leaving. Perhaps that means no attempts to give Cameron any renegotiation successes to point to before the referendum he promised (the main article is behind a paywall.)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
But the UK deciding to withdraw from free movement of people wouldn't mean also withdrawing from free trade.
And perhaps the problems in the UK are worse than elsewhere because the pro-EU campaign for the 1975 referendum lied - and the press was not behind those lies, it was in front of them.
Before he died Roy Jenkins admitted that political union was on the cards even before Britain gained EEC membership but that it was either never mentioned or denied because the politicians at the time knew the British public wouldn't stand for decision-making being taken away from Westminster. He also forbade civil servants releasing official figures which showed that over half a million jobs were lost to the EEC between the UK's entry and the referendum, and called Tony Benn a liar in debate when this subject came up.
If Mrs Merkel thinks she can blackmail UK politicians on this one she may be right - but the knock-on effect is likely to be even more support for the UK Out campaign.
A foolish move which will play badly with UK voters and will only add fuel to the anti-immigration lobby.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Does anyone really care any more what happened in 1975? I mean, even if the 1975 referendum was totally kosher, would it have predicted how the EU operated 39 years later? I doubt it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the UK deciding to withdraw from free movement of people wouldn't mean also withdrawing from free trade.
Only if you limit what you mean by free trade. Free trade covers goods, services, and labour. If you restrict what can be traded within the EU then you have withdrawn from free trade in those areas.
The UK has of course benefited in the past from
being able to export labour (just think of all those Geordie builders in Germany, immortalised in Auf Weidersehn Pet). We also benefit from imported labour that stops our crops rotting unharvested in the fields and our hospitals being unstaffed.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If Mrs Merkel thinks she can blackmail UK politicians on this one she may be right - but the knock-on effect is likely to be even more support for the UK Out campaign.
It's not blackmail, it's a simple statement of fact. I'm no particular fan of Merkel but in this she's simply speaking the truth.
Cameron is increasingly making promises that are simply impossible to keep in a vain attempt to fight the UKIP erosion into the right wing of his own party.
It is fine to want out of the EU - for whatever reason - that is a perfectly reasonable position. The effects of such a move for the UK are not catastophic - that would be an exaggeration - but there would be a significant reduction in the UK economic output and trading with Europe (our biggest market) would mean doing it on their terms without the benefit of any say in the rules of the game.
I'm not particularly keen on much of what the EU does but any sane analysis says that (as things stand) we are much better off being part of it than not. And for me, that's the end of the debate.
Immigration is inevitable if you have free movement of labour. And, by the way, free movement of labour is a vital right for the majority of people if you allow the free movement of capital - to allow capital to move more freely than people, as well as being conceptually troubling (as surely people should have more rights than money?) is the reason why globalisation has been so negative for so many poor / poorer people.
And so we come back to the point that in areas of high immigration the polls shows us very little opposition - and in areas of low immigration is where people are worried about it. That tells me this is a propaganda war and a classic case of scape-goating.
AFZ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So Let's imagine a world where there is complete free movement of labour, and none for capital. What would happen?
Countries would compete against each other, offering high wages, good infrastructure, access to decent housing, free healthcare and education, and well-regulated banking sectors with low charges, in order to capture the best workers.
Now let's imagine a world where there is complete free movement of capital, but none for labour...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by l'organist:
quote:
But the UK deciding to withdraw from free movement of people wouldn't mean also withdrawing from free trade.
The two countries that are generally mentioned in the context of the UK leaving the EU but negotiation some kind of free trade agreement are Norway and Switzerland which have more EU migrants, per capita, than the UK does currently. If the UK withdraws from the EU and announces its intention to negotiate a Free Trade deal with the EU, the EU will say something like "Certainly sir, if you want access to our markets these are our terms". The terms will almost certainly include free movement of people. If it doesn't involve free movement of people it will involve giving up something that the UK regards as desirable but which the EU negotiators regard as less so, as a quid pro quo, or not getting a deal at all.
The standard criticism of the Nationalist case during the late referrendum was that Salmond was essentially insisting that the Scots could keep all the good bits of the Union whilst renouncing the Union itself. The 'free trade without EU membership or immigration' meme is based on a similar self-deception, that we can have all the good bits of membership of the EU without the pesky inconvenience of belonging to the EU. In the real world having one's cake and eating it is not a live option.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
There are generally two types who advocate liberal immicration policies. There first are idealist "No borders, man!" types, multiculturalists. They're usually well intentioned but idealism usually leads to tyranny or worse, the gas chamber. The second are globalists, economic liberals, seeking to exploit cheap foreign labour. I say no to both of them.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
They're usually well intentioned but idealism usually leads to tyranny or worse, the gas chamber.
Because idealism can go horribly wrong, we should therefore have no ideals?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The refugee policies of the major parties here are lies and bereft of any humanity.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There are generally two types who advocate liberal immicration policies. There first are idealist "No borders, man!" types, multiculturalists. They're usually well intentioned but idealism usually leads to tyranny or worse, the gas chamber.
Do you have any examples of this, or are you talking out of your arse?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There are generally two types who advocate liberal immicration policies. There first are idealist "No borders, man!" types, multiculturalists. They're usually well intentioned but idealism usually leads to tyranny or worse, the gas chamber. The second are globalists, economic liberals, seeking to exploit cheap foreign labour. I say no to both of them.
It's a well known historical fact that the Third Reich was full of well-intentioned multiculturalists.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There are generally two types who advocate liberal immicration policies. There first are idealist "No borders, man!" types, multiculturalists. They're usually well intentioned but idealism usually leads to tyranny or worse, the gas chamber.
Worst. Godwin. Post. Ever.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Compare London with very high levels of immigrants, and high wages.
High wages my arse! Yes, the average wage may be higher than in other parts of the country, but the cost of living is much higher too, and there are also a lot of people in London on minimum wage.
In the Borough of Croydon, which is where I live, there are over 12000 people in full time employment on minimum wage who have to claim benefits in order to make ends meet and I suspect it's much the same in a lot of other London boroughs.
Many (most) of these people are immigrants, so when immigrants get castigated for being "benefit scroungers", bear in mind that most of them are doing the right thing by working for a living. It's just that immigrants tend to get shit jobs on shit pay.
OK, fair enough. I am just wondering why London is such a bad place for UKIP, since it probably has one of the highest levels of immigrants. In some ways, it contradicts the whole UKIP thesis.
Also, Fallon's argument that British towns are swamped and under siege from immigration should apply to London, more than place like Clacton, which have low levels of immigrants.
I live in London, and when I speak to people at w*rk about UKIP, most of them either actively support or are not set against them. Most of the guys I work with live in the East End, and they say that what UKIP says is happening is what they see happening in the areas they live in.
I live at the opposite side of London (am reluctantly becoming an expert in cross-city night-bus journeying), and I've got different life experiences from them, so I can't really contradict that.
What can I say when they're quoting this stuff from UKIP that is demonstrably bollocks, but when I contradict it they can just tell me "well, it's not what I see every day". I can't belittle their experience, and a quick conversation at work isn't really long enough to challenge someone's perception. It frustrates and unsettles me.
I can say "but almost 26% of NHS doctors are born overseas, and the BMA says the NHS would struggle without them". They'd say "but doctors are different, and none of the ones that live near me are doctors".
I could try "Immigrants are 60% less likely to claim benefits than a british person". They say "bollocks, loads of 'em near me are on benefits".
Maybe "1995-2011 immigrants from the EU contrbuted 8.8billion more than they gained" might work? I'm more likely to hear "There's more of them now, and a lot of them aren't from Europe anyway"
If I try to point out "most studies say immigration doesn't have much effect on employment overall or on British unemployment" they say how can that even make sense, and I don't know enough to say why .
These aren't stupid people (well one or two might be), they're nice people, intelligent people who I like and respect, who've generally not really gone with the academic route in life and use their intelligence in other ways. The guys I work with most and I have had quite different sets of life-experiences from mine, neither of ours is less valid or better or whatever, we're just different.
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
[ 03. November 2014, 09:53: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I think what I wrote in my post above ended up being not what I'd thought I was going to write - so the stuff I quoted from earlier in the thread wasn't really as relevant as it was going to be. Sorry.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
If I try to point out "most studies say immigration doesn't have much effect on employment overall or on British unemployment" they say how can that even make sense, and I don't know enough to say why .
...
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
Well, for one thing, you could point them at this poem by Hollie McNish:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bJX5XHnONTI
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The problem is that the UKIP lies are spiced with enough truth that it's hard to refute them all.
As an example, it is perfectly true that new immigrants tend to find accommodation in the same area as others who have come from similar cultures. It is of course only reasonable for them to do so. It means that if they want to cook food they're familiar with they have access to shops selling the ingredients they need, if they want an easy day and speak to someone in a language they're fluent in rather than struggle through in English they can do so (I've moved to Japan, and the first thing I did was look for a church where some English is spoken - OK, so I found a church with Americans, but that's close enough to English). This is something that is very obvious, most big cities will have areas where half the shops cater to immigrants, where conversation between friends on the street corner isn't in English, where there is a visibly greater concentration of non-white faces.
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem. Finding people you can chat comfortably with in your first language doesn't necessarily mean you can't or won't speak English (just as my seeking a church with American speaking people doesn't mean I'm not trying to learn Japanese). It doesn't mean these areas are "little [insert country of choice]" to which British people are excluded, nor that they're hot beds of anti-British radicalism.
UKIP would claim that such areas are a problem. I might be tempted to ask people who claim they're a problem what they would do if they moved overseas. Would they look for other British people (or even Americans) to talk to? Would they occasionally like to eat the food they're used to? Do they join the crowds of British holiday makers in Spain who stay in hotels with British TV, go to pubs serving fish & chips and British beer, go to the club playing British chart hits, sit at the pool with other British holidaymakers? If it's good enough for us on holiday to go to a little bit of Britain in the sun, why is it so wrong for visitors to Britain to seek a little bit of home while they are here?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
quote:
If it's good enough for us on holiday to go to a little bit of Britain in the sun, why is it so wrong for visitors to Britain to seek a little bit of home while they are here?
Because going somewhere for a fortnight and going somewhere for the rest of your life are very different things?
Of course, the Spanish are well within their rights to say, if they wanted, 'we're fed up with this, let's turn Benidorm back into a sleepy little fishing village'.
[ 03. November 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
UKIP would claim that such areas are a problem. I might be tempted to ask people who claim they're a problem what they would do if they moved overseas.
I doubt any of them would want to permanently move overseas.
quote:
Would they look for other British people (or even Americans) to talk to? Would they occasionally like to eat the food they're used to?
Of course they want those things. That's why they'd want to stay here rather than buggering off to somewhere else that doesn't have them.
quote:
If it's good enough for us on holiday to go to a little bit of Britain in the sun, why is it so wrong for visitors to Britain to seek a little bit of home while they are here?
There's a significant difference between going somewhere for a fortnight's holiday and going there permanently. Not even UKIP count tourists as immigrants.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
If I try to point out "most studies say immigration doesn't have much effect on employment overall or on British unemployment" they say how can that even make sense, and I don't know enough to say why .
...
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
Well, for one thing, you could point them at this poem by Hollie McNish:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bJX5XHnONTI
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
Different people have been turning up in places that they weren't originally from since time immemorial. These people are inherently going to have differences from the 'locals'. They are also, as Alan points out, going to enjoy each other's company a bit.
None of this, it seems to me, is terribly new. The only possible difference is that the newcomers can come from further away, but that's precisely for the same reasons that "we" can also go further away. Our world has expanded. People from the edge of our world are always going to be viewed as 'different', and the fact that once upon a time the edge of our world was the other end of Great Britain but now it's another continent doesn't really alter the mechanism.
[ 03. November 2014, 11:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
If someone wants to build, say, a tower block in a low-level residential area or demolish an ornate Victorian building, do you think local residents should have a say over that? Or, if you don't think there should be a formal channel, do you find it odd or peculiar when people mobilise themselves for or against such changes?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
Exactly. Someone born in a part of London (say) was born into a part of town with a character that was the result of the several groups of people who lived there at the time, which in turn was influenced by those who'd been living there in the generations before that. They had no influence on the character of the area, at least not until they were at least old enough to leave the house on their own. Even then it's an unusual person who has a substantive impact on their society.
And, it would have been a collection of groups of people. No where in the UK (probably in the world) was ever a monoculture, we've always been multicultural. Given the very rich tapestry of cultures that is Britain, a few more threads in the scheme of things makes little difference.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
Different people have been turning up in places that they weren't originally from since time immemorial. These people are inherently going to have differences from the 'locals'. They are also, as Alan points out, going to enjoy each other's company a bit.
None of this, it seems to me, is terribly new. The only possible difference is that the newcomers can come from further away, but that's precisely for the same reasons that "we" can also go further away. Our world has expanded. People from the edge of our world are always going to be viewed as 'different', and the fact that once upon a time the edge of our world was the other end of Great Britain but now it's another continent doesn't really alter the mechanism.
I think that its one of those things. If, say, you were a coal miner in the 1980s or you worked in manufacturing then having your local area changing in some fundamental way like, say, the main local employer closing down, then this was progress and anyone who stood in the way of it was a dinosaur. On the other hand if you object to changes caused by mass immigration then suddenly all sorts of people who, hitherto, didn't give a stuff about your welfare feel your pain.
Anti-immigrant politicians on the mainstream right tend to be entirely in favour of globalisation except the bits about foreign people coming over here to live. Which, to use a technical economic term, is a great steaming pile of betty swallocks. If you doubt this, write to any politcian or commentator who has opined on the subject in the last twelve months and ask if they favour reducing the UK's airport capacity. You will almost certainly be told that we need to expand our capacity for foreigners to come over here because UK plc is open for business or some such.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If someone wants to build, say, a tower block in a low-level residential area or demolish an ornate Victorian building, do you think local residents should have a say over that? Or, if you don't think there should be a formal channel, do you find it odd or peculiar when people mobilise themselves for or against such changes?
But, that's not what we're talking about. And, besides many of the tower blocks built in the 1960s were built with the express desire of the local residents to live somewhere better than the Victorian back-to-back houses they were in.
The question is, should people have the power to veto who buys the house next door? Or, should they prevent the local shops from stocking particular foodstuffs? Maybe people should prevent people of another faith meeting together. If you want to go down that line, where do you draw the line?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
If someone wants to build, say, a tower block in a low-level residential area or demolish an ornate Victorian building, do you think local residents should have a say over that? Or, if you don't think there should be a formal channel, do you find it odd or peculiar when people mobilise themselves for or against such changes?
Such developments have to go through the planning committees of locally elected councils but they have to decide using the law of the land. Observations can be made, but to have any effect they have to be based on evidence, not what can best be termed perception and at worst prejudice. UKIPs proposals are notably short of evidence.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
orfeo edited his post between my quoting it and hitting add reply. Luckily my response to the expanded version makes as much, or as little, sense as my response to the more concise version!
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell emphasis supplied:
Given the very rich tapestry of cultures that is Britain, a few more threads in the scheme of things makes little difference.
Presumably this is the nub of the debate? I don't think anyone is arguing for or against immigration. I'm sure not even UKIP argue against any immigration at all. The question is one of extent: a few more threads or dozens of spools?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Anti-immigrant politicians on the mainstream right tend to be entirely in favour of globalisation except the bits about foreign people coming over here to live. Which, to use a technical economic term, is a great steaming pile of betty swallocks.
But isn't the question about the nature and extent of immigration?
Does anyone object to a few hundred French bankers turning up in South Kensington, fleeing President Hollande's socialism?
Would uneasiness about Eastern European immigration be so great if 50,000 - 60,000 had turned up, as originally estimated, as opposed to 500,000 - 600,000?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Even a dozen or two more spools is a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands, if not millions, of cultural threads we already have. Which is possibly one of the biggest lies of immigration - that Britain is a country with a single culture. Even if we were not receiving new immigrants, that lie is a complete injustice to our history and cultures.
It's like saying there's such as thing as typical British beer against which other beers are a pale comparison. Anyone who's ever been to a beer festival will be able to attest to the fact that British beer is a very broad category. Each of those beers comes from a different community, represents the preferences and tastes of a different group of people, in many cases reflects a different historical tradition. They all represent different cultural strands of the tapestry of British life. Now repeat the exercise with cheeses, sausages, breads etc. And, we've not even touched on language, music, dance, religion ...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Anti-immigrant politicians on the mainstream right tend to be entirely in favour of globalisation except the bits about foreign people coming over here to live. Which, to use a technical economic term, is a great steaming pile of betty swallocks.
But isn't the question about the nature and extent of immigration?
Does anyone object to a few hundred French bankers turning up in South Kensington, fleeing President Hollande's socialism?
We definitely don't need any more bankers! The ones we have are trouble enough, and the damage they did to the economy is the root cause of a lot of UKIP's popularity.
quote:
Would uneasiness about Eastern European immigration be so great if 50,000 - 60,000 had turned up, as originally estimated, as opposed to 500,000 - 600,000?
Show me. Both figures, and whether they are for a single year or a period.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
luvanddaisies wrote:
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
I think hard-core racists are immune to rational argument, as they didn't arrive at their views that way. You can actually demonstrate to them, that no, Asians are not getting more children's playgrounds than white areas, but they will move the goal-posts, or somehow obfuscate.
I think another reason for the low UKIP vote in London is to do with Europe. I suspect that some Londoners don't like the idea of leaving the EU, as various companies would probably leave London, and set up shop somewhere on the continent, in order to have a EU base.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Would uneasiness about Eastern European immigration be so great if 50,000 - 60,000 had turned up, as originally estimated, as opposed to 500,000 - 600,000?
Show me. Both figures, and whether they are for a single year or a period.
These kind of figures have been talked about a lot in the press over the last decade. A quick search at lunchtime suggests that a few years ago there were around 400,000 Poles employed in the UK.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
LuvandDaisies
Faced with a friend who started spouting this crap. Initially, I answered with factual stuff which demonstrated what she had posted was lies e.g. governments own information pages on provision for Asylum seekers.
However, I decided not to tackle with rationality but to tackle with story. I basically put on my facebook feed stories. I used stories such as the Scottish Refugee Council Real Lives. Videos I found such as Refugee Kids and including these Animations from Refugee Council and there are also irespect and ones from the Red Cross. There are plenty more out there when you start googling. Important was that it was fairly short and deliberately had emotional content. So this one second a day is almost ideal.
I do not think the friend has changed her right wing views, but she does no longer post them on Facebook. I suspect more influential was that a mutual friend is very strongly involved in activism for Asylum Seekers.
Jengie
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
luvanddaisies wrote:
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
I think hard-core racists are immune to rational argument, as they didn't arrive at their views that way. You can actually demonstrate to them, that no, Asians are not getting more children's playgrounds than white areas, but they will move the goal-posts, or somehow obfuscate.
These people aren't at all hard-core racists.
They just have a perception of how things are that some of UKIP's bullshit either feeds or confirms (or perhaps both). I wonder which comes first, and whether I'm in a position to argue, given that I think I'm slightly an outsider in terms of experience and background.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
It's always reassuring that the responsibility for the lousy situation one is in can be dumped on some 'other' group. UKIP is just the latest political party to exploit this aspect of human nature.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
luvanddaisies wrote:
How does one present a convincing case against the fuckwitted UKIPian bollocks-machine to them? I'm used to being able to argue abstracts and statistics and theories and things - and my on-paper knowledge can't really compete with what people see (or percieve) around them.
I think hard-core racists are immune to rational argument, as they didn't arrive at their views that way. You can actually demonstrate to them, that no, Asians are not getting more children's playgrounds than white areas, but they will move the goal-posts, or somehow obfuscate.
These people aren't at all hard-core racists.
They just have a perception of how things are that some of UKIP's bullshit either feeds or confirms (or perhaps both). I wonder which comes first, and whether I'm in a position to argue, given that I think I'm slightly an outsider in terms of experience and background.
Yes, you are right, there is a whole gradation of people from hard-core to soft-core and I suppose wavering and so on.
I still think that arguing with soft-core racists or whatever you call them, is difficult, as I don't think many of them are particularly operating rationally. They are coming off some emotional or non-rational position.
You can test it out by demonstrating a lie about immigration - how do they take it? If they refuse to even consider the refutation of the lie, (for example, that a large percentage of immigrants are on benefits), then I see that person as immune to reason. I suppose at that point, I go and do something else!
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I would class myself as a 'soft-core' racist who has warmed towards UKIP, (not that I'm necessarily going to vote for them).
However I'm not someone who wishes ill on people from other countries. Accounts of violence or intimidation on people who have different skin tone have always been abhorrent to me.
<Risking HH Godwin-slap> There was a documentary called 'The Nazis- A warning in History'. It really nailed the point as to how ordinary, peaceful law-abiding Germans came to accept the Night of the broken Glass. Many testified to the existence of "a general feeling", one of negativity towards jews, one that was not based on reason.
If a similar general feeling has come to exist among Middle England voters then people will choose to reject the truth in favour of lies. It is not strange or unheard of that people will think and behave in such a way.
BTW. A growth far right politics was predicted by some 20 years ago after Maastricht. Love or loathe Thatch, she had a habit of being right, and now even from beyond the grave.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
You didn't learn anything about the dangers of "soft-core" racism from that ?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
Different people have been turning up in places that they weren't originally from since time immemorial. These people are inherently going to have differences from the 'locals'. They are also, as Alan points out, going to enjoy each other's company a bit.
None of this, it seems to me, is terribly new. The only possible difference is that the newcomers can come from further away, but that's precisely for the same reasons that "we" can also go further away. Our world has expanded. People from the edge of our world are always going to be viewed as 'different', and the fact that once upon a time the edge of our world was the other end of Great Britain but now it's another continent doesn't really alter the mechanism.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
Exactly. Someone born in a part of London (say) was born into a part of town with a character that was the result of the several groups of people who lived there at the time, which in turn was influenced by those who'd been living there in the generations before that. They had no influence on the character of the area, at least not until they were at least old enough to leave the house on their own. Even then it's an unusual person who has a substantive impact on their society.
And, it would have been a collection of groups of people. No where in the UK (probably in the world) was ever a monoculture, we've always been multicultural. Given the very rich tapestry of cultures that is Britain, a few more threads in the scheme of things makes little difference.
Our politicians have never been truly honest about this. They never really explain why high levels of immigration - which impacts on some areas far more than others - are both economically and sociologically desirable. They leave people bewildered by what's going on around them.
In the past, people usually had far more time to come to terms with new arrivals, and the arrivals came in gradually and in small enough numbers to merge into their surroundings, adding their cultural flavours little by little. In some (though obviously not all) areas it's hard to see how this is going to happen effectively. They could end up with what the Americans call a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. People are rather ambivalent about that.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Rolyn:
quote:
BTW. A growth far right politics was predicted by some 20 years ago after Maastricht. Love or loathe Thatch, she had a habit of being right, and now even from beyond the grave.
I have my disagreements with Thatch but she won the 1983 election against Michael Foot as 'the party of in' and subsequently signed the Single European Act.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
<Risking HH Godwin-slap> There was a documentary called 'The Nazis- A warning in History'. It really nailed the point as to how ordinary, peaceful law-abiding Germans came to accept the Night of the broken Glass. Many testified to the existence of "a general feeling", one of negativity towards jews, one that was not based on reason.
This is the problem with Godwin's law. As the Wikipedia article puts it:
quote:
Wiki
Although falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.
Don't misunderstand me, Godwin's observation is often valid; that a Nazi-comparison is often the weakest of arguments. However that does not always hold.
Thomas Buergenthal is an interesting man. He is one of the justices of the International Criminal Court. Before that he has been a human rights lawyer in the States. And before that, he was a child Auschwitz survivor.
I have heard him in interview make the chilling but telling observation about how the holocaust was primarily committed by ordinary people. Of course there were specific evil individuals who led the Nazi movement but the vast majority of acts were carried out by otherwise normal, decent, nice (if you will) people.
This is the problem. When we label some people as other or different we start to value them less and all sorts of nasty things become acceptable.
I don't think Britain is verge of totalitarianism - that would be ridiculous but. But, we do lock up children-asylum-seekers. How the hell is that acceptable? We do make asylum-seekers live on a barely-adequate subsistence while stopping them from working and we do vilify and demonize foreigners. This is dangerous.
AFZ
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree with that. I think British people tend to think, 'it could not happen here', and by 'it', I mean a very right-wing regime. But it could. It just needs more economic crises, unemployment, poverty, and so on.
I suppose the UK seemed to be spared all of this in the 30s, and kept a kind of civic peace; and after the war, there was a kind of agreement about welfare. But that agreement has gone now, and traditional politics is floundering, and seems bankrupt.
The old is dying, and the new cannot be born.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the past, people usually had far more time to come to terms with new arrivals, and the arrivals came in gradually and in small enough numbers to merge into their surroundings, adding their cultural flavours little by little.
Not sure it was any more time as much as exposure. One hundred years ago, something happening in Leeds might as well have been happening in another country as far as someone in Portsmouth was concerned. Now you see it on the telly, read it in the paper and might well see it for oneself with minor effort. The compression of the world changes our perspective.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The lie that UKIP sell isn't that these places exist. The lie is that this is a problem.
I suppose that depends on whether you actually live there? If you suddenly find that the character of your neighbourhood has changed or that the character of your city has changed and you've had no say over the matter, you might be a little miffed?
You might be a little miffed, but it makes no sense. Exactly when did one have say over "the character of your city" in the first place?
If someone wants to build, say, a tower block in a low-level residential area or demolish an ornate Victorian building, do you think local residents should have a say over that? Or, if you don't think there should be a formal channel, do you find it odd or peculiar when people mobilise themselves for or against such changes?
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Would uneasiness about Eastern European immigration be so great if 50,000 - 60,000 had turned up, as originally estimated, as opposed to 500,000 - 600,000?
Show me. Both figures, and whether they are for a single year or a period.
These kind of figures have been talked about a lot in the press over the last decade. A quick search at lunchtime suggests that a few years ago there were around 400,000 Poles employed in the UK.
Did you also notice from that link that "a few years ago" is also when the drivers of Poles migrating to the UK greatly reduced, meaning that the numbers remained stable?
It's a truism that at certain points of history there will be a wave of migration. Here in Australia you can almost define the order in which different immigrant communities arrived: Italians and Greeks in the post-war period, Vietnamese in the 70s and Lebanese about the same time. Sudanese more recently.
But then whatever caused the wave ends. And some other wave comes to replace it. Over time in Australia, having been born here but with an Italian or Greek background is no longer terribly remarkable. It's normal (last census, 4.6% of people said they had some Italian background). It's gradually becoming less notable to have a variety of other non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds as well. Give it a couple of generations, and having a Polish background in the UK will be a spot of interesting information for the school family history project and little else.
[ 04. November 2014, 00:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the past, people usually had far more time to come to terms with new arrivals, and the arrivals came in gradually and in small enough numbers to merge into their surroundings, adding their cultural flavours little by little.
Which isn't actually true. In fact, modern immigration is happening very slowly compared to some points in recent history. In the 19th century populations of cities grew by 4-8x within 50 years. Even to double the population in 50 years would require immigration rates in the millions of people per year, that's assuming that they all stay, whereas of course many migrant workers will come to do a particular job and when that's done move on to wherever the next job is. Britain as we know it was formed by migration that if scaled to modern populations would be in the multiple-million people per year range.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was thinking in terms of immigration, not migration from within the UK. The industrial revolution obviously brought lots of people to the cities from the rural areas, and improvements in living standards also increased the population, as fewer died in infancy.
The era of mass immigration to the UK from abroad is usually dated from the arrival of the Empire Windrush from the West Indies in 1948. Interestingly, I've recently read that the movement of Caribbean people to the UK until about 1962 didn't actually increase the population, because so many people were also leaving the UK at the same time. This isn't the case today; the population is growing quite fast, largely due to immigration and to the children being born to the immigrants. The population would be decreasing without them. (And that isn't desirable, certainly. Someone needs to produce and raise the children who'll be my care workers in my old age!)
Anyway, although UKIP's efforts to remove the UK from the EU are likely to be unsuccessful, they might lead to an interesting debate about how to deal with issues of integration, segregation, white flight, trafficking, the unrealistic expectations of immigrants from the developing world, the role of London in British identity, etc. I think this would be more fruitful than the 'immigration good v. immigration bad' discussion. Things are rarely so simple.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: the population is growing quite fast
In the UK??
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was thinking in terms of immigration, not migration from within the UK. The industrial revolution obviously brought lots of people to the cities from the rural areas
Why does it matter where people came from? People moving to, say, Glasgow from the Scottish Highlands would have brought with them a significantly different cultural identity from the existing population of Glasgow; they'd have spoken a different language, had distinctive styles of dress etc. The very move from rural to urban environments would have been a major culture shock to the migrants, the sudden shift from market town to large industrial city would have been equally shocking to the original population.
And, besides, it wasn't just a move from rural Britain to urban Britain. The early 19th century also saw a significant influx of migrants from Ireland, also from continental Europe, the Indian subcontinent (the East India Company used to hire people in India for the voyage back to Britain and then leave them in the docks of London or Bristol to find whatever work they could, with thousands of men coming into the country that way), Africa and North America. The demands for labour to build the railways, work the new factories, man the commercial ships, and serve in the British army and navy far exceeded what the British countryside could provide.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
From here
Clacton contains high concentrations ...of pensioners, many voters without a degree, lots of voters with no educational qualifications and above average levels of economic disadvantage and unemployment.
...older, less well educated and insecure ... high numbers of electors born in the UK and few minorities, ....UKIP, who poll strongest in ethnically homogeneous areas."
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is Angela Merkel bluffing here? My view is that while she doesn't want to see the UK leave, she feels that an EU without Britain, but with free movement, will be stronger than an EU in which countries can demand special privileges.
David Cameron is a Grade A weasel, but this is a bit cheeky given that Germany, unlike Britain, put freedom of movement restrictions in place when the Central European states joined in 2004.
(Also Germany signed Lisbon a long time after Gordon Brown.)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by LeRoc quote:
quote:
posted by SvitlanaV2
the population is growing quite fast
In the UK?
If you go to information published by the ONS you find the following:
The number of babies being born in England and Wales has been increasing for the past 10 years since hitting a 25-year low of 595,000 in 2001. In 2011, there were 724,000 births, an increase of 22% from 2001. This growth in births over the decade has been accompanied by a large increase in the proportion of births in England and Wales to women born outside the UK... The percentage of births to foreign born-mothers has increased from 12% in 1991 and 16% in 2001 to 25% in 2011.
The often-quoted figure of 2.4 children is something called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), a hypothetical measure of how many children a woman would be expected to have if she experienced current rates of childbearing throughout her reproductive years. In 2011 the TFR was 1.84 for UK born women and 2.21 for women born outside the UK.
The highest TFRs for women born outside the UK but from within the EU are women from: - Romania
- Czech Republic
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Slovakia
- Poland
Women from these countries have TFR figures higher than 2, the highest being 2.93 for women from Romania.
The TFR rate for women from certain other groups is also far higher, including those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage and certain groups of Orthodox Jews.
The reason why maternity services are buckling is some areas is that immigrants tend to cluster in certain regions and so the pressure on maternity services is vastly increased in some places and barely affected in others; the same goes for schools, etc.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Anti-immigrant politicians on the mainstream right tend to be entirely in favour of globalisation except the bits about foreign people coming over here to live. Which, to use a technical economic term, is a great steaming pile of betty swallocks. If you doubt this, write to any politcian or commentator who has opined on the subject in the last twelve months and ask if they favour reducing the UK's airport capacity. You will almost certainly be told that we need to expand our capacity for foreigners to come over here because UK plc is open for business or some such.
Exactly, this is why Mr Cameron is such a weasel. The big business leaders that pay for his campaigns are in favour of access to foreign workers and don't want the economic uncertainty that would be caused by leaving the EU. The people who chose him as leader mostly hate immigrants and Eurocrats. Mr Cameron's entire European policy consists of attempting to serve these two mutually exclusive masters.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The increased maternity rate where there are clusters of immigrants does not necessarily relate to a tendency for particular groups to have larger families (groups like that may not be immigrants, for example adherents to quiverful denominations), but to the age likely to immigrate. Similar waves can arise in areas where there is extensive development. Where I live, an artificial village, there was a wave of bad teenage behaviour about 15 years after people moved in - presumably there had been a wave of increased maternity rate earlier.
Much though the existence of a raised population may be seen as necessary for the maintenance of the old - and that would affect me - for the good of the generations coming up, the problems attendant on a declining population need to be dealt with, because it is better for the young. Resources are finite.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
L'organist: If you go to information published by the ONS you find the following:
Still, compared to other countries and to some historical time periods, the population increase in the UK is quite low. A 22% increase of not much is not much.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The increased maternity rate where there are clusters of immigrants does not necessarily relate to a tendency for particular groups to have larger families (groups like that may not be immigrants, for example adherents to quiverful denominations), but to the age likely to immigrate. Similar waves can arise in areas where there is extensive development. Where I live, an artificial village, there was a wave of bad teenage behaviour about 15 years after people moved in - presumably there had been a wave of increased maternity rate earlier.
Exactly. Correlation is not causation.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Le Roc quote:
Still, compared to other countries and to some historical time periods, the population increase in the UK is quite low. A 22% increase of not much is not much.
The increase is actually a lot: in faact the UK's population is growing faster than any other in Europe - all of it, not just the EU.
In any case, better figures are arrived at by looking at population density, both as an absolute and, perhaps more importantly, by arable land (in other words, how dense compared to the capacity of the country to grow food). Taking 4 European countries to compare the UK to, the rankings are as follows for density and food growing land:
The Netherlands: 30th and 47th
Belgium: 35th and 71st
[B]UK: 51st and 74th[B]
Germany: 58th and 114th
France: 94th and 171st
But that takes the UK as a whole and, far more than most European countries, our areas of dense population tend to be squeezed into small areas. If you break down the figures for the UK's constituent countries, the number of people per square kilometre are as follows:
England 413
The Netherlands 406
Belgium 367
Germany 226
Wales 149
Northern Ireland 135
France 118
Scotland 68
And since our cities are in the same areas as our arable land, providing the extra housing and infrastructure for our burgeoning population is bound to decrease our capacity to provide for it.
Whether we like it or not, population, particularly population density, is an issue that needs to be addressed and the UK can't keep on ignoring it: by ignoring immigration rates and patterns we have already ended up without the infrastructure to cope with the people we say we want to welcome - how crazy is that?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
L'organist: The increase is actually a lot: in faact the UK's population is growing faster than any other in Europe - all of it, not just the EU.
That's a poor man's comparison. And not even true. According to the 2013 CIA World Factbook numbers, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain had higher growth rates than the UK.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I've been a (skilled) migrant most of my adult life. I can confidently say that the English are significantly different from the Dutch and the Ozzies (and from the Germans, where I originate from). It is not always easy to say exactly why and how, but that just means that articulating cultural differences is a skill (trained by some academics and writers), it does not mean that the differences are imaginary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cherishing one's lead culture. And in fact, it serves as a "least common denominator" that makes multiculturalism work. Simply because everybody knows that they have to accommodate the lead culture sufficiently, or they will have problems. And so the various cultures present will overlap at least in those accommodations, and clash less.
It is also rather silly to insist in the political context that such a lead culture is itself a construct from many cultural influences. Sure it is, and that is of historical interest, but it does not change that here and now this lead culture exists in a particular fashion. For example, the national dish of Germany is probably the Currywurst - which, as the name indicates, cannot possibly be of ancient Teutonic origin and rather crucially relies on ingredients not found in Allemanic lands. Still, Germans love to eat Currywurst now, and if you want to blend right in then maybe you should have some, too.
Ironically, these discussions are often conducted without asking the migrants themselves, who will generally laugh at the suggestion that their host country is simply a "multicultural blend". And those migrants also experience the shift in their own attitudes due to adapting to their host culture, as do others. Turkish migrants in Germany when returning to Turkey for a visit are apparently called Germans by the locals. And I remember well when our secretary in the Netherlands pointed out to me one day that I had lost my previous Australian "no worries" attitude within a year of dealing with Dutch worries.
The price for the dumbest example in this thread must go to Alan, by the way. Next time I drink a pint of "real ale" (or "real stout"), I will raise my not-a-Continental-lager glass to his general ignorance about beer culture in Europe... Just because I can find an Alt or Bockbier in Germany that resembles English beer more than the standard issue German Pils doesn't mean that there aren't very pronounced differences that really distinguish the beer culture around here. Incidentally, it is in fact a genetic difference, for it is Saccharomyces pastorianus (lager) vs. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ale). By their yeasts you shall know them!
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Would uneasiness about Eastern European immigration be so great if 50,000 - 60,000 had turned up, as originally estimated, as opposed to 500,000 - 600,000?
Show me. Both figures, and whether they are for a single year or a period.
These kind of figures have been talked about a lot in the press over the last decade. A quick search at lunchtime suggests that a few years ago there were around 400,000 Poles employed in the UK.
Did you also notice from that link that "a few years ago" is also when the drivers of Poles migrating to the UK greatly reduced, meaning that the numbers remained stable?
What do you mean by 'remained stable'? The numbers are certainly far higher than what was predicted and what was trotted out by ministers to play down the issue.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I mean they haven't kept going up.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is also rather silly to insist in the political context that such a lead culture is itself a construct from many cultural influences. Sure it is, and that is of historical interest, but it does not change that here and now this lead culture exists in a particular fashion. For example, the national dish of Germany is probably the Currywurst - which, as the name indicates, cannot possibly be of ancient Teutonic origin and rather crucially relies on ingredients not found in Allemanic lands. Still, Germans love to eat Currywurst now, and if you want to blend right in then maybe you should have some, too.
Ironically, these discussions are often conducted without asking the migrants themselves, who will generally laugh at the suggestion that their host country is simply a "multicultural blend". And those migrants also experience the shift in their own attitudes due to adapting to their host culture, as do others. Turkish migrants in Germany when returning to Turkey for a visit are apparently called Germans by the locals. And I remember well when our secretary in the Netherlands pointed out to me one day that I had lost my previous Australian "no worries" attitude within a year of dealing with Dutch worries.
I rather think you've missed the thrust of what a number of us have been saying. It's not about saying that there is no local "lead culture". It's about saying that the "lead culture" is not some pure thing that has remained fixed and immutable over the centuries.
Which is exactly in keeping with your comment about Currywurst.
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
And my point is that they then will be right to do so. That culture is a transient construct does not make it any less binding in its current state.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean they haven't kept going up.
Sure, there does seem to be a recent levelling off, but that wasn't my point.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Le Roc quote:
Still, compared to other countries and to some historical time periods, the population increase in the UK is quite low. A 22% increase of not much is not much.
The increase is actually a lot: in faact the UK's population is growing faster than any other in Europe - all of it, not just the EU.
In any case, better figures are arrived at by looking at population density, both as an absolute and, perhaps more importantly, by arable land (in other words, how dense compared to the capacity of the country to grow food). Taking 4 European countries to compare the UK to, the rankings are as follows for density and food growing land:
The Netherlands: 30th and 47th
Belgium: 35th and 71st
[B]UK: 51st and 74th[B]
Germany: 58th and 114th
France: 94th and 171st
But that takes the UK as a whole and, far more than most European countries, our areas of dense population tend to be squeezed into small areas. If you break down the figures for the UK's constituent countries, the number of people per square kilometre are as follows:
England 413
The Netherlands 406
Belgium 367
Germany 226
Wales 149
Northern Ireland 135
France 118
Scotland 68
And since our cities are in the same areas as our arable land, providing the extra housing and infrastructure for our burgeoning population is bound to decrease our capacity to provide for it.
It's disingenuous (at best) to give figures for England separately, and Britain has been a net food importer since at least the beginning of the last century, hence the food rationing in both World Wars and well into the 1950's.
quote:
Whether we like it or not, population, particularly population density, is an issue that needs to be addressed and the UK can't keep on ignoring it: by ignoring immigration rates and patterns we have already ended up without the infrastructure to cope with the people we say we want to welcome - how crazy is that?
Can you quote examples of where an advanced democratic society has broken down because of high population density? It only needs addressing to point out how much more serious other issues are.
It's also interesting that you (again) mention infrastructure, because many immigrants work in those very sectors that they are alleged to put under stress. Matters could just as easily be worse if they were not here! Alternatively they do low-paid jobs, like the graduates from Latvia, Poland and Ukraine who work in our office canteen.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The price for the dumbest example in this thread must go to Alan, by the way. Next time I drink a pint of "real ale" (or "real stout"), I will raise my not-a-Continental-lager glass to his general ignorance about beer culture in Europe... Just because I can find an Alt or Bockbier in Germany that resembles English beer more than the standard issue German Pils doesn't mean that there aren't very pronounced differences that really distinguish the beer culture around here.
And, the prize for not actually reading what I said goes to ...
I never mentioned German Pils or other Continental beers. My point was only that there are lots of different British beers, which reflect lots of different British cultures.
The point is not that cultures are immutable and fixed. The point is that within a small geographic area there are lots of different cultures, some being associated with distinct areas, some with groups of people. And, they're all equally British (if that small geographic area is Britain) as much as all those different beers are also British. There is no such thing as "British Culture", there is a rich tapestry of British cultures which is being enriched by a constant influx of new cultural ideas.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently. When one votes, whether at a local or national level, one is, presumably, being asked to make some kind of decision about the country one wants to live in. Is it one that places a greater premium on public health spending, for example, or one that builds a lot of houses on fields. All of these things affect one's life and I don't see how one can say on the one hand that these things are worthy of public input, but being the only English speaker in one's street is something that one can't have any say over.
As I say, I think the debate is really over the nature and scale of immigration, rather than whether we have any immigration at all (no-one is voting UKIP because French bankers are taking the best lycée places in South Kensington).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never mentioned German Pils or other Continental beers. My point was only that there are lots of different British beers, which reflect lots of different British cultures.
Rather, considered together they reflect one British culture quite distinct from for example German culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The point is that within a small geographic area there are lots of different cultures, some being associated with distinct areas, some with groups of people. And, they're all equally British (if that small geographic area is Britain) as much as all those different beers are also British. There is no such thing as "British Culture", there is a rich tapestry of British cultures which is being enriched by a constant influx of new cultural ideas.
What is this "rich tapestry" made of? Well, maybe English, Welch, Irish and Scottish culture. But then what about the English, isn't London different from say Bristol? Sure thing. But what then of London, is not this district from that one? Yep. And then perhaps we can go on to streets and houses and family members and we find that we are all a culture onto ourselves. And we have said really nothing particularly meaningful in this wonderful zoom through the hierarchy of cultural associations.
The point actually is that at the level of Great Britain there is a culture that is distinct from other cultures at a similar level, say in Germany or Spain. The "rich tapestry" is actually not so rich as to let all cultural differences at this level disappear in multicultural noise. And yes, one can similarly argue at lower levels (Welch vs. Scottish culture) or at higher levels (European vs. Arabic culture). Unless and until you embrace this, you will give up ground to parties like UKIP. Because whatever you may mean by it, it sure sounds as if you are somehow denying British culture as a unifying point of identification. And that will piss off the many Brits who are happily identifying as Brits.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
IngoB; your mis-spelling of "Welsh" does not lead me towards the conclusion that you know more than the square-root of bugger all about Welsh culture, at least.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean they haven't kept going up.
Sure, there does seem to be a recent levelling off, but that wasn't my point.
It doesn't have to be your point. It was mine. The hordes have stopped coming, so you can relax.
You were asked not only for figures but to indicate over what period of time they applied to. If the number of Poles after 10 years isn't much different from the number of Poles after 3 years, that is highly pertinent information.
[ 04. November 2014, 13:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently. When one votes, whether at a local or national level, one is, presumably, being asked to make some kind of decision about the country one wants to live in. Is it one that places a greater premium on public health spending, for example, or one that builds a lot of houses on fields. All of these things affect one's life and I don't see how one can say on the one hand that these things are worthy of public input, but being the only English speaker in one's street is something that one can't have any say over.
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
Why does speaking a language suddenly give you a right of veto? Should Alan's Japanese neighbours be able to get him kicked out if his Japanese isn't up to scratch?
Besides, the odds of being "the only English speaker" are tiny. The fact is that many people who don't natively speak English will still try to learn it as best they can because they want to deal with the English-speakers around them. They can't ALL live in a self-enclosed enclave with no need to communicate in the dominant language of the country.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
And my point is that they then will be right to do so. That culture is a transient construct does not make it any less binding in its current state.
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
…In any case, better figures are arrived at by looking at population density, both as an absolute and, perhaps more importantly, by arable land (in other words, how dense compared to the capacity of the country to grow food)…And since our cities are in the same areas as our arable land, providing the extra housing and infrastructure for our burgeoning population is bound to decrease our capacity to provide for it…
Sorry, but I'm buying exactly none of the leaps of logic you've made here. First, what countries rely entirely on their own agriculture these days? Even living in a vast agricultural nation like the US, I see "product of Mexico" or "product of Argentina" on produce all the time. When I lived in England, I expected things in the supermarket to be from overseas. More to the point, arable land cannot be equated with potential agricultural production, which can't be equated with potential food supply, which can't be equated with population capacity. The corn, wheat, and soy belts of the American Midwest produce a truly astonishing amount of calories—much of which goes to feedlots to be converted (rather inefficiently) into beef. Or other meat products. Or ethanol. Or corn plastic. Or…well, other things that aren't recognizable as "plant-based food." And, of course, there are other factors—droughts happen, groundwater reserves run dry, crops fail, climates change—that make "arable land" basically useless as a stand-in for population capacity.
Next up, what cities of any age aren't built in arable land? I'm sitting here in a metropolitan area of over 9 million people less than a mile from what was once the State Agricultural College (and still has the state's ag program, complete with sheep on campus), and regularly ride my bike through the US Department of Agriculture's research farms; when I go south to ride in the UDSA's other big plant research facility in DC, I go past Bladensburg, a major tobacco export port in the early 1700's, before intense tobacco farming caused the river to silt over. The town in which I was born was surrounded by wheat fields; as it sprawled outwards, holdout fields and ranches would remain, leading to the odd sight of combines on city streets, come to harvest fields in what was by then an increasingly unfashionable neighborhood, or horses, cattle and emus (yes, really) peeking over their neighbors' back fences. When I worked in New Mexico, it was on a working cattle ranch. Basically, of all the places I've lived, England may have had the least agricultural heritage.
Of course, if you're looking to preserve farmland, open space, the environment, and the arable land on which cities are built, there is an obvious solution—curtail sprawl and encourage density. Dense, transit-oriented cities make better use of limited resources, especially fossil fuels, than sprawling suburbs. The advantages of urban density, provided it is efficiently planned and used, for connecting people with services is astonishing; without the need to own a car or navigate inefficient suburban bus systems, people can be connected with the network they need to thrive.
In other words, I'm just not seeing the validity in either your premises or your conclusions. Sorry.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point actually is that at the level of Great Britain there is a culture that is distinct from other cultures at a similar level, say in Germany or Spain. The "rich tapestry" is actually not so rich as to let all cultural differences at this level disappear in multicultural noise.
Well, clearly in Britain our dominant cultural characteristics do not just disappear into a multicultural noise. That seemed so obvious I didn't think it needed saying.
Consider the birds. A small island has a population of finches, within that population there is a variety of genes that express themselves in a range of slight variations in plumage, beak size and other traits. You might be able to take an average of all the feather colours and beak sizes and define an average finch. But, it's actually quite unlikely that if you go looking around the island that you will ever find the average finch, every finch you find will differ very slightly from the average.
Not very far from that island there is another island, with another population of finches. These also have a range of genes and characteristics. Again, you can define an average finch and not find it. You can take individuals from both populations and find you can't tell which island they came from. Yet, taken as a whole each population is clearly distinct and different.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
quote:
Should Alan's Japanese neighbours be able to get him kicked out if his Japanese isn't up to scratch?
Japan's immigration policy is a matter for the Japanese. But again, it's presumably a question of nature and degree? Half a dozen French bankers with broken English moving into South Kensington probably isn't going to bother anyone. Several thousand Eastern European labourers with limited English moving into a market town is probably a different kettle of fish.
quote:
Besides, the odds of being "the only English speaker" are tiny.
It's an admittedly extreme example, but finding that your town is one full of foreign voices could, I think, be rather alienating. I've spoken to a number of people who have talked of feeling 'like a stranger in their own country'.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
So have I. They've invariably prefaced it with "I'm not a racist but..."
Which as the Heaven thread showed, is generally a good sign of a racist comment from a racist on the way.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
]
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
Honestly, I've read more cogent arguments in favour of hosts intervening in debates than I've seen on this thread.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
They're all worthy activities, but if immigration is a concern for you, then becoming an Arkela isn't going to deal with the matter. Voting is. And voting is one way of participating in society.
[ 04. November 2014, 20:44: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
(Or even an Akela.)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
They're all worthy activities, but if immigration is a concern for you, then becoming an Arkela isn't going to deal with the matter. Voting is. And voting is one way of participating in society.
Here we differ quite fundamentally. While I have a strong preference for the political party I want in government (and an even stronger one for the party I want out) that's something we do on one day each five years. It doesn't even take a whole day! When one considers the limits placed on government by business interests, that leaves a lot of time to do much more for the community.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I'm afraid I don't understand.
If one feels that immigration is an issue, and that the established parties aren't listening to the people on the issue, one might vote UKIP.
Now one might vote UKIP and have no other interaction with society.
Or one might vote UKIP, be a UKIP council candidate, and help one's community by leading a scout group, coaching a local football team and taking the lead on getting hanging baskets fitted in the town centre.
But they're different things. Coaching the team or hanging geraniums isn't going to alter the level of immigration to this country, in the same way that it isn't going to alter the amount of tax revenue spent on the National Health Service.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
Well, I think Margaret told you there was no such thing as society...
The problem is that no-one is ever required to identify what "mass" immigration is, nor how it "affects" things, nor what "society" it is affecting. It never gets beyond "I'M CONCERNED".
About what, exactly? I've already gone through a round of ridiculing the idea that what the people down the road speak or wear or eat or pray to has any effect on what I speak or wear or eat or pray to in my home. Would you like me to go through it again?
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average. I suppose the fact that he's the one I leave a spare key with when I'm away makes it handy that he speaks English. Other aspects of his lifestyle have never come into it. The other immediate neighbour I probably talk to a couple of times a year.
The people a couple of houses away who speak another language to each other, I've never needed to speak to. I never spoke to any previous resident of the same house. The only reason I'm aware of them speaking another language is because very occasionally I've been outside and the same time they've been outside.
You want to talk mass migration? I live in a country where the latest Census says 18% of people speak a language other than English at home, nearly 1 in 5, and I can't say that it affects me much. Not least because only 3% of people don't speak English or speak it poorly.
So I'm afraid you're going to have to spell it out for me. What's the actual concern, and how the hell do these people actually affect you and your society?
[ 04. November 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Anglican't:
How often does it need to be said that immigrants are used to deflect attention from what is really wrong with society: the NHS and welfare state are being dismantled, economic interest is conflated with the national interest (did the 'credit crunch' come from Eastern Europe?) and MPs make up the rules to suit themselves.
You've been hoodwinked pal, like a lot of others.
[edited to clarify intended recipient]
[ 04. November 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Also, travel to northern Wales and see how you cope. I bet you'll be fine. Perfect testing ground for what happens when you have an enclave of people with a different culture who speak to each other in a different tongue.
My experience was that they switched to English as soon as they saw my big southern-English ears.
But of course, on the bus between Bangor and Caernarfon they all kept speaking Welsh to each other in my presence. The swine.
[ 04. November 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
While at uni in Liverpool I was frequently told that the opposite was true, the Welsh spoke English until someone came in and then they switched to Welsh. But, the people telling me that had often not bothered to travel the few miles across the water into Wales. It was certainly not something I experienced in Wales. A friend told a story of going into a pub on his own, where the TV was showing a rugby match with Welsh commentary and the locals provided a running translation of the commentary for his benefit. With the usual additional comments about "he doesn't know what he's talking about", but since when have professional sports commentators been better informed than an intoxicated group of blokes in the pub?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's occasionally observed in this city that a surprisingly high number of the bakeries are owned by Vietnamese people.
I've yet to discern any impact this has on the products I can buy or the prices. Perhaps after decades of being exposed to Vietnamese-style sausage rolls and lemon slices and bread rolls I've somehow lost the capacity to distinguish them from the true Aussie ones elsewhere.
I do get service with an accent when the older family members are serving. A couple of times a year I have to ask someone to repeat what they said. But then again, exactly the same thing happens with people without any accent, because they mumble or there's noise.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently.
The difference is that people have rights and buildings don't.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To throw in some facts, I found the England & Wales census results on speaking English.
Which indicate that you have a lot lower percentage of non-English speakers than we do. Hell, although acknowledging the questions/breakdown are different, you might even have fewer people in absolute terms despite your population being over double!
[ 04. November 2014, 22:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Anglican't:
How often does it need to be said that immigrants are used to deflect attention from what is really wrong with society: the NHS and welfare state are being dismantled, economic interest is conflated with the national interest (did the 'credit crunch' come from Eastern Europe?) and MPs make up the rules to suit themselves.
You've been hoodwinked pal, like a lot of others.
[edited to clarify intended recipient]
Well, we really will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently.
The difference is that people have rights and buildings don't.
But non-Britons don't have an automatic right to live in Britain. Whether they do or not depends on immigration policy of the day. And that immigration policy should be subject to debate like any other government policy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Another interesting news item. Immigrants contribute Ł25billion more to the UK tax man than they receive in state services. Whereas, us "native Brits" received more than Ł600 billion from the state in excess of what we paid. The message is clear, if you want to balance the state budget and secure funding to the NHS, schools, pensions etc then you need to get rid of some of these expensive natives and/or bring in more of these net-contributing immigrants. Reducing the number of immigrants is just going to make balancing the accounts at the treasury even more difficult.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
'Don't confuse me, my mind's made up'.
(alt: Let's not have the facts interfere with a good story.)
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If one feels that immigration is an issue, and that the established parties aren't listening to the people on the issue, one might vote UKIP.
This is what's so annoying about this debate. The idea that the parties aren't listening. ALL of the three major parties are pandering to the anti-immigration mob.
It is a reasonable position to think that it is too easy for people coming from other countries to get into the UK. That's fine - but only, only if you have some understanding of what the UK immigration procedures involve. It is not easy for non-EU people to get into the UK. Not at all. And our Asylum system is a brilliant piece of bureaucracy designed simply to deny claims regardless of their validity. It's the same nonsense as when you hear the Mail et al. wailing that you can't talk about immigration... I just wish they'd shut up about it for a day.
You see the same fallacy in other debates. It is an entirely reasonable position to think benefits (SOCIAL SECURITY ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
) are too generous. But only if you actually know how much it is and have some understanding of that level of subsistence living. Surveys show that people consistently over-estimate how much benefits are and when asked independently about what sort of level of lifestyle should be the minimum allowable the level they think therefore social security needs to be is significantly higher than it actually is. And these are the same people who support cutting benefits.
It is a constant battle of misinformation.
What I want to see is a party who STOPS listening now - they've done that enough - and stands up and leads.
AFZ
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
How binding any part of culture is, is itself part of culture. If you were to try to marry a twelve year old girl now, there would be outrage and possibly criminal persecution. If you tried this in a different part of the world, or around here three hundred years ago, it would perhaps have raised some eyebrows but not more. If you jump a queue around here now, people will find that rude. If you are in Italy, they will find it normal and who knows what the crowds at Stonehenge would have thought. If you want to feed a bunch of kids now, and do not know them well, you are likely to opt for pizza - and all other parents will find that a reasonable approach. For obvious reasons that would not have been always the case as you go back in time, where pizza would have first been a luxury food not to be "wasted" on children and then simply not have been around. Etc.
However, it simply does not help to say "but I want to marry a twelve year old, jump queues, and feed kids caviar on toast" just because the cultural binding on these is variable. People will still find this unacceptable, rude and unreasonable here and now, and act accordingly,
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
No, it isn't. What is stupid is to hear that sort of silly judgement from the mouth of a lawyer. Law is of course nothing but the explicit and particularly ferocious enforcing of communal standards of behaviour against individual preference.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
What pisses me off, is how people keep making spurious economic arguments regardless of the evidence. Migrationwatch are particularly classic in this regards. Not unlike the government and its drugs policy.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:18: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
What new problem from Polish immigrants? We've already absorbed Polish culture. We have had a significant Polish presence in the UK since the Pogroms pre-WW2 and the Polish Government residence in London during WW2. South Kensington has a Polish Institute and Museum which was founded there using Sikorski's papers in 1946. There's also the Daquise - founded in 1947.
(I went to university in South Kensington and the number of students with Polish surnames meant a permanent challenge for our tongues, such names as Zbrzezniak, Zbigniew and Tubielewicz were common. They often knew little of their families' origins as "it is better not to know".)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
How binding any part of culture is, is itself part of culture. If you were to try to marry a twelve year old girl now, there would be outrage and possibly criminal persecution. If you tried this in a different part of the world, or around here three hundred years ago, it would perhaps have raised some eyebrows but not more. If you jump a queue around here now, people will find that rude. If you are in Italy, they will find it normal and who knows what the crowds at Stonehenge would have thought. If you want to feed a bunch of kids now, and do not know them well, you are likely to opt for pizza - and all other parents will find that a reasonable approach. For obvious reasons that would not have been always the case as you go back in time, where pizza would have first been a luxury food not to be "wasted" on children and then simply not have been around. Etc.
However, it simply does not help to say "but I want to marry a twelve year old, jump queues, and feed kids caviar on toast" just because the cultural binding on these is variable. People will still find this unacceptable, rude and unreasonable here and now, and act accordingly,
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
No, it isn't. What is stupid is to hear that sort of silly judgement from the mouth of a lawyer. Law is of course nothing but the explicit and particularly ferocious enforcing of communal standards of behaviour against individual preference.
Yes, but law IS binding. I actually read the first part of your post, before getting to the last part, thinking "it doesn't matter how much outrage there is unless it's in a law".
Thank you for proving my point for me. If you try to marry a 12 year old girl, you will be prosecuted because it's in a law. Not because people find it culturally inappropriate.
It is perfectly possible to have laws on the books that people don't think SHOULD be on the books. Look at copyright infringement. Vast numbers of people are absolutely fine with copyright infringement. And it's quite evident that a large majority of the community are perfectly fine with ignoring speed limits, because they do it around me every freaking day.
Despite your assertion that laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, the truth is that many communal standards are not enshrined in law and many laws fail to reflect communal standards.
[ 05. November 2014, 08:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What new problem from Polish immigrants?
Given that there were Dacians and Thracians manning Hadrian's Wall, it's not like the Rumanians and Bulgarians are new here, either.
AG
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average.
I suppose one aspect of 'traditional' English life is that people do communicate with the neighbours. I live in a fairly settled yet multicultural suburb with my father, and he sees himself as a good neighbour who helps people out. But for older people in a once close-knit area that suddenly becomes very transitory, full of young men who can't speak English very well, the change must be hard to deal with. The local authorities and institutions should help long-term residents to come to terms with it, but they rarely do.
quote:
You want to talk mass migration? I live in a country where the latest Census says 18% of people speak a language other than English at home, nearly 1 in 5, and I can't say that it affects me much. Not least because only 3% of people don't speak English or speak it poorly.
So I'm afraid you're going to have to spell it out for me. What's the actual concern, and how the hell do these people actually affect you and your society?
Again, it sounds as though your culture is rather different from ours! Canada, like the USA, is a country that prides itself on being a nation of immigrants, and where individuals aren't encouraged to see themselves as part of a collective. But 'Old World' cultures haven't envisioned themselves in quite this way, and high levels of immigration tend to raise concerns about social cohesion.
People living in the big British cities are further ahead at coping with this situation - although the stats show that the indigenous population are tending to move away from these cities, leaving the most intensively multicultural areas to be experienced by others rather than themselves. I don't know if this is also happening in North America.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average.
I suppose one aspect of 'traditional' English life is that people do communicate with the neighbours. I live in a fairly settled yet multicultural suburb with my father, and he sees himself as a good neighbour who helps people out. But for older people in a once close-knit area that suddenly becomes very transitory, full of young men who can't speak English very well, the change must be hard to deal with.
But I bet it would be just as hard if it was full of young men who speak English perfectly. It's the fact that they are young, mobile people that causes them not to behave the same way as older generations, not their English skills.
You can see young people the world over playing with their smartphones and texting each other rather than engaging in conversation with older people around them. English skills has little to do with it. In my view you're not describing an immigration problem, you're describing a changing demographic problem. You're describing the fact that younger people today have grown up in a world where it is perfectly normal to move long distances and to move often.
[ 05. November 2014, 12:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
orfeo
It is indeed a problem of changing demographics. But in this case, that's been brought about by immigration. The fact that these young men can't communicate adequately with their neighbours is an additional problem.
Immigration has many effects. It's been said above that immigration form the EU has been economically beneficial for the UK. I have no doubt that's true. After all, young men generally want to work (especially if they haven't been raised in a benefits culture). And employers want a choice of candidates. But there are other effects (as well as other kinds of immigration), and we should be honest about them.
The British population is going to age significantly, and families will remain small, so it's likely that immigration (not only from the EU) will continue at all levels. The demographic challenges are therefore going to continue. The state and public institutions will have to work harder to bring people together, because atomisation won't be so desirable when there are so many old people in the society, many living alone.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you try to marry a 12 year old girl, you will be prosecuted because it's in a law. Not because people find it culturally inappropriate.
It is in the law because people now find it culturally inappropriate. It wasn't before because people didn't. It isn't now elsewhere because people there don't. Of course.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is perfectly possible to have laws on the books that people don't think SHOULD be on the books. Look at copyright infringement. Vast numbers of people are absolutely fine with copyright infringement.
Perhaps it is news to you that political, social and economic power is not actually equally distributed across society, and that therefore conceptions of "correct behaviour" can be imposed on people even if left to their own devices they would do differently?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertion that laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, the truth is that many communal standards are not enshrined in law and many laws fail to reflect communal standards.
Of course laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, what else could they possibly be? It's just the case that society is not thoroughly homogeneous. Factors like political influence, wealth and social standing determine who gets to set the standards for whom.
That is after all exactly what you are worrying about, that some Englishman might tell some Chinese immigrant that he must eat bangers and mash henceforth, or else... Well, guess what, you as copyright lawyer (I assume) are a primary agent of just such an imposition of cultural norms from one group (authors, but more importantly, publishers) on another group ("ordinary" people). The only difference is that the prejudice on how people should deal with authored works has been codified and given some official stamp of approval by what you - according to even more cultural norms - consider as the relevant "governing authority". There is however no principle difference there at all. We could have laws about bangers and mash, and you could be the henchman for those. That you and I find this very suggestion so absurd, but the one about authored works not, is - guess what - yet another cultural norm that in fact has been reversed historically (certainly in ancient Israel people were way more concerned with food laws than with copyright).
I think however that we find in your attitude a deeper distinction between people on opposing sides than just "racist vs. non-racist".
It looks like you - and many other people - think roughly like this: "All things that are necessary for people to follow are given by the law. If something necessary is missing, then there should be a new law about it. All things that are not given by the law are not necessary for people to follow. If there are things in law that are not necessary, such law should be abolished. In interacting with other people, hence all we can and should require of them is to follow the law. All other demands that we might make of them are problematic as unnecessary restriction of their freedom and liberty to act as they wish."
There probably is some fancy term for this kind of ideology, but I will call it "liberal legalism" for now. It is legalism, because it makes the law the be all and end all of social interaction. And it is "liberal" because it justifies this in terms of freedom and liberty.
This runs here into a different conception, which is more directly concerned with goodness, and the common good in particular. This sees law more as a last resort, indeed, as a kind of necessary evil. It is a reflection of human corruption, which requires us to draw a line in the sand somewhere as a last line of defence for individual good but in particular the common good. Furthermore, maximising freedom of choice is not seen as the ultimate aim of society, as its final good. Rather there are specific goods that one wishes to realise, and sometimes more choice may make it easier to achieve those goods, and sometimes it may make it more difficult. There is then no simple prescription as in "liberal legalism", rather every case has to be discussed on its own terms: what goods one wants to achieve, and how this can best be done.
Obviously there is also real racism out there. But I think a lot of the conflicts between more well-meaning people boil down to this: is obedience to the law enough, and no measures should be taken unless law is broken, or is there more we wish to see happening in society, and if so what means are legitimate to bring it about? So for example we might have an immigrant who has lived here for twenty years but essentially speaks not a word of the local language. There is no law that requires people to speak the local language. Should we hence see this as OK, since no law was broken, or should we see it as a problem, because we see it as an essential common good that all people can communicate with each other to a working degree? And if we agree that it is a problem, what do we consider as the best reaction? Making a law about it?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
orfeo
It is indeed a problem of changing demographics. But in this case, that's been brought about by immigration. The fact that these young men can't communicate adequately with their neighbours is an additional problem.
When the family next door moved out a single professional woman (with four cats) moved in. Apart from some snarling when our kids kicked a ball over the fence she has hardly spoken a word to us in over ten years. She's entirely British too. quote:
Immigration has many effects. It's been said above that immigration form the EU has been economically beneficial for the UK. I have no doubt that's true. After all, young men generally want to work (especially if they haven't been raised in a benefits culture). And employers want a choice of candidates. But there are other effects (as well as other kinds of immigration), and we should be honest about them.
The British population is going to age significantly, and families will remain small, so it's likely that immigration (not only from the EU) will continue at all levels. The demographic challenges are therefore going to continue. The state and public institutions will have to work harder to bring people together, because atomisation won't be so desirable when there are so many old people in the society, many living alone.
Those demographic challenges have advantages as well as drawbacks. If more people of working age are coming to the UK that is a major benefit, especially with the aging population you mention for they need health and social care and plenty of immigrants work in those sectors, my GP for a start.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
When the family next door moved out a single professional woman (with four cats) moved in. Apart from some snarling when our kids kicked a ball over the fence she has hardly spoken a word to us in over ten years. She's entirely British too.
Can't say that's a great thing myself. As I said, if we're all getting older, the idea that we're not supposed to talk to our neighbours isn't very helpful! Neither does it help new immigrants integrate into the society.
quote:
Those demographic challenges have advantages as well as drawbacks.
I haven't denied this at all. Indeed, quite the opposite.
[ 05. November 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more people of working age are coming to the UK that is a major benefit, especially with the aging population you mention for they need health and social care and plenty of immigrants work in those sectors, my GP for a start.
It's a neo-liberal scheme to undercut the native workforce.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You didn't learn anything about the dangers of "soft-core" racism from that ?
I did,(and do), hence the comparison.
Danger has a pungent smell and can draw someone like me towards it. I'd much rather toddle off to the polling booth at a General Election and put a cross in the Liberal candidate's box as I have done most of my life.
I still don't know if the media are stirring this shit or whether the shit has already arrived and they're merely pointing it out.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Doublethink (and others)
The study released today studied a group of migrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004. A few things to note:
Three more countries have joined since then (Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia) and immigration from the first two of those has been well above what was anticipated.
No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin. It is unclear whether the figures include Child Benefit paid to a bank account in the country of origin.
The figure for receipt of benefits is bound to be lower in total because these people aren't of pensionable age.
In any case, regardless of this particular (small) cohort of immigrants, this does not address the issue of whether or not immigration at the current rate is sustainable: all the evidence from the point of view of housing, education, health, etc, would suggest not.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
L'organist: No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin. It is unclear whether the figures include Child Benefit paid to a bank account in the country of origin.
It's almost as if you want immigration to be unsustainable.
quote:
L'organist: In any case, regardless of this particular (small) cohort of immigrants, this does not address the issue of whether or not immigration at the current rate is sustainable: all the evidence from the point of view of housing, education, health, etc, would suggest not.
Evidence of which you have given none.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin.
We don't ask you where you send the money you earn, either. Online shopping? With foreign companies?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ingo,
You are trying to teach a legislative drafter about the nature of law.
This is fucking hilarious.
Regards,
Orfeo.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are trying to teach a legislative drafter about the nature of law. This is fucking hilarious.
I'm a theoretical physicist, I'm pretty authoritative on applied maths, in particular in my area of specialisation. That does not mean that I'm more than an amateur as far as the history, sociology and philosophy of science is concerned, much less does it make me an expert on epistemology.
I don't consider you as particularly authoritative on the nature of the law just because you are busy making some. So far, your comments frankly sound more like that of a typical "Fachidiot". ("Fach" = area of study/work, "idiot" = idiot, combined roughly a "blinkered specialist", though the German is much juicier...)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Shrug. Recent years have shown I can't help how witless you are sometimes about the way the world works or how people work (medieval duelling boards and all), so I'm not going to try now.
In fact about 3/4 of your great big ranting posts are telling me what I already know, while the 1/4 are wrong, but I'm really not that interested in spending time unpicking for you where you're right and where you're wrong, or engaging in a discussion about the many compliance measures that are available ranging from law through to culture. I'd much rather discuss these things with my clients, as I do on a regular basis, because in their case it will lead to meaningful decisions.
Including decisions not to make a law because it won't achieve anything.
[ 05. November 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doublethink (and others)
The study released today studied a group of migrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004. A few things to note:
Three more countries have joined since then (Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia) and immigration from the first two of those has been well above what was anticipated.
The study considered data upto 2011. That's not unusual, it takes a year or two for the relevant data to become available, and some time to then examine that data.
Is there anything to suggest that Bulgarians are going to be any different from Poles or Czechs? Unless you have very good evidence that Bulgarians are much more likely to be feckless layabouts scrounging from the British state purse than Poles I would expect that the main findings of the study will apply equally to the newer waves of immigrants.
quote:
No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin. It is unclear whether the figures include Child Benefit paid to a bank account in the country of origin.
I haven't had opportunity to read the report, just the news article on the BBC I linked to. It did seem very clear that the study was somewhat (necessarily) limited. So, they seemed to consider direct taxation and benefits payments and a assessment of how much use of health, education services etc used by immigrants. The study did break down those costs into those that scale by population (eg: schooling which costs more if there are more children) and those that don't (like defence).
The study was clearly stated to relate to financial benefit to the UK Treasury, ie: taxation income. What people chose to do with the rest of their income was not questioned, so there may be subtly different answers in a study of the net impact on the UK economy rather than the UK Treasury. But, a) that would be a much more difficult study, and b) I would be surprised if it made much difference as most of what people earn is spent in that country (rent/mortgage, groceries, local transport, new clothes as needed, local pubs and restaurants etc). And, we all send money abroad (we buy stuff, directly or indirectly, produced overseas, we go overseas on holiday or business etc).
It's bad enough that people are suggesting that we restrict where people live. Imposing restrictions on how people choose to spend their disposable income is even worse.
quote:
The figure for receipt of benefits is bound to be lower in total because these people aren't of pensionable age.
The BBC article did point out that if these immigrants remain in the UK until they receive state pension then the net benefit to the Treasury would be reduced. But, that's a big if when we're talking about what is essentially a migrant workforce travelling to where the work is.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ingo, I will say one other thing while I think of it.
I think it's especially bizarre that a German, of all people, would argue that there is a single national culture that is expressed in law.
What exactly are all the Landtage doing then? The State Parliaments? Passing different laws, separately, for different areas of your unified German culture?
[ 05. November 2014, 21:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's especially bizarre that a German, of all people, would argue that there is a single national culture that is expressed in law.
The only thing bizarre there is that you think that I said or implied this. (Well, of course some of the overall German culture will be expressed in German national law. And some of the regional differences will be expressed in regional law. And the former does not contradict the latter, and both are entirely compatible with what I've said so far. But all that nuance is clearly a bit much for you...)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's the length and density of your posts that is a bit much for me. If I miss any nuance, it's because my eyes have completely glazed over by the time I reach the end.
In short, you are an incredibly boring read.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
my eyes have completely glazed over by the time I reach the end.
Most people are doing well to get half way before their eyes glaze over.
Saying which, I might have missed it as my head fell towards the desktop and I struggled back to being awake. But did Ingo just say that there are regional cultures within Germany? Yet earlier he was denying that Britain is a (to use my phrase) a tepestry of cultures. Is it cultural bias to consider Britain a boring monoculture and Germany a rich collection of cultures?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
my eyes have completely glazed over by the time I reach the end.
Most people are doing well to get half way before their eyes glaze over.
Saying which, I might have missed it as my head fell towards the desktop and I struggled back to being awake. But did Ingo just say that there are regional cultures within Germany? Yet earlier he was denying that Britain is a (to use my phrase) a tepestry of cultures. Is it cultural bias to consider Britain a boring monoculture and Germany a rich collection of cultures?
See, clearly you and I picked up the same impression about the culture of Britain. But apparently we're both wrong to get that idea.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In short, you are an incredibly boring read.
Around here I cannot suggest that you simply do not read what I write. But you could still refrain from commenting on it, of course. Please, by all means, feel free to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yet earlier he was denying that Britain is a (to use my phrase) a tepestry of cultures. Is it cultural bias to consider Britain a boring monoculture and Germany a rich collection of cultures?
Sigh. I did not deny that there are regional cultures in Britain. I denied your idiotic conclusion that therefore there are just many "British cultures" (plural), but no such thing as a "British culture" (singular) that could be discussed on its own terms.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's the length and density of your posts that is a bit much for me. If I miss any nuance, it's because my eyes have completely glazed over by the time I reach the end.
In short, you are an incredibly boring read.
Oh thank the FSM! Someone else who finds this!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's the length and density of your posts that is a bit much for me. If I miss any nuance, it's because my eyes have completely glazed over by the time I reach the end.
In short, you are an incredibly boring read.
Oh thank the FSM! Someone else who finds this!
Behold, a Shipmate who reads them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I did not deny that there are regional cultures in Britain. I denied your idiotic conclusion that therefore there are just many "British cultures" (plural), but no such thing as a "British culture" (singular) that could be discussed on its own terms.
OK, so go around Britain and ask 1000 people to describe British culture. What are the chances that even two of them agree on anything beyond a couple of points? Forget about going round Britain, just do the survey in Berkshire, or even down a single street.
Here are some sample questions that might get things rolling:
- What three meals are most British?
I would expect answers to include fish & chips (with or without mushy peas and bread?), steak and kidney pie, bangers and mash, roast beef with yorkshire pudding, lamb and mint sauce, haggis, bacon butties, chip butties, chips and curry sauce, curry ... - What TV programmes are most British?
I would expect answers to include Monty Python, East Enders, Downton Abbey, Strictly Come Dancing, Blue Peter, Doctor Who ... - What are the most significant events in British history?
I would expect answers to include the Battle of Hastings, the Battle of Britain, D-Day, England winning the 1966 World Cup, Waterloo, Dunkirk, the wedding of Charles and Diana, the wedding of William and Kate ...
And, I could go on. Heroes of Britain, significant British inventions, most British sport, most British music ...
Yes, there will be regional variations in answers (much less likely to get haggis as a British dish outside Scotland, for example). But the variations within a street will be almost as great (even if you choose a street that only has "british" residents).
Now obviously if we got to Germany or France and ask the same questions (substituting the appropriate country) the answers will be radically different. So, yes, British culture is distinctive. But that doesn't make it any less of a tapestry of interlinked cultural ideas, such that it's impossible to actually define simply, even at a regional level. Of course, the same would be true of France or Germany, or anywhere else where the population is greater than one.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In short, you are an incredibly boring read.
Around here I cannot suggest that you simply do not read what I write. But you could still refrain from commenting on it, of course. Please, by all means, feel free to do so.
It would probably be wrong of me to suggest that you never put your fingers to keyboard again. But you could still refrain from writing posts that are so long that they scroll. Please, by all means, feel free to edit yourself.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would probably be wrong of me to suggest that you never put your fingers to keyboard again. But you could still refrain from writing posts that are so long that they scroll. Please, by all means, feel free to edit yourself.
orfeo, I'm entirely happy with both what I write and the way I write it. If you disagree then all your practices at going and fucking yourself would come in handy.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would probably be wrong of me to suggest that you never put your fingers to keyboard again. But you could still refrain from writing posts that are so long that they scroll. Please, by all means, feel free to edit yourself.
orfeo, I'm entirely happy with both what I write and the way I write it. If you disagree then all your practices at going and fucking yourself would come in handy.
Do you really write entirely for your own amusement? I haven't learnt to the exalted level you have but I was taught that writing, like speech, is a means of communication.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would probably be wrong of me to suggest that you never put your fingers to keyboard again. But you could still refrain from writing posts that are so long that they scroll. Please, by all means, feel free to edit yourself.
orfeo, I'm entirely happy with both what I write and the way I write it. If you disagree then all your practices at going and fucking yourself would come in handy.
Do you really write entirely for your own amusement? I haven't learnt to the exalted level you have but I was taught that writing, like speech, is a means of communication.
It's the difference between wanking alone and making love.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would probably be wrong of me to suggest that you never put your fingers to keyboard again. But you could still refrain from writing posts that are so long that they scroll. Please, by all means, feel free to edit yourself.
orfeo, I'm entirely happy with both what I write and the way I write it. If you disagree then all your practices at going and fucking yourself would come in handy.
And if you want to have discussions with yourself, you don't need a discussion board for it. Idiot.
You have the nerve to tell me what to do on here, and yet when I reflect this back on you, you tell me to go fuck myself. You are the smartest complete moron I've ever encountered, I'll give you that, but by God you are still a complete moron.
[ 06. November 2014, 11:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's the difference between wanking alone and making love.
Where's the bit when he charms us with dinner and flowers, then? Why does it always feel like he's walked in the door and immediately announced that it's time to conjugate? And why is it about as enticing as a grammar lesson?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Ahh, wham bam thank you ma'am!
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does it always feel like he's walked in the door and immediately announced that it's time to conjugate? And why is it about as enticing as a grammar lesson?
Clearly you never met my Van Halen–inspiring Latin teacher.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I read that as 'Van Helsing inspired'; presumably a teacher of undead languages...
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What pisses me off, is how people keep making spurious economic arguments regardless of the evidence. Migrationwatch are particularly classic in this regards. Not unlike the government and its drugs policy.
I think this report should be read very, very carefully.
A previous report co-authored by Christian Dustmann claimed that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would enter the UK each year if Poland, Czech Rep., etc. were admitted to the EU. That report was used by ministers and others to play down fears off mass-immigration from the EU accession states.
Since those estimates have proved to be spectacularly inaccurate, Prof Dustmann has claimed his report was 'misinterpreted'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although a report presenting data from what has happened (ie: this one) and one predicting what may happen are different things.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
The numbers may be wrong, the report may have been misinterpreted but has migration from the accession states been a bad thing? I mean, really? How has your life changed for the worse.
It's a bit like "same-sex" marriage weakening the "traditional" variety.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think the trouble is that there is a sizeable chunk of the British population which thinks that immigration is a Bad Thing and when the people who assured us that not many would come over announce that actually they miscalculated by a few hundred thousand but, having done their sums again they can reassure us that it's all good, I can see why people might not find it wholly convincing.
It's probably more convincing than the assertion we can withdraw from the EU and negotiate a bi-lateral treaty that gives us all the nice stuff we like and none of the nasty stuff we're not so keen but that's not a terribly high bar. I think the other problem is that in the days of our prosperity people didn't necessarily trust politicians on the subject, but it didn't seem such a big deal. Contrary to the meme about discussion of immigration being verboten by the liberal elite, I have a distinct recollection of the Conservatives campaigning on the issue in the 2005 General Election. Are you thinking what we're thinkng? they asked. Unfortunately the electorate were thinking "piss off, Dracula, coming over here trying to take our boy Tony's job".
Dial forward to after the financial crash, and attitudes became a lot less forgiving. It's all very well banging on about the benefits of immigration, which are real and quantifiable, but realistically most policies come with costs and benefits and it the perception is that the costs are being borne by the locals and the benefits by big business and economic migrants, then you can see that the locals might start getting twitchy. During the 2005 election the Reverend Tone managed to neutralise the subject by making a speech on the subject saying legitimate concerns yadda, yadda, yadda but enough with the demagoguery Michael. It's somewhat difficult to imagine Miliband or Cameron successfully taking on Farage in such terms. As for Clegg, I imagine it would be the Polish Chamber of Commerce's worst nightmare.
I'm not sure what the answer is because until the whole cost of living thing goes away immigrants will be a convenient target for any resentment going round and there isn't an obvious mainstream politician who is trusted on the subject. Our best chance is for little Ed to squeak over the line, with or without the Liberal Democrats. You can imagine the deep enthusiasm with which I typed that last sentence. Second best would be a Conservative majority, preferably under Teresa May who might do to UKIP what Mrs Thatcher did to the NF. What worries me would be to end up with a Government Of All The Tossers with ministerial roles for the likes of some but presumably not all of UKIP, the SNP, the Greens and, if we are really lucky, the Democratic Unionist Party.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since those estimates have proved to be spectacularly inaccurate, Prof Dustmann has claimed his report was 'misinterpreted'.
Yes, and he states quite clearly in that article exactly what the errors in interpretation were: ignoring the stated assumptions inherent in the estimates, and not waiting the required period of time to get a 10-year average. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. In the world of 15-second soundbites nobody would bother with that kind of information, they'd just go straight for the headline number. Doesn't mean they're right to do so.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
There is no way of having a reasonable discussion on immigration. People jump to positions too quickly and then generate evidence to back it up. I would suggest a Royal Commission to actually go away, take evidence and then see what conclusions they come to. But then what would I know?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I can't help but think that if Britain withdraws from the EU then it will be *punished*. The same way that we would have punished Scotland had it split off from the UK.
Re SS's point. There are many monday mornings, esp this time of year, when I would be perfectly happy for a fit young Pole to do my job so I could stay in a warm comfy chair watching the birds feed and the clouds pass by.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
WOW? Total silence from shippies about the ECJ ruling on out-of-work benefits for a non-jobseeking migrant in Germany.
Could it be that you're surprised that our Teutonic cousins have been trying to get approval for something approved of by Messrs Cameron and Farage?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
WOW? Total silence from shippies about the ECJ ruling on out-of-work benefits for a non-jobseeking migrant in Germany.
Could it be that you're surprised that our Teutonic cousins have been trying to get approval for something approved of by Messrs Cameron and Farage?
Or we don't know about it - linky?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In yesterday's Guardian (and a lot of other media coverage):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/germany-deny-benefits-welfare-jobless-eu-migrants
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Further to the above I have read (could have been on the BBC site) that the UK government's proposals go far further than the restrictions Germany has been allowed to put in place.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Well, they would because at the moment, although the monetary worth is not as great as in Germany, the range of benefits, especially benefits-in-kind, available to the unwaged is greater in the UK than Germany.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0