Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

That's just not true. So much would have to happen to get the world to a utopian position where nobody felt threatened or challenged by other people that it's not worth entertaining the possibility. I think it's more likely that humanity will wipe itself out before open borders happens.
I think sheer numbers of people migrating to survive may end up making a mockery of the notion of borders. Perhaps I am being ‘optimistic’ about that, but the other possibilities are too horrific to contemplate right now
 
That's not open borders though is it? It's the forced migration of people and it will be resisted tooth and nail by many. It's more likely to start wars than open borders
I know this phrase, “open borders”, has somehow come into the conversation. But I don’t think anyone is actually advocating something called that. What I’m saying is that this is a planet. And planetary stresses will mean population movement. And big stressors have started. And they’re getting bigger.
 
I know this phrase, “open borders”, has somehow come into the conversation. But I don’t think anyone is actually advocating something called that. What I’m saying is that this is a planet. And planetary stresses will mean population movement. And big stressors have started. And they’re getting bigger.

I don't think that's what Edie meant when she asked the question, or what her other half proposes.

What people on the right fear when they hear open borders, is the softening of immigration controls in today's world that makes economic migration easier. Not the consequences of mass movement of populations due to climate change.
 
I don't think that's what Edie meant when she asked the question, or what her other half proposes.

What people on the right fear when they think open borders, is the softening of immigration controls in today's world that makes economic migration easier. Not the mass movement of populations due to climate change.
Might concentrate minds to think about why those economic pushes and pulls exist in the first place. To single out the same country that Starmer singled out as he fanned the racist flames, why is it ok to expect a Bangladeshi woman to make our clothes for us in Bangladesh for £15 a week wages but not ok to think that maybe she could come here to live and work instead?
 
I don't think that's what Edie meant when she asked the question, or what her other half proposes.
I’ve addressed one of Edie ‘s posts. (And she asked some good questions and raised some good points). I don’t think it’s the one you’re referring to here. This is a fast moving thread, and composing posts that in any way address questions raised mean I’m probably missing a lot of posts.
What people on the right fear when they hear open borders, is the softening of immigration controls in today's world that makes economic migration easier. Not the consequences of mass movement of populations due to climate change.
Yeah, but that’s part of the problem. Phrases mean different things to different people. When I hear “20 min neighbourhoods” I think “yes, that can’t come soon enough, properly planned for and funded”, but others hear “government clamp down on liberty”. I don’t know how we address that. I’m not sure my arms can reach far enough down a lot of these rabbit holes.

I’ve a feeling smokedout addressed that point better.
 
Might concentrate minds to think about why those economic pushes and pulls exist in the first place. To single out the same country that Starmer singled out as he fanned the racist flames, why is it ok to expect a Bangladeshi woman to make our clothes for us in Bangladesh for £15 a week wages but not ok to think that maybe she could come here to live and work instead?

Good luck with getting enough people to consider that to make a significant difference at the ballot box.
 
Good luck with getting enough people to consider that to make a significant difference at the ballot box.
Last I checked, I wasn't standing for election. I'll make the case for what I think is right. That it wouldn't win an election right now is beside the point.

I don't only say things like the above online. I also say them to people who haven't thought about matters in those terms before. That will do me, even if they think I'm wrong after thinking about it. I can't change the world on my own.
 
Last I checked, I wasn't standing for election. I'll make the case for what I think is right. That it wouldn't win an election right now is beside the point.

I don't only say things like the above online. I also say them to people who haven't thought about matters in those terms before. That will do me, even if they think I'm wrong after thinking about it. I can't change the world on my own.

You do what you think is correct, but I don't think telling people with immigration concerns that it's only fair to increase immigration is the way to keep them out of the hands of the far right.

In fact, I think it's ludicrous.
 
You do what you think is correct, but I don't think telling people with immigration concerns that it's only fair to increase immigration is the way to keep them out of the hands of the far right.

In fact, I think it's ludicrous.
I disagree. Giving people a radically different take on an issue from the one they normally hear may not win them over to your position, but it may place different ideas in their heads, it may give them cause to think about things from a different perspective.
 
I disagree. Giving people a radically different take on an issue from the one they normally hear may not win them over to your position, but it may place different ideas in their heads, it may give them cause to think about things from a different perspective.

It's pretty much what the left have been doing forever and here we are two weeks after the worst race riots we've seen in a generation, with the country further politically right-wing than ever.

'Placing ideas in heads'; do me a favour. Most voters couldn't care less about the plight of a Bangladeshi woman on 15 quid a week. They barely care about what's going on outside Essex, or Rotherham.

You're trying to counter racism by addressing issues that people aren't racist about.
 
So how do you show such people that they are wrong?

You juxtapose an immigrant who's struggling to exist, with the Millionaire who's employing him whilst shouting "Look over there at those immigrants taking the bread out of your mouths"
If they can't work the rest out for themselves, there's no point trying to educate them.
 
I'm an economic migrant and nobody bats an eyelid 'cos I'm white and they assume I've just moved within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map.
Yeah I've lived as a migrant since 1997. Not for economics but because I love France and just wanted to live there. Why I ended up in Estonia after 10 years in France is a story for another time :D But I raise no eyebrows because I look like them.

There is a strong cultural influence around Marseille from northern Africa. I loved it. Some down there don't. When I got to Estonia I was so surprised not to see any people of colour at all. Nowadays there are some but mostly foreign students. They get looked at askance on the bus. I think most Estonians are ok with it in theory, but they're just not very used to it.
 
'Placing ideas in heads'; do me a favour. Most voters couldn't care less about the plight of a Bangladeshi woman on 15 quid a week. They barely care about what's going on outside Essex, or Rotherham.
I'd rather talk about 'people' than 'voters'. As I said, I'm not standing for election. If people don't give a shit about the plight of the people who make their cheap clothes for them, that reflects badly on them.

But yeah, I'll say things to people in the hope that it might spark some new thoughts. Don't you?

You come across as condescending there when attempting to speak for 'voters from Essex or Rotherham'. I don't presume to speak for them or what they might be persuaded to give a shit about.
 
It's pretty much what the left have been doing forever
Too wide a concept. “The left”. Could mean almost anything. Also, I agree the left isn’t strong, isn’t organised, and doesn’t have any meaningful conversation with the working class. Which depresses me. But you can’t have it both ways. The left can’t both not exist and be actively to blame.

If you mean liberals, you have my agreement.
 
I'd rather talk about 'people' than 'voters'. As I said, I'm not standing for election. If people don't give a shit about the plight of the people who make their cheap clothes for them, that reflects badly on them.

But yeah, I'll say things to people in the hope that it might spark some new thoughts. Don't you?

You come across as condescending there when attempting to speak for 'voters from Essex or Rotherham'. I don't presume to speak for them or what they might be persuaded to give a shit about.

No condescending intention meant at all, but your way seems to me to have failed miserably.
 
Too wide a concept. “The left”. Could mean almost anything. Also, I agree the left isn’t strong, isn’t organised, and doesn’t have any meaningful conversation with the working class. Which depresses me. But you can’t have it both ways. The left can’t both not exist and be actively to blame.

If you mean liberals, you have my agreement.

I'm not saying they're to blame. I'm saying that they haven't helped and they propose nothing that I see as a solution. Look at LBJ here. He's basically saying 'let's do more of what has never worked before'. Let's tell people with concerns about immigration that the solution is more immigration.

Happy to call them liberals if you like.
 
What I don't get is why france bother policing the UKs border for us instead of just waving them through.

We pay them to do it.

That said, every so often the French Police aux Frontieres in Calais give themselves the night off and let the traffickers bring a few hundred people over.
 
We pay them to do it.

That said, every so often the French Police aux Frontieres in Calais give themselves the night off and let the traffickers bring a few hundred people over.

Yeah I'm aware we pay them but it's not like France is skint and desperate for the cash, and it would be lot less hassle not to spend your time persecuting refugees every night.
 
And how has that gone for you?

The left has never been more politically irrelevant than they are now, have achieved nothing for decades, the current Labour government is more right than some Tory ones, and the most successful politician in the country is Nigel Farage, who may well be the next PM.
I think you have things the wrong way round.

Because the left has been so pathetic the political response has been the type you are advocating, and where has that got us?
 
I think sheer numbers of people migrating to survive may end up making a mockery of the notion of borders. Perhaps I am being ‘optimistic’ about that, but the other possibilities are too horrific to contemplate right now

That's a bit binary. It is undoubtedly true that climate change and food scarcity will engender massive population movement, but it does not follow that open borders are inevitable. See Fortress Europe.

The broader question - should we support open borders? - is apposite, however.

A lot of left liberals seem to believe that open borders is a progressive position. I don’t. For the same reason that I support controls on capital movement – that it invariably threatens the immediate interests of the working class be that their jobs, pay etc – I also support controls on labour, or should I say exploited labour which is what immigration policy is specifically designed to supply. Open borders is an understandable but unthinking utopian demand and, as Spy has already noted, is also electorally nuts.
 
Don't know what this means.
When eg Labour talks about immigration in terms that make it clear that the 'concerns' are valid, you get a so-called overton window through which, on mainstream political discussions such as Question Time, it is taken as read that there is 'an immigration problem' that comprises, essentially, too many people coming over here from over there.
 
There’s been a lot of stuff on this thread about “legitimate” concerns, which I don’t think anyone has actually mentioned. It’s just been “concerns”. When I used to get the shit kicked out of me by racists, the legitimacy of their concerns was a matter of supreme indifference.

I’m reticent to post this but I’ve been thinking about it all day, and I’ve posted about my own experiences before and I don’t want anyone to think that I feel my views are shared by other people of colour. We DON'T all see it the same way and my views have no more weight than anyone else’s. However …

I was born in London, but grew up in the 70s and 80s in a provincial shit-hole called Bracknell.

Mine was one of half a dozen non-white families in a town of about 30,000 people, many of whom seemed to have NF posters in their windows whenever elections were on, even on the “posh” council estates. Dad was a first generation immigrant Indian, and my plight wasn’t aided by the fact that mum was a very vocal, bi-polar, Irish Republican, whose idea of challenging racism was to stop taking her meds, strip naked in pubs, and get sectioned. I was used to getting regularly “paki-bashed” but mum’s antics, whilst the IRA was blowing the shit out of London, really didn’t help. I became the “Paddy Paki” through my teens with a massive target on my arse!

I got through that with the help of a handful of white mates who today would be considered by many on this thread to be racists themselves.

I’ve known my best mate “Dave” (not his real name) for 52 years and we do an annual holiday together. This year we were In Malta, in June, when the Reform shit was in the news and Dave said “I reckon that Nigel Farage might be worth a vote”. This is a bloke who physically got involved with protecting me from racist violence and stood shoulder to shoulder with me, in proper hard-core punch-ups, many times over the years. I told him that I was surprised that he’d ever vote for a racist, and Dave said to me, genuinely, “do you think he’s a racist then?”

Dave is a project manager (site agent) on building sites. He’s currently got a downer on Latvians and Lithuanians, who he says he had to employ because there’s a mafia thing going on, and they are shit at onsite safety. He voted for Brexit, in the hope that more Brits would get jobs instead of non-Brits.

He was my Indian dad’s second son, and carried the old man’s coffin into the crem with me.

Dave and his ilk are the people we need to be talking to. Not the likes of John Honey et al. Fuck them. They’re always going to be racist cunts who should be battered to death by the police/lefties/anyone else.

Others are worth engaging with.

Putting those “fringe players” into the same group as violent scum racists, is hugely counterproductive. Telling them, or anyone else, that their concerns are worthless and that they’re racist cunts, just drives them further right.

THESE are the people we should be engaging. Not the handful of silly wankers who kick-off once every ten years. They’re just cunts who can be dealt with by the wonderful communal actions we’ve seen over the last couple of weeks (as well as some robust policing ;) ).

The UK is NOT a racist country. By comparison to what it was 40 or 50 years ago we have made significant forward strides but there are many miles to cross still.

Don't get too down on this, Pilch.

We're going forwards, not backwards ;)
Appreciate you sharing all this. I'd be interested to know if you managed to persuade Dave that NF was racist but don't feel like you need to share if you cba.

I definitely agree that yr pal Dave is worth engaging with. I actually also think people like John Honey are worth engaging with too. I teach a number of young, angry autistic boys just like him. A few of them could very easily fall down the same path as him. But they could just as easily not. These are kids who are growing up in very multicultural, multi class environments and still getting successfully radicalised. I'm sure there were many warning signs for ppl around John which were either not picked up on, or at least not successfully addressed.

I also think that this is true of most ppl involved in the pogroms/riots, however I'd assume most ppl on here are much more likely to be in touch with people who criticise the violence but have 'legitimate concerns' which means its easiest for us to all suggest to one another that we reach out to them/listen and give them our time.

That doesn't mean John Honey and the rest of those kicking off don't need to face up to the consequences of what they've done and the harm they've caused their local communities, and it definitely doesn't mean that their racist and fascist bullshit shouldn't be challenged and driven off the streets.

I definitely think the UK is racist. Now, I'm white and wasn't alive in the 70s, so ppl can dismiss as they choose, and I fully believe Spymaster that things have markedly improved in terms of physical racial violence. I don't think that discounts the structural inequalities that exist economically, socially, legally and politically. I think in particular that the governments hostility towards asylum seekers bakes racism into how the state functions.

I also think pointing out that many of the concerns about immigration are racist can be useful, but we need to think about the context and what we are trying to achieve. I'm more likely to comment that things are racist to my left leaning friends or on here that to people who are will get upset/shut down when the word racist is used. I think its quite silly/frustrating how naming something as racist (whether its someone making assumptions that POC all believe the same things or someone claiming that asylum seekers jump the housing queue) makes people shut down/unable to engage. It's seen as some indelible stain on someone's reputation which can make it hard to have useful/productive/convincing discussions with someone who is making racist comments! It can be useful describing actions/statements as racist and separating them from the person saying/doing them. Tho... its a bit of a hit and miss technique!!

A more useful tac I find is asking what peoples concerns are. As has been mentioned a lot above, usually the legitimate concerns about immigration aren't inherently to do with immigration but with working conditions, pay, services, amenities, housing etc which I think there are relatively simple answers to (even if getting those things improved is much harder).

The really tricky one, and the reason I think that Islamophobia has been such a successful grift for Tommy Robinson and Douglas Murray and the like is people's fear of cultural change. You can try to talk someone who has bought into the idea that Muslims are trying to introduce Sharia Law, or its a 'pedo religion' or that Muslims are all violent extremists (and more recently... antisemitic) but in my experience, that's a much tougher job.

For me, this is (largely, but not completely) a problem of societal infrastructure, which has not successfully supported integration. Whilst I think we've done this better than many other places France's rampant islamophobia and rise of the far right is a very good example of what can happen when people from different cultures/races/religions are siloed away and not supported to interact with one another. Whilst a lot of the current islamophobia can be traced back to Blairs govts, Tory austerity will have compounded the issue.

Sorry, that turned out to be a bit longer than I planned.

tldr: we need to reach out to ppl who have been radicalised; its important to discuss racism and how embedded in British culture it is, but that doesn't mean it's always useful to label people as racist as they'll just shut down; this bigotry has its roots in govt policy.
 
You were arguing that expecting an understanding of English in the citizenship tests would would help address rascist arguments about them not speaking English.

But that is exactly the sort of reasoning that had been dominant for the last 20 years, and that has got us where we are now.

No. My suggestion is twofold. One; that a basic understanding of the language of the country you've chosen to become a citizen of is not an unreasonable requirement, and that people who believe this are not (necessarily) racists. Two; removing that requirement would send a terrible message to the people we're trying to stop from voting Reform. We'd be telling them that we don't care about their concerns.
 
No. My suggestion is twofold. One; that a basic understanding of the language of the country you've chosen to become a citizen of is not an unreasonable requirement, and that people who believe this are not (necessarily) racists. Two; removing that requirement would send a terrible message to the people we're trying to stop from voting Reform. We'd be telling them that we don't care about their concerns.
What was the effect of introducing them in the first place? What has been the effect of changing the citizenship procedure from a relatively simple and inexpensive process that you could complete at a solicitor's office for a couple of hundred quid into a bloated process containing a bunch of hoops to jump through that costs more than two grand?
 
Back
Top Bottom