Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

I think some people drawn into the 'stop the boats' nonsense would expect to see a far greater decrease in immigration than is represented by that figure, yes.
 
I think some people drawn into the 'stop the boats' nonsense would expect to see a far greater decrease in immigration than is represented by that figure, yes.

"Stop the boats" is just a slogan.

That's not the only immigration they want stopped.
 
It is a lot of people to be taking such a risk, but it is the summer peak. The average is around three-quarters of that which is still a large number of people risking their lives.
I known the arguments for why people want to come to the UK, but I do struggle to understand why people take this amount of risk to get to this fucking shithole. Guess it is just because I'm already here.
 
Last edited:
I known the arguments for why people want to come to the UK, but I do struggle to understand why people take this amount of risk to get to this fucking shithole. Guess it just because I'm already here.
As I said upthread, once you’re in Calais there’s not really much option. It’s a terrifying nighttime boat ride or spend weeks eating one meal a day getting beaten to shit by the CRS during the day and chased out of tents at nights. From ppl I’ve spoken to, some will actively want to come to the UK, but many others will have tried Germany, Italy, France and this is the last option.
 
I known the arguments for why people want to come to the UK, but I do struggle to understand why people take this amount of risk to get to this fucking shithole. Guess it just because I'm already here.
Spend a weekend in the camp in Calais after leaving your home in Albania, then have another guess.

(I know you know this. But as much as the UK is a shithole to us, you know…relative).
 
The UK is not seen to be a shit hole. Indeed, it's not. It may be comparatively less rich in relation to its former colonies than it was in the past but it still a very attractive place to live for a very large number of people. Living in Italy I am constantly asked why I don't live in the UK anymore, and to many it just doesn't compute. Why would I leave? Britain isn't seem as a place young people "need to" leave from, you'd only leave if you're rich and retired. So the idea that anyone does is baffling to most, unless the destination country is even better off, e.g.the USA or Australia.
 
"Stop the boats" is just a slogan.

That's not the only immigration they want stopped.

So why do we never hear rhetoric about foreign students, care workers, or those coming from Hong Kong or Ukraine? Stopping the boats would barely make a dent in net migration.

Stopping the boats is a slogan the government is quite happy with because they want migration to prop up university funding and prevent the care system collapsing and they can obscure that by whipping up hatred against the smallest and most vulnerable group of migrants.
 
So why do we never hear rhetoric about foreign students, care workers, or those coming from Hong Kong or Ukraine? Stopping the boats would barely make a dent in net migration.

Stopping the boats is a slogan the government is quite happy with because they want migration to prop up university funding and prevent the care system collapsing and they can obscure that by whipping up hatred against the smallest and most vulnerable group of migrants.

Possibly. Although it was the previous government’s slogan. Not sure we’ll see much more of it from this one.
 
So why do we never hear rhetoric about foreign students, care workers, or those coming from Hong Kong or Ukraine? Stopping the boats would barely make a dent in net migration.

Stopping the boats is a slogan the government is quite happy with because they want migration to prop up university funding and prevent the care system collapsing and they can obscure that by whipping up hatred against the smallest and most vulnerable group of migrants.

As has been said before, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the government's approach to immigration.

On the one hand, Britain is still effectively dependent on immigration to overcome skills shortages in some industries, provide cheap labour in others and to prop up university funding.

But on the other hand, they want to pander to (and even encourage) racist anti-immigrant feeling, so they can point to an external enemy which we are encouraged to fear, and so they can present themselves as tough in dealing with the issue.

One of the most effective ways of doing this is to exaggerate the scale of illegal (and therefore largely) uncontrolled immigration.
 
Possibly. Although it was the previous government’s slogan. Not sure we’ll see much more of it from this one.

They might not be using the same slogan, but they are certainly continuing the focus on illegal immigration

Ministers pledge to return more illegal migrants


Home Office ministers have promised a "large surge" in returns flights for failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be in the UK. Plans include 100 more new intelligence officers to target people smuggling gangs and reopening immigration removal centres in Hampshire and Oxfordshire, adding 290 beds. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said she wanted to introduce a "better-controlled" system to replace "the chaos that has blighted the system for far too long". The Conservatives said Labour were "not serious about tackling the people smugglers or stopping the boats".
 
I think its really important to stress that asylum seekers are not ‘illegal immigrants’. That’s a right-wing (and plain false) framing and plays completely into their hands. The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is clear on this. Anyone has the right to seek asylum in any country which has signed the Convention and remain there until their claim has been assessed. The Convention also states a that people may have to use ‘irregular’ means to claim asylum in another country. The blame for this should land squarely at the feet of governments, not the people seeking asylum.

e2a - I am yet to see any evidence that people crossing the channel in boats are not asylum seekers. I’m sure there are small few who risk it for other reasons, but the way boat crossings have been made synonymous with ‘illegal’ migration seems to be an attempt to undermine the validity of asylum seekers’ claims to sanctuary.
 
They might not be using the same slogan, but they are certainly continuing the focus on illegal immigration

Ministers pledge to return more illegal migrants

Which followed Starmer saying at an event hosted by the S*n:

"I'll make sure we’ve got planes going off - not to Rwanda because that's an expensive gimmick. They will go back to the countries where people come from. That’s what used to happen,"

"At the moment, people coming from countries like Bangladesh are not being removed."
 
I think its really important to stress that asylum seekers are not ‘illegal immigrants’. That’s a right-wing (and plain false) framing and plays completely into their hands. The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is clear on this. Anyone has the right to seek asylum in any country which has signed the Convention and remain there until their claim has been assessed. The Convention also states a that people may have to use ‘irregular’ means to claim asylum in another country. The blame for this should land squarely at the feet of governments, not the people seeking asylum.

e2a - I am yet to see any evidence that people crossing the channel in boats are not asylum seekers. I’m sure there are small few who risk it for other reasons, but the way boat crossings have been made synonymous with ‘illegal’ migration seems to be an attempt to undermine the validity of asylum seekers’ claims to sanctuary.

Yeah, you're right.

I realise I've fallen into that trap in some of my posts here, and it just shows how easy it is to subconsciously take that false narrative on board even when the intention is to challenge the dominant narrative.
 
The UK is not seen to be a shit hole. Indeed, it's not. It may be comparatively less rich in relation to its former colonies than it was in the past but it still a very attractive place to live for a very large number of people. Living in Italy I am constantly asked why I don't live in the UK anymore, and to many it just doesn't compute. Why would I leave? Britain isn't seem as a place young people "need to" leave from, you'd only leave if you're rich and retired. So the idea that anyone does is baffling to most, unless the destination country is even better off, e.g.the USA or Australia.

There are so many Italians in the UK or perhaps have lived in the UK that it may be hard to believe that the country isn't doing better.

I certainly used to meet loads all over. Lots moved over after uni because they couldn't get work, even in quite specialised trades.
 
So why do we never hear rhetoric about foreign students, care workers, or those coming from Hong Kong or Ukraine? Stopping the boats would barely make a dent in net migration.

Stopping the boats is a slogan the government is quite happy with because they want migration to prop up university funding and prevent the care system collapsing and they can obscure that by whipping up hatred against the smallest and most vulnerable group of migrants.
I mean, I definitely take the general point here, but is it not the case that the last government did end up attacking foreign students and so causing a bit of a crisis across a lot of HE? For instance:

And so on.
 
The Tories attacked immigration through HE because it was a soft target and they had their 'five figures' target. They'd already crippled the Unis by making them dependant on foreign students; now by attacking the unis' source of income they've pretty much sounded the death knell for widely accessible higher education, which is what a lot of them wanted anyway. Can't have the working classes studying art and literature.
 
I really wonder why, given all that's been out on this thread that immigration controls exist, that some think a conversation of immigration is still required. And if you don't see the point of one your out of touch.
 
For me if someone thinks yet more discussion of immigration is required then what they really mean is that they don't think what exists is enough
 
This is what I expect from a Labour party run by sensible grown ups

Say international students make a great contribution and then say its to hard at this moment to repeal Tory rules on student visas.
 
Surprise Surprise Labour Government just put this out today. People legitimate concerns after the racist riots have been answered

Labour government is going to be no soft touch on immigration.


  • a large surge in enforcement and returns flights, with the aim of putting removals at their highest level since 2018, reversing the damaging drop in enforcement over recent years

Alongside this, the government is increasing detention spaces to support the higher pace of removals including reopening and adding 290 beds across Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) at Campsfield and Haslar. This increase will ensure there is additional capacity to facilitate higher levels of enforcement and returns so that rules are properly respected.

Building on 9 successful returns flights in the last six weeks, including the largest-ever chartered return flight, the government is redeploying personnel and resources to support further activity.


No Rwanda. But apart from that lock em up and shove them on flights back to where they came from is the order of the day

What I don't understand is how this is related to security. Is it that I'm meant to sleep more soundly in my bed when I know people are getting booted out of the country?
 
I totally agree. What’s a crying shame is that a lot of it isn’t actually all that difficult to grasp, really. The whole field is crying out for somebody to write it up as accessible pop science, in the same way that mainstream psychology has been popularised as self-help pap.
Please do this. You’re able to. And it’s necessary and interesting.
 
Confused



Even more confused

Reading this thread and roughly three views

One is that there is a redline and its been crossed.

The "left" is part of the problem. Language used shows how out of touch they are

There's is a centre ground of those who think that there are "legitimate" concerns. Immigration controls are needed. And those like me who aren't bothered about immigration controls are utopians.


I'm not an expert on immigration or an academic. But when I Google up a bit seems to me this country had loads of rules on immigration. Imo this country has increasingly over time tightened up immigration rules.

When I have asked what is the issue with the present ones I get no answer. I mean the actual facts of the matter. Not rows about whose most in touch with the working class etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom