Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[mojo pixy]

As to racist hated before that time I think I'd have to explore other drivers and maybe the dominance/fear of others model might be a better fit?

I think the loss of empire and thereby the 'natural' top-dog status of every Briton of whatever class, has been a major driver of anti-immigrant feeling since at least Enoch Powell's day.

I think that's a massive number of people risking death every week in Channel crossings alone.

Crossing the channel in a small boat against all sanity and safety, to me represents the kind of pluck, derring-do and refusal to be cowed by odds or rules, that 'being british' is meant to be all about.

These people deserve automatic citizenship IMO. They understand what it is to be british far better than do the whining bullies who wish the boats would sink.

(I'm not even 100% joking tbh)

 

[Spymaster]

Theirs 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.

Where has this “legitimate” thing come from?

And does anyone besides open borders proponents disagree that immigration controls are needed?

 

[Gramsci]

Where has this “legitimate” thing come from?

And does anyone besides open borders proponents disagree that immigration controls are needed?

If the present controls on immigration are tight enough then concerns aren't legitimate.

 

[Gromit]

I'll start; immigration is bad because it's used by wealth owners to undercut potential wage / conditions demands by their native workforce.

Any evidence to prove this?

It's a regular trope by the far right.

However, there is actual evidence that immigrates have pushed up pay. In construction for example.

ETA. Sorry late to thread and have seen others covered this already.

 

[Gramsci]

Where has this “legitimate” thing come from?

And does anyone besides open borders proponents disagree that immigration controls are needed?

Unless the concerns aren't about controls but about immigration itself.

 

[Spymaster]

If the present controls on immigration are tight enough then concerns aren't legitimate.

What does “legitimate” have to do with anything? That’s what I’m asking. Where did that word come in to this discussion and what is its relevance?

 

[Spymaster]

Unless the concerns aren't about controls but about immigration itself.

Of course they’re about immigration. That’s the title of this thread.

 

[Gromit]

Someone somewhere explained that due to our aging population we need immigrants to pay for pensioner benefits and health care.

Each pensioner costs the UK 5 times what a person contributes in tax. Average household holds 2.5 people. So we need 2 households for each pensioner.

Because of the increase in pensioners we need an additional 5 million people to pay for them (for just the increase in pensioners that is. Not the previous number.) and our birth rate isn't producing them. Got to get these people from somewhere.

The advantage of filling this with immigrants is not only do they pay for old people is that they tend to go home to retire so we dont have to pay for them when they are old. Win win.

 

[mojo pixy]

Any evidence to prove this?

It's a regular trope by the far right.

However, there is actual evidence that immigrates have pushed up pay. In construction for example.

ETA. Sorry late to thread and have seen others covered this already.

I mean, that wasn't posted as as fact but as an opinion I've heard countless times from both Right and Left. I added it in as a talking point for my OP (I think it's only fair to include one or two specific talking points in an OP), but I was clear it is a view I have some sympathy with - and also that it's the only anti-immigrant view I really have any sympathy with.

Including it in the OP wasn't meant to suggest I take it as gospel. So, if you have evidence either to support or counter it with, I'm all ears.

 

[Gramsci]

Of course they’re about immigration. That’s the title of this thread.

The title looking at it again is quite general.

Could be present immigration controls.

And or effect of immigration on this society over time. This has come up on this thread.

 

[zedr]

What does “legitimate” have to do with anything? That’s what I’m asking. Where did that word come in to this discussion and what is its relevance?

Just checking, are you asking about the use of word legitimate itself and why its being used, or peoples use of quotation marks around the word legitimate?

 

[maomao]

Each pensioner costs the UK 5 times what a person contributes in tax. Average household holds 2.5 people. So we need 2 households for each pensioner.

Because of the increase in pensioners we need an additional 5 million people to pay for them (for just the increase in pensioners that is. Not the previous number.) and our birth rate isn't producing them. Got to get these people from somewhere.

This sounds like absolute bollocks. The average household does not have 2.5 working taxpayers. And not all tax comes from individuals, we could easily increase corporate taxes without changing individual taxation.

 

[Spymaster]

Just checking, are you asking about the use of word legitimate itself and why its being used, or peoples use of quotation marks around the word legitimate?

The actual word. It seems to have crept in early in the discussion but it’s irrelevant as far as I can tell. Obviously some people have concerns about immigration. Whether they are legitimate or otherwise is not the issue. How those concerns are countered is the issue. Mine and others assertion has been that regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns, screaming “racist” and other abuse at people for having them, is not an effective way to reduce them.

 

[andysays]

The actual word. It seems to have crept in early in the discussion but it’s irrelevant as far as I can tell. Obviously some people have concerns about immigration. Whether they are legitimate or otherwise is not the issue. How those concerns are countered is the issue. Mine and others assertion has been that regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns, screaming “racist” and other abuse at people for having them, is not an effective way to reduce them.

Or we could just tell people that their concerns are illegitimate.

That's much easier than having a proper dialogue, and gives us a feeling of moral superiority as a bonus.

 

[MrCurry]

I haven’t read the thread, so apologies if it’s been discussed or posted, but what are the figures on immigration to the UK and are the numbers high or low compared to other countries?

Because without numbers, everything is just a question of hand waving opinions, easily influenced by political or press commentators who may have their own motivations.

 

[chilango]

The actual word. It seems to have crept in early in the discussion but it’s irrelevant as far as I can tell. Obviously some people have concerns about immigration. Whether they are legitimate or otherwise is not the issue. How those concerns are countered is the issue. Mine and others assertion has been that regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns, screaming “racist” and other abuse at people for having them, is not an effective way to reduce them.

I wouldn't 'scream' racist at them (or hurl abuse). I'm just not going to entertain, or engage with, racist arguments.

YMMV of course.

But regardless of whatever we think the political strategy ought to be all most of us can do is make personal decisions on how to deal with what we encounter day to day.

 

[chilango]

Or we could just tell people that their concerns are illegitimate.

That's much easier than having a proper dialogue, and gives us a feeling of moral superiority as a bonus.

I think you're joking? But tbh I do think we need some of this.

 

[kabbes]

“Legitimate concerns” is a stupid phrase. There is no gods-eye perspective from which legitimacy can be judged. Whether a concern is legitimate or not is indivisible from the value system that produced the concern. A concern could be wholly illegitimate from within one value system but entirely legitimate within a different one. Arguing about the legitimacy or otherwise of a concern is just another unhelpful label blocking any chance of dealing with the problem. It makes much more sense to look at the source of the concern and address that upstream of the point that it develops.

 

[Spymaster]

Or we could just tell people that their concerns are illegitimate.

That's much easier than having a proper dialogue, and gives us a feeling of moral superiority as a bonus.

It’s certainly an improvement on “racist” and “dogshit”.

 

[zedr]

The actual word. It seems to have crept in early in the discussion but it’s irrelevant as far as I can tell. Obviously some people have concerns about immigration. Whether they are legitimate or otherwise is not the issue. How those concerns are countered is the issue. Mine and others assertion has been that regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns, screaming “racist” and other abuse at people for having them, is not an effective way to reduce them.

I thik its because that's often a word used in mainstream discourse about immigration. Often by politicians and media pundits wanting to try and distance themselves from far right or what they see as racist perspectives on immigration. When I've read it in this thread that's the context I've understood the word in, with many posters using quotation marks to question the cynical use of the term legitimate.

I think often its quite a cowardly phrase to use, because it means people (like your Farages, Murrays etc) can hide behind it without saying what they actually think. To me I often see/hear the phrase 'legitimate concerns about immigration' as a racist dogwhistle.

 

[kabbes]

I thik its because that's often a word used in mainstream discourse about immigration. Often by politicians and media pundits wanting to try and distance themselves from far right or what they see as racist perspectives on immigration. When I've read it in this thread that's the context I've understood the word in, with many posters using quotation marks to question the cynical use of the term legitimate.

I think often its quite a cowardly phrase to use, because it means people (like your Farages, Murrays etc) can hide behind it without saying what they actually think. To me I often see/hear the phrase 'legitimate concerns about immigration' as a racist dogwhistle.

Yes, because the use of the phrase in that context is not actually about legitimising the concern itself, but legitimising the value system that produced it.

 

[brogdale]

I haven’t read the thread, so apologies if it’s been discussed or posted, but what are the figures on immigration to the UK and are the numbers high or low compared to other countries?

Because without numbers, everything is just a question of hand waving opinions, easily influenced by political or press commentators who may have their own motivations.

One surrogate indicator of comparable rates of immigration comes from % foreign born of total population, but I'm not sure what such data adds to this discussion, tbh. Folk are either going to have concerns about immigration or they're not, irrespective of how the figures stack up to other countries.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Benefit cheats in the UK - do you have concerns?​

I think its hight time we listened closely to these fears

Yeah. Single mothers. Nuff said.

 

[kabbes]

One surrogate indicator of comparable rates of immigration comes from % foreign born of total population, but I'm not sure what such data adds to this discussion, tbh. Folk are either going to have concerns about immigration or they're not, irrespective of how the figures stack up to other countries.

View attachment 439160

Anti-immigration is quite tied up with orientalism as well (ie, the banal and obvious fact that “not all immigration is equal”). So it’s hard to make sense of statistics like that without knowing the source of the foreign-born population.

 

[Spymaster]

I thik its because that's often a word used in mainstream discourse about immigration. Often by politicians and media pundits wanting to try and distance themselves from far right or what they see as racist perspectives on immigration. When I've read it in this thread that's the context I've understood the word in, with many posters using quotation marks to question the cynical use of the term legitimate.

I think often its quite a cowardly phrase to use, because it means people (like your Farages, Murrays etc) can hide behind it without saying what they actually think. To me I often see/hear the phrase 'legitimate concerns about immigration' as a racist dogwhistle.

Agreed. It’s also been used by some on this thread to suggest that no concerns about immigration are legitimate. The implication being that anyone who holds them, to any degree, is a racist.

 

[danny la rouge]

Agreed. It’s also been used by some on this thread to suggest that no concerns about immigration are legitimate. The implication being that anyone who holds them, to any degree, is a racist.

I think the term “legitimate concerns” is a bit like “I have black friends”. It’s not that there are definitely no legitimate concerns, it’s that it is used as a get out of jail free card by people who are racist.

 

[MrCurry]

One surrogate indicator of comparable rates of immigration comes from % foreign born of total population, but I'm not sure what such data adds to this discussion, tbh. Folk are either going to have concerns about immigration or they're not, irrespective of how the figures stack up to other countries.

View attachment 439160

That’s more a measure of cumulative immigration than annual immigration though. Are annual immigration numbers even published?

I don’t really agree that numbers add nothing to the discussion. Yes people can have concerns independently of the factual reality, but with reliable statistics those concerns can at least be put into context and maybe even confronted and assuaged with reference to facts.

 

[Spymaster]

I think the term “legitimate concerns” is a bit like “I have black friends”. It’s not that there are definitely no legitimate concerns, it’s that it is used as a get out of jail free card by people who are racist.

Yes, and that leads to the equally unhelpful counter-argument that I mentioned.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, and that leads to the equally unhelpful counter-argument that I mentioned.

People pretending to have legitimate concerns as a fig leaf spoil it for everyone else. Those fuckers.

 

[BristolEcho]

I think the loss of empire and thereby the 'natural' top-dog status of every Briton of whatever class, has been a major driver of anti-immigrant feeling since at least Enoch Powell's day.



Crossing the channel in a small boat against all sanity and safety, to me represents the kind of pluck, derring-do and refusal to be cowed by odds or rules, that 'being british' is meant to be all about.

These people deserve automatic citizenship IMO. They understand what it is to be british far better than do the whining bullies who wish the boats would sink.

(I'm not even 100% joking tbh)

What was the feeling of most British people in the 1800's and early 1900's about the empire? Genuine question as it's made me wonder if it's something people look back on now it's gone and try to feel proud about, but in the moment it may have felt different to many people. Was there resentment for fighting in wars that seem far away and inconsequential for your family at home? I'm reading the Sharpe books (historical fiction I know) at the moment in India and the average soldier is getting fucked over as much as ever.

Yes, and that leads to the equally unhelpful counter-argument that I mentioned.

Yes we get it. You have "legitimate" concerns about unhelpful counter arguments.