Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[magneze]

You’ll have more luck finding interventions that mitigate fear than those that mitigate hate.

This is why I come back to Twitter and social media. It's being used as a vast distribution mechanism for fear. For some people the fear morphs into racist hate and burning down buildings with people in them. For them there's little to do but condemn them as racist. Once you're there ... I don't know what you do.

However, there seems to be a larger group that aren't going that far. Instead of lumping them in with the nutters trying to kill or beat people up, how do we separate and counter their fears?

One way is to tackle the distribution mechanism. I'd be interested to hear about other ways that people might have tried in countering this sort of fear.

 

[brogdale]

Yes. And a further caveat from me that I prefer to call them refugees.

That has given me cause to stop and reflect on my use of the terms surrounding refugees; thank you.

I do agree with the sentiment and am, of course, familiar with the phrase Refugees welcome here and I also accept what you say later on about not letting the state determine how we refer to those coming to this country to seek refuge.

However, in the specific case of thinking about the spatial distribution of dispersal accommodation, I do tend to agree with teqniq points about the legal terminology. I think I'm right in saying that the provision of dispersal accommodation is limited explicitly to those seeking refuge who have not yet had their asylum claim processed.

That said, where possible in future I will try to refer to those seeking refuge as refugees, and avoid the state's legalistic term.

 

[Ĝasper]

And what does "sub-proletarian" mean? IYV

Its the class poorer than/below the working class, according to various online dictionaries. Can you still be working class if there's no work? What's IYV?

 

[redsquirrel]

Its the class poorer than/below the working class, according to various online dictionaries. Can you still be working class if there's no work? What's IYV?

IYV = in your view.

There's a whole heap of problems with your usage - for a start many/most of the people involved in the riots and those that are concerned in some way or another about immigration do not meet your definition of sub-proletariat. There are those that own their own business, some that a business owners and loads that will be workers.
And that's before we get onto the political problems.

 

[belboid]

Just like many of the ‘legitimate concerns’ are not legitimate, many of those claiming to be refugees are not refugees, they are economic migrants.

Pretending otherwise obscures the necessary honest conversation about the treatment of refugees and the lack of safe routes and how economic migrants seeking asylum can be identified and processed.

75% of those crossing in small boats come from just seven countries - Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. They are not ‘economic migrants’. That’s a thoroughly reactionary term used to dehumanise the people and minimise the oppression they are facing.

Plus, wtf is an ‘economic migrant’ anyway? I don’t see much difference between someone feeling a country because of western (or Russian/syrian/islamist) bombs and someone fleeing because western capital has ruined their countries.

They’re refugees. We won’t win any positions by accepting half the arguments of our enemy.

 

[Gramsci]

I think the riots were partly motivated by envy. Unlike Muslims, white sub-proletariat English people lack cultural organisations, fraternities and organised support networks. Their sense identity is a mess. They do not practice clean living. Christianity is not seen as able to fill the void. Deindustrialisation happened, Thatcher happened, 9/11 and all its consequences happened, mass immigration has happened, especially since 2004, and has increased every year. People at the bottom (ok, near the bottom) lashed out.

Me personally, I'm expecting my first kid, and the only suitable accommodation we could find was a flatshare with a Ukrainian fugitive whose been in the country for years but has never worked and can't speak English. Let's face it, we are living in scarcity. Yeah I have concerns. The cultural differences and lived experiences are a vast chasm between us.

Yours is example of the frictions that happen due to scarcity.

I don't expect people under pressure to not have concerns.

I've done a few posts on living in multicultural area.

Re reading your post I can see you aren't going through easy times.

I don't think supporting immigration means one has to see eye to eye with people from different backgrounds/ cultures. I don't always.

It's an assumption that people must all embrace so called diversity all the time. I don't think that helps.

What is necessary is doing what should be the simple stuff like provide enough housing for everyone.

I don't think posters were having a go at as such. Just questioning some of your statements.

Anyway I hope your circumstances improve in future.

 

[_Russ_]

IYV = in your view.

There's a whole heap of problems with your usage - for a start many/most of the people involved in the riots and those that are concerned in some way or another about immigration do not meet your definition of sub-proletariat. There are those that own their own business, some that a business owners and loads that will be workers.
And that's before we get onto the political problems.

Many?, Most?., heap of problems with your usage, I think you need to add IMV to the end of that.

 

[scifisam]

"Listening to people's concerns" does not mean purely "make immigration rules even stricter than they are now." They're already so strict they're actually causing illegal immigration at the same time as damaging higher education and healthcare by making the UK less attractive to work in - for people born here as well as people moving here.

It could mean taking into account that asylum seeker map and allocating more resources to areas that take in more asylum seekers. Resources in terms of jobs on the ground, bus routes. English classes, school places, extra GPs or extra funding for GPs (GPs get paid the same per patient, which benefits only those in richer areas), more building of new homes for social rent, more funding for things like community centres and libraries.

Planning for accommodating people moving to the UK (for whatever reason) rather than either trying to stop them coming or pretending that the change in the make-up of a local area makes no difference. Or pretending that someone immigrating to the UK now is in the same position as white people with white British backgrounds because "we're all descended from immigrants."

All practical stuff which has suffered in ways that are completely unrelated to refugees and other immigrants, so needs better funding and organisation anyway, but if one way to get them done is to say they're to deal with the effects of immigration on local communities, then that's a tactic to take.

Social housing is sometimes allocated to settled asylum seekers ahead of people born in the UK (because they're in desperate need), and that pisses off the UK people on the waiting list - and trust me, I've heard that from plenty of people who are not white. The solution is not to shove new residents further down the list, it's to make the list bigger by building and acquiring more homes. That's just one example.

And some of that helps with the cultural aspect, too. There is some resource-based reasoning behind the recent upsurge in racism, and it feeds back into cultural concerns that are much more difficult to tackle, especially since a lot of it just takes time. Generations (or at least a generation), not months or a few parliamentary terms.

 

[Ĝasper]

Many/most of the people involved in the riots and those that are concerned in some way or another about immigration do not meet your definition of sub-proletariat. There are those that own their own business, some that a business owners and loads that will be workers.

How do you know this information? Was there a census taken at the nationalist protests and riots? Or are you trying to paint a picture of wealthy rioters for political reasons? What class were the ones looting Greggs etc, if not sub-proletariat? Loads were probably workers, and loads on the dole.

On a tangent I don't buy into the attitude that I've often seen that small business owners are bourgeois bastards. I'm starting as a sole trader on Monday, it's better money and hopefully less stress. It's pretty easy to do if you've got skills and experience of your industry. This is how a lot of small businesses start off, and from what I've seen the working environment in some small businesses more like a guild, than a really corporate environment.

 

[Ĝasper]

I don't expect people under pressure to not have concerns.

I've done a few posts on living in multicultural area.

Cheers. I will try to find and read your posts. Its a bit like Slavoj Zizek said: philosophical dilemmas aren't just in the pages of books these days, they're all around us!

I feel that the stresses of surviving amongst the squalor and scarcity, as well as the stresses of holding taboo opinions and potentially committing thought crime, are a "mitigating circumstance" for those who've lashed out.

Some of the people protesting against racism were previously protesting poverty. But others weren't. Could we get "stand up to squalor and scarcity" movement as big and as organised as the "stand up to racism" movement?

 

[redsquirrel]

How do you know this information? Was there a census taken at the nationalist protests and riots? Or are you trying to paint a picture of wealthy rioters for political reasons? What class were the ones looting Greggs etc, if not sub-proletariat? Loads were probably workers, and loads on the dole.

Polling has shown that Reform voters, for example, are a cross class mix, likewise with those that see immigration as a/the most important issue.
In terms of the rioters, well at least one - the Leanne of the famous removal company - was not a worker or 'below' the proletariat. And the reports of sentencing shows that plenty of others were in work of some form.

Putting the unemployed into a category 'below' the proletariat and then arguing that these people are motivated by envy to riot and attack others is wide of the mark factually and politically.

On a tangent I don't buy into the attitude that I've often seen that small business owners are bourgeois bastards. I'm starting as a sole trader on Monday, it's better money and hopefully less stress. It's pretty easy to do if you've got skills and experience of your industry.

Small business owners may not be bastards but they are certainly (petit) bourgeois by definition.

 

[smokedout]

Small business owners may not be bastards but they are certainly (petit) bourgeois by definition.

And often worse at not paying minimum wage, dodging regulations and breaking employment laws than larger businesses.

 

[PTK]

"Listening to people's concerns" does not mean purely "make immigration rules even stricter than they are now." They're already so strict they're actually causing illegal immigration at the same time as damaging higher education and healthcare by making the UK less attractive to work in - for people born here as well as people moving here.

It could mean taking into account that asylum seeker map and allocating more resources to areas that take in more asylum seekers. Resources in terms of jobs on the ground, bus routes. English classes, school places, extra GPs or extra funding for GPs (GPs get paid the same per patient, which benefits only those in richer areas), more building of new homes for social rent, more funding for things like community centres and libraries.

Planning for accommodating people moving to the UK (for whatever reason) rather than either trying to stop them coming or pretending that the change in the make-up of a local area makes no difference. Or pretending that someone immigrating to the UK now is in the same position as white people with white British backgrounds because "we're all descended from immigrants."

All practical stuff which has suffered in ways that are completely unrelated to refugees and other immigrants, so needs better funding and organisation anyway, but if one way to get them done is to say they're to deal with the effects of immigration on local communities, then that's a tactic to take.

Social housing is sometimes allocated to settled asylum seekers ahead of people born in the UK (because they're in desperate need), and that pisses off the UK people on the waiting list - and trust me, I've heard that from plenty of people who are not white. The solution is not to shove new residents further down the list, it's to make the list bigger by building and acquiring more homes. That's just one example.

And some of that helps with the cultural aspect, too. There is some resource-based reasoning behind the recent upsurge in racism, and it feeds back into cultural concerns that are much more difficult to tackle, especially since a lot of it just takes time. Generations (or at least a generation), not months or a few parliamentary terms.

I like what you have said.

Someone said that the question of how many people immigrate to the UK every year is irrelevant. I think that it is relevant

Integration and social cohesion take time.

I am sure that if 20 million people settled here in one year there would be more concern than if 50,000 people settled here in one year.

I also think that the question of large movements of people needs to be considered on both a sub-national and an international scale.

There are empty houses in the North of England, apparently, and in the South-East of England houses are being built on Green Belt land and office blocks are being converted into “human warehouses” that do not need planning permission. There is clearly something wrong if people are migrating from the North of England to the South-East in large numbers. (The lack of jobs in the North being the cause of this).

When large numbers of people were moving to the UK from Poland in the first decade of this century, it was reported that hospitals in Poland were short of staff as people move to Britain to work in jobs that were usually not in the health service. It was reported that Poland was recruiting nurses from Ukraine. I wondered if this would create a shortage of nurses in Ukraine, and if that country would recruit nurses from, say, Kazakhstan, and then Kazakhstan would recruit nurses from, say, China.

Someone I knew who was married to someone from Malawi said about ten years ago that there were more Malawian nurses in Britain than there were in Malawi.

Migration is not necessarily unproblematic.

 

[belboid]

Small business owners may not be bastards but they are certainly (petit) bourgeois by definition.

[pedant] Technically, its only the self employed who are petty bourgeoisie. They might well be formed as companies, but not necessarily. Small business (with employees) are just bourgeois, albeit small bourgeois. But small isn't a synonym for petty, in this instance.[/pedant]

 

[maomao]

[pedant] Technically, its only the self employed who are petty bourgeoisie. They might well be formed as companies, but not necessarily. Small business (with employees) are just bourgeois, albeit small bourgeois. But small isn't a synonym for petty, in this instance.[/pedant]

Petite bourgeoisie can employ, they just tend to work as well. A stall-holder who takes on a Saturday kid isn't suddenly haute bourgeoisie.

 

[PTK]

[pedant] Technically, its only the self employed who are petty bourgeoisie. They might well be formed as companies, but not necessarily. Small business (with employees) are just bourgeois, albeit small bourgeois. But small isn't a synonym for petty, in this instance.[/

The small bourgeoisie, who employ a few people, are the petit bourgeoisie.

At least, as far as most writers have defined it in the past 200 years.

 

[scifisam]

Polling has shown that Reform voters, for example, are a cross class mix, likewise with those that see immigration as a/the most important issue.
In terms of the rioters, well at least one - the Leanne of the famous removal company - was not a worker or 'below' the proletariat. And the reports of sentencing shows that plenty of others were in work of some form.

Putting the unemployed into a category 'below' the proletariat and then arguing that these people are motivated by envy to riot and attack others is wide of the mark factually and politically.

Small business owners may not be bastards but they are certainly (petit) bourgeois by definition.

Calling sole-traders petit-bourgeois might be accurate - I honestly don't know. But sole trader includes cleaners, taxi drivers, gardeners, lots of tradesmen in any field, and less-obviously working-class but often low-paid professions like translators, graphic designers, artists, tour guides, some teachers... Lots of people who are barely making it from month to month. If the term really does include those people, then it's not terribly useful in today's economical reality.

Not that I like the term "sub-proletatariat" either.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Calling sole-traders petit-bourgeois might be accurate - I honestly don't know. But sole trader includes cleaners, taxi drivers, gardeners, lots of tradesmen in any field, and less-obviously working-class but often low-paid professions like translators, graphic designers, artists, tour guides, some teachers... Lots of people who are barely making it from month to month. If the term really does include those people, then it's not terribly useful in today's economical reality.

Not that I like the term "sub-proletatariat" either.

Yeah and often they're not sole traders by choice.

 

[planetgeli]

Yeah, what's wrong with lumpenproletariat?

/irony

Well I'll tell you what's wrong with ignoring them or trying to pretend they don't exist. Or deny that they would have played some part in these riots.

They are real. And they are a product of the way the country is governed. And we are leaving them to rot.

And when you rot, your first defence mechanism is to find someone you think is shitter than yourself. So yes, a lot of them are racist. And will have rioted.

To deny that is to deny we have to tackle the problem at a root level. A problem caused by deliberate inequality. I work with these people, kids and parents, every day. Individually, I do my bit. I mean, I've changed 2 kids minds in 6 years. Because the problem is bigger than that. Structural change is needed. The inequality is the problem. Ignoring their inequality, their lack of social capital (find some different terms that don't use the word capital ffs), and how that might manifest - well that's part of the problem too.

 

[redsquirrel]

Calling sole-traders petit-bourgeois might be accurate - I honestly don't know. But sole trader includes cleaners, taxi drivers, gardeners, lots of tradesmen in any field, and less-obviously working-class but often low-paid professions like translators, graphic designers, artists, tour guides, some teachers... Lots of people who are barely making it from month to month. If the term really does include those people, then it's not terribly useful in today's economical reality.

I said small business owners were petite bourgeoise, that would probably include some sole traders and exclude some others depending on nature of their work.
But regardless the bit in bold has been true of the petite bourgeoise since the start. And the fact that someone is part of the petite bourgeoise does not necessarily mean they a bastard or necessarily opposed to class struggle

 

[planetgeli]

Sorry, didn't realise we were on the important differences in the definition of petite bourgeois. Or how to spell it.

Dave says hi.

 

[kabbes]

I've no idea, tbh. I suspect that having an empire was generally considered a Good Thing, that we were in some way entitled to it, what with Britain being so damn wonderful and all, and that rather than resentment at "fighting wars far away", those doing so felt that they were protecting what was "ours". The notion that colonialism was a Bad Thing came much later, imo.

In the 1800s there were probably still plenty of people alive who thought the settlers and their descendants were bloody ungrateful for chucking the British out, and that they only managed it because they had the help of the French and Spanish, who wanted revenge for Britain beating them in other wars.

ETA: It might be enlightening to read 19th century/early 20C literature to see what people felt about it. In Austen and Hardy (which won't be representative, but are pretty much all I've read from that period), overseas territories seemed to only be mentioned in passing as where people went to make their fortunes or because they were in some sort of disgrace. Kipling might be a good place to start.

I took a photo once of a few pages from a 1930s pictorial encyclopaedia. Edited by Enid Blyton, so as mainstream as you get. I think it tells its own story as to mainstream attitudes of the time about the empire.

(ETA: sorry, I put these pictures the wrong way round. Read the bottom one first — it’s awkward to swap them now)

 

[scifisam]

I said small business owners were petite bourgeoise, that would probably include some sole traders and exclude some others depending on nature of their work.
But regardless the bit in bold has been true of the petite bourgeoise since the start. And the fact that someone is part of the petite bourgeoise does not necessarily mean they a bastard or necessarily opposed to class struggle

Then maybe stop labelling them as petit-bourgeoise. To most people, "bourgeois" implies a rich person who exploits others. You can say people are getting the meaning wrong if you like, of course.

Why would it depend on the nature of their work? Genuine question.

 

[scifisam]

Sorry, didn't realise we were on the important differences in the definition of petite bourgeois. Or how to spell it.

Dave says hi.

I think I've mis-spelt it at least once in this thread. It's one of the very few words I often get wrong.

You're right that it is a derail, though. Might be better in a separate thread. I wouldn't post in it, but it might be better not to continue with the topic here.

Although I would quite like a short answer as to why only some low-paid sole traders count, I understand if it's not possible to make it short enough to be in one post rather than needing a separate thread.

 

[Gramsci]

To label people I know who run a small brewery, do van deliveries or run a market stall as petit bourgeois with all the connatations that has is a political mistake. I know people like this.

These people aren't part of the old traditional heroic forward march of the proletariat combining together to overthrow capitalism.

That doesn't mean they should be labelled and dismissed as not worthy enough.

The People

THE SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER 'There was nothing extraordinary about my childhood or background. And yet I looked in vain for any aspect of my family's stor...

www.hachette.co.uk

Reminds me read this a while back and she makes the point that one thing working class have struggled for is control over their lives. And working for oneself was often looked on with respect in working class communities. It was one way to get away from the boss and have some control over your work.

On the racist riots heard one commentator on novara media say that sections of this petit bourgeois typically were involved in this. As though working for oneself makes one reactionary. It's a big mistake to do this.

Those working for themselves I know were appalled by the riots.

 

[redsquirrel]

It is a derail so I'll leave it after this but I don't see anyone dismissing people as "not worthy enough".
But if you own a small brewery, then yes you do have a different relationship to the means of production to someone who is an employee.

EDIT: scifisam rather than derail this thread further I'll simply link to this post which I think deals with your questions Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

 

[kabbes]

If you want a fabulous read about the petty/petite bourgeoisie, I strongly recommend A Nation of Shopkeepers: The Rise of The Petty Bourgeousie by Dan Evans. He makes the argument that this class is close to becoming the largest and most dominant class in the UK, and pb politics is driving current discourse. The pb are defined by precarity and social mobility — both up and down. They include sole traders, shopkeepers and tradespeople but also a new fraction that includes teachers and nurses, comprising professions that have become managerialised and thus marginalised. They’re the least fixed class, basically, and this informs a politics of individual self-interest rather than solidarity. His point, which I was persuaded by, is that this is all tremendously important in understanding contemporary UK politics.

But I don’t think any of that is the most important thing to be discussing in a thread about immigration. Not irrelevant, but not central either.

 

[Dystopiary]

"Listening to people's concerns" does not mean purely "make immigration rules even stricter than they are now." They're already so strict they're actually causing illegal immigration at the same time as damaging higher education and healthcare by making the UK less attractive to work in - for people born here as well as people moving here.

It could mean taking into account that asylum seeker map and allocating more resources to areas that take in more asylum seekers. Resources in terms of jobs on the ground, bus routes. English classes, school places, extra GPs or extra funding for GPs (GPs get paid the same per patient, which benefits only those in richer areas), more building of new homes for social rent, more funding for things like community centres and libraries.

Planning for accommodating people moving to the UK (for whatever reason) rather than either trying to stop them coming or pretending that the change in the make-up of a local area makes no difference. Or pretending that someone immigrating to the UK now is in the same position as white people with white British backgrounds because "we're all descended from immigrants."

All practical stuff which has suffered in ways that are completely unrelated to refugees and other immigrants, so needs better funding and organisation anyway, but if one way to get them done is to say they're to deal with the effects of immigration on local communities, then that's a tactic to take.

Social housing is sometimes allocated to settled asylum seekers ahead of people born in the UK (because they're in desperate need), and that pisses off the UK people on the waiting list - and trust me, I've heard that from plenty of people who are not white. The solution is not to shove new residents further down the list, it's to make the list bigger by building and acquiring more homes. That's just one example.

And some of that helps with the cultural aspect, too. There is some resource-based reasoning behind the recent upsurge in racism, and it feeds back into cultural concerns that are much more difficult to tackle, especially since a lot of it just takes time. Generations (or at least a generation), not months or a few parliamentary terms.

BIB - I'm not sure. What even is illegal immigration (genuine question)?

 

[Gramsci]

It is a derail so I'll leave it after this but I don't see anyone dismissing people as "not worthy enough".
But if you own a small brewery, then yes you do have a different relationship to the means of production to someone who is an employee.

They run the brewery as a husband and wife team and never employ anyone else. Or have any interest to do so

 

[kabbes]

They run the brewery as a husband and wife team and never employ anyone else. Or have any interest to do so

That’s pretty textbook petite bourgeoisie. Vulnerable to be crowded out by big capital (while also reliant on big capital) on the one hand, but subject to the politics of self-interest rather than solidarity on the other.