Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

This is incredibly out of touch and out of date.


Me and my millenial sister have had much more difficult lives financially than my late boomer/early Gen X parents.

Biggest part of the reason for this is the over inflated housing market, not any lack of resources. Other people's wealth in assets literally creates poverty

And more further education is not necessarily a good thing. E.g. nurses used to be able to start as trainees out of school, earning while learning, instead of doing an expensive university degree for several years, accumulating debt and struggling to survive unless your parents have deep pockets. This isn't an improvement, and it speaks more to an increased unwillingness of employers to invest in skills.

My dad left school at 16, worked as a trainee electrician in a factory for a decent income and bought a house and had 2 kids. When the factory got outsourced when I was a baby he retrained as a maths teacher, fully funded. Neither of those options are available to young people now and me and my sister are envious that he not only got a decent job without years of education but also had support for retraining when circumstances changed.
This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more. There absolutely should be vocational routes into careers and higher education now is often a complete fucking scam. And free opportunities to re-train absolutely essential. Handups much better than handouts.
 
Again, it’s a matter of degree. Those convicted or suspected of violent crimes, or those who’ve expressed similar tendencies, I want excluded.

You may want others excluded. Personally, I couldn’t care less about people who’ve evaded tax in other countries.
...but even within the broad scope of "violent crimes" you have chosen to highlight "rapists" and "paedophiles".

These are - understandably - emotive crimes.

That's exactly why the far-right wants to link them with immigration and why you are doing their work for them by repeating it.
 
Some of you wankers need to wind it in a bit.

I'd define "our people" as those that have made the decision to accept the values of a free and open society, and live in the UK right now.

Nobody has come close to saying that's "white people"; and the couple of twats (looking at brogdale et al) who've lobbed that around should be ashamed.

"Anarchy" is a thought experiment that has not ever, and will not ever, be practiced by any sane society.

Ditto, "open borders"

A sensible immigration policy has to consider who is here now, and who wants to come here.

I don't want people who think my girls (who wear short skirts and make up) are whores; or that homosexuals should be killed; that blacks are lazy criminals; or that white people are superior, to be welcomed here.

Neither do I want rapists, paedophiles, or a whole host of other cunts, to be allowed entrance to the country. We've got enough already, thanks.

A functionally robust immigration policy is necessary.

Wrt the thread topic; nobody who's not a complete fucking idiot should be unconcerned about immigration.

It's a matter of degree.
.
 
My dad left school at 16, worked as a trainee electrician in a factory for a decent income and bought a house and had 2 kids. When the factory got outsourced when I was a baby he retrained as a maths teacher, fully funded. Neither of those options are available to young people now and me and my sister are envious that he not only got a decent job without years of education but also had support for retraining when circumstances changed.
Can get a 28k bursary or 30k scholarship for doing a pgce as a maths teacher (9k fees to be paid from that) and other schemes like schools direct offer on the job paid training. Plenty of kids start training to be electricians etc. at 16. They might not have paid positions from that age but education goes on longer these days.
 
Obviously people who have engaged in violent or sexual crime should be excluded. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

The question of skill mix is more complex. Do we only want to attract skilled professionals? Does excluding low paid and less skilled labour improve working conditions for our own (sorry!!) workers.

The thing I care about is the future for our (sorry again) children and their generation. I guess like every other person out there I want them to live in a prosperous, secure country with access to opportunity.

I also want them to have access to some degree of social security and excellent quality healthcare. But I want that social security to lift people up, to give a leg up, to open doors. I’m not convinced that’s what the current system does. I think there’s something in the American distrust of it being damaging to people and communities. Self-determination and dignity in work is important I think.
 
Some of you wankers need to wind it in a bit.

I'd define "our people" as those that have made the decision to accept the values of a free and open society, and live in the UK right now.

Nobody has come close to saying that's "white people"; and the couple of twats (looking at brogdale et al) who've lobbed that around should be ashamed.

"Anarchy" is a thought experiment that has not ever, and will not ever, be practiced by any sane society.

Ditto, "open borders"

A sensible immigration policy has to consider who is here now, and who wants to come here.

I don't want people who think my girls (who wear short skirts and make up) are whores; or that homosexuals should be killed; that blacks are lazy criminals; or that white people are superior, to be welcomed here.

Neither do I want rapists, paedophiles, or a whole host of other cunts, to be allowed entrance to the country. We've got enough already, thanks.

A functionally robust immigration policy is necessary.

Wrt the thread topic; nobody who's not a complete fucking idiot should be unconcerned about immigration.

It's a matter of degree.
"Neither do I want rapists, paedophiles, or a whole host of other cunts, to be allowed entrance to the country."

Do you have any evidence that this is what is happening? Are the authorities allowing criminals to come to the UK?
 
The phrase 'our own' is pretty nasty if defined as someone born in this country only. No getting away from it. It makes anyone not born and raised in this country a second class citizen, which is simply not right.

That attitude is probably my biggest concern about immigration overall.

Perhaps it's actually got to the core of the problem though. People talk about numbers, maybe you get the numbers down. People talk about fear, maybe you get crime down and tackle misinformation. Doesn't matter, you're not 'our own' apparently? It's a ridiculous stance.
 
Some of you wankers need to wind it in a bit.

I'd define "our people" as those that have made the decision to accept the values of a free and open society, and live in the UK right now.

Nobody has come close to saying that's "white people"; and the couple of twats (looking at brogdale et al) who've lobbed that around should be ashamed.

"Anarchy" is a thought experiment that has not ever, and will not ever, be practiced by any sane society.

Ditto, "open borders"

A sensible immigration policy has to consider who is here now, and who wants to come here.

I don't want people who think my girls (who wear short skirts and make up) are whores; or that homosexuals should be killed; that blacks are lazy criminals; or that white people are superior, to be welcomed here.

Neither do I want rapists, paedophiles, or a whole host of other cunts, to be allowed entrance to the country. We've got enough already, thanks.

A functionally robust immigration policy is necessary.

Wrt the thread topic; nobody who's not a complete fucking idiot should be unconcerned about immigration.

It's a matter of degree.
At risk of rewarding abusive posting and enabling thread wrecking, I suppose the namecheck obliges some sort of response?

The few posters that have repeated the far-right trope that immigration controls are required "if we are to look after our own" have, by definition, "come close to saying that's white people". If you adopt the language of the white supremacist far-right it should come as no surprise to be asked if that's what you mean. FWIW, the self-described 'Trump/white supremacist correspondent' poster has subsequently said that they did not mean white people only when referring to "our own", but without that clarification it would have been unclear.

As to the rest of your post; it's very disappointing to see you employing another classic far-right dog-whistle trope of conflating immigration with criminality and sex offending. It is ill-informed bigotry like this that has contributed to the political environment in which racists believe that they have "legitimate concerns" about immigration and contributed to the recent racist riots.

If anyone should feel ashamed of what they post in this thread it is those that contribute to such toxicity.

I don't think anyone has linked to this Maya Goodfellow Guardian piece yet; you might like to reflect on it? It may help you to calm down and avoid other abusive posts.
 
Last edited:
Again, it’s a matter of degree. Those convicted or suspected of violent crimes, or those who’ve expressed similar tendencies, I want excluded.

You may want others excluded. Personally, I couldn’t care less about people who’ve evaded tax in other countries.

The bits I've put in bold in this extract of your post are really draconian and unreasonable imo. Being "suspected" of something amounts to nothing, really. Loads of people are "suspected" of things without any charges ever being brought, let alone being convicted. And "expressions of similar tendencies" is also meaninglessness, unless someone is found guilty of actually planning those things.

I once "expressed" the desire to kill my ex-husband, but I had no intention of doing it and opted for the more civilised remedy of divorce.
 
This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more. There absolutely should be vocational routes into careers and higher education now is often a complete fucking scam. And free opportunities to re-train absolutely essential. Handups much better than handouts.
as i said some years back i couldn't honestly encourage any young person to go to university in the uk - people fortunate enough to have an eu passport can attend universities on the continent for about a grand a year. and tuition on a lot of courses is in english. a lifetime's debt largely wipes out the salary bonus from going to university in the uk.
 
This thread is a perfect example of two groups of well-meaning people that are completely and utterly talking past each other. It could do with some hardcore conflict resolution mediation — “listen without interrupting… now you tell them what you understood by what they just said”. “Is that right, have they understood you?”
 
This thread is a perfect example of two groups of well-meaning people that are completely and utterly talking past each other. It could do with some hardcore conflict resolution mediation — “listen without interrupting… now you tell them what you understood by what they just said”. “Is that right, have they understood you?”
Whatever happened to the Talking Stick method ?
 
Can get a 28k bursary or 30k scholarship for doing a pgce as a maths teacher (9k fees to be paid from that) and other schemes like schools direct offer on the job paid training. Plenty of kids start training to be electricians etc. at 16. They might not have paid positions from that age but education goes on longer these days.
Mrs Q has literally just retired as a maths teacher, she did a 3 year degree in maths followed by a further year PGCE at the beginning of the 80's. Didn't cost her a bean since tuition was free. She even got a grant which wasn't really enough to live on but she lived with her parents and subbed off her Dad (and me for the final year) the grant was a definite help though.
Contrast that with our youngest daughter currently 3 years into a 5 year course who will graduate with something like £100K of debt against her name (even though they certainly won't get it all back) plus living expenses for students now are just plain daft especially rent. She's fortunate (and appreciates it) that she has parents who are both able and willing to step up and underwrite her to the tune of several £K a year. There are a huge numbers of equally gifted kids who find themselves in a less fortunate position. It's definitely a good thing that this offer is on the table but why is it on the table in the first place? because going to Uni and getting the qualifications in the first place is impractical for many leading to a shortage.
We need to accept as a society that education costs and costs big time and that it is something that society has to swallow even though the benefits aren't necessarily visible in the short term.
 
But I want that social security to lift people up, to give a leg up, to open doors. I’m not convinced that’s what the current system does. I think there’s something in the American distrust of it being damaging to people and communities. Self-determination and dignity in work is important I think.
This is very familiar Thatcherite, Duncan-Smith type language, and you do realise we've had decades of Conservative governments tinkering with the system to achieve just this? It's supposed to be the very basis of universal credit. The whole system is designed around getting people into jobs, any job. And it's punitive and mean and uncaring. Plus the high proportion of people on benefits who are actually in work, because work by itself doesn't actually pay enough.

I agree the system needs reform but the kind of rhetoric you are using has a history of making the system more damaging to communities, not enabling people.
 
This is very familiar Thatcherite, Duncan-Smith type language, and you do realise we've had decades of Conservative governments tinkering with the system to achieve just this? It's supposed to be the very basis of universal credit. The whole system is designed around getting people into jobs, any job. And it's punitive and mean and uncaring. Plus the high proportion of people on benefits who are actually in work, because work by itself doesn't actually pay enough.

I agree the system needs reform but the kind of rhetoric you are using has a history of making the system more damaging to communities, not enabling people.

I think the Blairites are equally as enthusiastic tbf .
 
This is very familiar Thatcherite, Duncan-Smith type language, and you do realise we've had decades of Conservative governments tinkering with the system to achieve just this? It's supposed to be the very basis of universal credit. The whole system is designed around getting people into jobs, any job. And it's punitive and mean and uncaring. Plus the high proportion of people on benefits who are actually in work, because work by itself doesn't actually pay enough.

I agree the system needs reform but the kind of rhetoric you are using has a history of making the system more damaging to communities, not enabling people.
Well, we agree it needs reform. And we agree that the state should not subsidise wages. We don’t agree that people should take any job- I think they should after a period of grace looking for a job in the area they are trained in. No one who isn’t ill is owed a living.
 
Mrs Q has literally just retired as a maths teacher, she did a 3 year degree in maths followed by a further year PGCE at the beginning of the 80's. Didn't cost her a bean since tuition was free. She even got a grant which wasn't really enough to live on but she lived with her parents and subbed off her Dad (and me for the final year) the grant was a definite help though.
Contrast that with our youngest daughter currently 3 years into a 5 year course who will graduate with something like £100K of debt against her name (even though they certainly won't get it all back) plus living expenses for students now are just plain daft especially rent. She's fortunate (and appreciates it) that she has parents who are both able and willing to step up and underwrite her to the tune of several £K a year. There are a huge numbers of equally gifted kids who find themselves in a less fortunate position. It's definitely a good thing that this offer is on the table but why is it on the table in the first place? because going to Uni and getting the qualifications in the first place is impractical for many leading to a shortage.
We need to accept as a society that education costs and costs big time and that it is something that society has to swallow even though the benefits aren't necessarily visible in the short term.
Education costs but the benefits to the country are huge and so many people pay more tax as a result of getting a higher paid job. Loading the debt onto graduates ignores the fact he has a large social benefit. We're in the position with he because of the Labour party anyway as anyone who recalls the way the nus moved away from its principled position of a return to 1979 level grants and access to benefits in 1995 will know
 
Well, we agree it needs reform. And we agree that the state should not subsidise wages. We don’t agree that people should take any job- I think they should after a period of grace looking for a job in the area they are trained in. No one who isn’t ill is owed a living.
Well, here's another offensive, throw-away right-wing trope that's been dropped into this thread with no clarification.

In the spirit of kabbes "hardcore conflict resolution mediation" that requires me to “listen without interrupting" so that i might understand your position, I'll ask you to clarify.

Are you really suggesting that children under 18, full-time students, the retired, the disabled who are all perfectly healthy should have to work for "a living"? If so this 'useless mouths' philosophy sounds very Nazi adjacent.
 
Well, here's another offensive, throw-away right-wing trope that's been dropped into this thread with no clarification.

In the spirit of kabbes "hardcore conflict resolution mediation" that requires me to “listen without interrupting" so that i might understand your position, I'll ask you to clarify.

Are you really suggesting that children under 18, full-time students, the retired, the disabled who are all perfectly healthy should have to work for "a living"? If so this 'useless mouths' philosophy sounds very Nazi adjacent.
Why should I speak to you? You insult me.
 
Why should I speak to you? You insult me.
There's no obligation to answer anyone's posts on here. If you feel insulted (though I believe without any basis in reality) there is also the ignore function. However, to me this response looks very much like you are angry at being called out, can't or don't want to justify your ideas and have completely missed the spirit of kabbes suggestion.

But, your call.
 
Well, here's another offensive, throw-away right-wing trope that's been dropped into this thread with no clarification.

In the spirit of kabbes "hardcore conflict resolution mediation" that requires me to “listen without interrupting" so that i might understand your position, I'll ask you to clarify.

Are you really suggesting that children under 18, full-time students, the retired, the disabled who are all perfectly healthy should have to work for "a living"? If so this 'useless mouths' philosophy sounds very Nazi adjacent.
and the gloves are off
 
Back
Top Bottom