Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Pickman's model]

Its OK Pickman, I'll keep my thoughts about class and class warfare to myself in future. Its clear that its a super prickly subject here and I wasn't aware when I signed up that if you go against the grain it'll rub a lot of people up very badly. I'm sorry if I've upset anyone, but this is all getting really, really dickish.

It certainly is when you're having a pop at me for agreeing with you you're not a returner

 

[kabbes]

Sorry, I'll stop and ignore.

No, don’t worry about it. FWIW, a large number of people have Pickmans on ignore for precisely the reasons you seem to be discovering here. It’s not about you, that’s just what he’s like — antagonistic, bullish and pedantic. The moment you engage with it, you lose, like the proverbial mud wrestling with a pig. Better just to make it all invisible and pretend none of it exists.

No idea why Nino is being a dick towards you, though. That’s come out of left field.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, don’t worry about it. FWIW, a large number of people have Pickmans on ignore for precisely the reasons you seem to be discovering here. It’s not about you, that’s just what he’s like — antagonistic, bullish and pedantic. The moment you engage with it, you lose, like the proverbial mud wrestling with a pig. Better just to make it all invisible and pretend none of it exists.

No idea why Nino is being a dick towards you, though. That’s come out of left field.

Except none of those are the reason you put me on ignore, nor do they explain why nearly 10 years after you did you remain so incensed by me

 

[bellaozzydog]

 

[The39thStep]

Interesting couple of paragraphs in this BBC article on migrant deaths which I hadn't really considered before. Not saying its true however it does make you think about what is the extent of an unregulated labour market in the UK that not only doesn't require paperwork but proper pay and workers' rights.

He did condemn the smugglers, but most of his comments focused on the lure of what he views as Britain’s loosely regulated job market, that acts like a magnet, drawing young Eritreans, determined Sudanese, Afghans, Syrians and Iraqis to this coastline, convinced that they if they can just make it across this last, short stretch of water - or even half way across - they’ll end up in a country where they can find work, even without the right paperwork.

Darmanin called, as he has done many times, for a new migrant treaty between Britain and the European Union.

In doing so, he touched on a widely-held belief here in France, which is that however much effort is put into tackling the smuggling gangs it will never be enough. That this is a crisis fuelled by the demands of tens of thousands of determined migrants, rather than by the profit-seeking motives of a loose network of criminals.

 

[magneze]

So ... safe routes. Why doesn't this happen? Has any government actually said why they don't want to do this?

 

[kabbes]

There's an amazing ethnography written about this, called "Illegality, Inc." by Ruben Andersson. As per the ethnographic methodology, Andresson went and lived amongst groups of attempted- and wannabe-migrants in Senagal, to explore the social factors that sustain the practice. There's a nice summary of it here: Book Review: Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine Migration and the Business of Bordering Europe by Ruben Andersson | | Africa at LSE

A quick quote from that summary:

Andersson’s account begins at the source of this first wave of migration, in the coastal communities of Senegal. He argues that an illegal migration industry has developed in response to the perceived burden migrants pose in three areas: policing and patrolling; caring and rescuing; and observing and knowing. The lines between the three are blurred and have been interwoven to the extent that “illegality is not just produced but productive”.

In Senegal, local police are partners – and beneficiaries – of the European border regime, monitoring the migrant situation on the ground. At the same time, aid agencies and governments routinely convene to push the need for funding sensitisation workshops about the dangers of migration and for support to returned migrants. Controlling migration has become a business that survives on its own failure; every new illegal migration crisis brings further funding commitments and justifications for its continued operation. For example, the Spanish government’s decision to double aid to sub-Saharan Africa from 2006-2010 was influenced by the 2006 influx of migrants.

I think that points to an element that hasn't really been discussed here -- the way that there is an industry surrounding the "prevention" of this practice and, like all fields, this industry ultimately acts to reproduce itself.

For those with access to academic libraries, you can read it online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqc7v

 

[Orang Utan]

So ... safe routes. Why doesn't this happen? Has any government actually said why they don't want to do this?

Cos it’s perceived in some quarters to be ‘soft on illegal immigration’

 

[The39thStep]

There's an amazing ethnography written about this, called "Illegality, Inc." by Ruben Andersson. As per the ethnographic methodology, Andresson went and lived amongst groups of attempted- and wannabe-migrants in Senagal, to explore the social factors that sustain the practice. There's a nice summary of it here: Book Review: Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine Migration and the Business of Bordering Europe by Ruben Andersson | | Africa at LSE

A quick quote from that summary:



I think that points to an element that hasn't really been discussed here -- the way that there is an industry surrounding the "prevention" of this practice and, like all fields, this industry ultimately acts to reproduce itself.

For those with access to academic libraries, you can read it online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqc7v

Is this in response to my post? Thanks either way , I'll have a dabble at reading some of that.

 

[kabbes]

Forget the academic library, actually. I've upoaded a copy of the book to this post. If nothing else, read the conclusion (only 11 pages long, starting on p349 of the pdf)

 

[dshl]

Not all opinions are well-informed and many opinions are "arrant bollocks". For example, if I have an opinion that isn't based on a basic knowledge of astronomy, and claim that the earth is flat and then say, "well ,that's my opinion", I'm not only offering an ill-informed opinion, I'm also spouting arrant bollocks.

Happy to help.

The expression ‘not all opinions are equal’ to me seems to contain a couple of troubling allusions/possibilities. For instance:

• No separation between the opinion and the person/s is being made/qualified. Some would argue there is a logical extension, ie, your opinion is you, therefore it is you who is unequal. I’m an authority and you’re just a pleb.
• The absence of an objective authority to assign some opinions more or less equal. Opinion A can’t simply be assigned less equal by the proponents of Opinion B anymore than vice versa. Eg, a flat earther might argue that your opinion is less equal as it is sourced in the programmed masses, and therefore limited and skewed.

Personally, I think it’s different to say someone/a view is wrong and claiming it should be/is unequal. To say an opinion is wrong is to stay within the realm of your opinions/assessments. To assign an opinion as ‘unequal’ is to assume a position outside of the realm of your opinions, which you're not in a position to do.

 

[dshl]

The expression ‘not all opinions are equal’ to me seems to contain a couple of troubling allusions/possibilities. For instance:

• No separation between the opinion and the person/s is being made/qualified. Some would argue there is a logical extension, ie, your opinion is you, therefore it is you who is unequal. I’m an authority and you’re just a pleb.
• The absence of an objective authority to assign some opinions more or less equal. Opinion A can’t simply be assigned less equal by the proponents of Opinion B anymore than vice versa. Eg, a flat earther might argue that your opinion is less equal as it is sourced in the programmed masses, and therefore limited and skewed.

Personally, I think it’s different to say someone/a view is wrong and claiming it should be/is unequal. To say an opinion is wrong is to stay within the realm of your opinions/assessments. To assign an opinion as ‘unequal’ is to assume a position outside of the realm of your opinions, which you're not in a position to do.

Sorry nino, I think I quoted the wrong post of yours. I think it was earlier on the 'unequal' claim.

 

[Pickman's model]

There's an amazing ethnography written about this, called "Illegality, Inc." by Ruben Andersson. As per the ethnographic methodology, Andresson went and lived amongst groups of attempted- and wannabe-migrants in Senagal, to explore the social factors that sustain the practice. There's a nice summary of it here: Book Review: Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine Migration and the Business of Bordering Europe by Ruben Andersson | | Africa at LSE

A quick quote from that summary:



I think that points to an element that hasn't really been discussed here -- the way that there is an industry surrounding the "prevention" of this practice and, like all fields, this industry ultimately acts to reproduce itself.

For those with access to academic libraries, you can read it online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqc7v

For those without access to an academic library you can download from Anna's archive

 

[lengualo]

Maybe relevant to the conversation about the need for immigration. Probably teaching ducks to suck eggs here, but still.

Japan’s birth rate hits alarming new low in first half of 2024

Drop marks third year in a row that number of births fell below 400,000 between January and June

www.independent.co.uk

Summary:
A stable society needs a birthrate of 2.1, Japans has dropped to 1.2 which threatens the ability of Japan to function as a society, this is now becoming an ever escalating crisis.

In the western world our birthrates are also dropping and well below the rate needed to sustain a stable society. Ours is currently at around 1.5.

Politically, there appear to be 2 schools of thought.

A view that seeks to increase the birth rate of the native population. However, if more women want to prioritise a career, not be dependent upon relationships, or couples either dont want children or as many children due to costs, career choices, or even just personal choice, then its a fruitless endeavour. It also pretty much requires forcing people to have children and rolling back womens social statuses to the 1960s.

The other option is population movement, aka increased immigration.

The latter being the only viable option, surely the immigration concern should be whether we have enough.

 

[PTK]

No you're not likely to be taught a lot of the terms people on politics forums unless you studied those fields (in school or indie).

However, PTK your explanation was much clearer and to the point than a lot of definitions for political terms are. I checked and it is way more accessible than the first page of Google, including the dictionary definitions that pop up.

And terms can be odd, I've never understood why we use the term "reactionary" because it logically sounds like it should mean something different to what it does.

So it does pay for people to just ask.

I do have the advantage that I was reading terms like "reactionary" from a young age, because my parents were politically engaged left-wingers.

 

[kabbes]

There is another option, of course, which is to manage the population decline. Not that I am personally advocating against immigration, but I don’t think that arguments based on economic rationality are ultimately helpful to the cause of social justice, even if they appear useful in the short term.

 

[Gramsci]

Interesting couple of paragraphs in this BBC article on migrant deaths which I hadn't really considered before. Not saying its true however it does make you think about what is the extent of an unregulated labour market in the UK that not only doesn't require paperwork but proper pay and workers' rights.

I've heard this before.

On the radio few nights ago the French were also whining we don't have ID cards here as well

In big city like London its still possible to get by.

Brazilians have there own networks. As do Chinese.

Btw the Chinese complain if immigration lot try to raid Chinatown.

Whether its furthering exploitation or allowing people already marginalised to get by is another question.

So far the recent action to scoop up Brazilians and send them back isn't to do with workers rights

 

[Gramsci]

Interesting couple of paragraphs in this BBC article on migrant deaths which I hadn't really considered before. Not saying its true however it does make you think about what is the extent of an unregulated labour market in the UK that not only doesn't require paperwork but proper pay and workers' rights.

I've heard this before.

On the radio few nights ago the French were also whining we don't have ID cards here as well

I don't have a lot of time for french whining.

In big city like London its still possible to get by.

Brazilians have there own networks. As do Chinese.

As do other south Americans

Btw the Chinese complain if immigration lot try to raid Chinatown.

Whether its furthering exploitation or allowing people already marginalised to get by is another question.

I think it's the second.

So far the recent action to scoop up Brazilians and send them back isn't to do with workers rights

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe relevant to the conversation about the need for immigration. Probably teaching ducks to suck eggs here, but still.

Japan’s birth rate hits alarming new low in first half of 2024

Drop marks third year in a row that number of births fell below 400,000 between January and June

www.independent.co.uk

Summary:
A stable society needs a birthrate of 2.1, Japans has dropped to 1.2 which threatens the ability of Japan to function as a society, this is now becoming an ever escalating crisis.

In the western world our birthrates are also dropping and well below the rate needed to sustain a stable society. Ours is currently at around 1.5.

Politically, there appear to be 2 schools of thought.

A view that seeks to increase the birth rate of the native population. However, if more women want to prioritise a career, not be dependent upon relationships, or couples either dont want children or as many children due to costs, career choices, or even just personal choice, then its a fruitless endeavour. It also pretty much requires forcing people to have children and rolling back womens social statuses to the 1960s.

The other option is population movement, aka increased immigration.

The latter being the only viable option, surely the immigration concern should be whether we have enough.

Yes. Whether we have enough. No concern for the donor countries. No exploration of the decline in fertility beyond the most superficial. All these issues entwine in climate change, which is deterring many people from starting families while simultaneously encouraging the mass movements of people on a scale probably unseen for many centuries

 

[ska invita]

A stable society needs a birthrate of 2.1,

No, a capitalist society predicated on infinite growth needs a birthrate of 2.1, the world and therefore society would be far better off with a falling birthrate

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, a capitalist society predicated on infinite growth needs a birthrate of 2.1, the world and therefore society would be far better off with a falling birthrate

Not sure I agree with this.

For starters, a capitalist society predicated on infinite growth could really do with a birthrate of 2.2 or higher. We shouldn't underestimate the role of population growth in economic growth.

But a birthrate significantly below 2.1 is a ticking demographic timebomb, whatever the political-economic system. In a world with an aging population, you're really relying on some technological triumph or other to keep societies together.

 

[PTK]

The expression ‘not all opinions are equal’ to me seems to contain a couple of troubling allusions/possibilities. For instance:

• No separation between the opinion and the person/s is being made/qualified. Some would argue there is a logical extension, ie, your opinion is you, therefore it is you who is unequal. I’m an authority and you’re just a pleb.
• The absence of an objective authority to assign some opinions more or less equal. Opinion A can’t simply be assigned less equal by the proponents of Opinion B anymore than vice versa. Eg, a flat earther might argue that your opinion is less equal as it is sourced in the programmed masses, and therefore limited and skewed.

Personally, I think it’s different to say someone/a view is wrong and claiming it should be/is unequal. To say an opinion is wrong is to stay within the realm of your opinions/assessments. To assign an opinion as ‘unequal’ is to assume a position outside of the realm of your opinions, which you're not in a position to do.

We usually do not know who people are on social media.

We could imagine an exchange between physicists about the nature of Black Holes. Someone could be making claims that are at variance with what most physicists believe. If the others think that this person is also a physicist, they may give these claims serious consideration, because they know that they will likely come from someone who knows what they are talking about. However, that person could be very ignorant, and just spouting things with no real basis.

I think that the same also applies to politics. I saw someone claiming a while ago that Starmer would be out by the end of the year and the Labour Party would go to the left. That is simply an assertion with no evidence to back it up. If someone with some knowledge of the topic was to say a similar thing, I would want to know more. I would not bother engaging with someone who I did not know who made such a claim.

It seems to me that all points of view are not equal. Some come from knowledge and consideration, others are based on little or no knowledge or thought.

 

[lengualo]

There is another option, of course, which is to manage the population decline. Not that I am personally advocating against immigration, but I don’t think that arguments based on economic rationality are ultimately helpful to the cause of social justice, even if they appear useful in the short term.

I take your point, however, how do you manage population decline when the rate of reaching equilibrium is slow. You ultimately end up in a situtation like Japan where you're staring down the barrel of a difficult situation. I don't see how Japan for example has any option but to engage in a very fluid and open immigration policy. I did consider raising climate change and the need for population movement too, for which fluid population movement is going to be needed.

Yes. Whether we have enough. No concern for the donor countries.

Raising a global need does not mean we cannot be aware of issues the donor countries might face.

No exploration of the decline in fertility beyond the most superficial. All these issues entwine in climate change, which is deterring many people from starting families while simultaneously encouraging the mass movements of people on a scale probably unseen for many centuries

Which of what has been raised is superficial, the things I listed were incomplete not superficial. To be clear, quickly listing X, Y and Z, because the article contained viewpoints towards increasing our own birthrates that are problematic, does not extend to ignoring all other causes. There are social, health, and economic reasons why the birthrate has declined. Whilst climate change is certainly responsible for some of the factors, it is not responsible for all of them.

while simultaneously encouraging the mass movements of people on a scale probably unseen for many centuries

I'm fully aware of climate change and the multitude of problems our inability to get a handle on it has caused. However, we are where we are. These issues needed to be taken seriously a long time ago and they were not, and still aren't. Population movement is now an inevitability rather than a possibility, and the UK specifically is not immune to becoming a victim of the climate crisis itself.

No, a capitalist society predicated on infinite growth needs a birthrate of 2.1, the world and therefore society would be far better off with a falling birthrate

As littlebabyjesus pointed out, I don't know how stable that is, however we live in the world we live in and solutions need to be found that work within the frameworks we have. And I broadly agree with this:

But a birthrate significantly below 2.1 is a ticking demographic timebomb, whatever the political-economic system. In a world with an aging population, you're really relying on some technological triumph or other to keep societies together.

 

[maomao]

This is what Yvette Cooper home secretary says:


What she doesn't say is that this country and EU strengthening border security is what drives the demand for people smuggling.

Yvette Cooper logic is that dismantle the gangs and people will stop trying to get here.

I think the French fella that was on the news (and myself previously on this thread) had a point. Our well-developed grey and black economies make the UK a destination for a lot of people with little hope of working productively anywhere else.

 

[lengualo]

We usually do not know who people are on social media.

We could imagine an exchange between physicists about the nature of Black Holes. Someone could be making claims that are at variance with what most physicists believe. If the others think that this person is also a physicist, they may give these claims serious consideration, because they know that they will likely come from someone who knows what they are talking about. However, that person could be very ignorant, and just spouting things with no real basis.

I think that the same also applies to politics. I saw someone claiming a while ago that Starmer would be out by the end of the year and the Labour Party would go to the left. That is simply an assertion with no evidence to back it up. If someone with some knowledge of the topic was to say a similar thing, I would want to know more. I would not bother engaging with someone who I did not know who made such a claim.

It seems to me that all points of view are not equal. Some come from knowledge and consideration, others are based on little or no knowledge or thought.

Whilst true, I think the forum of discussion is important. I don't think its unreasonable to approach a particular forum in relaxed terms, and to discuss, challenge and educate, unless the person is saying something completely unhinged or offensive. If we expect an expert background, then you'll exclude most people from discussion in the first place. It also goes without saying that even amongst experts people don't always agree and can be misinformed themselves.

 

[Dystopiary]

I've heard this before.

On the radio few nights ago the French were also whining we don't have ID cards here as well

I don't have a lot of time for french whining.

In big city like London its still possible to get by.

Brazilians have there own networks. As do Chinese.

As do other south Americans

Btw the Chinese complain if immigration lot try to raid Chinatown.

Whether its furthering exploitation or allowing people already marginalised to get by is another question.

I think it's the second.

So far the recent action to scoop up Brazilians and send them back isn't to do with workers rights

BIB - What do you mean by "the French"? Who were these people?

 

[kabbes]

I take your point, however, how do you manage population decline when the rate of reaching equilibrium is slow. You ultimately end up in a situtation like Japan where you're staring down the barrel of a difficult situation. I don't see how Japan for example has any option but to engage in a very fluid and open immigration policy. I did consider raising climate change and the need for population movement too, for which fluid population movement is going to be needed.

Well, rather than taking for granted the various problematisations of the event (i.e., 'declining population') that is posed through a capitalist lens (which frames it in terms of market dynamics, the employment of resources and growth), I would rather look at each problematic as the outcome of a system in its own right.

To put that another way, what, specifically, is the "difficult situation" that you are referring to?

 

[The39thStep]

I've heard this before.

On the radio few nights ago the French were also whining we don't have ID cards here as well

I don't have a lot of time for french whining.

In big city like London its still possible to get by.

Brazilians have there own networks. As do Chinese.

As do other south Americans

Btw the Chinese complain if immigration lot try to raid Chinatown.

Whether its furthering exploitation or allowing people already marginalised to get by is another question.

I think it's the second.

So far the recent action to scoop up Brazilians and send them back isn't to do with workers rights

I never really considered the positive side of sweatshop employers before this post

 

[lengualo]

Well, rather than taking for granted the various problematisations of the event (i.e., 'declining population') that is posed through a capitalist lens, I would rather look at each problematic as the outcome of a system in its own right.

To put that another way, what, specifically, is the "difficult situation" that you are referring to?

As I'm sure you already know, I am looking at the situation through a neoliberal, capitalist lense. That is the world we live in. Shinkage of the birth rate increases the burden upon the social systems for those who are vulnerable and the elderly. Therefore naturally, the neoliberal capitalist system will therefore excert increasing pressures upon the working age population. After a certain point, that system cannot function.

I take the view that we live in a neoliberal, capitalist world and within the discussion we have influential people such as Lord Musk, the manosphere, Tate, incels, and various other far right individuals who are setting a narrative from an ultra-machismo, nationalistic, often racist, social view that sees "white alpha males" being in positions of power and reducing women to baby making machines and reducing the rights of others they deem below them. We can set a counter narrative based upon the world we live in, or we can set one based upon a world we do not.

And, I do not know whether a social democratic, socialist, libertarian communist, or anarchist system would be better. I see various flavours of problem and sit somewhere as a social democrat/socialist. Therefore I am not going to come from a position that requires revolution, but rather from a worldview that is based on the system we have or seem within reach.

For example, something akin to Labour under Corbyn/Momentum, however I dont think that would solve the issues on its own and Im not convinced about Corbyn being effective although thats from a foreign political perspective and I could be miles wrong. But that kind of political position sounds to me like a good start.


But, I do totally understand where you're coming from and recognise your points.

 

[Edie]

If they were worker controlled as well as owned; yeah, why not?

I’ve got no problem with them- seems like a great idea. But they can (and do) exist now right? You’d be saying that would be the only business model allowed? Is there a reason they’re not more prevalent now? (I think John Lewis is one?).