The amount and pace of migration to the UK is unprecedented

[8ball]

It was a question. I could have said “define destabilisation”. But that’s just another way of saying “what are you asking?”

It comes over like bullshit. Like you couldn’t imagine any issues happening if some weirdass asteroid hit the UK and 10 million of us turned up in Portugal.

Everyone on the planet could fit on the Isle Of Wight technically but every sane person understands that’s not a good idea.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It comes over like bullshit. Like you couldn’t imagine any issues happening if some weirdass asteroid hit the UK and 10 million of us turned up in Portugal.

Everyone on the planet could fit on the Isle Of Wight technically but every sane person understands that’s not a good idea.

Problem is contained within the question, though, and there is a lot of this crap around. Talk of 'carrying capacity' and the like. Often the questions need clarifying before any kind of an answer can be given. And that was one way of pointing that out. That's all.

I have this problem with a lot of questionnaires I'm asked to fill in. I often simply don't have an answer to the question as posed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anti-immigrant sentiment doesn't always rely on the numbers of net migration, btw. Obvious point maybe, but one worth making. There was net emigration at the time when anti-immigrant sentiment was stirred up in the 60s to get rid of free movement from the commonwealth and later for the Powell speeches. Same crap spoken about then as now - taking 'our' jobs, houses, etc. What those making the arguments meant of course was simply that they didn't like foreigners moving in. Exactly the same shit that Farage bangs on about.

The fact that net migration is positive is a very convenient point to bring up when making these arguments. But they're not based on any real-world problems caused by migration levels. People giving in to these kinds of arguments are buying into a big fucking lie.

 

[bluescreen]

I can't work out why someone would want to return to somewhere they'd been banned from. It would be a bit like banging on the doors of a bar you'd just been asked to leave, while all the other customers stared out at your desperation. Not that I've ever done that - I mean the 'banging on the doors asking to be let back in' part.

Actually, the last time it happened to me I was on a little bit of an informal group date after a Friday after work impromptu when a bouncer appeared in the corridor outside the loo and shouted that I was soliciting from the premises - which I wasn't. So I left with as much dignity aists I could muster - not a lot, but enough to simply leave!

It (returning to banned premises like some unloved doubly incontinent old dog perhaps) is obviously one of those accusations that reveals more about the behaviour type of the accuser than the accused.

Not really.
You obviously don't know about some of urban's persistent banned returners. It is a weird but usually recognisable psychology:
Obsession. Persistence. Deviousness.
One or two of them are a right PITA. Old hands are twitchy about the slightest tell.

Never mind. You don't look or sound like a persistent banned returner. Sorry you haven't been made to feel more welcome.

 

[bimble]

The free movement policy of the European Union, I’d like to know how that came about.
It seems when you look at it like a very unusual thing.
I know that on here people like to say it was merely a ploy to keep wages low. But how do you square that with the pro immigration stance held about everything non-eu related.
There were a few decades ago ideas of a Pan African Union which would do the same but they’re long gone.

 

[danny la rouge]

It comes over like bullshit. Like you couldn’t imagine any issues happening if some weirdass asteroid hit the UK and 10 million of us turned up in Portugal.

Everyone on the planet could fit on the Isle Of Wight technically but every sane person understands that’s not a good idea.

Those questions weren’t being asked (though I do address the issues in the thread, if you read on).

 

[danny la rouge]

Problem is contained within the question, though, and there is a lot of this crap around. Talk of 'carrying capacity' and the like. Often the questions need clarifying before any kind of an answer can be given. And that was one way of pointing that out. That's all.

I have this problem with a lot of questionnaires I'm asked to fill in. I often simply don't have an answer to the question as posed.

Re questionnaires and surveys: exactly.

 

[Pickman's model]

Anti-immigrant sentiment doesn't always rely on the numbers of net migration, btw. Obvious point maybe, but one worth making. There was net emigration at the time when anti-immigrant sentiment was stirred up in the 60s to get rid of free movement from the commonwealth and later for the Powell speeches. Same crap spoken about then as now - taking 'our' jobs, houses, etc. What those making the arguments meant of course was simply that they didn't like foreigners moving in. Exactly the same shit that Farage bangs on about.

The fact that net migration is positive is a very convenient point to bring up when making these arguments. But they're not based on any real-world problems caused by migration levels. People giving in to these kinds of arguments are buying into a big fucking lie

Starts much earlier than that, eg evil may day in 1517, the protestant association of George Gordon, the murphy riots, the British brothers of the early c20 to name but four examples off the top of my head

 

[bimble]

The vast majority of Albanians actually given visas to remain here are women victims of human trafficking, this says: archive.ph. Which helps explain why Braverman was going on the other day about modern slavery laws being taken advantage of by dastardly foreigners.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The free movement policy of the European Union, I’d like to know how that came about.
It seems when you look at it like a very unusual thing.
I know that on here people like to say it was merely a ploy to keep wages low. But how do you square that with the pro immigration stance held about everything non-eu related.
There were a few decades ago ideas of a Pan African Union which would do the same but they’re long gone.

There's no doubt that for many of the architects of the European project, it was about a lot more than neoliberal economics, as Pan-Africa was for its advocates. It represented an ideal. It was about building towards a United States of Europe.

It was also an extension of something that already existed, of course. Geographically small countries wedged next to one another weren't maintaining strict borders. From their point of view, the Schengen area isn't such an unusual thing.

 

[ska invita]

Not to mention people clearly see a rapid change in the cultural character of their local area. Sure cultures change, but this pace of change is unprecedented because it isn't occurring gradually over the course of several decades.

[Haven't had time to get into this thread, quick comment on this point about "rapid cultural change".

First of all 99pc of the country hasn't experienced any different cultural change, beyond a more general modernisation, which is little to do with migration.

Around my bit of South London theres a relatively high percentage of people from a Caribbean and African heritage, but I wouldn't say there's an unusual cultural change here... It's basically the same as any city. People are well integrated and do all the usual UK culture shit.

There are some pockets of some urban areas that have become very concentrated areas of migrants from a particular area. The question here for me is why aren't such migrants and their children moving out into other areas more readily.

Lots of factors, people want support and there's often a key economic one that such areas are cheaper and migrants are relatively usually poorer, and harder to move on without the material and cultural capital that can get built up over generations.

I think if our society allowed for greater social mobility and was less racist particularly in rural areas there'd be a lot less of such 'ghettoes'. But they are statistical anomalies even now.

That Trevor Noah video about Sunak that was doing the rounds was spot on. What are people actually scared of? Spiced food? Different drum patterns? Is this really such shocking cultural change? Or is it just old fashioned racism and fear of the Other?

 

[danny la rouge]

The free movement policy of the European Union, I’d like to know how that came about.
It seems when you look at it like a very unusual thing.
I know that on here people like to say it was merely a ploy to keep wages low. But how do you square that with the pro immigration stance held about everything non-eu related.
There were a few decades ago ideas of a Pan African Union which would do the same but they’re long gone.

Not just a ploy to keep wages low, that’s too limited a view. It's about factor mobilityand labour arbitrage.

 

[danny la rouge]

The vast majority of Albanians actually given visas to remain here are women victims of human trafficking, this says: archive.ph. Which helps explain why Braverman was going on the other day about modern slavery laws being taken advantage of by dastardly foreigners.

Indeed. Mrs LR used to volunteer with a charity working with street homeless people in Glasgow. She said all the Albanian women she’d come across begging were too frightened to be seen speaking to her. They were run by gang masters, and were in fear of what might happen to them or to loved ones back home if they gave any hint of what was going on.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Re the free movement area, something can both make sense for capital and represent a genuine freedom. There's no contradiction there. fwiw it's the aspect of Brexit that I'm most pissed off about. I resent the fact that other people have decided we should have that freedom taken away from us.

 

[danny la rouge]

[Haven't had time to get into this thread, quick comment on this point about "rapid cultural change".

First of all 99pc of the country hasn't experienced any different cultural change, beyond a more general modernisation, which is little to do with migration.

Around my bit of South London theres a relatively high percentage of people from a Caribbean and African heritage, but I wouldn't say there's an unusual cultural change here... It's basically the same as any city. People are well integrated and do all the usual UK culture shit.

There are some pockets of some urban areas that have become very concentrated areas of migrants from a particular area. The question here for me is why aren't such migrants and their children moving out into other areas more readily.

Lots of factors, people want support and there's often a key economic one that such areas are cheaper and migrants are relatively usually poorer, and harder to move on without the material and cultural capital that can get built up over generations.

I think if our society allowed for greater social mobility and was less racist particularly in rural areas there'd be a lot less of such 'ghettoes'. But they are statistical anomalies even now.

That Trevor Noah video about Sunak that was doing the rounds was spot on. What are people actually scared of? Spiced food? Different drum patterns? Is this really such shocking cultural change? Or is it just old fashioned racism and fear of the Other?

This is one of the reasons I wanted to know what “destabilisation” meant.

Seeing as we’re doing ridiculous scenarios and seeing as Albanians have been mentioned. Let’s imagine Albania didn’t have a population smaller than Wales, but in fact was able to supply enough migrants to the UK to overtake English as a first language and the majority language became Albanian.

It’s not going to happen. But even if it did, that wouldn’t amount to “destabilisation”. Quite apart from the fact that the people in positions of power would still keep speaking English, people would either learn Albanian or - more interestingly - Albanian-English creole language might develop among the population. That would be fascinating, creative and exciting.

 

[Lurdan]

The vast majority of Albanians actually given visas to remain here are women victims of human trafficking, this says: archive.ph. Which helps explain why Braverman was going on the other day about modern slavery laws being taken advantage of by dastardly foreigners.

Yesterdays Telegraph:

Modern Slavery Act set for reform to tackle migrant crisis (archived)

Ministers are looking to amend legislation to prevent Albanians using it to evade deportation

 

[ska invita]

This is one of the reasons I wanted to know what “destabilisation” meant.

Seeing as we’re doing ridiculous scenarios and seeing as Albanians have been mentioned. Let’s imagine Albania didn’t have a population smaller than Wales, but in fact was able to supply enough migrants to the UK to overtake English as a first language and the majority language became Albanian.

It’s not going to happen. But even if it did, that wouldn’t amount to “destabilisation”. Quite apart from the fact that the people in positions of power would still keep speaking English, people would either learn Albanian or - more interestingly - Albanian-English creole language might develop among the population. That would be fascinating, creative and exciting.

the biggest cultural change has come from the USA, and thats nothing to do with US migrants living in the UK

 

[bimble]

Not just a ploy to keep wages low, that’s too limited a view. It's about factor mobilityand labour arbitrage.

ok, those are new words for me. But in the end if you think free movement leads to worse conditions and more exploitation, that is an anti immigration argument, isnt it?

 

[danny la rouge]

ok, those are new words for me. But in the end if you think free movement leads to worse conditions and more exploitation, that is an anti immigration argument, isnt it?

I don’t think that. I think capitalists have a use for migration. That’s not the same as saying I don’t think working class people should migrate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

ok, those are new words for me. But in the end if you think free movement leads to worse conditions and more exploitation, that is an anti immigration argument, isnt it?

Can you meaningfully isolate one aspect of economic conditions and say what net effect it has? That same aspect can surely have many different effects when combined with other aspects in the real world.

As an example, we in the UK are now faced with a government that would love to get rid of the employment laws that were a condition of membership of the free movement area. They want to ramp up exploitation within the UK's newly reinforced borders.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

In principle I can see reasons why a community might wish to exclude immigrants from settling down in a particular place. If all the world decided to move to Bermuda, for example, it would be understandable if the Bermudans said 'no'. There are zillions of other much more realistic valid reasons why a community might wish to do similar.

That's a world away from the discussions about immigration to this country, our responsibility for causing instability overseas, our contribution to climate change. We live in a wealthy country which became wealthy (in part) because of Empire. The historical legacy of Empire means we become a target for refugees, people with family, linguistic and other ties to this place. Chickens coming home to roost, and all that.

If all of Bangladesh decided to come here that obviously wouldn't be feasible, but some coming here is fine and contributes to diversity and stuff. But what happens when most of habitable Bangladesh gets flooded by rising sea levels? And so many other nations? How the fuck will the world cope? Billions of people on the move.

Just how nasty could things get, and what would be the consequences?

(sorry if this post is a bit rambly. Huge topic and not enough time to marshal my thoughts properly)

 

[belboid]

All of the world isn’t going to move to one place, these kind of conversations are utterly pointless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All of the world isn’t going to move to one place, these kind of conversations are utterly pointless.

No it isn't. However, mass migration due to climate change is a real possibility/probability. And the whole world needs to plan for it.

This comes back to the point about how vastly different levels of immigration can be tolerated if the will is there to tolerate it.

I'd like to see countries like the UK, which are geographically far from the firing line, as it were, stepping up and actively seeking to do their bit. I'm not hugely optimistic about that, but we'll see.

 

[ska invita]

All of the world isn’t going to move to one place, these kind of conversations are utterly pointless.

...then again projected climate change looks to make substantial parts of the planet uninhabitable, this century.
But thats not what the OP had in mind

*point made simultaneously with LBJ.

 

[belboid]

Ohh absolutely, climate change and the powerlessness of small nations to resist multinational capital are going to wreak massive changes. They need to be addressed, just realistically and not by right wing thought games designed to go ‘immigration is bad’

 

[danny la rouge]

In principle I can see reasons why a community might wish to exclude immigrants from settling down in a particular place. If all the world decided to move to Bermuda, for example, it would be understandable if the Bermudans said 'no'. There are zillions of other much more realistic valid reasons why a community might wish to do similar.

That's a world away from the discussions about immigration to this country, our responsibility for causing instability overseas, our contribution to climate change. We live in a wealthy country which became wealthy (in part) because of Empire. The historical legacy of Empire means we become a target for refugees, people with family, linguistic and other ties to this place. Chickens coming home to roost, and all that.

If all of Bangladesh decided to come here that obviously wouldn't be feasible, but some coming here is fine and contributes to diversity and stuff. But what happens when most of habitable Bangladesh gets flooded by rising sea levels? And so many other nations? How the fuck will the world cope? Billions of people on the move.

Just how nasty could things get, and what would be the consequences?

(sorry if this post is a bit rambly. Huge topic and not enough time to marshal my thoughts properly)

Yes, the situation we have now is that incredibly few migrants trickle through to the UK. The vast, vast majority displaced by war, catastrophe or adverse economic conditions get as far as the neighbouring country.

If the UK had the political will (and I’d argue the lack of will isn’t the establishment listening to alienated sections of working class. Parts of the establishment is spreading those views for its own interests, and those responding to the views include middle class), we could certainly more than accommodate even increased levels of migration (migration for whatever reason).

However, yes, it is entirely possible that unless the world acts soon, climate change may result in much bigger numbers migrating. That is something I talked about in a previous post. And that’s not something the UK can turn away from and say “not our problem”. It will be. Very much so.

 

[bimble]

This is quite a good example of what I was thinking yesterday, about the damage caused by pro-immigration people kind of refusing on moral grounds to engage in any granular way with fears about scarcity and there not being enough to go round, leaving them, those worries, to be exploited by the worst people, who can present themselves as the only ones who hear them.


He’s ‘just asking questions’ because he knows that nobody not labour and not any tofu muncher on twitter will attempt to answer.

 

[elbows]

I see some census-based data for England and Wales came out which will no doubt feed into the debate.

Census: Migration biggest part of England and Wales population rise

The 2021 census counted 10 million people living in England and Wales who were born outside the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[danny la rouge]

This is quite a good example of what I was thinking yesterday, about the damage caused by pro-immigration people kind of refusing to engage in a granular way with fears about scarcity and there not being enough to go round, leaving them, those worries, to be exploited by the worst people.
View attachment 349931
He’s ‘just asking questions’ because he knows that nobody not labour and not any tofu muncher on twitter will attempt to answer.

One of the things mendacious cunts like him never say is that it is the government’s rules that cause these problems.

It’s the government’s rules that stipulate asylum seekers are not allowed to work. Which is why they can’t earn enough to pay rent. Which is why some people resent them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is quite a good example of what I was thinking yesterday, about the damage caused by pro-immigration people kind of refusing on moral grounds to engage in any granular way with fears about scarcity and there not being enough to go round, leaving them, those worries, to be exploited by the worst people.
View attachment 349931
He’s ‘just asking questions’ because he knows that nobody not labour and not any tofu muncher on twitter will attempt to answer.

Who's he talking about here? If it's people who need to be set up in hotels or arrival centres, then it is people who are applying for asylum, no? It's people who'd like to be here legally. And the numbers involved in such places are not huge. He's lying about that. He's misrepresenting the situation.

Actual 'illegal immigrants' don't contact the authorities. They make their own arrangements re housing, etc. I don't like the branding of undocumented people as 'illegal' either. Something to be avoided.

The idea that 'pro-immigration' people are responsible for the hateful rhetoric and lies of John Redwood is quite a stretch.