Forum menu
Because the only metric that the plant measures itself by is cost of production.
...
Margins are so tight the agencies are cutting corners, it is easier to exploit workers that don't know their rights and have limited language abilities.
Right. So is the point of your "yes but people think foreigners are taking our jobs" narrative is in fact that agencies are breaking employment law and migrant workers need to be better protected from exploitation?
f we want countries and populations to be open to people from other places we need to tackle the core problem of economic inequality first, and that I'm afraid means taking away most of the money currently hoarded by billionaires and corporations and giving it to those around the world who need it.
Maybe addressing it as part of a whole situation rather than one first then the other / 2 separate issues is the way to go. But I agree. It would be good to see and I recognise that I'd be less well off as I'd probably have a fair share to pay - if we rebalance wealth many of use wouldn't have quite as much as we do (not just 'billionaires' that I lump in together in a them/us way that isn't a lot different to divisive migration politics). How much do we really need? Not a lot. Anyway, maybe a topic divergance I should take to the Your!Party! thread..
Are you mad?! They’ll just go out and spend it on big tellies, Sky Sports subscriptions, Stella and B&H
Comedian Steve Hughes:
"You shouldn't give money to the homeless, they'll only spend it on drugs and alcohol." - "Pff, what do you think I was going to spend it on?"
So is the point of your "yes but people think foreigners are taking our jobs" narrative is
When 30-40 years ago economic progress demanded that parts of south Wales and northern England be closed, we (as a society) did nothing meaningful to assist the people that lived there. The demographic facts are now stark, those folks have lower educational achievement, shorter lives, more disease, and greater levels of mental health illness. Now, in addition to these factors which makes it harder to get and keep a job, we've essentially put that vulnerable group in direct competition on price for the limited jobs available with another extremely vulnerable and deserving group that we place in their communities in disused or otherwise abandoned hotels without giving either of them a choice, or say in the matter.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
'We' wonder?
I don't.
And, whilst I accept your arguments up to a point, they are also invalidated when many of the rioters are nothing to do with the local area - or even an area of comparable socio-economic disadvantage.
there are lots of ways to exploit vulnerable people. I get your point, that their complaints often miss the target, but the resolution to their situation - better housing, sound paying work, investment into communities, resolves most of not all of the issues they face, and makes them less exploitable to off-stage political voices that are content to use them as willing patsies.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
Well, I'm not wondering, I'm reasonably confident that there's rioting because of racism.
Your population with "lower educational achievement... and greater levels of mental health illness" are being fed the narrative that it's all the fault of foreigners. When you continually tell a bunch of people who are shit thick (by your own definitions, not mine) that all their ills are someone else's fault then the conclusion is depressingly predictable, inevitable even.
Whilst I think I understand your increasingly non sequitur arguments - I grew up in a former cotton town in one of the areas you cite whose economy imploded after all the mills closed, so I can relate first-hand - nothing you've posted thus far is convincing me that my confidence is misplaced.
Also, you didn't answer my question which was the other half of the sentence you quoted. Come to think of it, you seem to have missed several.
When 30-40 years ago economic progress demanded that parts of south Wales and northern England be closed
Closed? When did this happen?
I expressed my opinions on this difficult subject years ago in another thread. It's a very emotionally charged topic that is almost impossible to have an adult conversation about anymore! I predicted we would see protesters and counter protesters screaming **** you, no you **** in each others faces just like Americans about 9-10 years ago on this forum.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting. The illegal side of it is more difficult to manage fairly. Countries such as our near neighbours France appear more than happy for illegal immigrants to be pushed out to their borders and becoming a UK problem instead of theirs.
a bunch of people who are shit thick
lower educational achievement =/= shit thick. It's not the same thing at all, and it's not what I said.
What I'm talking about are the qualifications that employers are increasing looking for in order to do even basic admin jobs. If you've only got a handful of GCSCs because the school you attended wrote you off, employers aren't going to let you in the door, let alone invite you to interview.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting. The illegal side of it is more difficult to manage fairly. Countries such as our near neighbours France appear more than happy for illegal immigrants to be pushed out to their borders and becoming a UK problem instead of theirs.
I agree. It would be a good step forward. As for France happy to send the illegals our way that’s hardly a surprise. They are about as keen as having them as most of the uk is, enlightened stw posters excepted. The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France. I spend as much of my time as I can getting out of the uk to France. Perhaps if we understood why the uk is seen as preferable we could then change our policies to make it less attractive. Those in genuine fear will accept the tougher conditions if they are safe and the economic illegals will think again
France take in two and a half times as many asylum seekers as the UK.
They are about as keen as having them as most of the uk is, enlightened stw posters excepted
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France.
The second sentence helps to explain the first sentence.
When you repeatedly and deliberately distort facts to create a false impression then it should come as no great surprise that it might have an effect on public opinion.
In 2023, France received approximately 167,000 asylum claims, while the UK received around 67,000
Bigots and demagogues like Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump, rely on distortions and lies to mould public opinion. The secret is to repeat the lie so often that eventually it is assumed that it must be true.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency.
I don't know whether you're correct about Australia or not, but I agree with you. The problem we have here though is, who controls the narrative?
What I'm talking about are the qualifications that employers are increasing looking for in order to do even basic admin jobs. If you've only got a handful of GCSCs because the school you attended wrote you off, employers aren't going to let you in the door, let alone invite you to interview.
Qualifications which are presumably held by all these immigrants who are forcing them out of jobs?
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France
I always assumed this was a result of English being the lingua franca. If the northern hemisphere suddenly erupted into flames and you and your family had to take refuge in the southern hemisphere, would you rather head for e.g. Borneo (I'm assuming you don't speak Malay, Indonesian, Murut, Bajau, etc.) or Australia/New Zealand?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4911197/
Previous literature has shown that both fluency in the language of the destination country and the ability to learn it quickly play a key role in the transfer of existing human capital to foreign countries and generally boost immigrant’s success in destination countries’ labor markets,
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France
I think it’s because we’re the least racist country in Europe. I’ve seen some proper racist shit happen to migrants on the European mainland that would never be tolerated here. Including letting migrants launch themselves into the sea. The French have got a lot to answer for.
Which is surprising given the appalling wave of England flag shagging that’s currently masquerading as patriotism but as everyone knows is a racist anti brown people campaign led by the proto fascists of the far right.
Disappointed to see people I know celebrating the Epping council decision yesterday.
I gather there's a march/event in London on 13th Feb? Not clear if it's for or against the far right
Well, I'm not wondering, I'm reasonably confident that there's rioting because of racism.
Yep, this.
And this again a hundred times over.
Bigots and demagogues like Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump, rely on distortions and lies to mould public opinion. The secret is to repeat the lie so often that eventually it is assumed that it must be true.
I assume everything they say is a lie until proven otherwise. I agree that the media distort to distract from the real problem which is the concentration of global assets into a smaller and smaller group of people, many of whom own media outlets to control the narrative. That doesn’t mean illegal immigration’s isn’t a problem in the uk. It is. It’s expensive and shows no sign of processing claimants quickly so those with genuine need can be helped and those who aren’t deported.
And racism and racist rioting has just been rewarded. I wonder what will happen now in other places... 🤔
That doesn’t mean illegal immigration’s isn’t a problem in the uk. It is. It’s expensive and shows no sign of processing claimants quickly so those with genuine need can be helped and those who aren’t deported
I totally agree. It is the perspective and how it is offered by the media and the likes of Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage, and now Sir Keir Starmer, that I challenge.
Plus the fact that this unnecessary fear-mongering stokes up hatred and violence whilst deliberately distracting attention away from the failures of government.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting.
That would be a very good move and is in line with the point I was making about whether we need migrants.
Does the country need people to do specific jobs - clearly.
Does it need people to migrate to the country, never bother to learn language or make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to and not provide any benefit to the country they have moved to - not at all.
If the latter is 0.1% of migration then make that very clear and people may not be so against immigration.
And racism and racist rioting has just been rewarded.
IMHO the court has probably made the right decision with regards land use/planning permission, the problem of course is that it appears to do precisely that - reward racism and racist rioting.
However the alternative would have been to make the wrong decision simply not to reward racism and rioting, which isn't really acceptable either. It's a proper shit situation imo.
The other thing which shines through in this unfortunate situation is the hypocrisy of Tory-controlled Epping Council who apparently had no problem when exactly the same policy was being implemented by a Tory government.
and is in line with the point I was making about whether we need migrants.
You also made the point that we don't need asylum seekers and therefore, according to you, asylum applications should be rejected.
Obviously no country "needs" asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are accepted in line with international obligations and basic humanitarian principles. Objections to those commitments are grounded in racism, a point which you denied.
or make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to
What does that mean? They don't pass Norman Tebbit's "cricket test"?
What does that mean? They don't pass Norman Tebbit's "cricket test"?
I think you know exactly what it means and you're hoping anyone who answers does so leaving the tiniest thread of ambiguity that can be picked at, presumably so it can be suggested in a roundabout way that they're racist.
I think you know exactly what it means
Well you are wrong then.
I don't know what to "make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to" means.
It sounds to me that the patriotism of those concerned is being questioned, in much the same way as Norman Tebbit did with his "cricket test".
If you believe it means something different then how about sharing it?
And btw I don't tend to feel the need to suggest in "a roundabout way" that someone is racist. If I think they are racist I will say it in a direct straightforward way. Why on earth would there be a need to say it in a roundabout way?
Presumably in the case of Epping Council they've argued successfully that the hotel (building) has effectively changed use from class C1 (basically a hotel) to C2a (secure residential institution), but without the necessary approval?
If this is the case, and given that C2a has as examples prisons, young offenders' institutions, detention centres, secure training centres etc, then I think this poses two major questions (one immediate and procedural, one conceptual and political):
1. How many other hotels that are being used for this purpose have the change approved? My guess would be not very many as making a fast buck seems to be the main motivation over doing things properly.
2. Does this mean that this is effectively criminalising asylum seekers if their accommodation is classed along with prisons and young offenders' institutions. To be fair, this is not a product of the Epping situation specifically. Presumably these hotels are not detention centres as such(?)
Does anyone really know about this now? Obviously Farage and his ilk will stir the pot whatever, though.
I don't know what to "make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to" means.
You honestly can't parse that sentence and come up with a single possible interpretation? Really?
Given your voluminous and forthright posting in social issue threads I would have thought you'd be giving the simple questions at least a bit of consideration: the more you know about the opposing viewpoint the more informed your input will be.
You also conveniently snipped off the end of the full sentence: "and not provide any benefit to the country they have moved to". Why was that? Looks like an attempt at framing the debate so that anyone who answers might leave the tiniest thread of ambiguity that can be picked at, presumably so it can be suggested in a roundabout direct and straightforward way that they're racist.
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France.
Flag shagging "Patriots" do seem to love:
- "Britannia ruled the waves",
- "I miss the Empire, when 'we' controlled a significant part of the world"
- "We gave India the railways"
- English the international language, and the language of the sea
- Americans speak English, and are by far and away the biggest influencers in the modern world, not just in politics, but Media, hollywood, music, etc etc. All in English.
blah blah blah,
But then totally fail to see that historic influence has any bearing on global peoples views of the UK.
you cant have it both ways.
Highly reccomend listening to the Empire podcast, for some fascinating history perspectives
https://open.spotify.com/show/0sBh58hSTReUQiK4axYUVx
I'm probably going to get shouted down for sounding too right wing and using too many stereotypes, but I'm aware of the generalisations I'm using to make a point.
Ultimately it comes down to numbers. The population of what is a very small country is expanding rapidly, certainly faster than our infrastructure, house building and public services for example can keep up with. And because immigrants tend to like to live near people like them they can make particular areas feel overwhelmed. I'm from Lincolnshire originally and the sheer numbers of eastern European farm workers is staggering, I genuinely do feel like I'm in a minority in places like Boston for instance, despite having been born and bred twenty miles away. With the population of the UK growing by 5-600,000 per year, largely fuelled by immigration I can see that this area will not be alone, that number is simply unsustainable.
However, what I do object to is the sheer effort successive governments have put into keeping out particular groups who we absolutely should be welcoming with open arms, or even seeking out to offer them the right to live here. Remember the fuss about the ghurkas? There was only about 1,500 of them and if anyone has 'earned' the right to live here it's them. Why was it a problem giving them the right to come here? Likewise with the Afghans who worked for the British in Afghanistan, we owe them and should have people on the ground there finding them and helping to bring them to the UK, especially now the Taliban know who they are because of a **** up by a civil servant but instead the government seems to be doing all it can to keep the numbers of these people to the bare minimum
Someone needs to make the decision of who is allowed in and who isn't, and at the moment I think we've got it back to front. We've got a load of Polish builders and Romanian plumbers who have left perfectly good countries whilst we appear to be trying to keep out Iraqis and Syrians who are running away from something terrifying.
Basically anyone coming legally probably doesn't 'have' to come, they have just chosen to live somewhere else. Anyone coming illegally has probably been forced out of their home by conflict and really needs our help. The former, much bigger group, gets the help and latter, smaller group who actually need it, don't. That's mad.
Also, I'm an Englishman living in Scotland, does that make me a hypocrite?
And a related question, why were so many people keen to take in Ukrainian refugees, into their own homes, but so few seem keen to take in Sudanese? Both equally deserving IMO, but I do think the media played a big role there
I have to agree with Ernie, on such matters you need to be specific. Does it mean that you shouldn't speak anything but English with your family and friends? Or just that you should be able to speak to your local shop keepers in English? Does it mean you have to stop enjoying films and music made by people from "your culture"? Or just that you should try and enjoy some music made for English/American audiences? Does it mean you should take your kids to McDonalds for a treat, rather than a curry house? Does it mean you should follow the English football teams with passionate interest? What if you'd rather watch the TdF as it goes around France (and its neighbours)? What is the alignment needed? SOME intergration should absolutely be encouraged, and expected... but when using such language, you need to be clear. For some people, a willingness to learn some English and get involved in some local groups is what they mean... for others it's dressing like a character from a Merchant Ivory film and taking up bell ringing that would prove "alignment".
You honestly can't parse that sentence and come up with a single possible interpretation?
To be clear, I can think of countless interpretations, and I'm sure others can as well. What do YOU mean by it?
And a related question, why were so many people keen to take in Ukrainian refugees, into their own homes, but so few seem keen to take in Sudanese?
Skin colour.
Skin colour is part of that one, understanding the conflict is another. Civil wars, and their impacts, are harder for the public to understand (and more importantly empathise about) than an invasion by a country that is also aggressive towards the UK.
France take in two and a half times as many asylum seekers as the UK.
They receive more applications but actually end up taking in less people because their rejection rate is far higher.
Also, I'm an Englishman living in Scotland, does that make me a hypocrite?
Of course it does, you've whinged about feeling foreign in Lincolnshire but you've done the same thing.
What do YOU mean by it?
I don't mean anything by it. I didn't say it.
Suppose it depends on what you mean by immigration?
For example I don't suppose many people have an issue with Filipino nurses, care assistants, Romanian plumbers, Polish engineers or anyone else from anywhere that has come to the UK and filled jobs that need filling - lets face it without those workers the NHS and the care system would be in a worse state than it is, but bizarrely these are the people that the government are preventing entering the UK to reduce net migration and address concerns about exploitation of overseas workers.......
Then you have the 'small boats' which is what people are pi$$ed off about - that's the problem that needs solving.
The government 'stopping the gangs' seems to be doing a great job - look at the figures for the first 6 months of the year.....
Doesn't help that the French seem to be willingly helping them get here despite the UK giving them a crap ton of cash to stop it....
Then we have the hotel issue - lets face it someone in government with links to the private companies that administer this is getting very rich off this.....
Not sure what the hotel companies take on all this is as they're getting paid for it.
The 2 largest hotels in the town where I live have been used for the last 3-4 years to house them, it was supposed to be 6-12 months when it was first touted to the local council....
That's what the issue is - what was supposed to be a temporary solution is now becoming a permanent issue.
And a related question, why were so many people keen to take in Ukrainian refugees, into their own homes, but so few seem keen to take in Sudanese?
As above, it's the ability to empathise. Most people can do that with people who have similar lives and ethnicity. The further apart people are the harder it is and that's something that prob goes back to tribal survival needs and now looks more like a failing of human nature.
Watching the news last night, Epping Forest protests ..
Over say the last 10 years, I wonder what the percentage of people convicted of sex offences against minors is among UK passport holders in that area (or the UK as a whole) Vs the asylum seekers in that hotel or as a whole.
I don't know, but I suspect it's not skewed far either way and I wondered if those protests are rationalised or justified by one case of that type of offence. Maybe I'm just being biased after seeing all the UK and St Georges flags among them. But as the guy they interviewed said, "they're not racists" .. Well, some of them probably aren't. Anti-immigration is an acceptable outlet for racists though.
I don't know what to "make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to" means.
You know those British people who go and live in Spain. All live together in a 'colony', other British migrants move there to provide British services to them (Pubs, restaurants), never bother to learn Spanish as they don't need to interact with Spanish people - basically they are of no benefit to Spain in any way whatsoever and make no effort to be part of Spain as a whole.
It is like that. (I used British people in Spain deliberately to avoid any more accusations of racism but I am sure they will come)
lets face it without those workers the NHS and the care system would be in a worse state than it is,
I’m not sure that’s even true - home grown medical professionals are unable to find jobs due to budget constraints preventing hiring. The immigration issue is open to misrepresentation on all sides because it doesn’t exist in a vacuum and is affected by a bunch of other stupidities.
Then you have the 'small boats' which is what people are pi$$ed off about - that's the problem that needs solving.
I think even the small boat arrivals would be accepted by more if the demographics of those seeking refuge weren't overwhelmingly young adult males, see official government figures. Note 2023 was the last year that arrivals were categorised by sex for some reason.
Is there a reason that in a genuine crisis the small-boat refugee demographic wouldn't broadly match that of the affected population in the country being fled?
end up taking in less people
The point was "why don't people want to go to France rather then the UK"... many more do want to go to France... but as an "Island State" 🤮 we confuse the whole issue because people need to come via continental countries to get here to claim (flying isn't an option, because we've shut that down). It's so bloody difficult (and dangerous) to get to the UK, that it's no surprise that it's mostly people genuinely fleeing an even more dangerous situation that attempt to come here to claim asylum.
Is there a reason that in a genuine crisis the small-boat refugee demographic wouldn't broadly match that of the affected population in the country being fled?
Because it's so difficult and dangerous (and expensive) ?
Then you have the 'small boats' which is what people are pi$$ed off about - that's the problem that needs solving.
You see, I disagree with that.
A (growing IMO) number of people are pissed off about anyone who simply looks or seems 'foreign' - even if they were born here. That has been legitimised a lot in the last 10 years.
It's a problem that needs solving and it is the problem that is splashed all over the media every day, but I strongly believe it is a trojan horse in many people for long-standing racism.
Doesn't help that the French seem to be willingly helping them get here despite the UK giving them a crap ton of cash to stop it....
Loving some of the the anti-French shite on this thread. Migrants are moved away from Calais, fed and watered. They really aren't being helped to get to the UK; that's in your xenophobic froggy hating head.
https://www.francebleu.fr/theme/les-migrants-de-calais
Ernie says no-one needs asylum seekers, however it's what's made America great. People fleeing various regimes turned the US into the scientific, industrial, military and nuclear powerhouse it is.
basically they are of no benefit to Spain in any way whatsoever and make no effort to be part of Spain as a whole
Inward investment, spending their Uk pensions in Spain on local goods and services, c'est tout bénef'.
A few decades ago I decided to become a migrant and worked abroad. Then me and Madame Edukator got on our bikes (literally, thank you Norman 😉 ) and rode around till we got to Pau and set up a business. So:
We arrived in our 20s qualified (Geology degree, History doctorate, PGCEs, good language skills) and raring to go - we cost nothing to France in education or care up to that point.
We soon employed people contributing to their wealth as well as ours
We trained people to work for mainly US companies on international contracts who in turn brought money back to France.
I'd like to think my efforts as a cadre at Lindt were a tiny but positive contribution to the Swiss company's decision to increase investments in its French factory
As Brexit loomed on the horizon we made the decision to move all of our assets to France
When we closed the business madame Edukator did agrégation and has since been a language teacher teaching her native language which is a plus for the language skills of the future French work force.
We have son: Science Po educated and an asset to France. Oh yeah, he's a ski instructor too with some UK clients happy to find an ESF with perfect English to show them around the off-piste wonders of the Tarantaise- all good for France. We spoke English in the house and French outside the garden gate.
When we reach English retirement age our English pensions wil be paid to us here.
So which country benefitted? IMO the vast majority of those arriving in the UK will contribute positively to the UK economy and the country for which economic migration is a problem is the country they left behind taking their skills, drive and lust for life with them.
In your case you have been a model person to move to another country but then you didn't go straight into a British 'colony' and spend your money propping up businesses owned by British people.
If all immigration was like that, spread across the country, more integrated, more effort to fit into the country they have chosen to live in I don't think there would be anywhere near as much anti immigration stuff.
In you case you have been a model person to move to another country but then you didn't go straight into a British 'colony' and spend your money propping up businesses owned by British people.
It doesn't matter who owns those businesses, they still provide local services, they pay taxes and social security contributions, they employ people, often some local people too. There's a village in the Dordogne which you could decribe as an expat gheto if you're being negative or a thriving immigrant community if you're being postitive. The was a positive report on French TV about it, even the postman and mayor are of UK origin. The services provided correspond exactly to what norther European tourists hope to find and bring in tourist revenue.
The Brit expats (now often dual nationals) came with money and ideas and invested
Their activities thrived so they pay lots of tax and social security
Their activities in tourism bring in foreign money helping France's balance of payments headache.
Ernie says no-one needs asylum seekers, however it's what's made America great.
That's debatable. Shall we ask the yocals* who were displaced by those immigrants**? Uhhhhh wait... Could that be along the lines of what our "gap toothed plebs" and "thick as shit" kinfolk fear?
* Native Americans
** Invaders
Apologies. We all know that will never happen. Rule Britannia. I'm just saying words that fit together. I haven't got a clue, it was an amusing thought experiment. In other thoughts I was wondering how "immigrant gap toothed plebs" or "thick as shit immigrants" might go down? Anyway, pointing out what I might consider to be possible exhibits of double standards and potential hurty feelings of... wait what were they... "gap tooth plebs" who are "thick as shit" is I believe referred to as whataboutery, and of far less importance than the actual real violence a minority of the aforementioned people inflict upon immigrants.
You know those British people who go and live in Spain. All live together in a 'colony', other British migrants move there to provide British services to them (Pubs, restaurants), never bother to learn Spanish as they don't need to interact with Spanish people - basically they are of no benefit to Spain in any way whatsoever and make no effort to be part of Spain as a whole.
Why should they be barred from living in Spain?
I love the fact that I can go to the East End of London and feel as if I might be in Bangladesh, or go to the North End of Croydon and feel as if I might be in Turkey.
Why is that a problem for you ?
That's debatable. Shall we ask the yocals* who were displaced by those immigrants**? Uhhhhh wait... Could that be along the lines of what our "gap toothed plebs" and "thick as shit" kinfolk fear?
* Native Americans
** Invaders
As you feel such empathy for those who suffered under various colonisations I'm surprised you aren't welcoming their descendants with open arms. 😛
Ernie says no-one needs asylum seekers, however it's what's made America great. People fleeing various regimes turned the US into the scientific, industrial, military and nuclear powerhouse it is.
Well I am glad you think America is great but it has never "needed" asylum seekers to achieve that. You can be an immigrant to a country without being an asylum seeker.
Immigration has undoubtedly been a benefit to the UK but I don't think that Nigel Farage's asylum seeking ancestors were ever actually needed.
Why is that a problem for you ?
It isn't, but in response to the question "Why are people so against immigration?" I don't believe that it is not helping.
My neighbour is Taiwanese and nobody has a problem about that but if 80% of the street was Taiwanese people who couldn't speak a word of English and just mixed among themselves I don't believe that makes for a good society.
Just thinking of stuff that makes up the general anti immigration stance outside of the main reason of it being very over represented as an issue because it is better to be upset about that than inequality which is the actual course of a lot of problems.
As you feel such empathy for those who suffered under various colonisations I'm surprised you aren't welcoming their descendants with open arms. 😛
Sometimes I think maybe we could split the world in two, everyone who wants to fight and argue and be nasty to each other, **** off to one side of the world, the rest of us, who'd like to live peace, not fighting each other, not discriminating against each other, will live on the other side. There's only really the matter of how we prevent the fighty side from fighting us.
Sometimes I think maybe we could split the world in two, everyone who wants to fight and argue and be nasty to each other, **** off to one side of the world, the rest of us, who'd like to live peace, not fighting each other, not discriminating against each other, will live on the other side. There's only really the matter of how we prevent the fighty side from fighting us.
I have always said that but starting at a smaller scale and just splitting the UK into Left and Right. Be very interesting to see how it pans out but as you say the Right would just invade the Left
The population of what is a very small country is expanding rapidly, certainly faster than our infrastructure, house building and public services for example can keep up with.
...
Someone needs to make the decision of who is allowed in and who isn't, and at the moment I think we've got it back to front. We've got a load of Polish builders and Romanian plumbers who have left perfectly good countries
I don't think you've really thought this argument through, have you.
Is there a reason that in a genuine crisis the small-boat refugee demographic wouldn't broadly match that of the affected population in the country being fled?
If a conflict arises those who most able to flee and survive the journey will be the youngest, fittest and strongest, probably men in their twenties and thirties. Those more likely to stay behind due to responsibilitiea caring for family unable to flee are probably women.
But also if moving for purely economic reasons it makes sense to send the bread-winner ahead.
I love the fact that I can go to the East End of London and feel as if I might be in Bangladesh, or go to the North End of Croydon and feel as if I might be in Turkey.
Which is lovely for you as a tourist. But if you'd lived there for fifty years and now feel as though you might be living in Turkey despite not having moved house...?
As Kerley says one or two neighbours being different is good, gives the place some variety, most of them is less good, it starts to feel like somewhere else.
Places I used to live and cycle through: racist, Brexity, xenophobic to the core - look at the Brexit vote results.
This made me laugh, buying their flags from Temu - soooooooooo patridiotic.
“In case anyone needs flags Temu has them,” wrote one poster. Amazon has a deal on flagpoles, suggested another.
Need to get more of this sort of info out
Why should they be barred from living in Spain?
Why is that a problem for you ?
Who said anyone should be barred from living in Spain? Or that they thought thriving migrant communities in London were a problem?
If all immigration was like that, spread across the country, more integrated, more effort to fit into the country they have chosen to live in I don't think there would be anywhere near as much anti immigration stuff.
Whilst I wish this were true, I don't believe it is. Racists have been racist since WAY before "young men" were arriving in small boats. If anything, the opposite is true - the areas with the lowest incidence of foreigners tend to be the ones most anti-immigration.
But in any case: why should they? As someone else said earlier (and I said earlier still), we often don't do that. British migrants (who are, lest we forget, not fleeing warzones) often don't integrate. Instead they congregate in sunny little enclaves on the continent with other immigrant Brits whose grasp of the local language extends to "dos cervezas por favor." They hole up together in the Rose & Crown, Tenerife discussing how much of a disc race it is that there are so many mosques in the UK.
@cougar I don't know. Presumably some the Sudanese or Afghans or Iraqis who do need to flee and move somewhere else are builders and plumbers too? I would argue that a Syrian builders have a greater need to come here than Bulgarian ones do.
The thing with freedom of movement in the EU is that when it was small it kind of balanced out, roughly the same number of Germans went to work in France as Frenchmen went to work in Germany, Belgians went to Italy and vice versa. In the last twenty five years it has become very much one way as the EU has expanded, it's generally Bulgarians and Poles and Romanians heading to Germany and France and Britain and very few going the other way.
The difference with refugees is that no one is expecting two way traffic, no Brit in their right mind wants to move to Syria but plenty have a very legitimate reason for wanting to move the other way, and we have a legal, and I would argue moral, duty to accept those people.
A lot of this thread has conflated immigrants and refugees
Oh, hey, I've had an idea. Let's operate an exchange programme. For every person arriving in a small boat we can ship off a "they don't even make an effort to speak the language" Brit to Syria and see how long it takes them to become fluent in Arabic. If they get tired of living in a warzone, I hear Rwanda is nice this time of year.
Be very interesting to see how it pans out but as you say the Right would just invade the Left
Sometimes I think maybe we could split the world in two, everyone who wants to fight and argue and be nasty to each other, **** off to one side of the world, the rest of us, who'd like to live peace, not fighting each other, not discriminating against each other, will live on the other side. There's only really the matter of how we prevent the fighty side from fighting us.
I have always said that but starting at a smaller scale and just splitting the UK into Left and Right. Be very interesting to see how it pans out but as you say the Right would just invade the Left
Nah, this is easy, they'd turn on each other first. A bit like "there are no atheists in foxholes," there aren't many hungry rats either.
If a conflict arises those who most able to flee and survive the journey will be the youngest, fittest and strongest, probably men in their twenties and thirties. Those more likely to stay behind due to responsibilitiea caring for family unable to flee are probably women.
And whilst the life of women and children left behind is highly likely to be horrendous, it is still the case that males between 14 and 45 are the most likely to be put up against a wall and shot if they're on the wrong side when an area falls to this or that faction.
Places I used to live and cycle through: racist, Brexity, xenophobic to the core - look at the Brexit vote results.
Such a strong correlation and one that is so often brushed over by Brexit apologists.
Amazon has a deal on flagpoles, suggested another.
This is how moronic these people are. The 'movement' is about tying flags to lampposts (where, presumably, they can be taken down by the council, just like the adverts for last year's local fete). So why would they need flagpoles?
Unless they're planning to put them up on their own property, which is absolutely fine*.
Or are we to assume that they've already got their own flags up?
*As long as you don't want the property value of yours and every house within sight to decrease by 5%.
I may be over-simplifying the immigration issue. However, I think it is boils down to:
- Increased concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
- It is far easier to brainwash people to believe the problems are caused by immigration and asylum, rather than hugely reduced investment in public services - especially when the people influencing media discourse have very little to gain from investment in public services and gain hugely from privatisation.
If a conflict arises those who most able to flee and survive the journey will be the youngest, fittest and strongest, probably men in their twenties and thirties. Those more likely to stay behind due to responsibilitiea caring for family unable to flee are probably women.
Not a mindset I think I jive with, I couldn't imagine leaving my wife and kids in e.g. Syria, but I can see the argument. Fair enough.
But also if moving for purely economic reasons it makes sense to send the bread-winner ahead.
If you're moving for purely economic reasons though, you shouldn't arriving by small boat crossing.
I don't know. Presumably some the Sudanese or Afghans or Iraqis who do need to flee and move somewhere else are builders and plumbers too? I would argue that a Syrian builders have a greater need to come here than Bulgarian ones do.
...
A lot of this thread has conflated immigrants and refugees
Indeed.
There are two separate arguments here. "What we need" (or heaven forfend, what we can provide) is a question for regular immigration. It's why we have the immigration system we do, we were screwed after WWII because all our doctors &c were young men of fighting age. Choosing to move to the UK in order to work ideally should be a decision of mutual benefit.
By comparison, asylum seekers generally don't give their life savings to Honest Dave's Used Dinghies in order to get £10/week in benefits, they're risking a life-threatening journey to a country they know little about because the alternative is far worse. We take them in because a) we're obliged to under international law and b) it's the morally just thing to do.
It serves the interests of white supremacists to conflate the two. Whilst it may sell newspapers to the easily led in the short term, history has generally not looked favourably upon such demographics. Dehumanising people is a road to concentration camps, and we're goose-stepping towards convincing the extant populace that this is a good idea.
I may be over-simplifying the immigration issue. However, I think it is boils down to:
- Increased concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
- It is far easier to brainwash people to believe the problems are caused by immigration and asylum, rather than hugely reduced investment in public services - especially when the people influencing media discourse have very little to gain from investment in public services and gain hugely from privatisation.
Neither of those are immigration issues. Rather, immigration is a dead cat thrown on the table to misdirect the public's attention away from those issues. And it's proving wildly successful.
But in any case: why should they? As someone else said earlier (and I said earlier still), we often don't do that. British migrants (who are, lest we forget, not fleeing warzones) often don't integrate. Instead they congregate in sunny little enclaves on the continent with other immigrant Brits whose grasp of the local language extends to "dos cervezas por favor." They hole up together in the Rose & Crown, Tenerife discussing how much of a disc race it is that there are so many mosques in the UK.
Exactly, you have just backed up what I have been saying. You don't think that is good behaviour for Brits in Spain so why is that any different to people from another country in Britain who do the same?
It is however a minor issue but may be a piece in the reasoning for some people. If the numbers were put out weekly maybe people would get the correct picture
n,000 people given Visa's to do jobs x, y and z. (needed - or at least should be)
n,000 people given student visas (not really needed but keeps some chancellors on £500K per year)
n,00 asylum seekers granted asylum (not needed but have an obligation)
and so on.
The top two figures will always dwarf anything else but would at least give people perspective. Wouldn't help those in a street full of non English speaking Taiwanese people feel any better but would go someway to helping overall.
I think part of the problem is that prejudice and racism has been less frowned upon or discouraged and indeed more normalised in recent years. It seems lots of people seem emboldened by this.
I have faced increased racism since the Brexit referendum. In my experience - I have witnessed more prejudiced comments openly expressed for the last 9 years. Prior to this - I haven’t experienced open racism since the 1980’s.
Neither of those are immigration issues. Rather, immigration is a dead cat thrown on the table to misdirect the public's attention away from those issues. And it's proving wildly successful.
Exactly my point, Cougar. Ignore the real causes and use immigration as an issue to distract from the reality.
Exactly, you have just backed up what I have been saying. You don't think that is good behaviour for Brits in Spain so why is that any different to people from another country in Britain who do the same?
Almost but not quite. I wasn't commenting on whether it was good or bad behaviour at all. Rather I was pointing out the rampant hypocrisy.
If I emigrated I'd probably want to go somewhere I could communicate with the majority of people at at least a basic level and I'd probably miss Marmite. Having people around me with shared experiences might help in acclimatising and making new friends. I might start a board game club. I probably wouldn't sign up to the local Catholic church. But I'd also want to be somewhere where I could experience local culture, "integrate" if you will, because otherwise I might as well move to a leafy 'burb on the South coast over here.
Wanting to be with "your own kind" to varying degrees is perfectly understandable, it's human nature. I expect that I wouldn't fare overly well in Dubai, for instance. But then it would be somewhat churlish of me to denigrate others for wanting the same things, you cannot in good faith proudly champion your own culture in one breath and then expect others to simply abandon their own on a whim the next. How many ex-pats British immigrants would fail the Tebbit Test themselves? I'd wager it's as close to "all of them" as makes no odds.
It is however a minor issue but may be a piece in the reasoning for some people. If the numbers were put out weekly maybe people would get the correct picture
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, for reasons I've already mentioned.
You cannot reach your "some people" using pesky things like facts because they simply don't care. They're driven by emotion rather than reality and will outright reject new information which contradicts their established beliefs. Spend an hour on YouTube watching LBC phone-in clips and you'll see this in action over and and over and over again. Callers are told that they've been misinformed and they don't respond with "oh, I didn't realise that," rather they go "well, it's what I think / what I've heard" and then hurriedly try to change the subject.
This is (IMHO) why the Left is losing ground to the Right hand over fist. We still think we're fighting a war of logic when it's actually a war of feelings, and the latter will always Trump the former. How long has STW been a hotbed of political discourse, pre-referendum at least? Ten+ years of debate, would we need the fingers of both hands yet to count the number of changed minds do we think?
That Guardian article .. unreal. People are losing the plot. The distraction tactics are working.
This is (IMHO) why the Left is losing ground to the Right hand over fist. We still think we're fighting a war of logic when it's actually a war of feelings,
Yeah. Logic doesn't apply here, clearly. It's about feelings and pride among people who're clutching at pride in something as they're not getting it from their own life. Not sure why, but they're not happy people are they.