Spoken word poet Hollie McNish spells out what's wrong with most of the arguments used against immigration. She cites as her inspiration a book by economist Philippe Legrain called Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them.
Spoken word poet Hollie McNish spells out what’s wrong with most of the arguments used against immigration. She cites as her inspiration a book by economist Philippe Legrain called Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them. (Hat tip: Adam Mordecai)
85 Responses to “Next time someone claims that immigrants are destroying Britain, show them this”
Robe D
Gavinrider – Interesting…how did they ruin Peterborough? And I’d be intrigued to hear some of these things they’ve ruined.
I think we could have possibly run the NHS on our own before difficult to say if we actually could or not since there’s always been immigrants working there), but now there are high numbers of immigrants working there and we can’t get rid of them (nor do we need to), but we are basically in agreement that we can’t change it now.
Of course the organisation would hire the cheaper work force, but that isn’t the immigrants fault! It’s the organisations fault for being solely concerned with profit, which has lead to more immigrants being hired but being paid too little to be able to contribute much back in tax and whatnot. Until we change the money grabbing mentality which leads to this problem and others (such as the tax avoidance) these sort of things will continue.
What I mean is if you want reduced immigration then it’s only fair to accept reduced emigration, is that something you’d be willing to do?
gavinrider
“That isn’t the immigrants’ fault!”
At no time have I said that anything is the immigrants’ FAULT, have I?
There is plenty of detriment to the UK that is a consequence of the presence of large numbers of immigrants who have not assimilated themselves into our culture and society, but have I ever BLAMED the immigrants for this?
No – I would probably tend to behave in exactly the same way if I went to live abroad under similar circumstances. When I worked in Holland for a few years, I tended to socialise with other English-speaking colleagues simply because it was easier and It is human nature, but this kind of thing is always detrimental in some ways to the host nation and its own culture.
That is why the responsibility for avoiding the harm that excessive immigration causes lies not with the individuals themselves but with the government. It is an issue that affects our society and our culture as a collective entity, it is not something that can be dealt with on an individual level.
On your final point, no I don’t agree that there should be reduced emigration. The two things are not at all equivalent. For example, Australia might want skilled young people to emigrate there – and if people want to go there, who are we to arbitrarily say they cannot? It is up to the receiving nation to say whether they do or they don’t want immigrants going to live there. The trouble is, we have not been given any choice in the matter.
Kilburnaut Mat
The way that discussion works is that when someone makes a point you respond to it rather ragingly back out non-sequitur far right spewings.
When you can interact in a way that follows the generally accepted path of conversation then maybe I’ll talk with you. Either address the point or go tattybyes.
Robe D
Gavinrider – Thanks for your quick reply!
You did say that Immigrants were ruining things that our British forefathers created, that sounds like you’re saying that’s their fault to me? Although apologies if I misunderstood you!
I think we both agree that solving this problem is down to the government. Although what they could do I’m not sure, we are part of the EU which means we have freedom of movement between all EU states, leaving the EU isn’t really viable, and reducing the movement would be difficult. I also think that if we made it so less people could legally migrate here then that would just create more illegal immigrants, who would contribute less to society. It’s a complex issue with no easy answer, we should make look elsewhere and see what other similar countries are doing to tackle the issue.
I see what you’re saying, I wouldn’t want us to stop them. What I really mean is that if people are saying they want less immigration, the should then be prepared to accept the possibility of reduced emigration, say if we reduced the amount of EU nationals that could migrate here, that would very likely mean less British people could emigrate to EU countries aswell, but would people accept that?
Thanks for your replies so far by the way, been interesting chatting to you!
gavinrider
Mat – I addressed your comment by saying that j08 has a point (even if his projection is a little bit exaggerated).
To understand why I think he is right to be concerned, take a look at the ONS population projections. By 2035 it is projected that there will be another 11 million people living in the UK; and more than two thirds of that population increase will be due to immigration.
Immigrants do not disperse evenly throughout the population, they tend to move into certain areas where they have a disproportionate impact on those areas. So a 5% change in the national demographic can have a 50% change in the areas where immigrants prefer to settle when they arrive. Native British people are already almost in the minority in Greater London, and in some areas of London itself they already are.
As more immigrants arrive and settle in the primary “settlement zones” (places like London, Bradford, Leeds, Peterborough, Cardiff, Bristol) there is internal migration of already-settled migrants away from those places and into other areas, so more towns start to develop these “settlement areas” where immigrants tend to congregate and build their own little “home from home”.
Consider the South West, as an example. Between 2001 and 2009 the population increased by 287,800, of which 264,400 were of an ethnicity other than “White British”. The natural population change (births minus deaths) was roughly zero over that period, yet the proportion of the population that is not “White British” changed from 4.7% to 9.5% in just eight years. In the whole of England the proportion changed from 13.2% to 17.2% – in just eight years. That is an incredible rate of change.
And as I have said, the fact that migrants tend to congregate in certain locations rather than dispersing evenly throughout the country means that some areas of the major towns in the South West have been significantly altered by this immigrant influx – in less than a decade. And, of course, those immigrants immediately start having large families, adding further to the numbers. In 2010 over a quarter of all births in England and Wales were to mothers who were not themselves born in the UK.
Now, living as you do in Kilburn, which has already been subjected to this kind of demographic change, you do not see it as negative change because it has already happened. You are used to it, you now live with it and accept it as normal. For others who are seeing their familiar living environments being changed beyond recognition by a rapid influx of foreigners, this change is somewhat discomforting and unwelcome.
You are being arrogant in the extreme not to respect the opinion of British people who see this influx as a threat to their traditions and their own culture. Why is it that you seem to think that everyone else’s culture is wonderful and should be freely implanted here, but have so little respect for those who want to protect our own culture and societal norms in our own native land – and condemn them as “xenophobic”?
We have never been asked whether we want a multicultural society – we have been given no option. I am sorry if you think it is right wing extremism to react against this situation.