ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Mass Immigration, scare mongering??(317 Posts)
Am I being unreasonable to think it is a problem or am I just falling prey to media propaganda? The whole EU debate seems to have highlighted it but I would like to understand it better.
thanksamill is the "Roman" in Romania connected to the Romans? If so - it would make perfect sense that Romanian and Italian are similar languages.
Roma is Sanskrit (ancient Indian language) for male member of a band of low caste musicians. Its roots have no connection to the similar sounding 'Romania'.
Flatpack, I was trying to clarify the issue of who is taking houses, etc., from Britons, and since so many people have bandied around the term 'mass immigration' and since Romanians have been singled out as members of that nebulous 'mass', with mutterings about immigrants claiming houses, etc., I am glad you were able to point out that Romanians are not the baddies here. If they are out of the running for Public Offender Number One then who is left in?
Are we confusing Romanians and Roma here to some extent Flatpack? The Roma live all over Europe and in the British Isles. British Roma have lived on the island for centuries.
MummytoKatie , you're right about 'Romania' coming from the Latin for Roman! It's just that the etymology of Roma has nothing to do with the etymology of Romania.
Somebody may be getting mixed up between Romanians and Roma, but it isn't me.
Flatpack If GothAnne husband is anything like mine she does have personal experience of immigration. I have a dh who used to be part self employed and got plenty of experience of tax returns from it!
I've got personal experience of a baby but that doesn't make me more qualified to talk on the subject of national childcare standards than anyone else.
No, GothAnne was just trying to rub her Guardianista credentials in my face, to show how tolerant and diverse she was.
Flat pack - you claim that anyone not concerned about mass immigration wasn't impacted by it, I told you otherwise and you start immediately sneering about "Guardianista credentials".
I do not see giving some details from my experience with immigration as rubbing anything in your face.
Also, you very clearly did seem to be getting Roma and Romanian people mixed up, hence several posters correcting you.
flatpack perhaps you should read back your own posts where you quite clearly confuse Roma and Romanians...
Mrs DV said "There will be no mass immigration."
But wasn't it on the news the other day that the Foreign secretary(?) or someone, admitted that the actual changes that are about to come into force, the figures had been significantly underestmated.
So the gov has finally admitted that the numbers are about to rise significantly. How is that not mass imigration?
Why would anyone that is negatively affected by mass immigration be in favour of it?
Or how can anyone possibly benefit from mass immigration?
I don't have a problem with immigration. Of course its healty, good for us, society, business everything.
BUT, when we are at breaking point, and it now becomes 'apparent' that it is virtually mass, i.e that there is an agreememnt that is going to come into affect that will mean many many more immigrants will be arriving, when we are already at breaking point, then surely this has to be questioned.
What are the benefits of mass imm? I can't see one. I see the benefits of immigration, but not mass immigration.
Name me one plus point. How is this good for any uk citizen?
oblom - under that last wave of immigration i understand it benefited people who employed cleaners/plumbers/builders etc as the hourly pay rates reduced. care homes were able to get enough employees without increasing wages. Basically if you are a private individual who employs or uses the services of people or a business you have been able to get staff more cheaply as the immigrants are usually more desperate for work; are used to working at lower pay rates; and possibly don't have the higher costs that UK workers do (eg mortgage or children in UK).
god help the people who they displaced who had maybe spent years training for their professions.
oblov - i also wonder if its that great for the countries they leave, especially if its the youngest, most educated, hardest working that go
Absolutely dreamingofsun. The country I live in has been decimated by young people leaving. There are many many children here growing up without one or even both parents because they're working abroad.
But because we're not in the EU many of them are working illegally and this compounds the problems. They go for longer (often years and years) because it's not so easy to travel back and forth, they pay huge amounts to dodgy 'agents' who get them papers and promise work and then are hugely in debt so aren't able to return even if they wanted to.
Having restrictions on who can come and work in the UK doesn't solve this problem.
Ireland was a net exporter of people for about one hundred years. Millions of Irish people left, all young. Millions of women in particular left the west, and communities were devastated. The effects of this were still to be seen in small communities in the west and northwest as late as the 2000s, with a much higher level than normal of schizophrenia, particularly among elderly bachelors living alone or with their bachelor brothers in run down cottages without running water or indoor toilets (women tend to be faster to adopt domestic improvements and to nag men to get improvements done).
At the same time, families were able to use a relative in Oz or the US as a base to send others abroad temporarily or in lieu of enduring poverty and lack of opportunity to go further via education at home, and this was particularly useful when times were rough in Ireland and for families for whom third level education was not going to be a possibility. Emigration from some parts of the west was often seen as a temporary measure, with families coming and going from Boston or New York to towns and farms in the poorest counties. I knew many schoolfriends who were entitled to American citizenship by virtue of a grandparent born in Philadelphia and able to prove it. They knew if they got a degree or some training they could hop on a plane and settle in the US whenever they wanted, with little or no red tape. Irish people could serve in the US military and enjoy VA educational benefits, healthcare and pensions.
And of course money flowed back home that benefitted the local economy greatly. Farmers stayed on farms because they could afford stock or seed or machinery. Shopkeepers stayed in business when money from a rellie tided them over when locals had to ask for credit beyond the normal limits. Bank loans were paid back. The experience of life in the US served as an impetus towards modernisation even in the most backward of places. People liked the nice bathrooms they had in Boston. They liked the flower gardens and the decent public libraries. When they returned they wanted the same in Mayo.
It was and is very much a plus for Irish people to have links to the US and it must be said, for the US to have had a constant stream of immigrants from Ireland to build railroads, canals, cities, sewer systems -- just as they did in Britain too. Ditto for the chance the EU offers to all its members, and the benefits flow both ways. Don't forget in these days of (misguided imo) belt tightening that British citizens can go all over the EU and that educational opportunities in particular are available on the same basis as they are to locals.
The downside for Ireland was that as long as the pressure valve existed, political pressure to improve the economy was relieved. What made a difference for Ireland was membership of the EEC (which meant many elements of Irish life had to be raised to first world standards) and the economic growth thanks to massive expansion of educational opportunities, a change of course on the part of the Department of Finance to favour encouragement of growth, and the sudden availability of markets for Irish products (EEC/EU) that happened from the 60s on. Ireland eventually became a net importer of immigrants and probably will again.
Romania, etc. (if we are again talking about mass immigration of Romanians) may follow the same patters as Irish emigration did -- people will go where they are already established and will come and go, will send money home that will eventually grow Romania as well as the places they settle.
Actually, to be boringly technical here, when I say 'Ireland' was a net exporter of people for a hundred years (very rough figure incidentally), I wasn't quite accurate. Until 1922 Ireland was part of the UK so it was actually the UK from which millions of people from the Irish region emigrated.
Millions of Scots also left the UK over the centuries come to think of it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.