to finally be able to say there has been too much immigration

[moogy1a]

Now that UKIP have made massive gains in local elections,conservatives stating that major changes need to be made and labour admit that they made a big mistake in having an almost open door policy can I finally say this in public without the hysterical accusations of being racist?

I find it really rather depressing that nobody can talk about immigration without being branded a racist. It's rather controlling isn't it? Mumngran said up there exactly what I feel and so Wallison I'd like to ask you this - you say there are not enough houses being built? Where are they all going to go? When does it stop? When the UK looks like Monaco and there's not a square of green anywhere? Do you want any extra housing built to be exclusively for the use of single parent families and if so, isn't that some kind of 'ist' in itself?
Please can someone explain to me just exactly why being concerned about unlimited immigration is necessarily racist? I just don't get it.

yes we need more housing - our own population is increasing as well you know - many immigrant families live as extended family groups btw not all in seperate homes (eg my friend has herself, her parents, her brother, his wife and their 2 children living in their owned outright none social housing house!)

TheseFoolishThings a debate about immigration is not racist - but it is often populated by ill informed people who's views ARE racist - that is a sad fact

our massive NHS dental practice is staffed almost entirely by young, qualified EU dentists who come here to gain further training - they are brilliant !

Same here, in our area there were NO NHS dentists with open lists for a while until they realised this was actually not legal not to offer NHS treatment. So, surprise surprise the PCTs actually went out recruiting in Poland, EE. all over the place and persuaded dentists from those countries to come here and offer NHS services. My grandma said 'I do think they should have let the British dentists have the jobs first' when we were discussing it, the joke being of course that no British dentist in the county was doing NHS only work and they all preferred to work in private practice (which I don't agree with, I think if trained by the NHS they should be obliged to offer some time to NHS patients if remaining in UK).

People are so gullible, they would prefer to believe that the Eastern and central European dentists are 'undercutting' our dentists (how does that even work?), not the truth, which is that our dentists simply prefer making twice as much money in the private sector and cannot be persuaded into NHS work!

Gordy - ok, how about people who think that attempting to debate it without assuming that that is the case? Would that be at all possible?

I'm not controlling anyone. I'm just talking as I find, as you are. If I think you're a racist, I'll say so.

There are so many problems with housing policy in this country that it's difficult to know where to start with it all - what we are looking at today is the result of thirty years' of housing policy failure, from both Labour and Tories. From the massive land-banks sitting idle owned by developers, to the sell-off of council housing (a national asset which would have increased in value and pays for itself many times over), to non-doms buying up whole swathes of London as part of a regime of tax-dodging, to BTL mortgages and £20bn a year of taxpayers' money going on housing benefit to pay them off ... the list goes on and on. None of that is to do with immigration. Sure, be concerned, be angry. But at least direct it at a target where there is some credibility in apportioning blame, otherwise you just look like you are trying to find excuses for blaming brown-faced people for the country's ills. Ie a racist.

My hometown (about 25,000 people) has a FB page full of people who allegedly voted UKIP yesterday. And for weeks there have been posts about (mainly for some reason) Poles taking their jobs/women/houses/green fields etc.

Despite me showing them that a whole 600 immigrants (of varying nationalities) have moved there in the last 10 years.

Oh, and you walk about 10 mins to the edge of town and see nothing but fields till you get to Derby.

The NHS/schools/housing etc etc are stretched/at breaking point (delete as necessary depending on which paper you read) My half woman half sofa half sister "I'm not getting a job I want to have babies" (she has had 6 with 6 different fathers) might have contributed slightly to that. (along with all those dirty foreigners of course)

Like my daughter.

yes of course - and would it be possible for people not to assume that anyone who disagrees with UKIP is a wishy washy lefty who doesn't live in the real world?

I don't know gordy because I don't think that!

Discussing immigration is not tantamount to being a racist, this hysterical accusation of racism the minute the topic is opened is very unhelpful.

Most other countries manage to have far more sensible immigration policies than the UK, IMO it's because they are more capable of having a rational discussion.

I have quite a bit of experience of low-paid work, and I can say that immigrants are massively more attractive than white British workers for employers.

Typically there is a much stronger/better work ethic, more flexible about hours and so on.

Because of the NMW a highly motivated, often professional qualified Pole or other foreign immigrant costs the same as a British worker with no skills or motivation.

Also you get the stereotypical Polish builder/gardener/etc. who is willing to work for half what established British businesses would work for.

This is great for people digging out basements in Islington, but not so good for the white working class who traditionally held down these jobs.

It's not really a surprise therefore to see UKIP the second party in South Shields, despite it being a traditional Labour area. UKIP are attracting the most support from C2/D/E, not middle class Tories, but more like Thatcher's 'Sid'. www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/02/it-has-been-working-class-voters-who-have-been-the-main-driver-of-the-ukip-vote/

The white working class basically has nothing to gain from immigration. The middle classes yes - cheap cleaners, nannies (this one is HUGE now, at my kids' private school, a great deal of the childcare is being done by Eastern Europeans while mummy goes off to make a packet in the City), builders, and they can excitedly chatter to their friends about the great new Polish deli.

The BBC painted them as winners here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904 basically saying that the fact that the majority of white British people have left Barking & Dagenham in the last decade is great because they've all gone to live in Southend, which is much nicer than shitty old Barking anyway. Obviously this is nonsense, because this will only apply to the established older generation, not young people without capital.

sorry that is "the BBC have painted the white working classes as winners." just to clarify

And BTW, I think on the whole that if there is a shortage of dentists, or nurses, then selective recruitment in Poland or the Phillippines or whatever is sensible.

But going out to recruit sandwich shop workers doesn't seem so rational.

Student visas are no longer easy to get or an easy way into the country. The requirements have gone up massively, fake schools have been shut down and universities have to monitor their international students more closely. London Met University a proper university could not accept international students for the last year because its ability to sponsor their visas was revoked.

Not saying no one can still abuse this path, but things have changed a great deal. I feel like a lot of the rhetoric around migration is outdated these days.

abra... you are conflating 'households' with housing space. A household can be a family of five living in a one bedroom flat
moogy and others... And there has been an increase in migration.... successive governments have not been brave enough to shape the debate on this (hence UKIP). For a long time we needed immigration- our demographic was wonky, we didn't have enough people of working age to contribute to the work/tax system... we didn't/couldn't increase the birth rate so the much quicker way to rectify this was to increase migration.
I think the reason the debate about immigration gets mired with calls of racism is because quite frankly it is often discussed in a very irrational way. Boring and ill informed stereotypes are used, people blame immigrants for all sorts of crap for which there is very little evidence. I'm a Phd researcher in a social science, I take evidence very bloody seriously. I also have a masters in communication and worked as a journalist... I take reporting and understanding of evidence very bloody seriously and frankly there is just so much misinformation (from both 'sides').
If you really really want to make a case for or against recent immigration policies (and you don't want to be accused of being a racist) then do your research and come at me with a compelling argument for the negative effects based on FACTS.... So immigration has increased... so bloody what..... there is unemployment and less service..... you show me a pathway that evidences that A made B happen (not just because it feels intuitively like it must be so, or 'it makes sense' or some other 'feeling') and I will hold my breath on calling you a racist. Because sorry to say 'feelings' or 'it making sense' or reading it in the daily mail are all based on your unconscious stereotypes (not evidence). I'd be surprised if anyone can draw some linear evidence because housing/resources/employment are all complex multi-factorial things and cannot be simply caused by one convenient thing.

Lazy to be honest I don't think any country has a rational discussion on immigration.

I've also lived in the US and France -- two relatively wealthy countries with lots of open space. The immigration discussion there is also pretty hysterical/apocalyptic.

I think it's almost unavoidable, because fundamentally the immigration question is about national identity -- it's about, what kind of country do we want to be? Bound to evoke strong reactions.

It's quite telling, who gets the most ire when times are hard. It should be the leaders who got us into this mess, but so often it's not, unfortunately.

The people round here standing for UKIP have been elderly and often disabled people living in council flats, or living alone in dreadful conditions and using an electric scooter.

this to me says it is a party that represents or seeks to represent the vulnerable and scared among us. I think it seeks to play on the fears of certain people especially old people.

There are millions of old people, more I think than any other demographic age group? is that right? So I imagine that's why they are doing so well.

Makes me very depressed.

Wallinson 'If you think the problems with housing, welfare benefits and the NHS are to do with immigration you are woefully misinformed. And, yes, a racist."

Statiscally/factually/economically - ALL of the services you mention have been directly impacted by the EU open-door policy. I don't think (although I may be wrong?) ANYONE upthread has said the issues those services face are in ANY WAY solely 'to do with immigration' - but stating that immigration clearly HAS had a significant bearing on that, simply vis the extra 'load' factor, has NOTHING 'to do' with it is as unfactual; illogical; and extreme as anyone who said it WAS the 'sole' factor.

Basic numbers/economics/mathes: Labour asserted there would be 'no more than 30,000 immigrants from Poland' at point of that country being granted entry to the EU, and de facto it's citizens to the open-door within EU immigration policy and rights. The number turned out to be over 2 million - into a country with a population of c.65mn; I.E. a 3% increase in population but with no matching or correlating increase in GDP, or macro tax revenues to fund that huge leap and the - obvious - extra demand placed on services. Stating that is NOT 'racist', nor makes one 'racist'. Stating that it is likely to be repeated by the next wave of migration when the next countries (those that the vile Mr Farage IS using for his own, very racist ends), and having concerns about the impact of that is not a statement that makes me or anyone 'racist'.

Vis your clear assertion of: *'And, yes, a racist' - other than being pretty offensive as by default you would seem to be calling ME too a 'racist'? - it is a totally ridiculous and a beyond extreme 'labelling' statement. SUGGEST READ THE BELOW?

Immediatly post the influx above, I remember seeing a Headteacher being interviewed about the massive problems it had caused. She wanted all her pupils - including those recently arrived - to have all that they needed and she obviously cared about them all deeply. BUT - her concern was it was a provision she simply could not fulfil as her school had suddenly virtually doubled in numbers; she had to get portakabins in as make-shift classrooms; and find & fund teaching assistants who could act as interpretors. So this, dedicated & caring Headteacher is - for flagging those impacts and the many issues caused - according to you, de facto 'a racist'???*

That is just NUTS - and, guttingly & worse, is what feeds RIGHT into the vile Mr Farage's agenda in it's polarising people with genuine, factual, concerns being called 'racists' and then (some of them) feeling pushed enough to join him and nasty band of bigots.

Foreign workers take some British jobs. They are working in Britain.
I think some of the jobs they take wouldnt be done by Brits such as fruit/flower picking etc, but some of the jobs Brits do want.

Wallinson

Please don't call my mother 'brown-faced'. That really IS fucking racist.

UKIP is simply BNP lite. Nasty, racist party which will be in the dustbin of history soon enough.

Their newly elected councillors will get bored of the day to day details of having to be a local member and dealing with people's problems and issues. They'll have to learn that being a councillor doesn't actually mean you can go out with a van and round up and deport the Latvians/Poles/Romanians or whoever is the local hate group

hettie
'If you really really want to make a case for or against recent immigration policies (and you don't want to be accused of being a racist) then do your research and come at me with a compelling argument for the negative effects based on FACTS.... So immigration has increased... so bloody what..... there is unemployment and less service..... you show me a pathway that evidences that A made B happen (not just because it feels intuitively like it must be so, or 'it makes sense' or some other 'feeling') and I will hold my breath on calling you a racist. Because sorry to say 'feelings' or 'it making sense' or reading it in the daily mail are all based on your unconscious stereotypes (not evidence). I'd be surprised if anyone can draw some linear evidence because housing/resources/employment are all complex multi-factorial things and cannot be simply caused by one convenient thing.'

I don't read The Daily Mail. I don't believe in 'intuition' or 'it making sense' and I don't believe I used either of those phrases in any of my posts on this thread. I linked to a report produced by The Department for Communities and Local Governmen. I think perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. My mother is an immigrant, as I said. She doesn't read The Daily Mail, either. Too busy being an NHS worker, most of her life. :)

But I will hold my breath on calling you unable to read posts correctly.

Jesus, Stoic, you could hardly have picked a less appropriate username if you tried, could you? First, I haven't mentioned your mother. Second, it is unequivocably not my responsibility if racists vote for a racist party. Third, the pressures on housing, welfare spending and the NHS are not caused by immigration. Immigration is of net value to the country, economically - migrants generate far more wealth and resources than they use. I have no idea about the headteacher you bang on about and I would hestitate to base immigration policy on the experiences of one woman somewhere at some unstated time in the past, particularly when the UK is now having to deal with the consequences of a baby bulge of children conceived during better economic times than at present.

Stoic- you assert that basic numbers/maths/economics shows that a 3% increase in population obviously places an extra demand because you make the assumption that there is no increase in tax revenue or GDP.... Lets just assume for the minute that there was no increase in tax revenue/GDP (I'll let you work on evidencing that....). You then still have a nasty little assumption in there don't you.... which is it's the immigrants that are not contributing... they come into the country and don't pay taxes/raise GDP, but use services (so it costs us all).
With no evidence (just assumptions/ stereotypes) you have laid the fortunes/misfortunes of our national GDP/tax base at the door of immigrants and that's what makes it racist. Because remove the assumption and you could make another argument from the same inferences. I could just as easily argue the following. The population increased due to immigration, at the same time due to mismanagement of our economy, poor policies on tax loopholes etc GDP/tax revenues fell (not that we have proven this at all mind you).
Oxford University has had a very sensible and academically verifiable look at the the net contribution of immigration and the pension problem which largely discredits the idea that opening up to the EU in 2004 caused overall revenues to fall.... you can find a summary here. BUT.. I know how people like to cling to their stereotypes, so you probably won't really engage with it. In social psychology stereotypes are seen as a cognitive short cut (in lay language you use a stereotype to avoid having think too much about something complicated)

Hettie your syntax is so poor it is hard to work out whether your kind explanations for 'lay' people actually make sense or not.