Genuine question re: immigration, not trying to be goady!

[questionsICantAskInRL]

This is a genuine question please don’t accuse me of trying to be goady or whatever the hell people say on mumsnet:

my question is countries like USA who literally took over the country from the natives therefore have no right being there, how can they talk about immigrants taking over their jobs, their country etc? Also the UK how can they talk about immigrants etc. when they invaded lots of countries with the British empire and took all the wealth and gems etc and killed thousands of people who opposed them then complain that the same countries try to come over to make their lives better.

thread title edited by MNHQ at OP's request.

@Nocturna and whoever else is saying “click bait” stop. I’ve asked MN to add to title. You don’t have to comment. Why do I want your clicks? It adds nothing to me!

This is true but many issues are very recent history.

For example the British Army told people who helped them in Afghanistan that the British government would look after them and protect them because they were putting themselves in danger because by helping the U.K.

On the 1st April 2021, the government launched a scheme called ARAP but only 5% of those who applied were accepted, leaving 95% of those who applied in danger.
In August 2021 when the USA and the U.K. left and the Taliban government took over the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said 20,000 people could be resettled in the UK via the new Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme.

Six months later the scheme had only brought in one family because it didn't officially "open" until 2022.

And then the same government demonised people who left Afghanistan under their own steam and paid people traffickers to get them to the U.K. instead.

The U.K. government also chose to evacuate a plane full of animals rather than people as part of Operation Pitting.

Recent actions by our government have consequences too.

Freedom. Skill sharing. Learning. Evolution. Growth as a species, moving away from xenophobia and tribalism and evolving beyond the savage, insular little apes we currently are.

In order to have a hope in hell of surviving as a species we have got to become less hostile to one another and start seeing ourselves as part of a global whole.

Because white supremacy makes people lose all logic - they don’t want to think about what is glow in the dark obvious. They just want to feel good about themselves and their position in the world. Never mind that “the west” is built on brutality and theft, and never mind that the reason people migrate in the first place is because their countries have been turned to shit by western interference.

It’s a hard truth. Far easier to feel smug and hate small boats and Mexicans (whilst still flocking to Mexico for an all inclusive every now and again)

@godlikeAI I can't believe what I have just read! Did you seriously read through that before you clicked 'post?!'

I can't believe you think it's OK to post that.

@FreshWinterMorning sorry what’s wrong with it? White supremacy does not only mean the KuKluxKlan - it means positioning whiteness at the top of the hierarchy. That’s how the world is ordered. People genuinely believe that whiteness is inherently best. They won’t call it that, but that is what is utterly ingrained by western culture

@blacksax ”deliberately namechanged in order to start controversial (some might say goady) thread on Boxing Day of all days.” Seriously? Yeah I have nothing better to do! You don’t have to comment if you think I’m trying to be controversial. Your comment says a lot about the type of person you are. I genuinely don’t believe most adults would have time to try and be controversial. I have no idea who you or the posters are so why would I try to get a rise from anyone? I’m genuinely interested in the topic. You can delete the thread on your watchlist.

honestly although the canadian residential schools were poorly paid (subsequently poorly run) the concept of educating the first nations was not unreasonable at the time.
and as much as the schools were far from home, schools for the others were equally few and far between and involved boarding in convents and being away from family from an early age.
the victorian and protestant work ethic was a pretty harsh view but that's history.
going back the population of canada was 15,800 in the year 1700 so a boatload of people over a geography of 9.9M sq km. would have been barely noticeable and given half died within a year. there was no such thing as housing/medical people had to pay their own way.
i think immigration now is not at all the same as immigration 300 years ago.
not recent data but i spotted online that the usa experiences over 100,000 people crossing the border illegally per month.

@FreshWinterMorning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

@Whygobald I see a difference between invaders/colonisers and asylum seekers/refugees, even economic ones. Neither can reasonably block further immigration, agreed.

But many of the British and Irish who went to America were more like refugees than invaders. They were escaping poverty, famine, social exclusion etc. they were not thriving here so they went to the new world. That is far more akin to todays economic migrants

PP says that not every immigrant is going to contribute to the host country, that letting in criminals would have a negative impact and that you should check who’s coming in - and your response is that that’s the Tory approach? It sounds more like a common sense approach tbh.
Where did PP say that only highly qualified immigrants should come and that the low paid jobs should go to British people?

the irish migration 1820-1860 occurred prior to the start of any social service programs 1865 so any migrants that came needed to be fully self sufficient right from day one via family already established skills and trades.
again the overall population of the area was much lower and many didn't stay in the city where the landing port was they travelled westward where the population was again very low. city life was brutal and unforgiving if you didn't work or couldn't find work.
i don't think it's comparable to the dense cities and the need for state sponsored financial aid.
even the kings brides arriving in canada, came with some money and a mission (to marry and populate the country), which they did an excellent job of :).

In the olden days people went to new countries for a better way of life and were prepared to pledge allegiance to that country, integrate and work damn hard to support themselves.

Now that there are benefit systems in some countries, there is a great attraction to come to those countries to receive those benefits with no intention of integrating and to continue U.K. to live by the same customs in their own country and live as their own culture dictates which is not compatible with the country they have arrived in.

Immigrants of yesteryear worked hard to build the fabric of a nation that embraced and welcomed them.

Many of todays immigrants despise the people of the country they have arrived in.

Apologies @inamarina

I should also have added that the Tory approach also includes record high levels of uncontrolled immigration where the immigrants arrive here first then the Home Office waits a year or two before looking into them in order to give the Tory donors with the contract to house them plenty of our money.

By which time many of them will be lost.

Which part do you object to or think is untrue?

I agree, the difference between immigrants from 100+ years ago was they arrived with whatever they could carry, and didn't expect (or get) any handouts from the government. We now have immigration policy which obliges us to house people from half way across the world, while many local people have no access to housing. Of course people will be frustrated - not with the actual people, but with government policy. We also have a very generous welfare system that has to be paid for through high taxation.

Also, happy to be corrected, but isn't there a law regarding asylum that people need to present themselves at the first port they can? how is Ireland/ the UK the first port when they have to travel through several other countries?

YANBU, I often wonder the same.

are you OK?

what olden days are you referring to?

you mean colonisers that came, robbed, enslaved, brutalised and thought of the indigenous people as savages, less than human and equivalent to animals? to the point of writing 'scientific thesis' on their different biology. and then systematically erasing local culture? was stealing the kohinoor part of 'respecting' the local culture? how about cutting off the arms of all artisan muslin weavers in Dhaka so there was no competition for British textile makers (its a lost art now, no one knows how to make dhakai muslin anymore). how about the massacre in amritsar? was that because of too much respect? the genocide that killed around 12 million people in the Congo by King leopold the 2nd? was that too much nation building that caused that?

please please do yourself a favour and read something, even if it is wikipedia

Well the people that did things hundreds or thousands of years ago are not the same people alive today

Even before the west and the British empire etc, there was alexander the great, Genghis khan etc so presumable in a parelle universe if the british empire had not happened then which other superpower would of existed in the various regions instead or if it was the original inhabitants that were the original rulers it seems every region had different individuals or govt that wanted to rule over other parts of the globe ?

This

immigrants are not all the same, not interchangeable. Some are a net gain and some.are a net loss. Which country they come from and who they bring with them is a factor.

Its about resources too. Too many on a boat, sinks it for everyone.

it is not about blaming anyone today. it is about acknowledging the past and learning from it so we don't repeat the same mistakes. and it is really not as far back as you think.

my grandfather was imprisoned by the British for being a part of peaceful resistance against British colonisation. its really not that far back.

It will never stop happening.

In your response to PP you said: ‘That's the logic Tory immigration policy is based on’. Which logic were you talking about?
PP said that not all immigration is beneficial for the host country and that new arrivals should be vetted. Did you mean that Tories choose not to do that?

what olden days are you referring to?

Oh come on, she's clearly talking about immigrants, for example Chinese families, that came over in the 20th century to the states. She's not pro-colonisation.

I think pp does make a valid point that both natives and migrants often have this visceral dislike that fuels tensions, often from cultures and values clashing. Both fuel each other.