To think "genuine concerns about immigration are irrelevant?

[MrsBennetsPoorNerves]

I fully accept that people may have genuine concerns about immigration. Some of those concerns may be 100% valid. Some may be based on misinformation or poor understanding. Regardless, I can accept the fact that some people have concerns.

But if people do have concerns, there are ways of expressing and addressing these properly. Peaceful demonstrations. Lobbying MPs. Or even standing for election.

But as soon as people make the leap from expressing legitimate concern about government policies to intimidating and attacking innocent individuals who have no influence or control over those policies, that is when "concerns" are no longer relevant and common or garden racism takes over. If people weren't fundamentally racist, why on earth would it even occur to them to do this?

If I am unhappy about decisions affecting my community taken by my local council, my first thought isn't to go and beat up my neighbour in order to make a point. Most people would recognise that such anger was utterly misplaced. Why is it that people don't seem to recognise that the anger towards migrants/asylum seekers/ethnic minorities/muslims etc is equally misplaced. Why are so many people saying that they understand the reasons for the violence ever though they don't condone it.

I don't think it's at all understandable that someone with grievances about government policy would think that throwing bricks at a mosque or setting fire to a building full of people will help to resolve the issues that they are concerned about. The people that they are targeting are not in a position to change anything. There is no logic to this thinking, so why do people's minds go there? As far as I can see, the only possible explanation is racism, pure and simple. The "genuine concerns" are nothing but a cover for thuggery.

With the arrival of 37 asylum seekers in June, there are now about 100 asylum seekers held by Australia on the island

Aus used to be thousands now clearly not which is why they’ll keep the deterrent system no matter what

The UK are showing how not to do it, it’s far too disruptive

You've rather simpler that Aus system to keeping asylum seekers on Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

In fact numbers of asylum seekers rose immediately after off shore processing was introduced.

The numbers fell only after they began pushing back boats in international waters.

So the evidence that Rwanda would of itself be a deterrent is rather shaky - which is why the Home Office was never able to evidence the policy and which was why it was paid for by Ministerial Direction (ie they couldn't back up the financial outlay).

People thought it would be safe routes and all fine

It’s not, and I’m sure Aus is even happier to be a country that won’t face our disruption seeing what’s happening here

Whether we ever get it together and vote in similar we’ll see

Here’s a novel idea. Why don’t we have weighted votes and the more you really contribute to society the heavier it is weighted.
If you’re working in sewage, keeping the drainage systems going, keeping fresh water flowing to houses, keeping streetlights on, road maintenance, farmers and tradespersons and all of those that REALLY contribute to society (not the rest of you ‘pretenders’) then you have a more weighted vote. Obviously politicians and MPs/MSPs are a net drain so you get a negative vote.
Champagne socialists? If you swap your houses for an estate flat and practise what you preach then maybe I would begin to take anything you claim to believe in seriously…..

Just focusing on the economic impacts, it matters a lot where immigrants come from. They have done very detailed economic studies in Denmark and the Netherlands and found that immigrants from western countries are a net positive to the economy but non-western immigrants are a net loss. Of course, some non-western immigrants do contribute more than they receive, but on the whole (across all non-western immigrants) they receive more from the state than they pay in. Asylum seekers are always a net loss to every country a study has been done.

In the Netherlands, the annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion losses and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros gains.

In Denmark, immigrants from the near east and north Africa cost the government USD 5 billion a year or $13,000 per person (everything spent on immigrants for welfare minus everything immigrants pay in tax.)

Of course immigration is not just a question of economic loss and gain. There is also the issue of helping people and cultural benefits (as well as cultural losses) from diversity.

The population of Africa is currently 1.5 billion and will be more than 4 billion in 50 years. More than half of young Africans would like to emigrate, mainly for economic reasons. It would be nice if we could welcome them all to the UK but that would create logistic problems.

Immigrants also get old and will need taking care of so that will mean increasing immigration in the future, probably from Africa as that is the only region where there is still very strong population growth.

I was under the impression that Indians outperform white kids in school and beyond school, and constitute a high proportion of STEM grads in high earning professions?

Here you go @dcbgr The staggering economic impact of the Indian diaspora - BBC Worklife. Indians are the top immigrant earners in Germany, and in fact, Germany is inviting highly skilled Indians, despite them being "non-Western." To pay taxes.

I don't really understand the logic of putting all "non-Western" immigrants in one large basket marked "Net Loss."

On that note, I saw this on X last week and thought it was really considered.

"Hello. I’m a working class person from a broken northern town. What you are seeing in the streets of these towns right now is the anger that these people in these broken towns feel about decades of neglect, only directed towards peoples who aren’t responsible for that neglect. Because that’s the playbook. It’s always been the playbook. Far right agitators - some of them in suits who now sit in the House of Commons - will always say “blame the brown person” because it’s simply easier than dealing with the consequences of shutting industry, breaking community and sitting down and listening to disenfranchised voices. There are racists in these mobs, but there are many lost and scared people too. And anyone who dismisses the rioting as simply the far right rising is making the same mistake as the many who cast every Brexit voter as a racist did. People are unhappy. Towns like mine are broken. Fix the towns, fix society, make the voices of the far right agitators unappealing and impotent, and you’ll find harmony. Fight racism, always, but talk to the people on the fringes. They’re not lost causes, I refuse to think any human being is"

https://x.com/jamesjammcmahon/status/1819671657272746267

@misty64 that’s literally what I said, you didn’t need to re-write it again!

Why would you think it is helpful or relevant to divide the world into "western" and "non-western" groups? What do you mean by "western" exactly? Is it a euphemistic proxy for "white"?

Why would you lump all "non-Western" immigrants together into one single category? What is it that you think they have in common with each other that distinguishes them from "western" people, exactly? Can you not see that such descriptions lack all nuance and fail to reflect the significant differences between the various groups within this catch-all "non western" category?

@Lentilweaver

"I was under the impression that Indians outperform white kids in school and beyond school, and constitute a high proportion of STEM grads in high earning professions?"

You are correct that the net economic contributing migrants are North American, EU, Australia/ NZ and Indians.

There are a number of reasons for this with regards to Indian migrants.

Firstly you had a large number of Ugandan Indians arriving in the 70s. These were generally well educated, successful small business owners that replicated their success in the UK.

Secondly there has been a steady inflow of legal well educated Indian workers (often in IT).

The key issue here is that they are well educated legal migrants brought in by UK employers for their specific skills. There are very few illegal Indian migrants as India is a safe country and there would be a high chance of being repatriated.

How does one swap a house for an estate flat? Last I heard, the estate flats are in short supply.

Thats all well and good for Australia but where are equivalent Islands that the UK could use?

Australia could deport/turn back ALL the boats and take them to a country that was willing to house them, Rwanda could at best take 1 or 2 % and the cost was huge just for these few.

Thats not a deterrent.

To fix the issues, we are going to have to start taxing wealth far more.

I don't think Starmer gets it, i don't think he realises the anger and frustration large numbers of people feel... even if he stopped all migration tomo, that still leaves 70 million people here, a large number of whom can't get timely healthcare, social care, dentistry, schooling, employment, housing etc etc.

Turnout at the GE was 60%, one of the lowest ever, Labour got 33% of the vote share.

The issues are huge and require some very radical thinking and its not just here either, its across Europe, we have all pandered to the wealthy, not taxed them, allowed them spirit money away and neglected the less well off and the services they need.

Unless we reverse these trends, the extremes will fill the gaps left by the more traditional parties.

It's not a case of empathy and majority on boats to the UK aren't women or kids. The boats into Turkey and Greece yes, but not here.

It's the point that our economy and infrastructure can't cope with the amount of people continuously arriving this way, when we have people living longer and those granted legal visas before arrival. We don't have unlimited capacity and the effects are being felt.

I agree. If immigrants are to be considered for their economic value- which I dont agree with but let's go along with that- it seems important to recognise that some "non-western" groups like Indians outearn white British people and are significant tax payers. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/household-income/latest/#:~:text=households%20in%20the%20Indian%20ethnic%20group%20were%20the,both%20%C2%A31000%20or%20more%2C%20and%20%C2%A32%2C000%20or%20more

It seems to me that "non-western" immigrants can't win. Earn very little and you are a drain on the economy/ net loss, earn a lot and you are taking white people's jobs! Or the oft repeated stat that white boys do worst in school, as if that is the fault of immigrants who work hard.

No one would possibly think of comparing a New Zealander to a Bulgarian, but all non-western immigrants are a monolith, somehow.

Some people don't seem to understand the difference between countries and people who come here legally and therefore population numbers can be accounted for, and they tend to come here for study or because they have specific skills and the jobs are here for them. Also when it comes to ethnicity, there are many non white ethnicity who are now 3rd and 4th gen as their family came here decades ago.

It's a completely different thing.

It doesn’t need to be an island

If the U.K. doesn’t want to face more of what’s going on already it’ll have to look to Aus properly

This.
‘We’d be better off trying to support those countries to be better’

I agree, unfortunately some of the West’s foreign policy has been an absolute cluster f*. We seem to create a wake of disastater in each intervention.

Its been documented Russia’s aim is to distabilise other regions to create mass migration to destabilize Europe. I think this is described as ‘Gray war’ An example is the effect of wheat crops not leaving Ukraine and the impending food shortages in the African regions where these crops are sold. The rest of Europe also suffered due to increased food prices.

I was making sure i had not misunderstood as i could not believe somebody would write something so horrible. They are peoples friends and families that you are wishing dead

The idea that pay is undercut by cheaper labour in the UK is largely historical given that UK companies employ people directly overseas where labour is cheaper - most phone helplines. This was an argument made against employing women back in the day. These days wages are low but are topped up by in work benefits. Employers don't need to employ 'cheap foreign labour' - they can employ cheap UK labour. So at least some employers are no longer driving immigration because their profits are not affected.

But some sectors can't benefit financially from cheap labour through remote working. Some roles are face to face. There are employers that need immigration to adequately staff certain sectors because there aren't enough/qualified 'indigenous' workers. I would welcome a discussion around economic migration in that sector. It seems that it is cheaper to import staff for the NHS, dentistry and care rather than pay the cost of training. But when the cost of training is paid, the staff emigrate to countries that will pay better. Need to do better there.

Essentially employment has been linked with immigration for decades and still is. The vast amount of legal migration is economic or to attend university and the majority of illegal immigration is overstaying work or student visas. This is the elephant in the room.

And can be discussed without rioting. The rioters charged so far are easy pickings because they are easily identifiable because of previous convictions - not hard for the police to identify them. They are not previously law abiding folk with legitimate political concerns they can articulate.

Maybe they are hoping a message will get sent back home that it's not safe for them to come to uk and they arnt welcome ?

who's they and who's them?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/09/sir-tony-sewell-keir-starmer-riots-angela-rayner-blm/

I think this article offers a very interesting explanation of how "the fox was let into the chicken coop" in these terrible riots.