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.

Someone presents economic outcomes from another country (because ours won't publish it for some reason) and your response is to complain that data are grouped.

Is this an example of people 'being able to just have an honest conversation' about immigration?

Well, I did offer data from this country to prove that we shouldn't group all non-Western people if we are going to rank them on their economic usefulness. There's plenty more data out there on this subject.

You say that as though looking at immigration from an economic standpoint is some sort of anomaly, when that's the only reason anybody ever gives for it.

Everybody knows that Indians and Chinese types tend to end up at the top of earnings tables. As it is, I think the PP misremembered how the Danish data were broken down. I believe the acronym for the entirely net-drain group was MENAPT.

if everybody knows that Indians and Chinese out earn white British people, if it's such an indisputable fact, why are they lumped in as non-Western? Is there something else that makes them undesirable immigrants?

No it isn't. It is an example about how casual racism pervades these conversations and makes it impossible to "just have an honest conversation".

If you can't see any issue with the way in which that data is grouped, then you have a very limited understanding of issues around racism, and that will probably make it very difficult for you to express your views without sounding racist.

I am genuinely open to an honest conversation about immigration, but I am also committed to challenging racism when I see it.

The NHS has stopped grouping all non-Western people and even Asians together because they recognise difference and nuance in our health conditions.

But on MN: non -Westerners, non-whites, non-this and that in one big category that should be discouraged.

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss if you think I happen to 'sound' racist, given your apparent hair trigger. Data are data, whether you consider them to be racist or not.

How would you prefer it to be broken down, so that it would not look, feel, sound, or taste racist to you?

I know this isn't the point really, but I am also a bit uneasy about how the "worth" of people coming in is based on how much they will earn and how much tax they will pay. We need high earners, and people paying more in tax than they take out so to speak. But we also need carers, nursery workers, cleaners, teachers, nurses etc. I know lots of people (many of them white and British born as it happens) who probably don't earn over the threshhold to be a "net contributor" in taxes and never will. But the work they do is essential and needed. The earnings of people is the easiest thing to measure, but it isn't the only thing that matters.

Could not agree more. But as data is data, my family and I will have to prove our net contributor status to be w9rthy of respect.

Surely net contribution is the only way to decide whether it is worth bringing in a migrant? If we are constantly importing workers who are a net drain on our economy surely we are on a never-ending spiral of economic decline? Where’s the net benefit to the people living here?

I think we may have to "force" the low-skilled UK population into work, and the only way I can see to do it is to reduce benefit top ups for everyone who is not seriously physically unable to work. I can already hear the screams of outrage, and it would be desperately controversial. For the people who have done arduous physical work until their bodies gave out in late middle age, there has to be provision for a (free) second stab at education.

If I ran the world, I think I would want to put adult education and skill building very very high up the priority list for extra funding and resources.

Because lots of people who are a "net drain" in terms of tax paid versus services received are NOT a net drain in real terms etc. It isn't even just about migrants- this net drain language gets used about British born people as well and its a really innacurate way of looking at the world. Everytime someone uses the NHS for example, they are taking OUT of the system - receiving something they really need. Lots of people will never "pay back" the cost of that from their taxes. However, in order to receive that NHS care you need people - doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners etc. Some of whom are on low salaries and so a "net drain" themselves. We could of course raise their salaries, but that would increase the cost of NHS care exponentially so round we go. You are creating a paradox where the value of the services received (fixing a broken leg) is considered a benefit to someone when they receive it. But part of that service involves labour which isn't fully attributed to the person providing it.

There are more ways we pay into British society than money basically. Women in particular are less likely to be net contributors than men. Partly because they take time out to have children, partly because they "choose" lower paid careers. You can have a huge debate about whether we want more or less children to be born. But we definately need some children to be born. And we would be absolutely screwed as a society if all the people in jobs that make them a "drain" disappeared.

Whether you want immigrants to do some of those "net drain" jobs or whether you think they should only be done by UK citizens is a completely different discussion. But currently there is a general consensus that we either need more people born, or people to migrate to the UK, to do those jobs. There is a certain deception in the fact that actually the types of immigrants most needed are those willing to do the poor paid/low status jobs - but those are exactly the ones considered "net drain".

Also - this post is super long already, but there is a counter argument that we want wages for those essential but poorly paid jobs to go up therefore less immigrants is better because it forces those wages up. Even if you see validity in that argument though, it would be completely destructive to make this change happen suddenly. The NHS for example could not afford to pay cleaners like doctors. Also, if you want traditional working class jobs to be valued more, describing the people doing them as "net drain" is counterproductive. Its Reese-mogenomics.

Yes sorry, I wasn't attacking you. We need high band tax payers. And a lot of people earning lots of money are also doing essential work. Its more the general discussion - I am always a bit suspicous as it starts as a way of criticising migrants but then turns into a way of attacking WC people generally.

Yes people who target innocent people to make a political point are awful and in the worse cases evil. There are ways of expressing legitimate concerns although our government is currently trying to scare people off from expressing concerns and MPs don’t want ideas that don’t fit their accepted narrative.

Should of course be noted that by far the most dangerous idealogical targeting of innocents to make a political point in the UK in the last 20 years has been nothing to do with any “far right” groups but is of course Islamic fundamentalism.

Effectively this means we are paying people to move here and then to stay and do low-paid work. To me it’s very clear why you might object to this if you live in an area of high unemployment.

Also if you are paying for people to come and work in essential public services (eg healthcare) it is different to if you are paying for them to come and work in retail/factories etc. In the latter case the corporations are benefiting from taxpayer-funded subsidy of their workers. This is similar to the problem of benefit top ups for non-immigrants, which is rightly considered to be a driver of wealth inequality. Again, it is clear why some of these situations don’t work for poor people.

You can spout shit all you like, but you're a fool if you think that "data are data" and that's that. Those presenting the data always make choices about what data to present and how to present it, and their own agendas and biases will inevitably be a factor in that. If you really believe that data are just data and can't be manipulated to tell a particular story, then you will be easy prey for anyone with an agenda to peddle.

As for how I would prefer to see the data broken down, then I would like to see much more nuance and specificity, rather than crude generalisations which mask a much more complex picture. The overly simplistic "western" vs "non-western" approach is inherently racist and it is also very misleading because it randomly groups migrants from very different countries and cultures into one monolithic mass.

Anyway, seeing as you have already confirmed that you don't give a toss about whether or not you sound racist, I don't expect you to reflect and learn, and I can't really be arsed to engage with you further.

"Why would you lump all "non-Western" immigrants together into one single category?"

You give me too much credit. I did not personally conduct large economic analyses of the contribution and cost of immigration to Denmark and the Netherlands, nor did I develop the categories used in those studies. I suggest you google the studies which can be easily found on line if you want to better understand the methodology.

At the same time, pattern recognition is useful for planning and if the study authors found that "non-western" and "western" were meaningful categories which added information then of course they should use those categories.

It is very common that when immigration is highly selective (e.g., immigrants are drawn from the richest and most educated sector of a community), they perform better than the natives in terms of income, educational attainment and crime. This is seen in the USA and Australia.

Of course there are many other arguments for not taking educated people from countries that desperately need them - according to the World Bank nearly half of all graduated in small developing countries leave them for work abroad. And, as described in the World on Fire, when immigrants are considerably richer than natives and remain culturally separate from them, this very often leads to massive civil unrest.

Are you suggesting that logic has anything to do with the behaviour of these thugs? I think that is wishful thinking!

As I said, if immigrants have the temerity to be richer and more educated, they cause civil unrest and resentment. (Somebody should tell Silicon Valley).
But if they are poor and poorly educated, they also cause civil unrest and resentment.

But only those from non-Western countries. Got it.

An honest conversation indeed.

Specifics are all there to be found, but since the numbers are absolutely, positively, definitely racist, you don't need to look at them.

Enjoy your thought-terminating cliché.

Yes you can see why that would rankle with lower paid! But the problem is, two things are being argued simultaneously: Migration bad because people on low incomes are a drain, should not be receiving benefit. Migration bad because people on low incomes can't compete with workers. The idea you seem to be working towards- that you could just cut benefits etc and that market forces would raise the wages of those people because no-one would be able to live without them seems somewhat naive.

One of the central problems of capitalism (no other systems really work better) is that left to its own devices it doesn't "reward" all jobs equally, based on necessity or on the amount of effort/skill required. Its more to do with what is easily scaleable etc. Plus, if you did decide to rely on just "the power of the market" to raise wages etc you would rapidly hit a wall where some things just weren't being done - and then it wouldn't be "yay market forces" it would be "why are the working classes so poor and lazy. They don't want to work etc, muh factory". There isn't a simple solution. Communism always leads to loads of deaths so that's out. The best you can do is balance the competing interests/problems through a mix of wage and employment protection, tax funded benefits, properly taxing corporations, a certain level of migration etc. But former bankers like Nigel Farage are just motivated for themselves - smash and grab as much profit or personal glory and move on. Its exactly the same mentality as someone using the riots to steal a footlocker.

Even if you somehow fixed all the other issues - lower paid seasonal work in rural areas will always require migration of some kind. It only makes sense for someone to temporarily move to an area to do that work if they are moving from a low cost of living/low pay area to a high cost of living/high pay area. As a result you would never get large numbers of people (even those on benefit) moving from urban areas in the UK to do fruit picking. And there are not enough people living in the immediate vicinity of the farms to do this every seasonable work It just doesn't make any sense. Whereas it does for a Romanian for example - (but we still need measures in place to ensure they aren't exploited.) Or you incentivise increased mechanisation but that has drawbacks.

The numbers aren't racist, obviously. The way they are presented is racist, whether you wish to acknowledge this or not.

Why would you think it's reasonable to present data about "western" and "non-western" immigrants that totally misrepresents the contributions of certain groups within that monolithic "non-western" category? Why would you think that the classification of immigrants into those groups is relevant or meaningful in any way?

If specifics are to be found, then why not talk about them instead of invoking meaningless generalisations? If you want to have an honest conversation about immigration, why not acknowledge that the "western" vs "non-western" dichotomy is indeed misleading and unhelpful? Why not say, yeah, you've got a point there, rather than accusing me of trying to shut a conversation down by raising a perfectly valid objection. Or if you really think that it's entirely reasonable to group all "non-western" immigrants into one single "net drain" category, then why not make the case for why you think this is valid.

Could it possibly be you that is stuck in the thought-terminating cliché?

Yes. But I am weary of people tying themselves in knots. Just say loud and proud " I don't want non- Western immigrants" without making false claims about being a net drain. I would respect that more.

You can see though why people feel this can’t be discussed, given how you’ve fixed on a small point of categorisation and branded it racist (which in my view it isn’t, ‘western’ people are all sorts of ethnicities).