Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think "genuine concerns about immigration are irrelevant?

176 replies

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 07/08/2024 17:30

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.

OP posts:
CoatRack · 12/08/2024 08:04

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 11/08/2024 12:01

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?

If you'd been been paying attention, you'd know that I haven't presented the data in any way at all. I've stated that numbers are available in specifics, but you're still complaining.

I assume you have similar issues with our BAME and BIPOC acronyms? These are racist, correct?

Incidentally, while the high-performing Indians and Chinese might feel a bit aggrieved about being within the Non-western category, the group still comes out at a net loss. Surely you'd agree that this means someone in the group is doing a very poor job indeed.

In which case, please confirm that if you had numbers showing that the vast majority of immigrants from a given country were a net drain on public finances, you'd be in favour of banning or severely limiting immigration from there entirely? If not, then what?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread