Immigration - can someone please explain it to me in simple terms?

[Illbeinthehottub]

So for as long as I can remember I’ve heard that there is a problem with immigration in the UK. There are headlines about it daily and it’s always an issue for government. It’s a big part of what Brexit was about.

I don’t personally understand all about it, what is the issue, is it simply than people feel immigration is putting additional pressure on services?

I’ve just seen another headline saying that Kier Starmer has lost control of the borders.

Conservatives were in power for 13 years, presumably immigration was still unacceptable to people. Now people are unhappy with Labour.

Can someone who understands explain to me a) what is the problem with immigration b) why hasn’t any government been able to have an acceptable policy that works c) is immigration just something for people to whinge about?

We don't have a far right party in power, so 'respectful' conversations with the whites indigenous population as to whether they want fewer brown people and less forrin culture hasn't happened.

It was 50 million when I was young 1950s/60s now it’s approaching 70 million!!! An increase of half as much again would be 75 million -have we built half as many again hospitals,schools,motorways -no I see little change in the numbers of them.

Really. Google tells me it was 53.6 in 1963 but approximately 69 million in 2024. It sounds like quite an increase.

Here are some migrants tonight, in another European nation:

https://www.youtube.com/live/sVAkv5Ziwfw?si=hGhoZ8rr3n4C53oB

Citizens of a country - any country - have a right to respectful conversations about who they want to add into their population. You seem to be suggesting that's a 'far right' viewpoint. It's not.

You didn’t say citizen though. They can be any race of course.

You said indigenous populations.

That sounded to me as if you were saying the white nationals of Britain or is that not what you meant?

Absolutely agree. And the poster you’re responding to is part of the problem. They close down conversation because they label any challenge on immigration policy as racist and therefore unnecessary. It’s important for these conversations to be had. Our country is pretty much on its knees atm, which is due in part to mass immigration. Labour need to get a grip, and quickly. Otherwise Reform will gain a lot of seats come the next GE.

How does that work exactly, this 'respectful conversation'?

Are you denying the rise of the far right in Europe?

The people I know that have a problem with immigration are against the illegal immigrations, not the lawful ones where people are filling in paperwork and doing it properly, here to work and contribute to society.

I don’t think people really believe that those who are anti immigration are against ALL immigration. That’s just silly.

i think it's been about 13 years since i personally started to notice the conversation about immigration ramp up and just keep coming time and time again, and gosh, it never stops! why have all the successive governments not "done something"? why would they? immigration might not have much of a positive effect on the average person (apart from fanciful things like new friends and interesting new food), it greatly benefits them as the rich and privileged, in fact it's one of the pillars on which their bloody-handed success stands.

as for the issue of immigration itself, well i don't really know why people get bogged down in all the details of whether the immigration is "legal" or not or if they came here on a boat or what colour they are or what language they speak. the simple fact is that we now have such a large population living here that we cannot even feed them all, nor offer a reasonable standard of living to the average majority. and that applies to everyone here, whether they're british born and bred for generations or just arrived yesterday.

I haven't shut the conversation down at all, in fact I said in my first post that the current level of immigration is unsustainable.

However I'm picking up on far right language and the influence of the far right in countries like Sweden which are being used as examples.

Labour have recently brought in restrictions on immigration so they are addressing it. Net zero immigration is for the delusional.

I said indigenous/substantive.

A white British person could travel to live in Iran and gain citizenship, as could their children and grandchildren. They would be part of the substantive population. As such, one would expect the government to respectfully consult them on key decisions, along with the more indigenous citizens of the county/region... right?

I'm sure you know your history and are aware that modern British people are not indigenous because we're a result of diverse interactions with other cultures.

'Far right' is akin to 'nazi' in the sense that as soon as you call someone you're discussing something with one of these names or try to use them as a gotcha, you've already lost the argument.

We aren't in the 1940s any more. It isn't far right to want a say in who lives here or in any other European country if you are a citizen. It isn't far right to not want your country to change dramatically in a social or cultural sense. It isn't far right to want to ensure the hard work you do and the taxes you pay, and shared with others who are committed to your country and its people as much as you are. It isn't far right to notice that many incomers seem to not only not want to contribute, but seem to despise the majority population in this country due to their skin colour and background - which actually is racism.

The political left behave much more like fascists and communists in our current era by trying to dismiss and stifle valid dialogue. We can have the conversation in a sensible way now, or voters are likely to choose for everyone at the next election anyway.

@AnotherDayInParadise43 Someone's been triggered.

Look at you throwing communist and fascist around with gay abandon. Anyone would think you didn't know what these words mean.

It's as though you aren't aware of the rise of the far right in many European countries such as Sweden.

It isn't far right to want a say in who lives here or in any other European country if you are a citizen.

So you keep saying. How does this 'sensible' discussion go? Lead the way.

A quick Google suggests the population of Britain is majority North European genetically speaking, despite migration in however many decades. The average ancestry in these islands isn't from Ghana or Indonesia, regardless of migration.

There are several issues OP which is why it can seem confusing I think.

One is that the flow of refugees has really increased in recent years, not just in the UK but everywhere. The rules for refugees came out of the post WWII period and reflect what things were like then.

Now, there are much larger numbers of people migrating, and they aren't necessarily the same kind of people - they may be more differernt culturally, or in terms of education and need for services to settle. These larger numbers and the differernce in their needs creates a lot more stress with integration, and in some places (like places in the US near the border) there is a huge demand on services that can't always be met.

In addition, a large number of the additional migrants are really more economic migrants, who actually aren't really eligible for refugee status. Having them come and try and claim asylum still costs resources however. And then there are also increasing numbers trying to fraudulently claim asylum, and it's becoming increasingly sophisticated.

The other issue is people coming legally, and the effect this has on communities. It has benefits of course, socially and economically. But it can stress community cohesion is levels are too high. And economically, adding a lot of workers tends to suppress wages and dilutes things like union action around benefits and working conditions. So this can appear to boost the economy, first because these people initially are new consumers, but mainly because it's very good for people at the top of the economic ladder who are employers - they can have cheaper workers used to less advantageous working conditions. It can also be pretty good for middle class people who get cheaper goods and services. But it is not good for the people who are at the same level as the imported workers who find their ability to demand higher wages and better benefits is reduced.

The other issue is with lower waged immigrant workers, that they will not likly earn enough to pay for the services they use, so it begins to bleed money out of public services - this is true even when it's workers that are sorely needed and is a real conundrum.

With all immigration, if the numbers are high, it will further stress any problems with infrastructure and housing and such. If you are in a housing or doctor deficit, add half a million people, you can build that many new houses and gain that many new doctors, and not get ahead.

There are other issues which are important but maybe not as central: the question of whether propping up an economy that way is sustainable; the tendency for governments to avoid investing in training their own people but just get specialised workers from abroad; the ethics of taking the best educated people from poorer societies after they have paid for their training; and the real problems that can arise in communities where you have ghettos form or where there are really significant differernce in cultural values.

None of these are specific to the UK, they are problems in most western countries to a greater or lesser extent, except where they have really restricted immigration.

Is this a bait and switch? You spoke of indigenous Britons in your post, now you're talking about North Europeans. Anyway, let's move away from talking about some kind of pure race. We're a diverse country.

I don't like to say it ....... but, did you mean to be so rude?

OP has asked a sensible question, and is entitled to receive sensible responses. You clearly don't have one, so why did you need to comment at all? If OP had wanted to "do her own research" then presumably she would have done. Sometimes it is easier to have it properly explained. Relying on research often gives skewed answers.

As for why governments don't do anything - with legal immigration there are two reasons:

1. It's an economic benefit for the powerful and professional classes and so they try and suppress anything being changed.

2. No government has quite worked out how to manage population decline in a global economy that requires constant growth to avoid total economic collapse.

Whose talking about a pure race? There's really no such thing anywhere, but there are nonetheless indigenous populations.

I don't understand why it's important.

There is also the assumption that we are all here working in care homes. Nothing wrong with that but it's as misinformed as thinking we all come in small boats. We are GPs, Orthopaedic surgeons, Pilots, Engineers, Microbiologist, Teachers, and Business people. And some are here to be with their spouses and/or kids.

It was a million ish arrivals a year for the last few years. So population of two Machesters added each year.
Mostly from third world with values on women and personal freedom that contradict our culture and values.
It doesn't work for the economy or people because of the number of dependants new arrivals bring who also become a user of public resources while being economically inactive.
This then makes up our population.
Gender and other mysoginist ideologies wouldn't have happened 30 years ago but it did now with boundary erosion and backwards thinking on women's right imported here.
Brexit was quietly cancelled despite the vote, by allowing unprecedented amounts, much higher than pre Brexit to arrive.

Some of those GPs would have engaged in helping abort female fetuses, were almost universally raised to see women as secondary, and few chose to be doctors of their own will but were forced by their families. All normal back home.