11 million immigrants since 2000. When I

[Uggbootsforever]

Sorry, it’s another immigration one.

I always see immigration discussed in terms of race, religion, who may or may not be a good fit for the UK, whether it’s by small boats - to be honest, this is not the biggest worry for me.

The biggest worry is the sheer increase in our population and how many people this country can reasonably accommodate. We are now 8th in Europe for population density - only behind Belgium and the Netherlands, and a handful of places like Vatican City and the Channel Islands. At present we have net migration of around 500,000 a year.

I’m worried that the key issues of overpopulation are being overlooked to make this conversation all about race. What about our pollution levels, wildlife habitats, flood risk, food security, infrastructure? Will this eventually be a polluted city state country? It seems to be heading that way.

Posters always say we need immigration, but we have already welcome 11 million since 2000. If that still isn’t enough; what is? Or do we just keep going?

I have reported it for misinformation and I think others have as well, I think MN should have taken it down by now. There's enough fearmongering and misinformation going on already

Gosh I can’t believe you’re still trying to make out you’re right, even though your 2.5m was completely and utterly fabricated.

11 million might not be quite the full picture, but as a pp mentioned, it’s frustratingly (and suspiciously) difficult to get the actual numbers. Whether it’s 7, 8 or 11 million, it’s still a huge amount. And this is only legal and/or documented immigrants remember, not people who go under the radar.

What’s really concerning is your attempt to totally derail the thread by niggling about numbers and gaslighting people into thinking the OP and others are racist misinformants when it’s you doing the misinforming.

What is your agenda I wonder?

But it’s not completely wrong, and in fact nearer the truth than some of the other posts on the thread.

OP and others have provided plenty of links.

No

Well this is where the fearmongering comes into it, implying that we'll have to concrete over the whole country to accommodate 11 million immigrants

England is still mostly green. Cities are very busy but if you fly over the country it's mostly green. I'm not saying we should build over it, we need it for food production, but I see people spread this image of a concrete country and it's just wrong.

I don't know what would be the measure of 'running out of room'. It's all a theoretical argument though as I stated as long as we have appropriate infrastructure it's ok, but we don't because the government do not care to build it. That is the real issue though - immigration wouldn't be such a problem if the government would actually manage the country properly!

It wasn't fabricated. It was the correct data but fundamentally misinterpreted.

I’ve already explained that the figure of 2.5m was taken from a different thread and I posted the google data from that thread.

At least I’m willing to re-look at data.

You just blindly kept expecting us to believe your completely and utterly fabricated number of 11m. On what planet is 6.6m close to 11m?

The fact that you think that calling out people on their lies that almost DOUBLES the actual net migration figure is ‘niggling’ shows your true agenda.

And who did I call racist? Or is that another of your complete and utter fabrications?

England is still mostly green. Cities are very busy but if you fly over the country it's mostly green.

Oh, that’s ok then - if you can spot a few fields from an aeroplane then obviously we can’t have food insecurity and pollution. All good man.

So you’re moving on from 2.5m at least, which was incorrect.

No need for mnhq to step in as some pp have asked for re the op. Numbers can be discussed without deletion.

What a picture of utopia you paint!

So you’re sticking to your lie of 11m. Quelle surprise!

We are seeing this in my country (Australia). My own family is mixed race. I chose a school with mixed race kids because I want my child to fit it and not encounter racism.

I knew we increased immigration. But in a very short period of time (I’m talking a year) the children from a nearby highschool appear to be 90% immigrants.

My concern is how rapidly this has occurred. Yet we have a major skills shortage. So I am wondering who they are bringing in?

I get that a lot of our nurses are from Africa and India and hairdressers from Ireland (and they are ALL absolutely brilliant! - the skill level is far superior to Australian trained nurses). But we have a major skills shortage in the building sector meaning we don’t have the housing (or the infrastructure) to accommodate additional people.

We have entire suburbs where immigrants tend to buy (and often the public schools there perform incredibly well).

But we have had rapid immigration from countries where the people do not assimilate and who have dangerous views on women. Young girls (primary school age) have been openly leered at in the streets and sexual assaults on women are committed by some of these men who think that women are there to please them.

That’s all I have to say.

I’m happy to discuss; but I would like to state that this is my very small city.

You've deliberately ignored the actual point I was making which is, ironically, about fearmongering. Literally my next sentence was 'I'm not saying we should build on it, we need it for food production'

I notice you ignored my question - if we had appropriate infrastructure in place, what would be the reason to reduce immigration? I don't expect you'll answer as you're clearly not here for an actual good faith discussion as evidenced by your response here

What's your point here?

In other posts I've said how it's just a theoretical argument because we don't have good infrastructure. My point is, the real issue isn't the number of immigrants it's whether we have the right infrastructure in place to support the number. If we did, it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, the government have not cared to put any good infrastructure in place, so that's why we're at this point

There no disputing that there are significantly more people, people just seemed tied up in knots as to whether 6.6m or 7m or 8m of them are net immigrants. We know there is a housing crisis, we also know we don't produce enough food. If we build over more fields we make the food problem worse, if we don't build we make the housing problem worse.

No one seems to want to engage in actual solutions. If we take reducing the number of people coming into the country off the table we are left with:

> Increasing the size of the country like Dubai and the Netherlands do. As suggest we could dam the Wash for example. There must be area of coast we could recover and build on.

> Reducing the number of older people to house and feed. Which is pretty unpaleble to most.

> Increasing housing density. Like build a second tier of social house on top of the existing social housing on stilts. Or my other suggestion of using unproductive buildings - convert all reglious buildings to flats. We could alternatively ban gardens for new builds, make smaller houses, build higher or deeper - maybe we build underground housing. benefit the fields for food.

> Or increase food production density. We are already start to build verticals farms. May be intensively food like chickens could be raised underground underneath housing

What ever it is we need fundamental discussion about how to change the country. Spending 21 pages arguing if we should the numbers are 7, 8 or 11 is really irrelevant.

These are all such interesting point and one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen on a MN immigration thread. I really like your point about food production density, unfortunately the government don't seem to be engaging with the farming industry very well but I'm sure plenty would be up for this. Also making use of unproductive buildings, there should be a national scheme to work with local councils to identify these and subsidise converting to housing - old factories, retail premises, hotels in areas that have lost tourism etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g625d3wd9o
https://thedoctor.bma.org.uk/articles/life-at-work/specialty-training-squeeze/
There's a huge problem currently with doctors trained in the UK being out of work two years after graduation. One reason for the problem (and fair to say, the main one) is chronic lack of funding for speciality training places. But as I understand it, part of the problem has been that UK-trained docs have had to compete for jobs on an equal footing with IMGs (international medical graduates). Prior experience of the NHS has not been an advantage in the application process; published academic papers etc give an advantage, but v hard to find time to publish while working full time for NHS. This is not in any way to do down the incredibly valuable contribution that IMGs make to the NHS, or say they don't deserve to get the jobs. But it makes no sense for a govt to part-fund medics through university - v expensive for the tax payer - then leave them out of work, or desperately low on hours, just when they have the skills and experience to really contribute to the health service. It's driving many of them abroad, and who knows how many will come back and how many will stay away, meaning our taxpayer-funded training will benefit e.g. Australia rather than here.

I think the application rules have changed recently, in favour of UK graduates, but there's a bottle neck that will take years to work through, esp with the number of UK medical places at uni having increased a few years ago and those larger cohorts starting to hit the bottle neck soon.

@Bumblebee72 What ever it is we need fundamental discussion about how to change the country

The problem is though that the government don't care. They don't want to take action, they haven't for decades. It's easy to point at immigrants and blame them, saves them having to do the real work as you suggest

Numbers can indeed be discussed. But the title needs to change. It’s stated as fact. When it’s not.

I've had a response from MN to my report they say they'll let the thread stand since people have challenged the numbers in the thread. It's not good enough really as it's in the title - how many people are going to read through the thread and see it being challenged? But i guess MN are OK with being complicit in spreading misinformation about immigration

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Another poster also posted relevant info on this. This is really interesting and I'm glad the government is finally doing something about it. Just goes to show how successive governments have failed in managing the NHS - that this was allowed to happen.

The government will never do those things because this no back in a 4 year cycle, and we give people vote for for is best for them. No who lives in social house is going to vote to become the lower level. No pensioner will vote a policy of putting retirements homes under supermarkets. Imagine with say HS2 a government came saying actually they were going spend 4 time the amount to build it underground because on why earth we would we waste surface with motorways and railways.

China has the massive advantage in the world of being make every decision on a very long term basis. They can buy up resources in Africa not because they need them today but because they need them in 30 years time. They have taken control of global manufacturing, they export vasts amount of food - say honey - c72% of the honey in the UK has China. At an individual level I not sure I want to swap my place for the life an average person living China but at a country level it seem to working.

I would love for us to have proper leadership and a real vision for where the country will in the future but we end up with is petty squabbles about whats going to happen next week, e.g. should people need to have done volunteering before they will be given level to remain.

OP: So in theory we just keep building infrastructure and expanding… until what, no more room to build?
You: Well yes, as long as we have sufficient infrastructure in place (which we currently don't) then why not?

You seem to be implying that if we have the infrastructure, there need be no limits to immigration and we can literally concrete over the country (you later concede that we may leave a few fields as we need produce food - I'm afraid that ship has already sailed, as we are well past being self-suffiecient in food and in fact only produce about half of the food we consume, since much of the countryside is not suitable for farming). I think there's a lot more to life than just feeding and accomodating people. Where is the room for wildlife and nature, where do people go to escape from the rat race, to breathe fresh air, to exercise? Most mammals, if kept in overcrowded conditions, display increasingly aggressive behaviour, reduced fertility and poor immune function, leading to worse health. Do you think humans would be different? Jamming everyone in to a megacity sounds like a recipe for appalling mental health for everybody, horrific pollution of air and water, plummeting birth rates, and ecological collapse.

London is technically classed as a forest it’s so green! Around 50% of the city as seen from above is green or blue. So bollocks to everything you’re saying!

https://martinplaut.com/2025/02/02/london-is-so-green-its-classed-as-a-forest-truly/

So everyone saying it is definitely not 11 million, do you think 11 million would be too many?