Page 22 | 11 million immigrants since 2000. When I

Uggbootsforever · 2025-10-04T07:40:28+00:00

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?

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:19

newbluesofa · 04/10/2025 14:14

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

Show quote history

That is appalling. The thread should stand @mumsnet but the title needs to change.

A newspaper can’t print a mistrust as a headline and then ‘challenge it’ in the copy.

Many many people ONLY see the title

CatchingtheCat · 04/10/2025 14:20

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:17

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/

How much of that could be used for food production? Or is natural space?

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:21

newbluesofa · 04/10/2025 14:14

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

Show quote history

And this is precisely why good people need to challenge every single lie.

Because every single lie, if allowed to stand, emboldens people further.

suburburban · 04/10/2025 14:22

My frustration is that we keep being told there is an environmental crisis and we need to invest in renewable resources which is fine but why then would you keep allowing more people to come here who surely create more of an issue with water, sewage and resources.

I would rather we kept our countryside for farming or for wildlife not more concrete boxes and flats

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:22

BadWoIf · 04/10/2025 14:17

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.

Show quote history

We could get more land. The Netherlands has grown 20% compared to what it used to be, Dubai keeps on reclaiming more land from the sea. It would be a costly project for the government but is is possible.

SanctusInDistress · 04/10/2025 14:22

addadd · 04/10/2025 12:02

Your posting style is quite antagonistic, but to answer - no I didn't vote for Brexit, partly because we held no cards, as you say, but given what we know now, factors such as out of control increase in living costs, and the fact that we now know that there was a lot of background influence in the EU from economically powerful groups, and that they appear to be trying to convince us that armed conflict is the way forward, which will inevitably lead to ww3, which would mean our young people will be decimated and the rest of us starve, apart from things like negotiating similar terms re immigrants which as you say is somewhat unlikely (obviously, as economically powerful groups are encouraging immigration to the UK and coincidentally are the same groups which want ww3), I am not sure what the EU has to offer any of us right now? Perhaps when you have stopped laughing you could elucidate us. If I have misunderstood anything, please say. (When you have your laughter under control)

Edited

Show quote history

have you ever heard of the word ‘punctuation’?

Anyway, The EU would offer us a supply chain which would lower the cost of food, for starters, which is the main issue (not immigration, which is being used as a scapegoat).

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:24

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:21

And this is precisely why good people need to challenge every single lie.

Because every single lie, if allowed to stand, emboldens people further.

Show quote history

We have been trying. Maybe you'll listen.

newbluesofa · 04/10/2025 14:24

BadWoIf · 04/10/2025 14:17

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.

Show quote history

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.

Well that doesn't sound like appropriate infrastructure, which is what I said we need. So not sure why you've made all this stuff up, as if that's what I suggested? We need appropriate, functional infrastructure that takes mental health, happiness, and the environment into consideration. Not sure why you're making things up in order to argue with me

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:25

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:24

We have been trying. Maybe you'll listen.

Show quote history

You’re not though.

11m was a lie.

8m was a lie.

You just pick out numbers from the air.

SanctusInDistress · 04/10/2025 14:25

EasternStandard · 04/10/2025 11:54

Your posts aren’t great tbf

Show quote history

my posts are factually correct. They are based on facts. They are based on legislation. Unlike the twisted half-baked lies coming out of many mouths.

Notonthestairs · 04/10/2025 14:27

Presumably nobody on the thread supports Reform given their declared intention to introduce fracking which we know is linked to pollution and environmental damage.

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:27

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:19

That is appalling. The thread should stand @mumsnet but the title needs to change.

A newspaper can’t print a mistrust as a headline and then ‘challenge it’ in the copy.

Many many people ONLY see the title

Show quote history

They would need to change from

> 11million immigrants since 2000

to

> 11 million more people since 2000
> 16 million immigrants since 2000, or
> 7 million net immigrants since 2000.

Which of those would change the views of those posting?

thedramaQueen · 04/10/2025 14:27

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 13:58

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.

Show quote history

Agree. People don't want to discuss the solutions especially the very wealth, as many of the solutions involve taking away some of their wealth. For example, renationalising the water industry - this needs to be done it has failed. It pollutes the environment that so many on here seem to care about when it comes to covering it in concrete! It is making profits for it's share holders but delivering a crap service for it's customers. This is just one example, another is house builders sitting on land and not building in order to keep the price of properties high so they can make a huge profit - I read a not so long ago that over 1 million plots of land with potential for housing are currently held by developers, many of which already have planning permission...

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:30

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:27

They would need to change from

> 11million immigrants since 2000

to

> 11 million more people since 2000
> 16 million immigrants since 2000, or
> 7 million net immigrants since 2000.

Which of those would change the views of those posting?

Show quote history

The OP didn’t say 11m population increase, s/he said 11m immigrants. Which is patently false.

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:31

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:30

The OP didn’t say 11m population increase, s/he said 11m immigrants. Which is patently false.

Show quote history

Agreed. But which of the correct versions fundamentally would change your view. That she should have 16m immigrants?

Original poster

Uggbootsforever · 04/10/2025 14:33

thedramaQueen · 04/10/2025 14:27

Agree. People don't want to discuss the solutions especially the very wealth, as many of the solutions involve taking away some of their wealth. For example, renationalising the water industry - this needs to be done it has failed. It pollutes the environment that so many on here seem to care about when it comes to covering it in concrete! It is making profits for it's share holders but delivering a crap service for it's customers. This is just one example, another is house builders sitting on land and not building in order to keep the price of properties high so they can make a huge profit - I read a not so long ago that over 1 million plots of land with potential for housing are currently held by developers, many of which already have planning permission...

Show quote history

The wealthy paying more tax could help a lot of things but it can’t magic up new land.

OP posts:

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:34

Uggbootsforever · 04/10/2025 14:33

The wealthy paying more tax could help a lot of things but it can’t magic up new land.

Show quote history

If you spend enough you can reclaim land for the sea. The wealthy are doing it a rapid rate in Dubai.

Fingeronthebutton · 04/10/2025 14:34

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:25

You’re not though.

11m was a lie.

8m was a lie.

You just pick out numbers from the air.

Edited

Show quote history

The official population in the year 2000 was 58 million.
……………………………………..2024 was 69 million.
that’s not counting those that have disappeared after their visa expired and those who weren’t picked up in the channel.
The reason MN havnt deleted the thread is because they’ve looked at the figures.

Original poster

Uggbootsforever · 04/10/2025 14:35

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:34

If you spend enough you can reclaim land for the sea. The wealthy are doing it a rapid rate in Dubai.

Show quote history

And what could possibly go wrong with sea levels and loss of ocean habitat? It’s a mad idea.

OP posts:

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:35

MN responded to my report to say it’s a discussion site and people can say what they want within talk guidelines, which apparently don’t include writing blatantly false thread titles to inflame tensions. Interesting….

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:36

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:35

MN responded to my report to say it’s a discussion site and people can say what they want within talk guidelines, which apparently don’t include writing blatantly false thread titles to inflame tensions. Interesting….

Again which of these options did you ask them to correct it to?

> 11 million more people since 2000
> 16 million immigrants since 2000, or
> 7 million net immigrants since 2000.

Original poster

Uggbootsforever · 04/10/2025 14:37

CatchingtheCat · 04/10/2025 14:20

How much of that could be used for food production? Or is natural space?

Show quote history

Quite. The interpretation of ‘green space’ being a kids play park or atsroturf is just mental and makes them look devoid of any thinking skills. We’re not bemoaning the lack of trees to gaze at.

OP posts:

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:37

Bumblebee72 · 04/10/2025 14:31

Agreed. But which of the correct versions fundamentally would change your view. That she should have 16m immigrants?

Edited

Show quote history

I’m not an economist, I don’t know the right rate of growth for the UK.

I do know that Tory government played a double game, allowed increased migration whilst at the same time demonising immigrants.

I also note that Tony Blair admitted that he had vastly underestimated how many Eastern European immigrants would come to the UK.

It will be interesting to see whether this Labour government does the same, enjoying the fruits of immigrant taxes whilst demonising them.

I am interested to see how Shabana Mahmood manages the nefarious boat smugglers.

MyHeartyCoralSnail · 04/10/2025 14:38

Myrtletown · 04/10/2025 14:35

MN responded to my report to say it’s a discussion site and people can say what they want within talk guidelines, which apparently don’t include writing blatantly false thread titles to inflame tensions. Interesting….

I once asked them to take a thread down about Trump having a stroke which he clearly hadn’t had - so rest assured it’s not partisan

Original poster

Uggbootsforever · 04/10/2025 14:38

nomas · 04/10/2025 14:37

I’m not an economist, I don’t know the right rate of growth for the UK.

I do know that Tory government played a double game, allowed increased migration whilst at the same time demonising immigrants.

I also note that Tony Blair admitted that he had vastly underestimated how many Eastern European immigrants would come to the UK.

It will be interesting to see whether this Labour government does the same, enjoying the fruits of immigrant taxes whilst demonising them.

I am interested to see how Shabana Mahmood manages the nefarious boat smugglers.

Show quote history

Ahhhh. All of the observations but none of the answers. If you don’t know then how do you know the current rate is the right one?

OP posts: