Are these people really British?

[glitterpaperchain]

In 1688, foreign strangers were arriving on British shores daily. The locals complained of despoilment of their environment. Londoners complained that French was everywhere, and not a word of English could be heard spoken! The French immigrants were denigrated either for being too poor, thus a drain on rate-paying parishioners, or too prosperous, at the expense of local merchants and business owners.

(Taken from Thou Savage Woman by Blessin Adams, great book!)

That sounds exactly like what I hear the media saying about immigrants now! So when the far right are making sure that Britain is for the British, shall they make sure we all trace our lineage back to the 1600s, and make sure no descendents of those awful French immigrants count as British?

If your starting point is 1066, your are a millennia too late.

there was no migration directly from Africa, India, South America etc before 1066. It was movements of people already in Europe.

Yeah war was definitely inevitable, it was either crown William and the people revolt, or crown Harold and the Normans invade. The “English” were obviously not happy with the result of the war and there were many years of Norman occupation and an us vs them mentality before the cultures began to merge.

Anyway I’m going to bow out as this seems to be turning into a discussion about whether modern immigration is a good or bad thing rather than a discussion about the culture and behaviour of people who lived in the past, which was what I was originally interested in. I have my views on modern immigration, but I find that discussing it online is too draining, as people tend to be so entrenched in their own views that they are unwilling to hear other views or nuances to their arguments, so it fails to be a proper debate, but is just a lot of angry people arguing with each other.

Are you also sad that people do it for this reason?

Or just sad that we know this?

People primarily emigrate to higher-pay countries to maximize their earning potential, improve their standard of living, and access superior career opportunities that may be unavailable in their home nations. These economic drivers form the core of the push-pull dynamic in global migration.
Key reasons include:

• Higher Disposable Income: Stronger currencies and higher absolute wages allow individuals to save more, invest, and build long-term wealth.
• Enhanced Remittances: Many emigrants send a significant portion of their income back home to support extended family, lifting dependents out of poverty.
• Career Advancement: Access to advanced industries, better resources, and larger professional networks accelerates skill development and career growth.
• Superior Social Infrastructure: Higher-tax economies in wealthy nations frequently offer robust public services, including publicly funded healthcare, top-tier education, and enhanced social safety nets.
• Favorable Working Conditions: Migrants often seek nations with stricter labor laws, stronger workers' rights, and better work-life balance regulations.

About 50,000 Huguenots came to the UK over 40 years, so roughly 1250 a year. The UK's population at the time was 5.4 million. So we're talking roughly 0.02% annual immigration rate.

In 2025, roughly 813,000 people immigrated to the UK, against a population of 70 million, a 1.16% immigration rate in one year, around 60x the rate of immigration of the Huguenots.

I don't think anyone really endorses the position of "if you are okay with a thing, you are also okay with a 60-fold increase in that thing." People have preferences about amounts.

None of this implies that immigration is bad. I think you can be strongly pro immigration, whilst also saying that it's intellectually dishonest to imply that the current waves of immigration and the Huguenot waves of immigration are the same. It's important to call out bad arguments, even when they're overall arguing for a side that I agree with.

That's because its the same old story throughout time. It all goes back to tribalism from when being part of a tribe and fighting against others kept you safe and alive.

Not quite sure if there is a point there or not ?

Yup.
To paraphrase A. Sivanandan, 'They are here because we were there.'

That’s silly. My grandparents came from another country. I’m voting for reform because I deeply appreciate the migrant workers we need, but do not want to fund illegal immigrants. I work with illegal immigrants and some are good and grateful wanting a job, but most ask for benefits and a free home and won’t work. I have witnessed it.

Did you just copy and paste an AI summary

There's no British culture, only Fundamental British Values(tm). Didn't you get the memo?

There is only one Fundamental British Value.

And that is a total inability to get two British people to agree on British Values.

All else is froth. .

Hello, illegal immigrants can't claim benefits. I know because I am a benefit assessor. You can only claim if you have indefinite leave to remain as an immigrant which takes minimum 5 years of living and working here plus thousands of ££ spent on the visas and nhs surcharge.

Facts really don't go down well in threads like this.

Ah ok, I'll go do something else then!

What a load of bollocks.

'The Huguenots were highly skilled artisans, merchants, and professionals. Because many arrived destitute, they were initially supported by public collections and later by the Royal Bounty established by joint monarchs William and Mary in 1689. 1, 2, 3]'

How does that compare to young unskilled men from Pakistan, for example, where there is no war or persecution to face and have a very different view of women and girls then we (and the French) do?

No they are not.

Who is then ?

And where does the UK sit in relation to them ?

Do you not think your quote about the Huguenots from The Huguenot Society may be a little biased and not likely to discuss the negative responses to their migration?

I think it's a bit of a disingenuous analogy. It's too simplistic to be either for all, or against all, immigration. The volume / the numbers has a huge impact on how it impacts the existing population, and also how culturally similar or different they are. E. g. ten families from Saudi Arabia moving into an English village will obviously integrate less successfully then one family from Ireland.

Populations across sub-Saharan Africa hold significantly higher and deeper genetic diversity. Despite migration figures being high, people born in central, southern and eastern England form a fairly uniform genetic cluster.

Well I certain think you're bias seeing as you failed to mention the public's financial support. Why was that? Didn't paint the right (goady) picture of us all being horrible racists?

I’m a descendant of one of those awful French immigrants - to make matters worse we think he was an illegal immigrant (well we like to speculate that because there is no record of him entering the country and it winds my mum up)

I really don’t think you can compare some French people arriving back then with the quantity and origins of current arrivals. It’s obviously not completely changed your street, your town in the way it has mine in the last couple of years. Im not anti immigration, but what has happened to my area recently is unprecedented and on an industrial scale.

I dont think the state was spending the equivalent of 5 billion quid a year on them though were they.