No, I probably wasn't clear enough. I think there was a kneejerk response from some people whose lives haven't been adversely affected by immigration, rather the contrary, to think that other people, living in completely different circumstances, should also be delighted to see uncontrolled immigration into their local areas. I also think there's been a head in the sand attitude to the problems caused by certain specific groups failing to integrate into UK society, to the extent that they don't all learn English and they cling to some attitudes and practices which are against UK law and/or which the majority of UK residents find unacceptable.
It's not simple, though. Many of the migrants who came here were better educated and trained and willing to work for lower wages and live in worse conditions than indigenous UK workers, so of course they got jobs. Many employers who took on migrants had really struggled to get anybody to do their work previously. We can argue about whether they would have had more success if they'd paid more but it isn't just that. Early starts, outdoor work, hard manual labour (e.g. picking fruit and veg) are never going to appeal to everybody and we have a fairly generous welfare system which keeps people going even if they never manage to last at a job for more than a few days. A sign that it wasn't just about unfair competition from migrants is that when a great many of them went home after Brexit farmers, care agencies, cafes and so on all struggled to find workers from those who are left.
Anyway, I've strayed a long way from Fife and the Peggie case.