Do you think multiculturism/mass immigration has been good for this country?

This is an awfully worded question. For starters, multiculturalism does not equal mass immigration. That's just plain ignorant.

Secondly, I can be for multiculturalism and immigration and against mass immigration, something which I assume the vast majority of people will agree with.

The experience of living in a society transformed by mass immigration, a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan, is positive... [Multiculturalism] describes a set of policies, the aim of which is to manage diversity by putting people into ethnic boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put, and using those boxes to shape public policy.

Why should I, as an atheist, be expected to show respect for Christian, Islamic or Jewish cultures whose views and arguments I often find reactionary and often despicable? Why should public arrangements be adapted to fit in with the backward, misogynistic, homophobic claims that religions make? What is wrong with me wishing such cultures to 'wither away'? And how, given that I do view these and many other cultures with contempt, am I supposed to provide them with respect, without disrespecting my own views?... Diversity is important, not in and of itself, but because it allows us to expand our horizons, to compare and contrast different values, beliefs and lifestyles, and make judgements upon them. In other words, because it allows us to engage in political dialogue and debate that can help create more universal values and beliefs, and a collective language of citizenship. But it is precisely such dialogue and debate, and the making of such judgements, that contemporary multiculturalism attempts to suppress in the name of 'tolerance' and 'respect'.

The notion that we've had "mass immigration" depends on one's definition of "mass". I personally think that we have too little immigration, and that we should liberalise our borders; currently, they're far too closed.

Immigrants from the EU between 2001-2011 contributed, marginally, £28.7 billion more to the public purse than they took, whilst non-EU migrants made a net contribution of £20.5 billion. Immigration raises GDP per capita, and, most importantly, raises the living standards of immigrants themselves.

I'm not a fan of multiculturalism, though. As Kenan Malik puts it:



He's also written:



An ideal policy would be to celebrate diversity while treating everyone as citizens.

The notion that we've had "mass immigration" depends on one's definition of "mass". I personally think that we have too little immigration, and that we should liberalise our borders; currently, they're far too closed.

Immigrants from the EU between 2001-2011 contributed, marginally, £28.7 billion more to the public purse than they took, whilst non-EU migrants made a net contribution of £20.5 billion. Immigration raises GDP per capita, and, most importantly, raises the living standards of immigrants themselves.

Numerous studies have shown that immigration has no economic benefits also mass immigration kind of creates multiculturism

Please provide some evidence of these ''numerous studies''. I've seen plenty of analysis that suggests that immigration has huge economic benefits (for some starter sources, please see viddy9's post as they actually bothered to include some evidence for their claims).

Also, sleepysnooze? I agree that the view that different cultures are inferior to our own isn't necessarily racist. That view is usually described as ''xenophobic'' as this is based on a fear or misunderstanding and dislike of foreign people rather than people of a different ethnic background.

I know lots of people from other countries with far more liberal, pro-democratic and accepting views than people from the UK. Just look at the history of Nobel Peace Prize winners, or the number of international figures or organisations known for their support of human rights. It was South Africa that led the fight for racial equality, in a time when our own (current) Prime Minister was part of a pro-segregation organisation.

I also object very strongly to the generalisations being used here. London is not full of ''uneducated Somalians'', it's one of Britain's most multicultural cities (and a very socially, artistically and economically respected one, too). People from Pakistan are not all homophobic and sexist (the country as a whole may be, but there are plenty of people who disagree with their country's official stances on these issues).

The UK could learn a lot from other cultures. Xenophobia and an irrational fear of people with different backgrounds is only holding us bak (but probably not as much as the short-sighted and self-centered belief that the UK is somehow the best country in the world, which seems to be prevalent here)

Even if it does benefit us financially I would still be against it.

What's so wrong with different cultures that you wouldn't want to live in the same country as a minority group with slightly different beliefs to yours, even while they improved your country's economy and contributed to the welfare state that you benefited from? Not to mention the opportunity to live as part of a diverse and accepting population with different ideas and perspectives?

Can you see the source of my confusion? :/

I would say that a lot of immigrants are not accepting in the sense that if you look at a lot of immigrant areas they kind of become no go areas for white british people. Futhermore the minority is kind of incorrect. In London foreign cultures and people are now the majority. Also I can find enough diversity and differences of opinion amongst my fellow englishmen I don't need it to be imported form elsewhere.

I have yet to find a no-go area for white British people, in a lifetime of traveling the UK. As a Londoner, I'm pretty sure (even living in a very, very diverse area) that minority *is* the correct term. People born in the UK outnumber those who were born outside the UK, making immigrants the minority.

How many of your ''fellow englishmen'' (or women, or Irish or Scottish or Welsh people, for that matter) come from cultures where they've had to campaign against homophobia, and have developed an understanding of cultures where those beliefs are acceptable, and how to deal with them? How many have lived in places where different religious beliefs amongst the majority of the population have led to different attitudes to clothing, or where they have a completely different set of musical instruments or traditions, or where their morals are focused more on responsibility to others than to oneself? Or where there is a greater religious diversity, and they have had to learn to coexist with people with strong and differing religious beliefs? Or where the ideas of possession and ownership of land allow far more freedom of movement, and better public access and use of shared spaces? Or where businesses and trade deals are run differently, in ways that could contribute to the economy here? Or where haggling and negotiation over goods is part of everyday shopping, giving people skills that could be invaluable to UK businesses in a country where shops' prices are almost always fixed?

The idea that somebody could be happy with the comparatively tiny amounts of diversity found in England when there are so many other countries and communities around the world with completely different histories, cultures, traditions and ways of life to learn from is just appalling. It's like refusing to drink anything but water.

Buy a plane ticket, take a trip around India or Africa for a month or two (or if you're feeling less adventurous, Sweden or Italy?) and see if you still feel the same way.