Why are you concerned about migration?
Many of you who say that you are conservative say you are very concerned about migration. But you do not always say why. What is it specifically about migration´that worries you, and if there was a way of mitigating som of these effects, would that make you less concerned?
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
(edited 4 months ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by michaelhw
Many of you who say that you are conservative say you are very concerned about migration. But you do not always say why. What is it specifically about migration´that worries you, and if there was a way of mitigating som of these effects, would that make you less concerned?
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
I suspect that different people will have different concerns. A mismatch between population and the availability of services to support that population would be one.
In the year to mid-2022, there were 620,000 births and 574,000 deaths in England and Wales - a "natural" population growth of 46,000. In that same time-frame, net international migration to England and Wales was about 541,000. Building enough new homes, schools, hospitals etc. to cope with 46,000 new people per year is quite different from doing so for 541,000 new people per year - and there is no indication that we are managing to keep up.
With an ageing population is it quite possible that a population increase of 46,000 per year is too low - and that we need international migrants to keep the country generating sufficient income to pay for that ageing population. But we don't seem to be doing enough to accommodate that population increase.
(All numbers from the ONS, here.)
I’m certainly not a conservative and I’m not opposed to immigration.
The problem is Conservative voters haven’t just voted for a government that is pro-immigration in practice, they’ve voted for a government that has an aversion to infrastructure investment and house building. What outcome did they expect beyond putting pressure on infrastructure and housing?
The problem is Conservative voters haven’t just voted for a government that is pro-immigration in practice, they’ve voted for a government that has an aversion to infrastructure investment and house building. What outcome did they expect beyond putting pressure on infrastructure and housing?
Original post by michaelhw
Many of you who say that you are conservative say you are very concerned about migration. But you do not always say why. What is it specifically about migration´that worries you, and if there was a way of mitigating som of these effects, would that make you less concerned?
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
What worries me:
•
that our system will struggle to keep up with the large demographic changes and the social challenges that those pose
•
that we are using immigration as a cheap band aid to try and offset symptoms of other serious systemic, social and economic issues, instead of tackling those issues at their roots
The 2nd point is a bit complex. In effect, I think we are risk of lying to ourselves about the health of our country and economy by using immigration to provide cheap labour and address labour shortages. However, for example, that does not change the fact that several million Britons left the labour force during the pandemic and did not return. Why did they leave? Are they just entitled slobs whose sustenance are welfare pay outs? Or are they genuinely and rightfully upset about dysfunctions of our current system? And what are we doing about these things?
For obvious reasons many migrants will always be keen to work for peanuts in the UK, and contribute via taxes / minor GDP boost. This does nothing to solve underlying issues like I'm describing.
There are other major problems as well, spanning many of the developed economies in the world in fact. Longer life expectancy combined with declining birth rates means more of our own 'indigenous' population will eventually be taking out of the economy than contributing to it. Why are people not setting up families any more like they used to, and popping out kids at least at a sustainable rate? Why do we need migrants to make up for our shortfalls in this area?
•
Is the cost of living too high? Affordable housing?
•
Are more people depressed, lack confidence and think they would be a bad parent? (I went through this)
•
Is the cultural tension between the genders (men and women) sabotaging their trust for one another on the dating scene and in intimate relationships, that is then effecting their willingness to conceive kids?
•
Are we gradually moving away from community-environments where people know and support each other (including your own family), instead towards a more atomized society where it is "every man for themselves" and everyone is indignantly beating their chest about how 'independent' they are? Raising even just a single kid in such an environment, even with 2 parents, is already challenging. Traditionally we had a whole community of people who knew each other to assist. This is increasingly rare.
These problems need to be actually addressed, instead of just kicking the can down the road and hoping they solve themselves. They aren't solving themselves, they're getting worse. I don't know for sure what there is that any government can do about some of these things. Some of these things are related to culture and people's personal values and beliefs - which used to be the domain of religion. If we're just going to scrap religion, then we at least need another decent value system to substitute for it, instead of more and more people running around like headless chickens not knowing what they value, what they want, how to get it, or what to do with themselves.
More migration won't solve any of that. And some even argue that more migration risks diluting our existing value system even further, by introducing 'rival' value systems. I'm actually not convinced about that, and think that is a narrow minded way of seeing things. Most migrants I've known (from educating backgrounds) actually had far stronger values than people I've known who were born in the UK. But I think most migrants are actually from less educated backgrounds, which I am less familiar with, and suspect their values will be weaker just because they are more desperate.
(edited 3 months ago)
Original post by Rakas21
Culture.
I've no real objection to importing educated Christians and atheists in any number but I see no advantage to this diversity rubbish. I like Britain as it is and so importing people from dictatorships and theocracies is something I consider undesirable.
I've no real objection to importing educated Christians and atheists in any number but I see no advantage to this diversity rubbish. I like Britain as it is and so importing people from dictatorships and theocracies is something I consider undesirable.
By 'diversity rubbish', do you mean 'brown people'? If you're going to be racist at least have the balls to admit it.
Original post by NameUserer
By 'diversity rubbish', do you mean 'brown people'? If you're going to be racist at least have the balls to admit it.
No. I specifically stated culture rather than race.
Original post by Rakas21
No. I specifically stated culture rather than race.
Which are the 'diversity rubbish' cultures, then? Can you name any?
Original post by NameUserer
Which are the 'diversity rubbish' cultures, then? Can you name any?
Anything not Christian-atheist. I.e. Not British historically.
Original post by Rakas21
Anything not Christian-atheist. I.e. Not British historically.
I don't see what you mean - your statement contradicts itself. Many countries, such as Poland and Spain, could be considered 'Christian-atheist', but they've never been 'British historically'. Pakistan, on the other hand, was formerly colonised by Britain, but it's certainly not 'Christian-atheist'.
Again, I get the lingering suspicion you're trying to exclude the 'brown people countries'.
Original post by michaelhw
Many of you who say that you are conservative say you are very concerned about migration. But you do not always say why. What is it specifically about migration´that worries you, and if there was a way of mitigating som of these effects, would that make you less concerned?
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
"Give me your tired, poor your huddled masses...." etc
I think when you talk about immigration, you need to define what you mean by immigrants.
I think emotionally, people perceive immigration as the people in small boats coming here to steal our jobs and our women. This is a tiny number of people.
The next biggest group of migrants are asylum seekers, fleeing war and pursecution often through illegal means simply because we have stopped all means of applying for asylum other than landing on UK soil.
Then last last group which is by far the largest are the legal migrants. People coming her on legal work visas, Ukraine and Hong Kong residents who have been granted leave to remain and spouses and partners of UK nationals.
How do I feel about it? Well it seems to me that we could do no harm by actually counting people into and out of the country in some sort of meaningful way. Believe it or not, the immigration figures are arrived at by conducting surveys where samples of travellers are asked about their journeys. Not only do we not survey everyone, but we don't survey every arrival / departure point either. Bonkers!
Original post by hotpud
I think when you talk about immigration, you need to define what you mean by immigrants.
I think emotionally, people perceive immigration as the people in small boats coming here to steal our jobs and our women. This is a tiny number of people.
The next biggest group of migrants are asylum seekers, fleeing war and pursecution often through illegal means simply because we have stopped all means of applying for asylum other than landing on UK soil.
Then last last group which is by far the largest are the legal migrants. People coming her on legal work visas, Ukraine and Hong Kong residents who have been granted leave to remain and spouses and partners of UK nationals.
How do I feel about it? Well it seems to me that we could do no harm by actually counting people into and out of the country in some sort of meaningful way. Believe it or not, the immigration figures are arrived at by conducting surveys where samples of travellers are asked about their journeys. Not only do we not survey everyone, but we don't survey every arrival / departure point either. Bonkers!
I think emotionally, people perceive immigration as the people in small boats coming here to steal our jobs and our women. This is a tiny number of people.
The next biggest group of migrants are asylum seekers, fleeing war and pursecution often through illegal means simply because we have stopped all means of applying for asylum other than landing on UK soil.
Then last last group which is by far the largest are the legal migrants. People coming her on legal work visas, Ukraine and Hong Kong residents who have been granted leave to remain and spouses and partners of UK nationals.
How do I feel about it? Well it seems to me that we could do no harm by actually counting people into and out of the country in some sort of meaningful way. Believe it or not, the immigration figures are arrived at by conducting surveys where samples of travellers are asked about their journeys. Not only do we not survey everyone, but we don't survey every arrival / departure point either. Bonkers!
Yes. For context I'm fine with a 40k salary cap and no limit on numbers for those people.
The immigration I want to stop almost completely is asylum and dependents.
Government is already changing students from 3 to 1 year afterwards and humanitarian visas are not a long term issue.
Original post by Rakas21
Yes. For context I'm fine with a 40k salary cap and no limit on numbers for those people.
The immigration I want to stop almost completely is asylum and dependents.
Government is already changing students from 3 to 1 year afterwards and humanitarian visas are not a long term issue.
The immigration I want to stop almost completely is asylum and dependents.
Government is already changing students from 3 to 1 year afterwards and humanitarian visas are not a long term issue.
But if anything, those who should be most entitled are those claiming asylum. Remember, 70% of those who claim are admitted and there is much strife around the world. If we don't like asylum seekers perhaps we need to sort out the root cause? Or are you the one who will shoot them dead in the English channel? Realistically, that is the only option you have.
Original post by hotpud
But if anything, those who should be most entitled are those claiming asylum. Remember, 70% of those who claim are admitted and there is much strife around the world. If we don't like asylum seekers perhaps we need to sort out the root cause? Or are you the one who will shoot them dead in the English channel? Realistically, that is the only option you have.
That relies on the notion that liberal asylum interpretations are valid. As Suella pointed out, if we go by the 70% then technically a few hundred million are eligible.
We can't sort out the root cause. We don't have the military to do so, the US lacks the will and our people are far too self interested to have the conviction to shape the third world into one which people would like to stay in as things stand.
No. I believe we should build a colony on South Georgia. Take a billion a year from international development and basically say that we have room for this many but your not entering the mainland UK. They can live under British protection and under British law free from persecution and safe.
Original post by Rakas21
Culture.
I've no real objection to importing educated Christians and atheists in any number but I see no advantage to this diversity rubbish. I like Britain as it is and so importing people from dictatorships and theocracies is something I consider undesirable.
I've no real objection to importing educated Christians and atheists in any number but I see no advantage to this diversity rubbish. I like Britain as it is and so importing people from dictatorships and theocracies is something I consider undesirable.
A rise in non-European migrants was an inevitable result of Brexit and the Conservative Party are merely continuing their 13 year policy of being very pro-immigration in practice while preaching the opposite.
Why would you complain about "this diversity rubbish" and say like Britain as it is when responsibility for the both the current immigration pattern and numbers of migrants is the consequence of deliberate voting decisions by people like yourself?
Original post by Gazpacho.
A rise in non-European migrants was an inevitable result of Brexit and the Conservative Party are merely continuing their 13 year policy of being very pro-immigration in practice while preaching the opposite.
Why would you complain about "this diversity rubbish" and say like Britain as it is when responsibility for the both the current immigration pattern and numbers of migrants is the consequence of deliberate voting decisions by people like yourself?
Why would you complain about "this diversity rubbish" and say like Britain as it is when responsibility for the both the current immigration pattern and numbers of migrants is the consequence of deliberate voting decisions by people like yourself?
There's not been the rise that most people think.
When we are comparing current immigration to Labour or early Cameron totals for example they never included anything but the work visas which are actually lower at circa 220,000 than say the Labour peak or the pre Brexit Tory peak.
Basically they expanded the transparency to trap labour and screwed themselves.
If you include students and asylum and the like then we are probably higher than those peaks but not actually by much.
Simply because it's not in my top 2 issues is the answer G. I vote almost exclusively based upon economic or foreign policy and have done in each election.
I still have beliefs on issues like immigration but they've never outweighed the economy for me.
Original post by Rakas21
There's not been the rise that most people think.
When we are comparing current immigration to Labour or early Cameron totals for example they never included anything but the work visas which are actually lower at circa 220,000 than say the Labour peak or the pre Brexit Tory peak.
Basically they expanded the transparency to trap labour and screwed themselves.
If you include students and asylum and the like then we are probably higher than those peaks but not actually by much.
Simply because it's not in my top 2 issues is the answer G. I vote almost exclusively based upon economic or foreign policy and have done in each election.
I still have beliefs on issues like immigration but they've never outweighed the economy for me.
When we are comparing current immigration to Labour or early Cameron totals for example they never included anything but the work visas which are actually lower at circa 220,000 than say the Labour peak or the pre Brexit Tory peak.
Basically they expanded the transparency to trap labour and screwed themselves.
If you include students and asylum and the like then we are probably higher than those peaks but not actually by much.
Simply because it's not in my top 2 issues is the answer G. I vote almost exclusively based upon economic or foreign policy and have done in each election.
I still have beliefs on issues like immigration but they've never outweighed the economy for me.
Having strong views on immigration but being willing to put them to one side to support a political party that has vandalised the British economy during its time in power is an insane perspective.
Original post by Rakas21
That relies on the notion that liberal asylum interpretations are valid. As Suella pointed out, if we go by the 70% then technically a few hundred million are eligible.
We can't sort out the root cause. We don't have the military to do so, the US lacks the will and our people are far too self interested to have the conviction to shape the third world into one which people would like to stay in as things stand.
No. I believe we should build a colony on South Georgia. Take a billion a year from international development and basically say that we have room for this many but your not entering the mainland UK. They can live under British protection and under British law free from persecution and safe.
We can't sort out the root cause. We don't have the military to do so, the US lacks the will and our people are far too self interested to have the conviction to shape the third world into one which people would like to stay in as things stand.
No. I believe we should build a colony on South Georgia. Take a billion a year from international development and basically say that we have room for this many but your not entering the mainland UK. They can live under British protection and under British law free from persecution and safe.
I appreciate the difficulty of the liberal system we find ourselves in, but your solution is just plain ridiculous. Remember, these people's lives are so horrendous they have moved heaven and earth to come here. Just how expensive would your South Georgia idea be? And as soon as you start treating people like animals, you effectively lower the bar on how authority can treat you. You become like them.
The sad thing about all of this, is that with a wave of extreme populists coming into view supported by the likes of yourself, you don't seem to appreciate just how fragile our democracy and liberty is. I can see a situation where our nation becomes divided, civil war even or global war again, and before you know it, the likes of you and I are seeking asylum elsewhere.
My grandparents who fought in WWII have died now and their memory is being lost. Your rhetoric is a simple echo of past horrors. Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself and all will be good.
(edited 3 months ago)
Original post by NameUserer
I don't see what you mean - your statement contradicts itself. Many countries, such as Poland and Spain, could be considered 'Christian-atheist', but they've never been 'British historically'. Pakistan, on the other hand, was formerly colonised by Britain, but it's certainly not 'Christian-atheist'.
Again, I get the lingering suspicion you're trying to exclude the 'brown people countries'.
Again, I get the lingering suspicion you're trying to exclude the 'brown people countries'.
And black, and yellow.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Biology HIGHER TIER Paper 2 AQA unofficial mark scheme
- OCR A Level Geography Human interactions H481/02 - 8 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- Edexcel A-Level Geography Paper 2 | [6th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Oxford Migration Studies
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Changing Oxford college
- OCR A-Level Geography Human Interactions | [6th June 2023] Exam Chat
- history mock exam next week
- Reading Quran
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Question on college migration/change
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Perfect Boyfriend and Ideas on Long Distance
- Biology EPQ Ideas?
- Ucl vs soas
- Rejected from my first choice college at Oxford
- Transfer from GCSE board to CBSE board india
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
