open Democracy News Analysis - Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo), - Comments

gaelflyn on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

gaelflyn — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:21:55 +0100

i applaud george for this post. he hit the nail on the head with this comment: I realised that I, living in a comfortable leafy suburb, didn't have to live with the consequences of the failings of our immigration policy. She did. i too AM a forienger in my country of birth (my familys adopted country) but i am aware the situation doesnt exist in other areas of the country, therefore other people do too often dismiss my comments as racist. but it is this condemnation that is preventing many people from speaking out. people here are scared to speak out about anything, for example myself, & my IRISH neighbours & my ASIAN neighbours (who all integrated themselves and take pride in their country) recently complained about the antisocial behaviour of another family (and their hangers on) who were of white european descent but not english. for 3 years we have had to endure appalling behaviour and intimidation and antisocial behaviour that made our lives intolerable. they hit back counter claims of racism, and guess what? WE were the 1's who ended up being investigated. What they failed to realise is that we hated them not because of where they were from, but because they had made our lives a misery for years. the council just jumped the minute the word RACISM was mentioned. now that is sad. how could they not see that us, an irishman, an asian and me, myself from migrant background, were just trying to ensure that our daily lives for us and our young children were not blighted by these so called welcome immigrants? to add insult to injury, they then broke into the flat opposite me and squatted for weeks, and still no action was taken. this country is a soft touch and even my immigrant friends agree that now it is all to easy for them. i dont blame them, i would go to a country that gave me all this. (yet ironically i, as an english born citizen, do not get)

gaelflyn on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

gaelflyn — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:30:18 +0100

as for the housing situation, there is more households then houses, and mass immigration is adding to the problem. there are many homeless people here, who have waited years for a place to live, and many who live in severe overcrowded conditions. I myself waited 4 years for a house, whilst living a a very bad hostel. My wages then as a scientific officer simply did not cover a mortgage of any kind, even then. yet on this estate, at the moment 8 out of 10 empty houses are going to asylum seekers/economic migrants. whilst i do not doubt that the conditions they left behind is appalling, this area simply doesn't have the means to support them, especially at the expense of the ever growing waiting lists. they themselves tell me they waited only weeks in some cases, whereas already resident people are waiting over 4 years in some cases to move, and in my mothers case 8 years to get out of a small flat when we were young. why should we lose what precious little greenspace we have around here to house more people we cannot house? all the privately owned houses in my road are rented out to house them too, at extotionate rates to the council. yet more wasted money. i dont know where you live, but it isn't anywhere near here. the government can predict nothing it doesn't want to hear. its about time it listened to its people.

gaelflyn on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

gaelflyn — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:21:31 +0100

mazz: u obviously havent worked as a nurse. the reason so many of our positions are now filled by people from abroad is that the pay and conditions are appalling, along with the hours, ergo us english people simply cannot continue, and many of us choose to go private. UNDERFUNDED and although the figures you quote may or may not be correct nationally, where i am it is a burden, in both my hospital and my doctors. (by the way, my doctor is lovely, and from iran) and i object to the accusation that i am racist, members of my own family are NOT WHITE and NOT BORN HERE. and my white members were also migrants. and they have all worked and earned their right to be here. when i said "non english" i also said "of any colour" even my coloured neighbours and my asian best friend agree that where we live, the situation is appalling. i have spoken to people from differing parts of america/new zealand (where my family emigrated to escape) greece and amsterdam, and have heard horrendous accounts of what mass immigration in a small area can do. so i suggest you stop looking at other peoples figures and experience first hand what REALLY is going on around you before firing accusations

maz2003 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

maz2003 — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:58:37 +0100

The shortage of affordable housing in the UK is a combination of many factors: # young people increasingly want homes of their own, older people are living longer and there are more divorces and people living on their own. "In part, the growth in household numbers is being driven by shifting lifestyle patterns, attitudes and aspirations resulting in a more complex array of household structures than was the case 30 years ago. Government projections, for example, suggest a 76% increase in lone parent households between 1991 and 2021 and a 60% increase in one person households. The housing system is geared to cater for the traditional family unit and, by its very nature as bricks and mortar, is slow to respond to the changes in demand." http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:VDJYYP1HY-4J:www.renewal.net/Documents/Overview/Housing%2520and%2520Environment/Affordablehousing.DOC+causes+of+shortage+of+affordable+housing+in+uk&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 # many people own second homes (for which they receive tax allowances) # there are more empty units in the UK than homeless people, there is just not the will or inclination to match need with availibility # north-south migration (strength of economy in south-east in particular) # Decrease in house building "About 150,000 fewer homes are being built in England today than were built 30 years ago and new house building completions across all sectors are at their lowest since 1924. In 2001, 162,000 dwellings were built, representing the lowest number in 77 years." http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:VDJYYP1HY-4J:www.renewal.net/Documents/Overview/Housing%2520and%2520Environment/Affordablehousing.DOC+causes+of+shortage+of+affordable+housing+in+uk&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 # the move away from council housing instigated by Thatcher "The last 20 years have witnessed a sharp reduction in the provision of social rented accommodation. The local authority new build programme has been brought to a shuddering halt, with dwelling completions falling from 85,049 in 1979 to 528 in 1994. Meanwhile, 1.367 million council properties were privatised in England through the 'right to buy' programme between April 1979 and March 1999." http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:VDJYYP1HY-4J:www.renewal.net/Documents/Overview/Housing%2520and%2520Environment/Affordablehousing.DOC+causes+of+shortage+of+affordable+housing+in+uk&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 "The Government has predicted that there will be an increase of about 3.12 million in the number of households between 1996 and 2016. This is a result of diverse social, economic and demographic factors including changing lifestyles and relationships, better medical care, uneven regional economic growth and international migration.[2]" http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmodpm/75/7503.htm#note2 Migration forms only a part of, a part of the explanation for the housing shortfall. Migrants take up many of the Key Worker vacancies empty in the South East. Blaming the housing crisis on immigration is as about as useful as blaming traffic congestion on bicycles.

maz2003 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

maz2003 — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:41:07 +0100

In fact, the NHS would be far worse off without immigrants. 31 per cent of doctors and 13 per cent of nurses are non-UK born; in London 23 per cent and 47 per cent respectively. Half the expansion of the NHS over the last decade - that is, 8,000 of the additional 16,000 staff - had qualified abroad. A Royal College of Nursing survey recently reported 78 per cent of hospitals with medium to high recruitment difficulties. Per capita immigrants make a higher than average contribution to the NHS. Therefore if they stop coming the NHS will crumble, because there would be less NHS staff around per head of population. I suggest you look into the make-up of the NHS before you decide that immigration is a burden on it. Immigration from australia, america and new zealand and many european countries is not obvious to the naked eye. When you look around and have a problem with seeing people that are not english what you mean is people who are not white. If your problem is not a racist one, what is it?

gaelflyn on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

gaelflyn — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:04:26 +0100

sorry, .htm not/htm www.btinternet.com/~danielle.mccarthy/deartonyblair.htm

gaelflyn on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

gaelflyn — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:03:07 +0100

i agree that immigration needs to be taken seriously, it affects our lifes in more ways then 1. our little country cannot sustain the levels of people it has now, just look at the nhs/education system/housing situation. here is my open letter to tony blair www.btinternet.com/~danielle.mccarthy/deartonyblair/htm i am fed up with the "it brings culture and much needed skills to our country!" how about investing in the education system so our people (regardless of colour, i am not racist) can take the jobs on offer, instead of spending money building more homes on our greenbelt land to house yet more immigrants.

GeorgeK on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

GeorgeK — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:19:22 +0000

Hello Perseus, Perseus said "Still no thoughts on a numerical 'upper limit' then eh George?" My views remain as they were. That what is important is integration. If there were 114 million by the end of the century, and they were integrated, I don't think that would be a problem (I even think we could cope with a population that size). But I am very concerned that many of them might not be ... that we could end up with 20% unintegrated, and providing a serious long-term problem. Hence my earlier posts. That said, I don't believe the figures you quote. Extrapolating trends usually leads to exaggeration. Nonetheless, the trends you indicate significant long-term problems, and they deserve to be answered honestly. Best regards George

perseus_1 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

perseus_1 — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:42:54 +0000

Still no thoughts on a numerical 'upper limit' then eh George? I wonder whether public sentiment in this matter may be influenced by the Govt Actuary's report earlier this week. We are told that the population of the UK will increase by a further 10% in the 25 years, with almost two thirds of that increase being due to immigrants. We were not told how many of the other one third are children of earlier post-war immigrants, but given the known disparities in fertility rates we can fairly assume it is the majority. Should these figures prove correct, this will mean that over the period 1950 to 2031 the UK population will have increased by 18 million. Assuming the projected immigration figures are correct and remain unchanged, and that the fertitlity rates of ethnic 'minorities' tend towards that of the 'native' population, we can confidently expect the population to be 114 million by the turn of the century. 55 million will be immigrants or the descendants of post WWII. Non immigrants will still be in the majority, but only just so. Does this look like an appealing scenario? What do you think the electorate might make of it in the unlikely event it were to be made widely known?

GeorgeK on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

GeorgeK — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:07:11 +0000

Asif, Thankyou for your reply. In case you haven't read my post in the thread "Why moderate Muslims should speak out (Reply to Basildon)" http://www.opendemocracy.com/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=76&threadID=42160&messageID=46216&start=0&#46216 I'm going to put the rest of my reply in that thread.

asaf.khan01 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

asaf.khan01 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:39:48 +0000

As a Muslim I was ammused to read how non-Muslims make categories and sub-groups of types of Muslims that do not even exist. Liberal, Extremist and Fundamentalist are fictional titles that have no bearing on the Muslim World. People who follow the Law of Islam in every aspect are known as Muslims those who do not follow Islamic Law in its entirity but still believe in God are known as Hypocrites (and not Modern, or Liberals as the Western media would have you believe.) I will not apologise to the xenophobes here, but, the Men with long beards and the Women in Burqa's are the 'Real Muslims' the Lord Ahmeds, Yasmin Alibai Browns, President Musharrafs and the Saudi family et al are the Hypocrites. As for the Salman Rushdie Fatwa: he is still alive, the fatwa does not prove that Muslims are anymore Barbaric than non-Muslims. The proof however would suggest otherwise, even in the 80 years the world has been without a truely Islamic country, Muslims have not been responsible for the worst attrocities against Humanity but it has been those of European and non-Muslim origin. Yet you are lead to believe we are the worst of creation. As Muslims we have every right to feel hard done by. The 6 million butchered in the 'Holocaust' this event was carried out by White, Christian Europeans. Lenin and Stalin executed or starved 30 million or more including Ukrainians,(8 million of those were killed because they were Muslim, that's 2 million more than the Jewish Holocaust.) The 340,000 deaths of the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (by 1950) at the hands of America and Allies claiming to be the bastion of Democracy, civility and progress. The 30 million plus victims of Mao's regime are well known but the fact that 14 million of that figure were Muslims is little known perhaps because the image of the Muslim as oppressor is more favourable in the West than that of the Victim. Churchill killed hundred thousands of Kurds by using Gas, the British then left them stateless. We also know of the unrepentant cruelty with which America Napalmed entire regions of Vietnam in frustration at their complete military incompetance. I am surprised America is called a Superpower at all as it has never won a war without aid. America has recently doubled it's aid to the Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov who has been responsible for the deaths of several thousands of Muslims (reminiscent of Saddam Hussain?). How many voters in America know who their government supports secretly and then attacks overtly? I do not need to mention Palestine. Perhaps I should mention the 80,000 Muslims killed in Kashmir so far, or France's murder of countless Algerians just because they democratically voted in an Islamic government. The West agreed to turn a blind eye to the Chechen Holocaust in return for support/non-criticism regarding the New Crusades (55,000 plus Chechen Muslims have been mudered since 2001). The coalition has succeeded in liberating an underestimated 15,000 Iraqis to their graves. The number would have been considerably lower had the Iraqis been White Christians. All the above are relatively recent events, if we were to look at the history of Christianity the death toll figures caused by the "Civilised" West would mount up beyond count. The list goes on. Immigration in the U.K is being taken too seriously especially if those who have a problem with immigrants take a look at their own country's history and responsibilities to those countries whose citizens now take refuge in the bosom of their former rulers who left them having stolen and raped from them. Britain cannot make claims to hardship in this matter due to the overwhelming responsibility Britain has to it's former colonies which it made no effort of aiding before it left them in poverty and under despotic rulers. The U.K. must deal with its bastard children for they are of its own making. If you look at yourselves first you will see extremism everywhere. Muslims are considered extreme because we follow our religion to the extreme. The secular Capitalist however is the most extreme and heartless beast ever in existence. Mountains of grain are burnt every day in the West because they cannot be sold and to give it away would be profitless. So when millions die in Africa from famine the ignorant man will ask "Why does God allow this suffering?" well i'll tell you: because we allow mountains of grain to be burnt everyday by the extremist Capitalists. It is not God or religion but infidel Man who makes this World seem abhorrent. If the West insists on it's usurper policy then the most affected by it will knock on their doors and ask for asylum.

perseus_1 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

perseus_1 — Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:53:27 +0000

George, in answer to your question "what should we doing to ease the plight of poor people?" I lean towards a neo-Malthusian viewpoint. It seems to me that the greatest good for the greatest number will be achieved through the provision of generous devlopment aid rigidly linked to stringent population control aimed at returning to population levels that are sustainable in the long term. When we read, for example, that the combined population of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt is set to double to 384 million by 2050, and this in a region already critically short of water, the alarm bells ring loud and clear. For us in the West to turn a blind eye to this kind of looming human and environmental catastrophe is irresponsible to say the least.

GeorgeK on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

GeorgeK — Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:44:02 +0000

s.ingram297 said "We don't need to put an 'upper limit' on immigration" Broadly speaking I agree with you, but I think we do need to be careful. There are tens, probably hundreds of millions, in impoverished countries, who would love to live in the UK. I know I would if I were one of them. The only reasons they aren't knocking on the door is: a) they can't afford the air fare, and b) our immigration controls. From a moral point of view, I find this troubling. They are as much human beings as I, but the UK couldn't survive as the country it is, if too many came here. In my opinion, there is an upper limit. What is is, I don't know. But what that limit is is heavily determined by how fast we can integrate those who have already come. If exclusive ghettos are growing, that's a sign that either the immigration rate is too high, or our policies of integration need a serious overhaul, or that the community leaders of those ghettosised communities need to work harder at leading their people out of those ghettos. Perseus challenged us to say what the upper limit should be. I would like to ask you, Perseus. Do you share my moral unease, that we in the UK (and in Europe and the US) shut out processed goods and farm products from the developing world, shut out their people from coming here, and they suffer unemployment and poverty. If you want to keep shutting out their people, do you think we should do something more to ease their plight in the countries they stay in?

s.ingram297 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

s.ingram297 — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:23:27 +0000

The siege mentality goes both ways. The immigrants living in the 'gettos' because they are too afraid to come out, and the indigenous population who want to keep them in there because they are too afraid to let them out. We need someone in authority to stand-up and point out that both sides are at fault. We need to let the immigrants know they came to this county looking for a better way of life and they are not going to find it whilst they stay together in a pseudo 'old country' community. The indigenous population need to be reminded they are all descended for immigrants.. Britain comes for Britannia which what the Romans call the place, when they invaded them. Anglo Saxon is from the Angles and the Saxons, who also invaded this county. Then there's the Danes, the French, the Irish and on and on. The language that we speak evolved from many other languages that were brought here by previous generations of immigrants. After every influx there has been upheaval and unrest, and usually blood, guts and riots, but the society survived and thrived, the new was integrated,the best of the incoming culture was absorbed and the crap was tossed over board. It did however take time and it wasn't done willing, but it happened. We need immigrants, every society that's wants to thrive and too survive needs a regular influx of new blood. A society that doesn't adapt to the world it's a part of is a doomed society, just like a species. Europe is just about to go down the other side of the hill, soon there will be more old people than young people. The only way we are going to maintain a working population is through immigrants. If the old expect a pension at the end of a long,hard working life (like I do) then we are going to need a young, hardworking population paying Taxes so we can get our due. We don't need to put an 'upper limit' on immigration, because it will come about naturally. This country isn't the land of milk and honey that we might like to imagine it is. Not everybody wants to come here, and some of those that are here will want to leave and go back home. They're here to get a job, work their socks off, pile up the dosh and then go home to a well earned retirement. Just like thousands and thousands of born and bred Brits are doing in other countries, like Saudi,Thailand etc. How many years has it been since the oft quoted 'rivers of blood' speech, and yet we're all still here. Which only goes to prove, it will be possible to 'do it' if we put our minds too it. The longer we all bury our heads in the sand, the harder it's going to be to 'do it' when we are finally forced to pay attention. The sooner we admit there's a problem, the sooner we can sort out the problem, the happier the People of the country will be

perseus_1 on "Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo)"

perseus_1 — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:12:07 +0000

"What we need is for somebody in authority to acknowledge that there is a problem..." What do you view as the 'problem'? My guess it's the siege mentality of the host population, right? My second guess would be that you would probably go along with Mr. Blunkett's recent proposition that there is 'no upper limit' to the immigration that Britain can sustain. Right again? However, if on the slim chance that you,like many other people think that Mr. Blunkett has a roo loose in the top paddock, what do you think would be a good number? 100,000 a year, 1 million, 5 million, as many as want to come? Have you thought this through?

Why we need to take immigration seriously. (reply to Zrinka Bralo),

GeorgeK — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:23:19 +0000

Zrinka Bralo (see link below) argues that British people's attitudes to outsiders an evasion of truths about themselves. Some things she says our true, but elsewhere, I fear she fails to deal with the genuinely serious problems caused by recent mass immigration, and that this failure is too widespread amongst liberals like me. http://www.opendemocracy.com/debates/article-10-96-1631.jsp I am by nature a liberal. But, perhaps ten years ago, my attitude to immigration took a serious knock when election canvassing in an estate in northeastern London. An elderly lady answered the door, full of anger about her immigrant neighbours. I was about to dismiss her as a racist bigot when she opened up. Read the rest of this post...