UKC

Long post:

Migration is a very contentious topic of conversation because for many it is a very emotive issue.

From the outset I have to be honest in saying that I am very pro-immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I have lived in Scotland for 16 years. My wife is Scottish. My 2 children were born here and, despite the fact that they are almost perfectly bilingual and hold dual nationality, they are Scottish in mentality and culture (so by extension British). I have come in the country in my early 20s as a graduate; I work as a graduate (teacher) but have had periods when I had to work as a climbing instructor plus the odd jobs. I have claimed benefits for 3 weeks in 16 years (I hated the system so much that I preferred to make do without!).

As an individual, I bring motivation, inquisitiveness and French banter to the people I interact with. This interaction is felt by all of my pupils and colleagues, my climbing partners and now my children’s friends’ families.

I pay taxes, contribute to my community and always vote when, as an EU citizen, I am given the opportunity (mostly regional and devolved matters). I did not resent the fact that I couldn’t vote for Westminster matters until very recently, this is what spurred me to start the long and contrived process to becoming British (and Brexit of course). I see my overall demeanour as an asset (I would, wouldn’t I?) to Scottish society.

I speak the language and strive every day to learn more. I am interested in the country I live in and have come to know Scotland intimately. I am interested in History. I have some knowledge of the UK and UK culture at large and the longer I stay the more I know. I often point out what is similar and what is shared history/culture as well as what is different. I see this behaviour as positive to the local population and pupils- they can reflect about their own identity, identify other identities and accept them. I feel this is mutually beneficial.

I have many acquaintances who are in similar situations and in my view contribute positively to the local society. Many are female who are bringing up children in this country (dads are British).

Do we, as a foreign body, change the make-up of the local society? Without a doubt we do, we come with different point of views acquired in different countries with varying mentalities. We bring new ideas, alternatives to what already exists. We pitch our ideas in the local pot and those ideas may appeal, be rejected, be discussed. In that regards, in the context of Highlands living, we are- the Non-British- almost no different from all other In-comers (Central belt Scottish, English, Welsh, and Irish). Again, I view our migrant contribution as a positive.

What about British migrants in other climes? It is my view that so long as they do not choose to live in an exclusive manner, I see and know of a few British guides/instructors in the Alps who try to be part of the local scene, they bring the same to their local community as what I have highlighted above. Some don’t, in the same way that some communities here in the UK very much choose to stay amongst themselves. Even in that case, I think that by contributing to the economy, on balance, they are beneficial but to a lesser extent that if they had chosen to mingle more with the “local” population (whatever the already disparate make-up of those locals).

I value the fact that migration is possible. There is a social contract of sort which tacitly should make it obvious to “do in Rome as the Romans do”. I believe it is possible to do so without losing your own identity. I am French, that is to say my first language is French, my formative years’ culture was French and therefore my mentality is French. I will become a British national, follow the rule of law and contribute to British society but I am unlikely to completely “be British”. I don’t see that as an issue so long as I don’t demand to have French bank holidays, refuse to deal with religious things in school (as is the case in France) or get in a huff when people insist on serving me cheese after pudding (clearly it is wrong but…).

All of the above make me feel that I can state that my migration is positive overall to my host country. Do you agree with me? Add something to my positive argument. Do you disagree with me? Tell us why.

My wife is German so naturally I'm very pro-immigration within the EU.  In fact I don't consider immigration within Europe as immigration, we are all Europeans.  I feel more at home in Amsterdam or Munich or Berlin than I do in London.

I also think there are far too many immigration restrictions between the 'rich' countries.  When I go to the US I always feel a bit wary having had colleagues who were hassled by US Immigration even though it has never happened to me.    I think we should have EU-like freedom of movement to the US , Australia, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and so on.    It's just a waste of time paying immigration agents to hassle normal law abiding people.  There's no real issue because the countries have similar standards of living and social norms.

Similarly, the UK should have a general 'amnesty' and offer citizenship without pre-conditions or fees to people who have lived peacefully here with no serious criminal record for more than 10 years.  There is absolutely no point in spending taxpayers money to hassle people who are already integrated and productive in the UK.    In fact the country would benefit by giving many more immigrants citizenship because of the age and education demographic: it would add young and economically productive voters to the electorate to balance out the aging ones and as a result we would get better decisions.

The point where immigration controls are needed is between 'rich' nations with relatively low birth rates and high standards of education and poor nations with high birth rates and poor standards of education.  That's where there would be very large scale, completely unbalanced immigration without controls and the rich countries standard of living and culture could be compromised. The UK and European nations are on a long term trend towards atheism and secularism but large scale immigration from highly religious countries will result in pressure on lawmakers for things like blasphemy laws.    .  

In the end, 50 or 100 years from now, we could reach a point where immigration restrictions aren't needed at all but we need to take it step by step towards that and the EU freedom of movement is a great starting point.

Yes I do. You probably contribute vastly more than many who are now opposing immigrants such as you.  Sorry about the current political situation and views of immigration, it's very embarrassing for many of us.

What a great post, Erick. I feel exactly as you do having moved to France almost half a lifetime ago. I've always tried to integrate and contribute to my community. Frustrated by not having a vote/say in either my native or adopted country and utterly disgusted by the referendum outcome, I'm going along the naturalisation path. Cheese after pudding? Philistines.

Thanks.

Let's not be too hasty in condemning though. Dialogue is the key to changing some people minds. I, for one, hope that we can get rid of ignorant preconceived ideas. That way, there may only remain entrenched prejudices- far easier to point out.

There is also the fact that immigration is not always successfully achieved- think of very annoying "Britain in the sun" retirement resorts within Europe. There are examples here of big communities that are de facto societal ghettos (multiple factors and shared  responsibilities between hosts and communities). Unfortunately, this does give ammunition to anti-immigration believers.

Thanks for this contribution.It is interesting. Being atheist myself I feel ill qualified as to whether we can blame religion for some of the issues arising from migration vs identity. Surely, it is people not religions the problem?

Immigrants are people who come with their own prejudices: Clearly cheese being savoury should be eaten before a sweet dish! Then you have sweets then you take coffee/ strong liqueurs to wash it all off ?

That's fine.  I am however still annoyed at the French for getting rid of hat accent.  I am even more annoyed at French teachers never pointing out it represented a missing s (arete=arrest, cote=coast, Valdotain=Valdostain, etc).  Had they, I would be fluent.  I see you fall into both categories.  I may, on reflection, arrange for your deportation.

Here you go Martin, copy and paste: arête côte...

You can still use them, if you want. Nobody's stopping you.

Thanks for that, to some extent I'm your counterpart having moved from Scotland to France & having a French partner - although we are not married we will visit M le Maire when we can get organised. But even if I get French nationality I'll never really be French - I don't have the cultural references from watching French TV or listening to French 'pop music' as a child.

And I'll never get used to whisky being an aperitif rather than a digestif

Eating cheese after a sweet desert might be a harking back to the days when nobody brushed their teeth. The alkali in the cheese neutralises the acid from the fruit and prevents tooth decay.

That's some great trivia...but we have been brushing teeth for a while now

To MG: I point out all the time that circumflex accents used to be -s! So I can't be deported on that alone!!!

Great post. 

Uisge beatha anytime for me!!!

So, to sum up, you're in favour of immigration as long as poor, uneducated, religious people don't compromise your standard of living

You make that sound like a bad thing...

I completely agree Erick - in another long post.

The gradual influx of Europeans to central Scotland has, for me, been absolutely positive. I work with educated mostly western Europeans, I play football with mostly eastern, mostly less-educated, Europeans, and I socialise with both groups. My neighbours on the left are Swedish and Hungarian and they are the best neighbours I've ever had. Their first child was born a few weeks after my sister died and shares her name. I am straightforwardly enriched by what all these immigrants can share with me of their various cultures - I hope the feeling is mutual. 

To a lesser extent the same is true of immigrants from outside Europe - lesser only because it has been harder for me to come to know them, not because when I do come to know them their impact on me is any less positive.

So there are no downsides to immigration for me. I learn new ways of living, seeing, playing, arguing, eating, swearing, organising, celebrating... and I learn by these small differences how great are the things we have in common. In short I have learnt to feel European. Brexit is not just shameful and disappointing for me - it feels most like a kind of exile. 

I recognise that not everyone from the UK is as privileged as I am, and it is only natural to shrink into one's in-group and seek out-group scapegoats when one feels threatened and powerless. But when one feels strong enough - and when there is the opportunity - expanding one's in-group is possible, and rewarding. Immigration to the UK has been, for me, a crucial part of the process of learning that I am not really Scottish, nor British: I am human.

Same as you are. So please never feel apologetic about being a Frenchman in Scotland - thank you for moving to Scotland, thank you for bringing your culture and experience with you, and thank you for sharing it.

However.... you are completely mistaken about cheese! The most important lesson from all this is that there are other options than the ones we grew up with. Cheese can be good at anytime and whisky can be either/both aperitif and digestif ....."World is crazier and more of it than we think."

I don't particularly want my standard of living seriously reduced or to lose civil rights because the views of the population of my country on issues such as freedom of speech, women's rights or gay rights have become more conservative due to immigration.

It comes down to numbers.  The EU at 510 million people can accommodate Bulgaria at 7 million with no immigration controls even though there is a large economic difference.   It can't do the same for North Africa or Pakistan/Afghanistan because the numbers are 100x higher.

Great thread.

But hang on, just run that past me again - they have abolished the circumflex? Really? If so I am outraged, it was so lovely and so French.

Surely consciously excluding people on the basis that they aren't "just like me" is a bad thing?

Yes, but no one's suggesting that.

If you're concerned about numbers how does it make sense to suggest greater freedom of movement from "US , Australia, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and so on".

?We either control immigration or we don't. We can't discriminate by giving a free pass to people from an arbitrary list of countries based on our own prejudices.

It might be worth considering the possibility that some of the countries on your approved list probably suffer from greater bigotry and discrimination than those that you would exclude on grounds of poverty.

Tom is proposing something dangerously close on that.

He isn't.  The pragmatic point is that when there are large differences in wealth and population size, without controls there will be a hugely biased flow of immigration towards wealthier areas that will overwhelm the "receiving" areas.   It's nothing to do with people being "just like me".

Still in use in my office, how else could I write la Forêt?

I think it was  a proposal which was not widely accepted, the ^ is still in wide use

  There is nothing much to disagree with in your post, but all it really does is highlight some of the reasons why middle class people benefit from migration. Other reasons, for the middle classes in recipient countries, include cheap efficient plumbers and cleaners and nice ethnic restaurants and a feel good factor demonstrating one's non racist credentials.

  It doesn't touch the surface of the deeper and broader and more complex issues of, for example, the impact on non-middle class people, on existing immigrant populations, on the countries of origin, on social capital, and therefore on the sustainability of the post WW2 welfare state settlements across Europe.

Cue the dislikes.

If as Doug and Jon suggest this is optional, I may forgive the French.  A bit.  I am still annoyed at French teachers, however.

Phew. I cannot contemplate writing in French without it, all those hidden s's lost without a memorial.

It is naive to assume that there are not similar differences in wealth within some of the countries on the list that he thinks are OK and it is certainly discrimination when you start including religious beliefs in your list of desirable attributes.

Sure there are differences in wealth in say the US.  Some parts of Louisiana are a lot poorer than Silicon Valley  (I doubt the difference is anything like as much as that between Germany and Afghanistan though). 

Suppose there were no immigration controls between the US and the UK.  Would there suddenly be a wave of immigration to the UK from poor areas of the US?   I very much doubt it because anybody living in a poor area of the US who is sufficiently motivated to leave for economic reasons can get on a bus/plane and go somewhere else in the US any time they like.   There is no large pool of people who want to move for economic reasons but are unable to do so.

I wasn't.  I was including strong religious beliefs in my list of undesirable attributes.  For much the same reason as the Labour Party would put being a Tory in the list of undesirable attributes for new members or the Tories are desperate not to give EU citizens in the UK the right to vote.   A few million highly religious socially conservative new voters could move UK politics towards socially conservative policies: pretty much the opposite of what would happen if the 3 million EU citizens in the UK got to vote.

It doesn't matter whether you count them as desirable or undesirable, it is still discrimination.

The ability to discriminate in this case isn't a bad thing surely?

I'm not sure where you're going with this line of argument. Are you saying there should be either unlimited immigration or zero immigration, as any nuance is discriminatory?

Ardent racists and xenophobes apart, most people would agree immigration, (and emigration), are necessary to the wellbeing of this and other nations.

Similarly, fanatical "No Borders" activists apart, most people would agree that completely uncontrolled mass migration without regard to the potential negative effects on social cohesion, economy, welfare state and security of the nation would be undesirable.

And in addition the real risk for the poor nations of losing some of their brightest and best for considerable periods. Tom describes a gradual movement to global free movement, and that sounds pretty reasonable.

  Surely what we see more commonly is middle class people condemning non-middle class people as uneducated xenophobes because they don't necessarily appreciate the benefits of migration as clearly as their betters? (Hence the false narrative that brexitism is based on narrow minded xenophobia)

I think we see both; I don't really have any way of weighing up which is more common overall!

But they're both examples of trying to create 'us and them', 'divide and conquer' type stuff, when encouraged by the likes of the media, politicians, and others with agendas and the ability to spread their message.

Another technique which is often used next is, having split people into 'us and them', going on to paint an attack on a minority of 'us' as an attack on all of 'us' - for example, suggesting that those criticising xenophobic elements amongst Brexiteers are claiming that all Brexiteers are xenophobic.

Obviously we need some form of control of immigration.

What I'm saying is that it would be absurd to say anyone can come from the US etc without any controls but that everyone from Africa must be subjected to controls.

Simple and equal scrutiny for everyone is surely the fairest answer.

I'd say it is a bad thing, what else would you like to discriminate on?

No, that's not "sure" at all.  If you want false narratives, you've got one right there.

He said STRONG religious beliefs, and HIGHLY RELIGIOUS SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE as well.

This country has evolved to have MODERATE beliefs regarding religion, and the latter description (HIGHLY RELIGIOUS SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE) describes very well the Moseleyite, Spanish, Argentinian, Portuguese and Italian Fascists that thankfully no longer exist with any power. It also describes what is going on in Turkey etc..

For you to say that someone is "discriminatory" when not wanting such people in this country makes me ask one simple question;

"Why do YOU want fascist, religiously intolerant, homophobic, sexist (etc., etc.) people to come here ?"

Lol. Can I lend you a mirror?

If you wish.  If you can find one post where I make any comment about "non-middle class" or regarding myself as "better", let me know.  I do recall on several occasions noting sympathy for the likes of trades being undercut by immigration.  

I see what you are saying. British social classes is not something that I have ever come to grips with. France class divides are different and don't particularly coincide.

You also seem to assume that I speak as a "middle-class"? Is it because, I am a graduate,  moderately articulate in another language than my own?

The little that I understand of classes here would suggest that I come from a working class background. I don't mind being either or.

I also think that many supposedly working class people think like me. That said maybe the percentage is not on a par?

Funnily, the people I had in mind were not "non-middle class uneducated xenophobes" but quite a number of the folks in cabinet who are IMHO educated xenophobes- a far worse kind methinks.

  A lack of self reflection maybe.

So to allow people whose religious beliefs include the setting up of a religious state within the UK, the dismantling of your national institutions,  removing the freedoms that your country cherishes, instituting homophobic and sexist rules, and banning such things as alcohol and pork, is ok in your view, as to to otherwise would be "discrimination"?

I think (?) tim's point is that a blanket ban on immigration on people from a poor nation, whilst allowing unhindered immigration by people who hold extremist views but happen to be citizens of the US or the EU isn't the way forward.

That is if all Muslims were to take the extreme view of their own religion. I would rather have some moderate Muslims as neighbours (as I used to have in my close in Glasgow...the curries they used to make us!!!!) than some of my latest locals who have fairly extreme views about homosexuality, sexist rules and banning such things as having fun on the Sabbath (being full on Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland). I disagree with them but they were here before me!!

Let's hope he clarifies.

I think it's ok to discriminate against those who do, it doesn't mean you have to discriminate against those who don't.

Ditto. Unfortunately we have nowhere to sent the Presbys. 

  Your level of education, wealth and culture makes you solidly middle class, regardless of your background.

  Interestingly, your French background possibly makes you less aware of the sub-text of the widespread and largely misplaced accusations of dullard uneducated xenophobia employed by the liberals. Obviously no self regarding British liberal is going to admit to him or herself, let alone to the world at large, that the object of their scorn is the lower orders but even they probably can't convince themselves that their language used conjures up images of Oxford lecturers, accountants, dentists and corporate executives.

A funny thing, pmp, but you've always seemed to me to be something of a liberal.

Not a guardian-reading bleeding-heart liberal leftie, to be fair - but a liberal nonetheless.

Have I been mistaken in this?

  I regard myself as luberal in the original meaning of the term without all the curent political implications i

Ta. This may just be a difference in who we tend to speak to or listen to, but I wasn't really aware of any change to the political implications of it on this side of the Atlantic.

  The American usage is increasingly used in the UK and I guess I was doing that. Very multicultural, me

Gawd damned liberal!

you keep trying to claim this when it simply isnt true, or least the effect is a small one

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

I suggest it’s the middle class leavers like you trying to distance themselves from their true feelings.

Today mind reading, tomorrow astral projection?

Of course you do. It's easier to scream "racist, xenophobe" and all the usual nonsense than think intelligently about the issues.

The remainers have spent two years telling us that the old and badly educated accounted for brexit. What does your link show? That that was bollocks?

Interesting , of course, that 71% of the supposedly aged racist xenophobes thought the treatment of the Windrush immigrants was outrageous.

Not, of course, that it would change your liberal narrative. You've become such a caricature we couldn't make you up.

well you started it!!

No, it shows that - look at it. 

I’m not sure 29% thinking otherwise helps your case  - that’s over half the brexit vote right there.

  Exactly, so you are attacking the traditional working class as I said. Middle class snobbery and an utter failure to address the reasons for their voting patterns.

In another life you'd have been a Tory landowner preserving the corn laws and resisting the Great Reform Bill.

Rolls eyes. Are you drunk?

In the context of polling results that's about as big a slam dunk as you can get. As for the second point the mind boggles if that is your statistical analysis.

No you didn’t. You talked about dullards and “lower orders”.  Your words, which are rather telling of your attitudes

  Are you really so blind that you are couldn't grasp that "middle class people condemning non-middle class people" is a polite way of saying "attacking the traditional working class" and that the phrases used were a caricature of your own prejudices? If so your lack of awareness and self awareness is mind boggling?

  I can't believe that you are. But really, be honest with yourself.

Nothing wrong with a bit of middle class snobbery. Just let loose and admit to it. You'll feel even more superior.

Oh well, that's the thread derailed nicely.

Not really. Somebody needs to follow up on non middle class attitudes to immigation and racism.

Serious irony explosion!

  It’s not really productive broadening these debates when the knee jerk reaction from the muppets  is a cry of “racist”. (That’s you MG)

  I admit, I can seldom be bothered. Such bigotry and hypocrisy isn’t really interested in the issues.

Again, it’s not. Outright racism is a small factor in this and I’ve never suggested more. You resorting to making stuff up is “not really productive”. Talking of issues, I guess you think your “lower orders” don’t get ill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

Of course, in addition to the idea that

“all those wanting to leave the EU are stupid pawns of evil interest groups.”(Riley)

You highlight

“ other reasons: ignorance, xenophobia/racism, fanatical zealotry in favour of "sovereignty". But that's about it.”

  Given the number of times youve mentioned xenophobia, racism and Little Englander over the years are you now saying it is small part of the brexit vote, or just doing your usual thing of downgrading “racist” to”xenophobe” as if that is an acceptable slur?

  Maybe you are not referring to “the lower orders” but have convinced yourself that there 17 million ignorant uneducated middle class golfers who hold such views?

its not downgrading (they different things, hence different words), nor is saying so a slur. I’ve no idea who Riley is.

Riley is the person you were arguing with.

Fine, so a kneejerk reaction of accusing people of xenophobia, ignorance and/or racism. My point stands: that there is no point in debating with such a narrow minded position.

If you think so. I’d say there is no longer any point in debate with Colonel Blimps with new-found, all-consuming concern for those they regard as the “lower orders”.

  You can fool yourself but not me. Your disdain for what you regard as the "lower orders" (hence my use of the term) is palpable. Your use of the term "colonel blimp" just reinforces the impression that you are unable to comprehend let alone engage with any view on the topic that doesn't coincide with your own. You prefer to resort to outdated and inaccurate stereotypes than think about the issues.

    In the unlikely event of you wanting to understand some more complex and nuanced views than your own can I suggest that Paul Collier "Exodus" and Goodhart "The British Dream" may be good starting points?

Postmanpat and MG...you've lost me there. To recap

PMP: Middle-class do gooders don't want to admit that immigration is good only for their own selfish ends. Furthermore, working classes have valid reasons to disliking immigration (presumably limited livelihood?) beyond simple ignorant xenophobia and we are insulting them by just shouting "racist" to them. But immigration must be controlled so as to not dramatically change the nature of identity.

MG: not an insignificant part of the Brexit vote may have been of the ignorant xenophobic group of people but defo not all. There is more to British Xenophobia than just ignorance, it is quite prevalent in many walks of life regardless of class or money. But immigration is really a win-win situation even though there are inevitably some downside (which are real and difficult to deal with).

Did I get this right? I know it is summarily explained but it is getting a bit too personal and pernickety on each other's posts for other folks to follow.

Yes, good summmary, thank you. Sorry about the tone but it’s difficult to avoid in this case.

It's nice to see one of the more thoughtful and interesting posts on UKC being derailed by straw-manning, insults and mud slinging. I'm sure this is a level of discourse to which we all aspire.

Thanks for sharing your insights Erick, very interesting read.

Aren't those two paragraphs essentially saying the same thing?
However, one thing I'd like to point out and maybe it's not intentional on your behalf, is the almost 'shrug of the shoulders' dismissal of of the downsides of immigration and maybe that is something that PMP is trying to say?

it was not intentional. However, I still think, on a personal level, that the downsides do not outweigh the upsides. So could this "shrugging off" be not consciously done or some sort of Freudian slip as I am necessary biased? Thanks for pointing it out.

I appreciate that the downsides are real, difficult and more profoundly felt in certain areas and by certain people. I do not want to minimise that and I have no answer to give yet (no silver bullet to solve it all I am afraid).

Thank goodness someone has got it.

Quite simply I'd like to see  the same rules for all.

But, at the risk of causing further confusion, that doesn't mean that free movement within the EU is or was wrong IMO.

I still remember seeing you at the wall and practising my French with you. It was great to have a proper French person to speak to outside of school, where language classes seemed very inauthentic. You must have been a good teacher as I seem to recall running my dissertation past you a few years ago. Thanks for your help and influence!

The initial statement that was made related to "people from highly religious countries".

That's a fair leap from your " fascist, religiously intolerant, homophobic, sexist (etc., etc.) people".

I think you will find that most (if not all) "highly religious" countries also turn out to be religiously intolerant, homophobic, male dominated (hence sexist) and rather right wing (hence fascist).