“Immigrant”- a term sometimes used in a negative way, and often stirring strong feelings, but what precisely does it mean to YOU?

I think it would be naive to believe that starting a thread such as this isn't going to run the risk of a slapdown by Richard but here goes...

According to the OED, the definition of "immigrant" is "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country" and it goes on to explain that can be legally or illegally. 

How do I feel about immigration in terms of the UK? Well, I very much support the ANZ and Canada policies which welcome legal migrants to their respective countries as long as they meet a number of criteria:

1: They are on the skilled migrant list for in-demand jobs

2: They have a firm, valid job offer from a legitimate locally-registered employer

3: They have enough funds to support themselves and their families for the duration of their VISA and pay for health care/insurance, etc

4: They can prove they have somewhere to live

5: They can demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of the English language

There are certain exceptions, such as Student VISAs for temporary work permits, such as fruit-picking for example but even so, there is still a process to go through and follow.

Thanks, Jonners. I had been looking for people’s cerceptions of what an immigrant means, rather than an official definition, and I hadn’t requested views on how people think about immigrants, or what are considered to be reasonable. However I think your contribution is a good addition, and welcome others doing likewise, provided that it is done in a calm and dispassionate manner (as yours is), likewise any debate on whatever anyone posts.

For my part I think that approach to accepting immigration seems entirely reasonable, though I would suggest adding that where a country (specifically Britain) has a social security system that can provide certain benefits and support under certain conditions, other than essential emergency medical care  that should be excluded from access to immigrants for a period of time after entry, my suggestion for that period being 5 years of residency, during which time the individuals have visibly supported themselves, registered and paid tax as appropriate, and not been convicted of criminal offences.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Thanks, Jonners. I had been looking for people’s cerceptions of what an immigrant means, rather than an official definition, and I hadn’t requested views on how people think about immigrants, or what are considered to be reasonable. However I think your contribution is a good addition, and welcome others doing likewise, provided that it is done in a calm and dispassionate manner (as yours is), likewise any debate on whatever anyone posts.

For my part I think that approach to accepting immigration seems entirely reasonable, though I would suggest adding that where a country (specifically Britain) has a social security system that can provide certain benefits and support under certain conditions, other than essential emergency medical care  that should be excluded from access to immigrants for a period of time after entry, my suggestion for that period being 5 years of residency, during which time the individuals have visibly supported themselves, registered and paid tax as appropriate, and not been convicted of criminal offences.

Thanks Innocent Bystander, I deliberately chose the official definition as a place to start, shall we say.

Regarding your point about access to medical care and so on, it's my opinion that if the UK had the sort of immigration policy with the guidelines listed in my original post, those people who meet the criteria for VISAs should have access to the whole shebang. After all, they'd have made an investment in themselves and a major commitment to leave their native country and we want them here. In short, with an immigration policy such as ANZ's they'd be contributing from day 1 and because there'd be a job they would come to and money in the bank to support themselves and their families, there'd be no strain on Social Security. 

In terms of EU immigrants, I feel the same, only there is as I understand it a provision to cross-charge home nations for the care of their citizens in UK hospitals, etc. One of the things I would like to see for ALL immigrants who are not UK citizens is a mandatory requirement for health insurance. Most people wouldn't think twice about taking it out for holidays, why not if you decide to settle in another country to live and work?

I digress though, I was only adding my own opinion to your reply to mine so apologies for going off on a tangent instead of staying on track for what others feel is their definition of an immigrant.

No apology necessary - I think it is a valid area of consideration, and am happybto widen te scope of the thread appropriately.

In terms of immigration policy, there are two areas where I struggle to decide what is right/best:  one is wher the UK has a genuine need for additional workers because there are insuffiricnt ‘home grown’ to fulfil need: an example might be the health service, and undoubtedly there are other potential contenders, and the second is what to do with genuine refugees fleeing from something untenable in their home countries. 

Regarrding need, perhaps the approach adopted by the Isle of Man (a crown dependency, with its own Government and laws): they define an Isle of Man worker as someone who has lived thee for five years or more, or born or educated there, and such people can be employed in any job. Other people can need a work permit, which is only issued if there is no Manx Worker applicant for a job who is capable of doing it.

As for refugees, I have less idea. But it is pertinent to put oneself in that position: however unlikely one considers it might be. E.g. what if there was some interrnal revolution that placed everyone meeting condition X (which can be anything you like, physical or religeous or whatever) in peril of summary torture to death, and all their loved ones with them, such that fleeing the country is the only possible means of ensuring ones own and one’s family’s survival? What would one want and hope other countries would do in te circumstances, regardless of skills, education, wealth etc?

They say the immigrants steal the hubcaps
Of respected gentlemen
They say it would be wine and roses
If England were for Englishmen again

Strummer & Jones 1980

hungryhalibut posted:

They say the immigrants steal the hubcaps
Of respected gentlemen
They say it would be wine and roses
If England were for Englishmen again

Strummer & Jones 1980

May or may not be true - but please define “Englishmen”!

There are many splendid songs about Immigrants, this one doesn't have any spam in it : )

My answer would be (i) i.e. someone moving from another country to the UK I would regard as an immigrant.  If their children are born here I would regard them as indigenous as I am.  

On a separate point, I think much of the 'noise' on this issue is about integration.  I think it's fine for immigrants to want to retain and foster their culture, religion, language and customs,  and it only to be expected that they would seek to do that with their children born in the UK.  Generally speaking, I think that is something to celebrate and makes the whole community richer. That said, I have two qualifications. The first is that culture etc shouldn't jar with the law and accepted social norms of the host country (I'm thinking forced marriages etc).  Second, I think it reasonable to expect immigrants to supplement their own cultures by adding some from their new home country, specifically learning the language.  So, for example, if I ever decided to up sticks and join those other Brits living out their days on the Costa Brava, I would think it my responsibility to learn Spanish and use it regularly with the local populace. 

naim_nymph posted:

There are many splendid songs about Immigrants, this one doesn't have any spam in it : )

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, but what did Led Zep ever do for us?

Nothing. (apart from make great music)

MDS posted:

My answer would be (i) i.e. someone moving from another country to the UK I would regard as an immigrant.  If their children are born here I would regard them as indigenous as I am.  

On a separate point, I think much of the 'noise' on this issue is about integration.  I think it's fine for immigrants to want to retain and foster their culture, religion, language and customs,  and it only to be expected that they would seek to do that with their children born in the UK.  Generally speaking, I think that is something to celebrate and makes the whole community richer. That said, I have two qualifications. The first is that culture etc shouldn't jar with the law and accepted social norms of the host country (I'm thinking forced marriages etc).  Second, I think it reasonable to expect immigrants to supplement their own cultures by adding some from their new home country, specifically learning the language.  So, for example, if I ever decided to up sticks and join those other Brits living out their days on the Costa Brava, I would think it my responsibility to learn Spanish and use it regularly with the local populace. 

I think those are reasonable, valid points - and on the last one, that is something that holds me back from considering retiring to somewhere like France or Italy, as I am hopeless at languages other than English.

Jonners posted:

I think it would be naive to believe that starting a thread such as this isn't going to run the risk of a slapdown by Richard but here goes...

According to the OED, the definition of "immigrant" is "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country" and it goes on to explain that can be legally or illegally. 

How do I feel about immigration in terms of the UK? Well, I very much support the ANZ and Canada policies which welcome legal migrants to their respective countries as long as they meet a number of criteria:

1: They are on the skilled migrant list for in-demand jobs

2: They have a firm, valid job offer from a legitimate locally-registered employer

3: They have enough funds to support themselves and their families for the duration of their VISA and pay for health care/insurance, etc

4: They can prove they have somewhere to live

5: They can demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of the English language

There are certain exceptions, such as Student VISAs for temporary work permits, such as fruit-picking for example but even so, there is still a process to go through and follow.

 

One should distinguish between immigrants and expats. Criteria (1) to (5) can be applied to expats as well. 

Frank Yang posted

One should distinguish between immigrants and expats. Criteria (1) to (5) can be applied to expats as well. 

Why, when they are one and the same?

Frank Yang posted:

 

 

One should distinguish between immigrants and expats. Criteria (1) to (5) can be applied to expats as well. 

I presume you mean British people who emigrated to another country and then at some point decide to return to Britain? So what would you propose For such people - freedon to return without limitation or control, or do they at some pointbbecome immigrants?

That of course brings it back to the first question, so perhaps best offer a definition of what is an immigrant - then the consideration of the point, if any, when British ex-pats become immigrants if they return. Maybe the question is, at what point, if any, should they become regarded as people from another country, particilarly if they have retained British nationality.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Frank Yang posted:

 

 

One should distinguish between immigrants and expats. Criteria (1) to (5) can be applied to expats as well. 

I presume you mean British people who emigrated to another country and then at some point decide to return to Britain? So what would you propose For such people - freedon to return without limitation or control, or do they at some pointbbecome immigrants?

That of course brings it back to the first question, so perhaps best offer a definition of what is an immigrant - then the consideration of the point, if any, when British ex-pats become immigrants if they return. Maybe the question is, at what point, if any, should they become regarded as people from another country, particilarly if they have retained British nationality.

Sure thing Frank Yang - the definition of an expat and an immigrant is one and the same:

Expat - Denoting or relating to a person living outside their native country

Immigrant - A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country

I think IMHO it's a matter of semantics.

Even though living abroad, they still maintain citizenship of their country of origin which does not change no matter where they choose to live, as specified on their passport. Sure, we can go into detail on dual nationality and so forth but I think folks will get the gist without any need for pedantry.

Nowadays, in this current economic climate and the refugee crisis, the term immigrant denotes a certain degree of pejorative, whereas, by contrast, expat does not.

Frank Yang posted:

Nowadays, in this current economic climate and the refugee crisis, the term immigrant denotes a certain degree of pejorative, whereas, by contrast, expat does not.

That depends both on the context, and how it is said.

But clearly the term immigrant is not pejorative within the intent of this thread, which is specifically seeking to try to find out what people mean when they refer to immigrants. I for one had never thought of ex-pats as being immigrants, while the fact that you have raised the question suggests that you either do, or that you think others may do, and it does raise an interesting consideration.

Can I respectfully ask you to respond to the question asked in the original post, and if you feel the question of ex-pats is significant include consideration of when they should, or should not, be regarded as immigrants.

Then if you wish to present a constructive view about the terms that you feel should apply to immigration - or returning ex-Pats - please do so.

Someone who has tenacity and perhaps temerity.

Frankly speaking, in my view, immigrant is a person who moves by choice in search of a better life, so it is synonymous to the term "economic" refugee.

So if I understand that, to you someone who moves not by choice - e.g. a refugee - or by choice just for somewhere different to live with not necessarily any better economic benefit, is not an immigrant? 

And does that apply only to the individual (and family members moved with him/her), excluding subsequent offspring?

The fundamental problem is that immigrant is an artificial construct. It is as you choose to define it. The same applies to “illegal immigrant”. There’s no such thing. You’re either moving/migrating or you’re not but what does or does not define you as such is entirely subjective once movement itself is left out of the equation in the same way that you are a migrant if you move across a current border but may not be so if the border itself changes. 

TOBYJUG posted:

Someone who has tenacity and perhaps temerity.

So if I have tenacity and possibly temerity, that makes me an immigrant?

(Is that because non-immigrants - so-called ‘True Brits’ - lack those qualities? )

Mike Hughes posted:

The fundamental problem is that immigrant is an artificial construct. It is as you choose to define it. The same applies to “illegal immigrant”. There’s no such thing. You’re either moving/migrating or you’re not but what does or does not define you as such is entirely subjective once movement itself is left out of the equation in the same way that you are a migrant if you move across a current border but may not be so if the border itself changes. 

Maybe, in a way, but it is a term bandied about so much that I submit tgat it is reasonable to expect people to be able to define what they mean by the term, and so maybe get a concensus view (or realisation by all that others have a completely different idea of what it means).

However, moving borders are not part of the scope of this - as far as I am aware Britain’s borders have not been moved for a very long tome, nor are about to be moved.

Fascinating question Innocent Bystander.

Personally I think the crux of the matter is that the issue does not really relate to 'immigrants'.

I am of the view that over the last couple of decades the social experiment of multiculturalism has happened far too quickly - both for immigrants to integrate and for indigenous people to accept those who 'enrich our communities' with their own culture and experiences.

The demographic landscape of the UK has changed irreversibly since the late 90's, and I no longer recognise the UK to which I was accustomed as a child, and for a multitude of reasons.  Things are completely different now compared to 40-45 years ago, for good or worse.

Back to 'immigrants' - the reason I say that it does not really relate to this is that we've always had immigrants and emigrants, but we really need to distinguish between economic migrants and refugees.

Economic migrants - why do people emigrate from their own countries to the UK?  Surely the primary reason is a better life/lifestyle/salary - the same as for conventional 'immigrants'?  To me there is not much of a difference between an economic migrant and an immigrant - yes, occasionally it may be due to family/marital reasons.

Where the problem seems to arise is that we have a large number of 'economic migrants', mostly young adult males  who claim to be refugees - surely many of these are masquerading as refugees to circumvent formal immigration rules?  Where (on the whole) are the wives and children in the 'refugee' boats and in Calais?  Footage you seem seems to show pumped up testosterone fuelled young males intent on coming to Europe/UK.

I'd also add that I'm not necessarily comfortable with immigration policy where we accept primarily due to their 'skills' - practical but rather heartless.

A few decades ago people were talking about class migration within our own countries with similar polar discriminations.

I personally don't have strong feelings that become volatile if stirred, and I suspect the majority of others are just as concerned about themselves getting on with everything as every one else.

like the story of the flea.

A flea can jump many times more higher than an equivalent of what we can jump.

Although put a flea in a bottle with a lid and the flea soon learns that it can't jump out because of the lid.

take the lid off, the flea can not jump out because it had learnt it can not jump out even in reality it could, but couldn't think for itself enough to realise this.