This thread is to explore what people mean when they refer to immigrants in the context of Britain today.
It is NOT a place to discuss moral aspects or politics or “political correctness”, nor to level accusations of racism, xenophobia, liberal. Left wing, right wing, but simply to explore, debate and try to understand, however question and respectful challenge are reasonable. PLEASE keep it within these bounds - I believe that in so doing we all might learn how better to understand what others mean when they make reference to immigrants, while keeping the thread decent and comfortably within forum rules.
Although prompted by some observations on the Brexit - final throes thread, this is not specifically about Brexit, though where applicable it would be useful if people identify whether and what differences they might be applying in considering Brexit-related consideration of immigrants and wider consideration.
To kick off, I would observe that Britain is in my view a ‘mongrel’ nation, born of different peoples and cultures over decades, centuries and millenia, so what constitutes immigration may change with time (and indeed might be viewed differently across different age groups for just that reason).
So how far back in time does someone count as an immigrant:
i) Just those who have themselves come to Britain from another country?
ii) Their children if born in Britain?
iii) If yes, how far down the generations would you go - second generation perhaps, brought up by parents who themselves were brought up in Britain, such people typically having very ‘normal’ accents and dialects of the place where they have grown up, and maybe nothing external to indicate that their grandparents originated in another country - though where said grandparents were non-white there may be very evident visible features to indictate that ancestry.
iv) Or do you consider it goes back many more generations, if so how far? Normans? Romans? Celts? Vikings?
v) Does the reason for the original people coming to Britain make a difference? E.g. economic, in seek of a better life; or just for different opportunities; or visited and decided they liked and wanted to stay (maybe social reasons, or for love of a non-immigrant); or refugees fleeing either persecution or natural disaster; or came in conquest, maybe even killing, raping and pillaging in the process?
Is it a matter of how people look, or speak or dress, or their religion or other customs or culture?
Is it where such groups congregate together, perhaps ‘reverting’ to a non-English language as they do so, effectively excluding those not understanding the language?
What about mixed race and/or origin people, such as children of someone from another country and someone you would regard as non-immigrant?
My own view is pretty simple - to me an immigrant is someone who has come to Britain from another country, including children born there, and I suppose I include their children born in Britain until such children become adults and set up their own homes in Britain. It makes no difference what may be the country of origin, or part of the world, or colour of skin etc, except that when considering immigration in relation to differences Brexit might make it is only those who come from other EU countries (whatever race they may be).
Posted on: 26 September 2018 by Innocent Bystander
The refugee question is a very valid one, though I had never thought of it that way. Reflecting on it I, too, would possibly expect a majority of refugees escaping from severe oppression or other catastrophe to be families, and perhaps only a minority to be single young adult males, and indeed the term ‘refugee’ is open to abuse (though that does not mean all the single young adult males are faling it). And when the major influx of Syrian refugees first started to entervthe EU via Turkey, omages I saw on TV news certainly seemed to show quite a high proportion of families, or part women with children.
As for the UK seemingly having changed beyond all recognition compared to 40+ years ago, I suspect in part at least that depends where you look - however in some places, like central London, I tend to agree with you with regard to the population in evidence. But I am not convinced that by any means is predominantly due to changes in the 1990s, which if it were true would tend to suggest the EU and its freedom of movement as a significant factor: my doubt is because unless other EU countries have far larger populations of visibly different people than I had ever realised, it seems more likely to me that a good proportion arose from post-WW2 immigration, and Indeed I remember being aware of massive growth of visibly different population in some places happening some 50 years ago.
One question there is are those people visible today immigrants, or are they descendents of immigrants or refugees who came to Britain 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? I get the impression that a fairly popular view is that they are immigrants, even if most of the visible people might be 2nd or even 3rd generation. And what about before that? Not a subject I know much about, however I gather that there was quite an influx of people fleeing first the Russion revolution and then the rise of Nazi Germany, though they probably counted as refugees.
Posted on: 27 September 2018 by Alley Cat
As for the UK seemingly having changed beyond all recognition compared to 40+ years ago, I suspect in part at least that depends where you look - however in some places, like central London, I tend to agree with you with regard to the population in evidence.
To clarify, I do believe this but I am referring to change in general not due to immigration.
The indigenous Brits have become far more secular - 40+ years ago I might have been dragged to chapel by my parents to listen to a fire and brimstone oratory from a diminutive preacher who would then saunter up the hill with his wife to my grandmother's house to enjoy tea and home baked cakes, along with discussion of local gossip and scandal.
Ten years ago or longer I found an image of that chapel - my parents were married there - windows smashed, overgrown by weeds, holes in the roof, railings stolen by metal thieves.....
Chapels are now converted to bespoke housing, bars or mosques. You could never have foreseen that in the late 70's.
A few years ago went shopping in Sainbury's in the evening - all the checkout assistants were nattering to each other in Polish or some other Eastern European dialect - that's fine, but it just felt a bit strange.
Think of LGBTQ and all that kind of stuff that was always there in the background for millennia but not discussed openly, now it is disproportionately promoted by various media sources, BBC included - I accept diversity and people's personal choices, but I don't want to be lectured about it incessantly. Could you really imagine 40 years ago we'd have the Girl Guides allowing trans Guide leaders? If this is allowed aren't 'cis men' being discriminated against if they can't do that job? No intent to sound facetious, if my comment offends anyone I apologise in advance, but tolerance needs to work both ways.
Computers - I was lucky enough to use them in the early 80's, but computers/internet/mobiles have had such a profound effect on society we cannot live without them. When you pass a bus stop with a dozen people only interacting with their mobiles and not one another even if they're friends/family you have to wonder if this is a good direction for the human race.
Posted on: 27 September 2018 by notnaim man
I think these recent posts illustrate why the government has such difficulty in defining immigration, and that's apart for the issue of categorising foreign students who come here to study.
Its possibly not helped by being a part of the EU where people can come and go withoit needing to be assigned any sort of label or declare whether they intend to settle in the UK or not. Obviously easier for people from non-EU countries to be classified as immigrants, tourists or temporary workers via the VISA process.
I was just about to write a reply along these lines, the tabloid press chooses perhaps to define an immigrant as "Johnny foreigner" whereas the government (of whatever persuasion) quotes immigration figures that ignore EU residents exercising their freedom of movement/right to reside.
The public perception is possibly fuelled by the press, this being brought home when a replica paper was published showing articles from 1939/40 displaying the same paranoia as the modern publications.
As a child, the man next door was American, arriving in the UK with a family member in the 1930s, next door again a German, ex submariner who stayed to marry a local girl having been a prisoner of war. Across the road a survivor of the Japanese prison camps. We played cowboys and indians or soldiers in each others gardens with no apparent thought or criticism or prejudice. However, I can recall these same people repeating stories of Caribbean immigrants buying kit-e-kat to make sandwiches.
In a forum devoted to hifi and hence music do we not have one of the best examples of integration and cross fertilisation that movement of people brings?
Posted on: 29 September 2018 by Innocent Bystander
I’m as English as they come. Not sure if that is despite of, or because of, my father having been an immigrant (after losing his homeland in WW2 - a refugee I suppose, however he joined the RAF in 1940 and fought with the British), and my maternal grandfather having been an immigrant, though one of celtic descent. For my part, to ensure cultural richness and an enhanced gene pool for my children, I married an immigrant, from a completely different race...
But returning to the core question, it seems that the most commonly accepted meaning of “immigrant” is a person who moves into the Britain to live, on a permanent or at least long term basis, and does not include children subsequently born in Britain, nor does it include temporary migrant workers. Is that a fair summary?
