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: 30 September 2018 by Ardbeg10y
A little contribution by me ...
From genetical point of view, immigration is a good thing. Mixing genes mostly makes humans more capable to survive diseases. I had to think about the Spanish Flu which killed 95% of the natives in South America - because they were genetically very similar.
If immigration is an issue, is a choice. My feeling tells me that I should resist immigration (my wife is doctor, having many kids from immigrants in the practice and I hear awful stories - you can't even imagine it), but by my mind I know that if we contact the people, behave as we should, open the doors, have meals together etc ... that there is no issue. Its as simple as that.
Never allow large groups of immigrants to club together - like in Birmingham. It's the silliest thing what government should allow. Spread them over the country and you will have good restaurants, craftsmen, nurses, tradesmen and a flourishing society instead of no-go zones.
Posted on: 30 September 2018 by Ardbeg10y
A little contribution by me ...
From genetical point of view, immigration is a good thing. Mixing genes mostly makes humans more capable to survive diseases. I had to think about the Spanish Flu which killed 95% of the natives in South America - because they were genetically very similar.
If immigration is an issue, is a choice. My feeling tells me that I should resist immigration (my wife is doctor, having many kids from immigrants in the practice and I hear awful stories - you can't even imagine it), but by my mind I know that if we contact the people, behave as we should, open the doors, have meals together etc ... that there is no issue. Its as simple as that.
Never allow large groups of immigrants to club together - like in Birmingham. It's the silliest thing what government should allow. Spread them over the country and you will have good restaurants, craftsmen, nurses, tradesmen and a flourishing society instead of no-go zones.
With respect, I think most immigrants will go where the work is and where friends and family already are, so that means towns and cities. Stating that "immigrant communities" creates " no go zones" may give the impression that immigrants are in some way not law-aibiding or xenophobic.
We are friends with a couple of Syrian refugees - well, friends, we provide them a social platform to get familiar with our culture. The couple likes to move to the city - and if they manage to do so, the need to learn my language - Dutch - and to get understanding of our culture will drop massively. They want to be in the city not for work but for the Syrian friends they know. Distance is small to travel to the city. I live in a village, it's 30 minutes by bike to the city, less than 10 minutes by car.
Nothing wrong with having some people from your own culture around, but we have seen the loyalty of Turkish people to their democratically chosen president recently. People being strictly loyal to a different culture, living within another culture preserve their culture stronger than the area where they originally come from - this prohibits further common understanding and respect.
Another guy I know is a nineties Balkan refugee. He is well integrated, speaks our language enough has a good job - Maslov would be proud on him - he's done well. In his opinion the best method to be prosperous in a different culture, is not to watch TV from the country were one is from.
Now, I don't have issues with people preserving their own culture, but I have issues with the fact that Jews or Gays are not accepted in their streets. Since I have such family, that's the dilemma I have and might explain a bit the discord between my mind and heart.
Posted on: 30 September 2018 by Don Atkinson
Ah !
Now we are talking about how immigrants should behave.
"When in Rome....."
If your comment was made in the context of my epistle, i.m.o its in both directions Don. Bidirectional repect which only works when you look each other frequently in the eyes and talk about anything.
It wasn't made in the context of any specific writings in this thread, other than a fair number of people have started talking about how THEY consider immigrants should behave, and I was simply adding MY consideration.
My following comments are not directed at your goodself nor anybody else, they are simply my views.
If a person doesn't like the laws and customs of the country to which they propose to emigrate, then why on earth would they seriously consider emigrating to that country. IMHO, they would be unwise to emigrate.
If they like the laws and customs, but would also like to continue practicing some of their own customs in the new country, (and such customs are not established in the new country) then sure, open up a dialogue. But don't be disappointed if the proposed customs are not acceptable.
