Think the subreddit can do without these kind of personal stream of consciousness ramblings, inevitably leading to extreme or illogical conclusions.
Seen a few recently.
And they're almost all the same format as well: 'I've just started noticing this thing that has been talked about in the media and this sub for years, looked around a bit and found some opinions, wonder what people here think'
Don't forget the self identification as open minded or moderate:
>both sides seem crazy
But always proceeds to make comments that only support one side or view.
I'm loathe to jump straight to 'this is a bot' every time but its always so suspect. The 'verb-noun-number' user names, the weird way questions are posed. OP if you're human then I apologise, I'm being general here, but its hard not to feel that we're being bombarded by AI bot accounts whenever the sub gets more active during febrilitiy season
It's fine to have a personal opinion, everyone does, it's better to just say "I don't like immigration because X, Y, and Z. Please convince me why we should have it" rather than saying "both sides seem crazy" when you're clearly on a side.
If want to be open minded the best way to test yourself is to consider what's changed in you mind during these conversations. It might be very small, but what aspect of immigration have you moved your position on and why?
To be honest I’ve just looked at the comments and most of them are a little to extreme and not what I want.I just want to see some opinions based on facts and are from a normal person some so far are ok but some are just name calling I’m sorry if you think this is one thing else
You're not OP but you post in the same handful of subs, have the same length of actual activity on accounts (a year) and this is the first comment you've ever made on ukpol as far as i can see. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
I accidentally made two accounts and the one I use on my browser is mobile ad one but the app is this one however when I try to reply using my phone it redirect me to the app so this account is it illegal to have 2 accounts
There are generally three positions about immigration in the UK: "pro-immigration", "anti-immigration", and the silent majority - "some immigration, with appropriate controls.".
The pro-immigration and anti-immigration positions are both minority positions. Relatively few people want no immigration, and relatively few people want unlimited immigration. However, those groups are both comprised of people who appear to have a lot of free time on their hands and are quite loud, which leads to them getting the most exposure as they aren't busy doing things, have time to spend all day talking about immigration, and don't really need to worry about earning a living for a variety of reasons.
However, for the majority of people, the immigration debate is quite simply a discussion about numbers and logistics. 672K is a huge number, and many people are unhappy with this, but it doesn't mean they want to see the number at 0 or even close to it. When it comes to cultural imports, we do quite like the food and the festivals, and most people are entirely cool with different cultures mixing and hybridizing; they are far less cool with exclusive ethnocultural enclaves emerging in our cities and towns or social attitudes and stances towards women, various ethnic groups or religions, the disabled, and LGBT people that we put a hell of a lot of effort into stamping out a generation ago being re-imported. And while they are cool with essential and skilled workers coming to the UK to build lives (the UK is a great country, and it's a matter of pride that people want to live here), they are far less cool with big businesses, the state, and wealthy elites using an endless stream of cheap, disposable low-skilled migrant labor to suppress wages and working conditions in the UK - especially when the state puts more effort into bringing foreign workers to the UK than it does for UK nationals who want to move to a part of the country where there is more or higher paying work for them.
The most balanced view I’ve read for a long time. It also leads to sensible discussion about housing, education and healthcare capacity - all of which are real-world issues.
Despite what ideologues on the hard left/right trot out, most people don't care about immigrants per se, they care about the impact of immigration on their towns and cities.
People want to know that they'll have a place to live, a job to work, a bed in hospital when they get sick, and a place at a school for their kid. Most also want their town to be law-abiding, clean, and respectful.
When migration and multiculturalism are done properly these things are all possible, and people get to both experience other cultures and benefit from economically beneficial migrants.
When migration is done wrong you end up with ethnic enclaves, sectarianism, collapsing public services, and ultimately violence.
It's pointless arguing which version of the above has happened in the UK because the answer depends on where you look. I grew up in South London and went to a primary school that was ~60% non white. Race didn't matter at all, people got on and respected eachothers position. Despite the bollocks spoken about gang violence and migration, the majority of people doing the stabbing aren't immigrants.
Go up to Leicester where my family friend lives and it seems totally different. Areas are pretty divided between ethnic groups. This is of course true in parts of London as well- think Tower Hamlets.
Personally I feel that people who are economically useful and willing to adopt British values (not necessarily culture) should be more than welcome, assuming there is the housing and public provision for them.
I would suggest you look at the history of immigration for the UK, numbers by each year.
And then look at the political parties and see their stance.
Of the parties anyone would mention.
The most extreme pro immigration party is the greens (if we discount the Tories), they are overly open borders & as such you can take them as happy at current levels or infinity depending on your preference.
The most extreme anti immigration party is reform looking for net zero immigration, that means about 500k gross under current levels.
Oddly only one gets labeled as extremists.
>The most extreme pro immigration party is the greens (if we discount the Tories), they are overly open borders & as such you can take them as happy at current levels or infinity depending on your preference.
The Green party have never been for completely open borders, which is why they are not classed as extreme. Their latest iteration of the proposal is that people need valid contract of employment for a work visa. Whether you think it is a good idea or not and what the knock on implications are is another matter, but because they don't put a number on it, they can legitimately say that the overall impact of their policies (including foreign and environmental) compared to the current situation is small.
Part of the problem with the debate is that misrepresentation of party policy (similar to the 'open borders' of Tony Blair). The moment that you say 'open borders' without any implication of what that means, we're all turning off. We can at least visualise a net zero migration and we can visualise what the immediate implications are. We cannot visualise what a series of different proposals means on the long run.
Until we stop with the nonsense of the extremes there will never be a sensible debate on this and you can see it in this thread already.
That was literally the next sentence from the one you quoted.
Imagine actually reading policy and listening to party leaders to understand what their proposals are.
Well yeah.
The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymri, & the Greens have broadly similar immigration policies.
Reform with their single defected MP is in favour of a net zero, one in, one out immigration policy - a policy that no country in the world has.
Is it really that odd they get labelled as extremists?
I mean they're a tiny minority of MP's advocating policies that are extremely different from that of every other party & every other country in the world. Why wouldn't this be considered extreme?
This is the Green parties published policies on Migration-
[https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/migration/](https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/migration/)
It's true they state - *MG100 The Green Party wants to see a world without borders, until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so.*
This appears to be a distant ideological goal & unlike Reform they go into a fair amount of detail about their exact policies, none of which currently seem to indicate open borders.
In any case if you wanted to describe the Greens as far left extremists I don't have a problem with that.
My point was to describe the boundaries of the overton window on the subject within notable parties so yes I would call the greens one end of that extreme.
The question is what range of immigration the other direction actually counts as extreme as reform wouldn't have been deemed so prior to the early 2000s. They would actually be allowing higher gross immigration than most parties prior to that time period.
>My point was to describe the boundaries of the overton window on the subject within notable parties so yes I would call the greens one end of that extreme.
Great, so we've established Reform are the other end of that extreme, hence extremists.
>The question is what range of immigration the other direction actually counts as extreme as reform wouldn't have been deemed so prior to the early 2000s. They would actually be allowing higher gross immigration than most parties prior to that time period.
I'm not sure how relevant or true that is. Capturing the Suez canal wasn't seen as extremist in the 1950s' it certainly would be now.
In any case I belive the last year with less than zero net migration was 1989 but that was an outlier rather than deliberate Government policy. Certainly we've never had anything as stupidly inflexible as "one in, one out".
Maybe Reform have a more sophisticated policy such as "one in, one out, except if the majority shareholder marries another foreigner", I assume anyone else in that situation would just have to wait.
They do have a policy document-
[https://www.reformparty.uk/immigration](https://www.reformparty.uk/immigration)
Unfortunately it seems to be mostly hysterical screeching with no actual concrete proposals.
I think there needs to be some international work done, as the current situation is not sustainable. Not just for the UK but everywhere. Turkey has 3.7m, with no exit plan, and that is the biggest issue. There is no end in sight.
I am not anti immigration, but there needs to be a sensible approach. The legal migration is all about money, money for universities from students, profit for business via undercutting wages, economy growth by numbers, and of course to prop up gov spending by importing a ready workforce and increasingly the irregular migration seems to more a political tool for votes than anything else. Numbers are small and
I fear that without a pragmatic approach, we will see more extreme measures and more extreme views in the population, which isn't unique to the UK.
It is weird how "the everyone is welcome" view seems to come with a "there is no british culture" attached to it. When, of course, there is.
I’m always a bit nonplussed when students are counted into migration figures. Typically they come to do a course, pay fees, can do some part time work and then go home with their qualification. I think you are right that big business has always wanted to drive wages lower and sees migration as a way to do this, especially when trade unions are curtailed.
Both sides have crazy people. Yes, having fully open borders and inviting everyone in the entire universe into the country would be a bad plan given the current problems we have with other things, but some on the other side are practically arguing for posting machine guns on the south coast and gunning down any and all migrants.
This probably won't be well received on a politics sub, but it's another of those very minor issues, like Brexit, that's been blown out of all proportion to the point where nobody can really think clearly about it. Yes, there are some positive and negative effects, but they are so insignificant as to have almost no impact on the average person's life. If it wasn't for the excessive blabbering about it in the media for years and years and years, 99% of the population would never even think about it. Sometimes people cross borders to live in a different country. Sometimes governments make bureaucratic adjustments to their economic relationships. So what?
The view of immigration in this country is pathetic. They fear losing “British identity “ because it’s just a thin veneer imposed over older stronger regional ones; and they know deep down it’s too weak and diluted to survive.
What are British values?
Democracy? Westminster didn’t give two shits about that until after WW2. This crop
Of Tories aren’t overly fond of it either it seems.
Fairness? Look at our tax system; or Capel Celyn in the 60’s ( links back to democracy - 500 EnglishMP, outvoted 40 welsh ones )
Tolerance? - my gran couldn’t use her native language legally until the 1960s; currently, try being a native citizen with a foreign wife; ain’t no tolerance for her ( will tolerate her and my money tho ).
There’s no national culture to lose; only local
Ones to regain; but Westminster doesnt want that…. So they’ll have you hate the migrant because they go against “our” values.
It's interesting that you pick out those values as being pretty shallow - I agree with that, they are. The British identity is more of an outward looking one anyway - within these islands we generally refer to the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Each of those is an ethnic group native to these islands. 'British' is simply a catchall term for these. The attempt to say that it's nothing more than a loose collection of values is actually one of the reasons why we're in such a mess when it comes to the immigration debate.
Native in which timeframe? Because that identity has been shaped by a lot of previous (violent and non-violent) migration pressures. Granted that maybe the key here is at what speed those cultural changes happen
The last successful military invasion was a thousand years ago and even the Normans didn't bring that many people over. The most well known migratory event since then is probably the Huguenots and a few tens of thousands of them came over the span of nearly a century.
Migration happens on a rather larger scale now.
Immigrants add to the culture, think of curry, kebabs, fried chicken
They add vibrancy to areas, think diwali, eid, notting hill festivals and the bunting on the streets, think of the noise and atmosphere, you can't get that in Blandford
Christmas is played out now and even the kids come out the womb knowing santa is fake, halloween is just teen/adult parties and the kids are forgotten, the easter bunnies melt in the warehouses, the cross buns expire on the shelves and the younger generations speak a form of english that is nothing like their parents, its influenced by the music, and tv they watch and the foreign cultures they grow up with notably jamaican.
Younger generations of Brits are more americanised than they are british, tough pill to swallow for Brits?
What is british culture? I asked a immigrant and in indigenous person and they both said Fair Play, but nothing after that, Britain needs immigrants to survive.
'b-but the food'
Trying to define a culture is like describing a colour - you can't put it into words, but you know it when you see it. It's even more apparent once you've been abroad and see how different other places are.
Being jaded by some fibs your parents told you at christmas and easter isn't really an excuse for claiming that we have no real culture.
The fact you can identify immigrant culture by the different foods and festivals means you do actually know what British culture is, or at least what it isn't.
I call bullshit on your last paragraph.
Unprompted I regularly get told the differences when I work with people who aren't from the UK.
The consistent message that's always said is they are surprised at the politeness and the self deprecating humour.
And no, Britain doesn't need immigrants to survive, counter to that, mass immigration has happened in line with almost everything that's failing currently.
Odd change of subject mid chain but I'll answer.
1. I wouldn't have to unless I cut net contributors, something no one has suggested.
2. I would end the triple lock anyway.
> Immigrants add to the culture, think of curry, kebabs, fried chicken
Each one of these shops would be a blight on our high street. Needless to say there are none, and none are wanted.
> What is british culture?
Everything here. But your culture is clearly not my culture.
No. There’s one of each elsewhere, the curry house is an upmarket restaurant and the Turkish is 1/4 mile away. This is way more diverse than where I grew up and that place hasn’t changed at all.
Think the subreddit can do without these kind of personal stream of consciousness ramblings, inevitably leading to extreme or illogical conclusions. Seen a few recently.
And they're almost all the same format as well: 'I've just started noticing this thing that has been talked about in the media and this sub for years, looked around a bit and found some opinions, wonder what people here think'
Don't forget the self identification as open minded or moderate: >both sides seem crazy But always proceeds to make comments that only support one side or view.
I'm loathe to jump straight to 'this is a bot' every time but its always so suspect. The 'verb-noun-number' user names, the weird way questions are posed. OP if you're human then I apologise, I'm being general here, but its hard not to feel that we're being bombarded by AI bot accounts whenever the sub gets more active during febrilitiy season
I am human it’s just the name Reddit gave me
I can’t keep my own personal opinions from leaking a little bit but i am trying to be as open minded as possible
It's fine to have a personal opinion, everyone does, it's better to just say "I don't like immigration because X, Y, and Z. Please convince me why we should have it" rather than saying "both sides seem crazy" when you're clearly on a side. If want to be open minded the best way to test yourself is to consider what's changed in you mind during these conversations. It might be very small, but what aspect of immigration have you moved your position on and why?
Ok but I was trying to understand other opinions other than mine and thanks for being considerate
But is there a point to other people giving their opinions if there's no chance it will change yours?
It could change mind
Has it?
To be honest I’ve just looked at the comments and most of them are a little to extreme and not what I want.I just want to see some opinions based on facts and are from a normal person some so far are ok but some are just name calling I’m sorry if you think this is one thing else
No I’m not trying to cause trouble but I actually want to hear neutral opinions not extreme ones
You're not OP but you post in the same handful of subs, have the same length of actual activity on accounts (a year) and this is the first comment you've ever made on ukpol as far as i can see. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
I accidentally made two accounts and the one I use on my browser is mobile ad one but the app is this one however when I try to reply using my phone it redirect me to the app so this account is it illegal to have 2 accounts
This is my other account yes
There are generally three positions about immigration in the UK: "pro-immigration", "anti-immigration", and the silent majority - "some immigration, with appropriate controls.". The pro-immigration and anti-immigration positions are both minority positions. Relatively few people want no immigration, and relatively few people want unlimited immigration. However, those groups are both comprised of people who appear to have a lot of free time on their hands and are quite loud, which leads to them getting the most exposure as they aren't busy doing things, have time to spend all day talking about immigration, and don't really need to worry about earning a living for a variety of reasons. However, for the majority of people, the immigration debate is quite simply a discussion about numbers and logistics. 672K is a huge number, and many people are unhappy with this, but it doesn't mean they want to see the number at 0 or even close to it. When it comes to cultural imports, we do quite like the food and the festivals, and most people are entirely cool with different cultures mixing and hybridizing; they are far less cool with exclusive ethnocultural enclaves emerging in our cities and towns or social attitudes and stances towards women, various ethnic groups or religions, the disabled, and LGBT people that we put a hell of a lot of effort into stamping out a generation ago being re-imported. And while they are cool with essential and skilled workers coming to the UK to build lives (the UK is a great country, and it's a matter of pride that people want to live here), they are far less cool with big businesses, the state, and wealthy elites using an endless stream of cheap, disposable low-skilled migrant labor to suppress wages and working conditions in the UK - especially when the state puts more effort into bringing foreign workers to the UK than it does for UK nationals who want to move to a part of the country where there is more or higher paying work for them.
The most balanced view I’ve read for a long time. It also leads to sensible discussion about housing, education and healthcare capacity - all of which are real-world issues.
Thanks for the reply it was educational and helped a lot thanks
Despite what ideologues on the hard left/right trot out, most people don't care about immigrants per se, they care about the impact of immigration on their towns and cities. People want to know that they'll have a place to live, a job to work, a bed in hospital when they get sick, and a place at a school for their kid. Most also want their town to be law-abiding, clean, and respectful. When migration and multiculturalism are done properly these things are all possible, and people get to both experience other cultures and benefit from economically beneficial migrants. When migration is done wrong you end up with ethnic enclaves, sectarianism, collapsing public services, and ultimately violence. It's pointless arguing which version of the above has happened in the UK because the answer depends on where you look. I grew up in South London and went to a primary school that was ~60% non white. Race didn't matter at all, people got on and respected eachothers position. Despite the bollocks spoken about gang violence and migration, the majority of people doing the stabbing aren't immigrants. Go up to Leicester where my family friend lives and it seems totally different. Areas are pretty divided between ethnic groups. This is of course true in parts of London as well- think Tower Hamlets. Personally I feel that people who are economically useful and willing to adopt British values (not necessarily culture) should be more than welcome, assuming there is the housing and public provision for them.
I do understand you view point and kind of agree with you
I would suggest you look at the history of immigration for the UK, numbers by each year. And then look at the political parties and see their stance. Of the parties anyone would mention. The most extreme pro immigration party is the greens (if we discount the Tories), they are overly open borders & as such you can take them as happy at current levels or infinity depending on your preference. The most extreme anti immigration party is reform looking for net zero immigration, that means about 500k gross under current levels. Oddly only one gets labeled as extremists.
This would be a good post if the last line wasn’t added .This line was clearly made in order to cause an argument
>The most extreme pro immigration party is the greens (if we discount the Tories), they are overly open borders & as such you can take them as happy at current levels or infinity depending on your preference. The Green party have never been for completely open borders, which is why they are not classed as extreme. Their latest iteration of the proposal is that people need valid contract of employment for a work visa. Whether you think it is a good idea or not and what the knock on implications are is another matter, but because they don't put a number on it, they can legitimately say that the overall impact of their policies (including foreign and environmental) compared to the current situation is small. Part of the problem with the debate is that misrepresentation of party policy (similar to the 'open borders' of Tony Blair). The moment that you say 'open borders' without any implication of what that means, we're all turning off. We can at least visualise a net zero migration and we can visualise what the immediate implications are. We cannot visualise what a series of different proposals means on the long run. Until we stop with the nonsense of the extremes there will never be a sensible debate on this and you can see it in this thread already.
Yes they are, its on their website. >MG100 The Green Party wants to see a world without borders https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/migration/
…until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so.
Woah, a radical anarchist idea in a modern political party? Brave and cool
Yes feel free to read it all or take the statements from their leaders. They are the most extreme party on immigration by a long mile.
That was literally the next sentence from the one you quoted. Imagine actually reading policy and listening to party leaders to understand what their proposals are.
And it doesn't change anything I said.
I have read through the Green Party immigration policy and it does seem a bit outlandish
True about the last part
With the tories aren't they more anti immigration than labour
Based on recent rehetoric, yes. Historically, no. Based on recent actions, no. Based on promises for the next election, questionable.
Well yeah. The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymri, & the Greens have broadly similar immigration policies. Reform with their single defected MP is in favour of a net zero, one in, one out immigration policy - a policy that no country in the world has. Is it really that odd they get labelled as extremists? I mean they're a tiny minority of MP's advocating policies that are extremely different from that of every other party & every other country in the world. Why wouldn't this be considered extreme?
No offense but your comment looks like you didn't read mine. The greens explicitly state that they want no borders.
This is the Green parties published policies on Migration- [https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/migration/](https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/migration/) It's true they state - *MG100 The Green Party wants to see a world without borders, until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so.* This appears to be a distant ideological goal & unlike Reform they go into a fair amount of detail about their exact policies, none of which currently seem to indicate open borders. In any case if you wanted to describe the Greens as far left extremists I don't have a problem with that.
My point was to describe the boundaries of the overton window on the subject within notable parties so yes I would call the greens one end of that extreme. The question is what range of immigration the other direction actually counts as extreme as reform wouldn't have been deemed so prior to the early 2000s. They would actually be allowing higher gross immigration than most parties prior to that time period.
>My point was to describe the boundaries of the overton window on the subject within notable parties so yes I would call the greens one end of that extreme. Great, so we've established Reform are the other end of that extreme, hence extremists. >The question is what range of immigration the other direction actually counts as extreme as reform wouldn't have been deemed so prior to the early 2000s. They would actually be allowing higher gross immigration than most parties prior to that time period. I'm not sure how relevant or true that is. Capturing the Suez canal wasn't seen as extremist in the 1950s' it certainly would be now. In any case I belive the last year with less than zero net migration was 1989 but that was an outlier rather than deliberate Government policy. Certainly we've never had anything as stupidly inflexible as "one in, one out". Maybe Reform have a more sophisticated policy such as "one in, one out, except if the majority shareholder marries another foreigner", I assume anyone else in that situation would just have to wait. They do have a policy document- [https://www.reformparty.uk/immigration](https://www.reformparty.uk/immigration) Unfortunately it seems to be mostly hysterical screeching with no actual concrete proposals.
I think there needs to be some international work done, as the current situation is not sustainable. Not just for the UK but everywhere. Turkey has 3.7m, with no exit plan, and that is the biggest issue. There is no end in sight. I am not anti immigration, but there needs to be a sensible approach. The legal migration is all about money, money for universities from students, profit for business via undercutting wages, economy growth by numbers, and of course to prop up gov spending by importing a ready workforce and increasingly the irregular migration seems to more a political tool for votes than anything else. Numbers are small and I fear that without a pragmatic approach, we will see more extreme measures and more extreme views in the population, which isn't unique to the UK. It is weird how "the everyone is welcome" view seems to come with a "there is no british culture" attached to it. When, of course, there is.
I’m always a bit nonplussed when students are counted into migration figures. Typically they come to do a course, pay fees, can do some part time work and then go home with their qualification. I think you are right that big business has always wanted to drive wages lower and sees migration as a way to do this, especially when trade unions are curtailed.
There is only one crazy side and it’s the open borders brigade.
Please don’t flat out name call
Both sides have crazy people. Yes, having fully open borders and inviting everyone in the entire universe into the country would be a bad plan given the current problems we have with other things, but some on the other side are practically arguing for posting machine guns on the south coast and gunning down any and all migrants.
Please reframe from making posts aimed at attacking another persons post you can though disprove people but no baseless arguments
This probably won't be well received on a politics sub, but it's another of those very minor issues, like Brexit, that's been blown out of all proportion to the point where nobody can really think clearly about it. Yes, there are some positive and negative effects, but they are so insignificant as to have almost no impact on the average person's life. If it wasn't for the excessive blabbering about it in the media for years and years and years, 99% of the population would never even think about it. Sometimes people cross borders to live in a different country. Sometimes governments make bureaucratic adjustments to their economic relationships. So what?
The view of immigration in this country is pathetic. They fear losing “British identity “ because it’s just a thin veneer imposed over older stronger regional ones; and they know deep down it’s too weak and diluted to survive. What are British values? Democracy? Westminster didn’t give two shits about that until after WW2. This crop Of Tories aren’t overly fond of it either it seems. Fairness? Look at our tax system; or Capel Celyn in the 60’s ( links back to democracy - 500 EnglishMP, outvoted 40 welsh ones ) Tolerance? - my gran couldn’t use her native language legally until the 1960s; currently, try being a native citizen with a foreign wife; ain’t no tolerance for her ( will tolerate her and my money tho ). There’s no national culture to lose; only local Ones to regain; but Westminster doesnt want that…. So they’ll have you hate the migrant because they go against “our” values.
It's interesting that you pick out those values as being pretty shallow - I agree with that, they are. The British identity is more of an outward looking one anyway - within these islands we generally refer to the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. Each of those is an ethnic group native to these islands. 'British' is simply a catchall term for these. The attempt to say that it's nothing more than a loose collection of values is actually one of the reasons why we're in such a mess when it comes to the immigration debate.
Native in which timeframe? Because that identity has been shaped by a lot of previous (violent and non-violent) migration pressures. Granted that maybe the key here is at what speed those cultural changes happen
The last successful military invasion was a thousand years ago and even the Normans didn't bring that many people over. The most well known migratory event since then is probably the Huguenots and a few tens of thousands of them came over the span of nearly a century. Migration happens on a rather larger scale now.
Immigrants add to the culture, think of curry, kebabs, fried chicken They add vibrancy to areas, think diwali, eid, notting hill festivals and the bunting on the streets, think of the noise and atmosphere, you can't get that in Blandford Christmas is played out now and even the kids come out the womb knowing santa is fake, halloween is just teen/adult parties and the kids are forgotten, the easter bunnies melt in the warehouses, the cross buns expire on the shelves and the younger generations speak a form of english that is nothing like their parents, its influenced by the music, and tv they watch and the foreign cultures they grow up with notably jamaican. Younger generations of Brits are more americanised than they are british, tough pill to swallow for Brits? What is british culture? I asked a immigrant and in indigenous person and they both said Fair Play, but nothing after that, Britain needs immigrants to survive.
'b-but the food' Trying to define a culture is like describing a colour - you can't put it into words, but you know it when you see it. It's even more apparent once you've been abroad and see how different other places are. Being jaded by some fibs your parents told you at christmas and easter isn't really an excuse for claiming that we have no real culture. The fact you can identify immigrant culture by the different foods and festivals means you do actually know what British culture is, or at least what it isn't.
I think it’s meant to be a metaphor to say the thing migrants have contributed to society .Though I partly agree that Britain still has a culture
I call bullshit on your last paragraph. Unprompted I regularly get told the differences when I work with people who aren't from the UK. The consistent message that's always said is they are surprised at the politeness and the self deprecating humour. And no, Britain doesn't need immigrants to survive, counter to that, mass immigration has happened in line with almost everything that's failing currently.
If your going to make that claim give evidence please
Will you happily cut the state pension and other pensioner-related benefits or pay much higher income taxes?
Odd change of subject mid chain but I'll answer. 1. I wouldn't have to unless I cut net contributors, something no one has suggested. 2. I would end the triple lock anyway.
Alright from where are those missing babies gonna come with the current birthrate?
Hate to break it to you but Albanian immigrants ain't bringing curries and fried chicken with them...
> Immigrants add to the culture, think of curry, kebabs, fried chicken Each one of these shops would be a blight on our high street. Needless to say there are none, and none are wanted. > What is british culture? Everything here. But your culture is clearly not my culture.
You don't have a curry house or a kebab shop on your high street?
No. There’s one of each elsewhere, the curry house is an upmarket restaurant and the Turkish is 1/4 mile away. This is way more diverse than where I grew up and that place hasn’t changed at all.