Raymond on Thinking about how we ought to talk about a difficult topic
Such is the degraded nature of our national discourse on the topic of immigration that I feel obliged to start this piece with a statement, or -in modern parlance- a trigger warning.
I am a free-marketeer. I believe that capitalism, while far from perfect, provides the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe this because all of the available evidence leads me to that conclusion. Further, that belief in the free market comes with a belief in the free movement of people, which means that I am in favour of immigration, including economic migration.
(read more in comments)
Questions relating to how, when, why and in what numbers people move from one country to another ought to be considered important enough for reasoned discussion, but it has been clear for some time that ‘polite’ society has considered such questions to be out of bounds. Mainstream political parties won’t talk about it and the default liberal-left position has been: ‘if you question immigration policy, you’re a racist.’ No wonder then, that rather than try to talk honestly and rationally on the subject, many folk opt to deploy the proverbial ten-foot bargepole to help them steer well clear of it. When you consider the public reaction to the refugee crisis, it’s little wonder that some choose to keep their own counsel. From the haughty tenor of some of the posts on the various social networks, you’d think that anyone not waving a ‘refugees welcome’ banner while organising a street party for the new arrivals was deserving of the kind of opprobrium normally reserved for members of the SS who have been discovered living in exile in South America. At the very least, many people appear to believe that a failure to subscribe to the ‘open our doors and let everyone in’ line is somehow morally dubious. I was intrigued by the number of people posting online statements about their willingness to take refugees into their own homes. I’m not in a position to say whether these statements were genuine, or merely tiresome examples of virtue signalling; I don’t suppose we’ll know for sure until we check back in a couple of months to see how they are all getting on with their Syrian lodgers.
During our national debate (I use that word in the loosest possible sense), we continue to use the emotive term ‘refugee’ when, under European law, someone cannot be classed as a refugee if they have crossed several ‘safe’ borders after having fled their own country. Many of the folk we are being urged to accept with open arms can, by no meaningful legal definition, be described as ‘refugees’. Accordingly, one must assume that they are economic migrants. I’ve already stated that I am in favour of economic migration and believe that it has enriched our country, but would add this caveat: nation states should have the right to make informed and rational decisions about how they manage their numbers. And, whether we like it or not, the numbers are important.
A few weeks ago, when people started circulating an idiotic meme about Britain’s ‘shame’ in only accepting 216 refugees (which anyone could have debunked after about twenty seconds of research), they inadvertently touched upon that key question. If you are willing to state that 216 was the ‘wrong’ amount of refugees to accept, you have implicitly acknowledged that there must be a ‘right’ number of refugees to accept. Let’s discount for the moment the fact that some folk think we should have an absolute ‘open doors’ policy, in the same way we’d discount the fact that some folk believe the earth to be flat. I don’t know if the ‘right’ number of refugees is 15,000, 150,000 or 1.5million. I would expect the people we elected to govern the country to have a view based on their knowledge of the likely impact on services, infrastructure, housing, social cohesion and so on. We have to trust them to make that decision because -much as it may surprise some folk to learn- personal conscience doesn’t trump reality. Making a grand pronouncement about our moral obligations might make some people feel good about themselves, but they shouldn’t expect other human beings with other thought processes and experiences, other opinions and observations, to go along with them.
Just as it’s idiotic to believe that all refugees are potential terrorists, it’s also idiotic to believe that there won’t be terrorists (or terrorist sympathisers) among the hundreds of thousands of folk currently entering Europe. We know there will be, because the jihadists have not only told us, they have demonstrated that they have agents and sympathisers operating in major European cities. These facts may be awkward and inconvenient for some folk to accept, but that’s the thing about facts: they don’t need you or me to feel awkward or inconvenienced about accepting them. They just are.
As always, our interpretation of events may depend on where we get our news from, but five minutes on the google machine should make it obvious that this is a much more difficult and complicated topic than some folk believe. For every ‘feelgood’ news item featuring smiling locals welcoming trainloads of refugees with open arms, there are myriad alternative stories about a less welcoming side. These stories, among other things, reveal a growing unease among local populations about the sudden influx of huge numbers of folk (the vast majority of them young single men) from North Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. We might not like to hear about hostility towards these migrants, but it is happening and there are reasons why it is happening.
I work in an educational setting on the outskirts of an average British city. Many of the students I work with come from areas which might be described as disadvantaged. Last week, I had a discussion about the refugee crisis with a group of 12 young people. What struck me was the sheer unanimity on this topic among the group; every one of them expressed views which, if aired on twitter, would probably have PC Plod at the door ready to press ‘hate crime’ charges. I’m expressing it politely when I say that these youngsters did not go along with the view that their country should welcome refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants. And I’m willing to bet that, for each of those kids, there will be a set of parents or carers with the same outlook. I do not believe that this is down to wickedness; these are simply people whose perceptions of this complicated topic are viewed through the filter of their experiences within their own communities. No doubt some of you reading this will already have concluded that such folk will have been brainwashed by the ‘right wing’ press, but that, I think, is an intellectually lazy position, one which wilfully ignores the experiences of those who believe that they have most to lose from immigration; that is, the people against whom many migrants will be competing for low-paid jobs and cheap housing.
I’m fine with immigration, but I’m middle class, middle-aged and comfortably off. I’m not unemployed and I’m not on the social housing waiting list. If I was and I lived in a poor community in which social and cultural tensions already existed, I probably wouldn’t be as keen on it as the average college professor, TV journalist or MP. And I’d probably be even less keen if I lived in a place like Rotherham, where the values of the governing class are so grotesquely skewed that they can suppress information about the systematic brutalisation and rape of 2,000 girls in the name of ‘community cohesion’, but can ban a middle-aged couple from fostering children because they supported a political party that said that it would limit immigration. Not a party that said it would introduce concentration camps or outlaw any particular religion; a party that said it would limit immigration. I can’t explain why those in power acted the way they did without using words like arrogance, stupidity and cognitive dissonance. If you can think of anything more damaging to the notion of ‘community cohesion’ than a willingness on the part of the authorities to interpret heinous criminal activity through the prism of ethno-religious sensitivity, please let me know; my mind can’t possibly be any more boggled than it already was by those disgraceful events. Rotherham provided the perfect illustration of a political climate in which legitimate concerns are stifled and declared off-topic, a climate in which the ‘Untermensch’ are excluded from any discussion because they’re deemed to be stupid, racist and volatile. Little wonder then, that many folk, rather than talk about the issues, will reach for that bargepole.
How did we get to this point? Well, here’s a clue:
Andrew Neather, a speech writer and adviser to Tony Blair in the early 2000s, was quoted as saying that Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls were designed to “open up the UK to mass migration”, although ministers were reluctant to discuss this move publicly, fearing that it would alienate its “core working class vote”. In a phrase which has rightly become notorious, Mr Weather said that Labour ministers wished to change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.
Who was consulted about this plan? Did it ever appear in any Labour manifesto? And whose noses were actually being rubbed in it? If those ministers were really convinced that their policies were right, shouldn’t they have talked openly about them instead of operating by stealth?
When the Amsterdam treaty of 1999 formally incorporated the Schengen agreement into European law, commentators who pointed out the obvious (i.e. that opening Europe’s doors to potentially millions of poor Africans and Eastern Europeans could have catastrophic consequences) were routinely dismissed; they usually wrote for the ‘wrong’ newspapers and had the ‘wrong’ political views. And bit by bit, we got used to the idea of having to creep gingerly across eggshells, because polite society had declared omertà on the topic of immigration, hoping that it would go away.
But sooner or later, reality always puts its marker down. It doesn’t matter what polite society or mainstream political parties think, because if enough people think immigration is the big issue of the day, immigration will become the big issue of the day. And, when mainstream head-in-the-sand parties decide to keep their heads in the sand, the electorate invariably looks for alternatives.
I sometimes wonder if it occurs to folk who use ‘shaming’ tactics that they are at least partly responsible for the increasing support enjoyed by so-called extremist parties. Yes, if you have ever dismissed someone as a narrow-minded bigot without listening to their concerns about immigration, I’m afraid you are culpable. It’s true that we have no shortage of narrow-minded bigots, but extremist parties didn’t invent racism; they have grown -and will continue to grow- in response to the mainstream’s unwillingness to listen to views deemed to be morally or intellectually beyond the pale. By now, it should be obvious to everyone that closing debate down by shouting ‘racist’ doesn’t solve anything; in fact, it does quite the opposite, as Europe’s political leaders are discovering. Look up what is happening in Sweden if you want a glimpse of the future.
If we were able to have an honest and rational discussion now, I suspect that a majority of the British population would go along with the following two propositions:
It would be wrong to refuse to accept any refugees.
It would be wrong to have an absolute ‘open doors’ policy towards refugees.
Somewhere in between those two extremes is a position that the majority of us will support, because most people -on some level- appreciate that Society is a compact between those who are living now, those who shaped the world in which we live and those who will follow us. Our liberal culture (and its attendant freedoms) was not won in a lottery; it was fought for over hundreds of years, paid for by the lives of millions. It has survived by creating wealth and prosperity, adapting to change, welcoming and assimilating incomers and entrenching a set of core values within a complex system of cultural, societal and political mores. No single generation, no ephemeral governing group, no cabal of keyboard warriors is empowered to change that. To put it simply: we do not have the right to give the house keys to anyone who fancies turning up. And if we put that to a vote, most people would go along with it. Because, again, most folk know (if few are prepared to say) that while we are obliged to act morally and to help refugees as much as we reasonably can, we do not owe millions of folk from other continents our standard of living.
If you believe that we do, you should act according to your conscience. You should sell your house and car and donate the proceeds to an appropriate charity. You should take refugees into your home and share your life with them, or go and work for voluntary services overseas. What you shouldn’t do is demand that other people (and future generations) pay for policies that you think are morally upstanding. You are entitled to hold those views, but you have no right to hold other folk to those standards.
It is clear that our continued use of that intellectual bargepole has not had the desired effect. All it has done is build up resentment and open the door to folk who won’t necessarily have entirely benevolent intentions. There is, however, still time to adopt a mature and rational approach to the topic.
We should be discussing and debating the issues of culture, demographics, assimilation, impacts on education, housing, health services and social cohesion. Because we live in a civilised country, I believe that the economic, social, cultural and moral case for controlled immigration can be made and won.
But I suspect that some of us aren’t yet ready to have that grown-up discussion.
When the subject comes up, too many shrill voices will still cry ‘racist’ and, fearful of being called the only thing that is worse than being called a paedophile, folk will -publicly at least- reach once again for that bargepole.
And something that is already quite ugly could get a whole lot uglier.
An excellent piece, Raymond.
Ok. I’ll have a go at a response.
There are a number of categories of people who immigrate here. Asylum seekers, refugees, EU entitled migrants and entitled migrants from the rest of the world. For all of these there are particular definitions of who can remain lawfully in this country.
There is no category of economic migrants.
All kinds of social problems are attributed to the impact of immigration. In particular, housing and unemployment. These are at least as much impacted on my government policies. For example – How many affordable houses (to buy or rent) are being built?
As for terrorism – people determined to do that are either already here or, if determined enough, will find a way here whatever the restrictions.
Finally – cultural impact. We are, always have been and always will be a nation of immigrants. We are likely to live in a world of mass migration for the near future. What music do you listen to – where does it come from? Hasn’t it changed from one generation to the next? It’s always a bit frightening but probably OK in the end.
You’re right – we should talk about these things more but I’d conclude by saying that something wonderfully diverse and interesting could (as it always has) get a lot more wonderfully diverse and interesting.
Talking of Bargepole – apparently he would let every third person in.
Only jesting @bargepole 🙂
I did get annoyed by the meme which said “Is Britain full? No! Only 7%* of Britain is built up!” Mainly because it seemed to imply that the remaining 93%* was just there waiting to be populated, and gave no thought to what our infrastructure can cope with, or for the quality of life of those already living here (including immigrants).
We’re already much more densely populated than France & Germany, so yes, we should be able to have a meaningful discussion about numbers.
* I can’t remember the exact number, nor find the meme.
Good piece. I agree that name calling has become a simplistic way to shut down debate of any kind, whether those shouting ‘racist’ at anyone who is anti immigration, or those shouting ‘terrorist sympathiser’ at anyone opposed to bombing Syria. What I don’t agree with is that anyone who argues in favour of open immigration should walk the talk by selling their house and giving to charity – you seem to expect a different standard here from those who are pro-immigration rather than anti.
Truth is that social and old school media polarise and present a simplified view when the reality is, as you say, that most of us believe there should be some level of immigration, we are just not sure how much. But we should fight lies and misrepresentation – images of all migrants as scrounges and/or terrorists, and migration movement as all being one way only.
Very good piece Raymond, clear sighted as ever. Even Alan Johnson is quite openly contemptuous of the keyboard warrior hysteria merchants who bombard anyone who doesn’t conform to their view with Facebook/Twitter hate storms.
I work in an area of North West London which is almost entirely non-white. I cannot, hand on heart, say I don’t understand the resentment which some of the remaining white (almost exclusively working class) local people express about this. They often express it in a way which makes me uncomfortable, but honestly? If you grew up there in the 70s and saw it change to that extent, it would be alarming.
My school has to employ community liaison workers (read: interpreters) because of the number of parents who don’t speak any English at all. (The rate of asylum migrancy in the area is relatively low: most immigration was economic and took place in the last 20 years.) I really don’t think it’s too much to expect an economic migrant to a country to be able to speak the local language before settling there. I can’t express this view openly at work. It’s not that I *fear* being accused of racism: I flat-out WOULD be accused of racism.
I have always been an integrationist rather than a multiculturalist. If I l moved to Riyadh I’d abide by the customs, traditions and expectations there. I’d also learn the language before I moved. I think that’s only polite. I wouldn’t expect to live like an Englishman, drinking alcohol and living only with other English people. But actually I wouldn’t move to Riyadh because I’m not compatible with Saudi life, so I think if a person wants to move here, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to have gone through a similar thought process. If you’ve no interest in assimilating with British culture, maybe Britain’s not for you.
It still feels dangerous to say that. It’s really not so controversial, but feels very risky.
In my experience in countries like Italy, Spain and Greece it’s mostly the British expats who are the most reluctant or incapable when it comes to learning the local lingo.
I agree. It’s really rude behaviour.
Yup. Brother in law has lived in Spain for a decade. Just about manages to order a hire car or do a quick grocery shop in Spanish. Otherwise, nada. No conversation, no vocab, no subtlety of meaning. Too many lazy expat neighbours. Disgraceful.
I’m hopeful that attitudes may at last be changing. On a very closely related theme, this is well worth watching.
Hilary Benn’s Syria speech was passionate, spellbinding – and historic
First time that I’m aware of a leading left-wing figure using the f-word to describe Islamists. Stirring stuff indeed, and such a welcome breath of fresh air compared to odious George and his tiresome fellow travellers – who included, it must be said, Hilary’s old man – avuncular, pipe-smoking ‘national treasure’ or not.
Really? The first time?
Well I wasn’t counting the likes of Christopher Hitchens, who of course used terms like Islamofascist regularly. Why? Because he was seen as a heretic by the left, was he not?
Was he? Galloway certainly didn’t like him – but then catman isn’t overburdened by fans either.
The description of Daesh as ‘fascists’ is common currency on the left. I don’t agree that bombing Syria will do any good, however I thought that Benn made a good, principled case for it. Who knows, it may turn out to be the most significant thing that happened tonight.
FWIW the low points for me were Corbyn’s nod to appeasement and the Nats’ attempts to make it all about Scotland, both of which gave me the dry bokes.
FWIW I also hae ma doots about what bombing Syria may achieve. One of the few things on which I almost agree with Corbyn.
But nevertheless I found Benn’s unequivocal condemnation of IS and all they stand for refreshing, as I’ve heard one too many near-as-dammit justifications for similar atrocities in the recent past.
Also agree about Salmond – I admire much about him but find his ‘anti-war’ pontifications to be less than inspiring.
I just had a real pop at an ex girlfriend on FB for daring to say TB would be turning in his grave. How dare people say that? He was his father! (And avuncular or not, people who think all there was to ol’ Tone was the Nice Lefty Granddad shtick haven’t read around much. Or researched the Stop The War Coalition for more than 5 mins. In fact, 5 mins was how long it took for me to be reading about the Stalin Society, one of whose leading lights is (or was) an StW Vice President. But that’s another thread.)
I know! There’s something downright creepy about people who – effectively – are trying to make themselves a sort of more worthy, surrogate child. Bizarre.
Stalin wasn’t stallin’.
© Robert Wyatt (another ‘national treasure’)
When I saw comments like that last night I knew it was time to turn off social media and watch the rest on the news. It makes me despair that people can attack someone personally for making a well-reasoned argument, just because they don’t agree with it. Worse, these people are on our side. They think they’re just being passionate and challenging, whereas the same behaviour from the other side of the debate is boorish and rude. I hate Twitter and it’s making me hate my friends.
It’s awful. And the thing is it’s not even disagreement. It’s visceral hatred of anyone whose views aren’t to be found in the SWP Big Box Of Automatic Opinions. If you think there’s ever a case for military action, you’re just *scum* to this lobby. Daesh aren’t scum, though: Daesh are just reacting against evil Western imperialists. You get the impression that nothing Daesh do can ever be as vile as Western military action. You get the impression that they think nobody with brown skin can possibly be a fascist.
I’m not even pro airstrikes. I think this Government hasn’t thought through the strategy, but I’m also pretty clear that IS/whatever need wiping out. They’re the real enemy. But not to the sort of people who harassed Stella Creasy. She’s the enemy. It’s mental.
When you make the moral high ground your permanent base camp it’s hard to avoid looking down on anyone with an opposing view.
When I first joined Twitter I was shocked at how rabid both sides of the political divide are.
But the American gun totin’ right are without doubt the biggest bunch of mentalists it’s possible to imagine. To us Obama and Hillary are centrist and a little bit wishy washy in the usual way of US Democrats . But they way they are attacked on Twitter you’d think they were Joe Stalin and his SWP mates coming over the hill waving the hammer and sickle. And it’s constant abuse, not just the odd bit of sniping (if you’ll excuse the expression)
A few weeks ago I was watching “Question Time” and the Tory seat contained one of the female MPs. She gave a perfectly reasonable answer given her allegiances – and someone I (used to) follow immediately tweeted “Fucking lying bitch”. I mean, really? Is that necessary?
If I were TB, I’d be immensely proud. Hilary’s speech was superb whether or not you agree with bombing in Syria. I disagree with my son’s all the time. If they argued their case so articulately and passionately, I’d be chuffed to bits.
Absolutely agree, Tigger. Anyone who thinks a parent would be ashamed of a son or daughter who argued with such force, eloquence and passion clearly hasn’t done a whole hell of a lot of parenting themselves. Why do people always think disagreement must automatically mean loathing?
here’s HB’s speech in full:
Wonderful stirring stuff followed by a deserved ovation from both sides.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Jezza looking more uncomfortable as he did there – as well he might. His face was like thunder. And notice how at the end he almost refused even to budge up to give HB space to sit back down.
It’s amazing how much HB sounds like his dad Tony. The timbre of his voice and speech patterns are uncannily similar
And he certainly looked and sounded more like Labour leadership material than the Big Issue seller to his right.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen Jezza looking more uncomfortable as he did there – as well he might. His face was like thunder. And notice how at the end he almost refused even to budge up to give HB space to sit back down.”
Can’t agree with you there, JC. I don’t think his face was like thunder or he refused to budge up (although I’m sure the Mail and Telegraph might well be saying the same today). I don’t think even Jezza’s harshest detractors consider him a petty man. If anything, I’d say he seems to welcome debate more than most politicians.
For me the most uncomfortable moment in that clip is Cameron smiling at the suggestion that he should simple apologise for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser.
A well put argument by HB. I don’t agree with it, I think bombing Syria is the wrong thing to do, but he is a good speaker.
We must have been watching a different speech. Jezza looked, if not uncomfortable, at the very least studiously detached and theatrically disinterested. Everyone else (except Watson) was nodding along and clearly enjoying HB’s speech.
As they said on Sky News just now “Corbyn sat there with his arms folded across his chest wriggling like a worm on a hook.”
Last night HB voiced what many Labour MPs are feeling.
“We’re all Bennites now” is the new PLP catchcry
Opinions aren’t facts
(Unless, perhaps, they’re mine).
JC never looks happy. His brow is perpetually furrowed. I can’t say I noticed any difference to his usual demeanour during HB’s speech.
Oh I loved the way that Cameron’s slack-jawed inability to know how to contort his posh-boy fat little face revealed, for just a few moments, his inner panic at having been profoundly speared as a nasty, spiteful, revolting little shit by HB’s words.
Yes, Cameron looked mightily uncomfortable at HB’s opening remarks about “terrorist sympathisers”
There’s also a clip of his father doing the rounds as he explained why he would not support military action.
It strikes me that those who have actually seen war tend to be a bit less gung ho than those who haven’t. Benn pere remembered the blitz – he knew what it was like to get bombed, and that informed his opinion. A lot of the statesmen of days gone by knew war, which was why they were so reluctant to go there again.
There will be a human cost to this, and that seems to (largely) have been forgotten.
Stating the bleedin’ obvious: There’s already a human cost in death, misery, torture, religious persecution and displaced persons which, presumably will continue unless challenged.
Of course. The question being, is this how best to challenge it. I don’t know. I have no solutions. But the thought is heartbreaking.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GY94oYEUs-8
This strikes me as being a case of “must be seen to do something, because that’s better than nothing”
Except no-one has demonstrated how bombing will make things better. What’s the current death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan because of bombing gone wrong?
Bombing doesn’t kill and idea; if it did, Vietnam would have been won by the US at a canter.
If there was a compelling case presented, I’d love to have heard it.
In my simple world, I actually do think that being seen to do something is better than nothing because to do nothing sends a message that IS can just carry on with impunity.
Nobody said it was going to be easy.
OOAA
Gosh that was impressive. I wouldn’t say I have a spring in my step about bombing Syria (HB was a little glib about the danger to civilians, and no doubt Bomber Harris would have said the same about Dresden) – but he has made me feel a little better about it.
In fact I’m having Hilary Benn for Labour leader thoughts.
If I was David Cameron, I know who I would rather be facing across the dispatch box.
I’m beginning to wonder whether Corbyn is Labour’s John Paul I. Unexpectedly elected on a wave of sentiment to a job he just wasn’t up to. And it made him ill, resulting in a short tenure in office.
Were that to be the case, hmm, I may sell my shares in Jarvis and invest in Benn.
That’s the worst-case scenario. We need to keep him there for at least a year, or he’s a martyr.
Give him a year to either change enough hearts and minds to form some kind of electable opposition, or for his followers, who have spent their entire adult lives being outraged in opposition and pointing out how everyone else is doing everything wrong, accuse him of selling out and return to bickering from the sidelines. Obviously I’m not going to be drawn on which I think is the more likely scenario.
For me, the worst case scenario and the most likely scenario are the same: a future of only mainstream, establishment, media friendly PMs (Tory or Labour – doesn’t really matter) caring only that their economic programme appears trustworthy while the gap between rich and poor continues to grow, as do civil unrest and violent protest, crime, terrorism and irreversible damage to the environment.
(Not that I think Jezza is the saviour who will prevent all this. But I do think he is at least looking in the right direction).
Oldham must have surprised a few here, I assume.
Democracy does tend to produce mainstream leaders, by definition. I’d say the gap between rich and poor will grow faster if there is no effective opposition, and as we’ve seen, civil unrest – or at least the destructive, abusive, directionless version of it – seems to be embraced by the ‘new’ Labour voters.
Oldham was all about Jim McMahon, who will be a great MP for his constituents.
I know many ‘new’ labour supporters. Not one of them remotely “embraces” destructive, abusive, directionless civil unrest.
You have excellent taste in friends! And to be fair, friends of mine who are good old-fashioned New Labour have been joining in the thuggishness as well.
I watched Nigel Farage on BBC Breakfast, being interviewed about the Oldham result. What an extraordinarily odious man.
No, the worst case scenario is the very real prospect of permanent Tory government. I have little patience with those who claim there is no difference between Tory and Labour, as I can’t see it as anything other than a silly pose. For a start, the difference is £1,000/year for the worst-off working families in Britain (see below).
http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af344/embraman/budget%202015b.png
Well, you started well, made some good points but lurched into conspiracy theory territory (Labour’s secret masterplan to annoy the right – der der DER) and a slightly half-baked account of UKIP activists not being allowed to foster foreign children.
Here’s the thing. If you want rational, objective discussion then you need to actually stick to that. It also doesn’t help to confuse movement of citizens within the EU, legal immigration, refugees and economic migrants; all very different. Flitting between them interchangeably is not conducive to clarity.
Completely agree, Lando. Hard to argue with much of what Raymond says even from my wishy-washy liberal soapbox but that almost gets washed away by the Blair and UKIP nonsense.
By the way, unlike everyone else it seems I was underwhelmed by H Benn’s speech both in terms of content and delivery. Nobody yesterday convinced me the UK bombing Syria is anything else but a gesture and a gesture that may well have terrible consequences for innocents in both our countries. I don’t agree with the US and France bombing Syria as well but even if I did what exactly will our Tornadoes add to the party? Are our Tornadoes and pilots better than our allies?
You’re right the bombing is symbolic and will probably not achieve much, especially when you consider those who would do us harm are already living in our major cities.
It is being claimed that the “new” bombing will disrupt IS controlled oil fields and therefore revenue from the sale of oil.
Whoever the BBC Breakfast were talking to this morning outside Parliament (Senior Air Marshall?) made an interesting point re civilian casualties. To paraphrase: If you think targeted bombing makes a mess then you should see what ground troops do.
I haven’t really seen anyone suggest an alternative to bombing as it seems that there is a reluctance to deploy ground troops. I don’t believe doing nothing is an option.
I believe in the other proposed alternatives are “a diplomatic solution”, “cut off their funding”, “raindrops on roses” and “whiskers on kittens”.
My thoughts too.
I know that you are always quick to defend Labour, @lando-cakes, but you do rather misrepresent my point by suggesting that it lurches into the territory of conspiracy theory. Labour’s disconnect from its core vote was beautifully illustrated by the Gillian Duffy incident; Brown’s gaffe was borne of disdain for the electorate (in general) and for the old Labour vote (in particular).
I’m also not sure why you consider the fostering story to be ‘half-baked’. I note that you used the adjective ‘foreign’ to describe the children that were removed from the care of that couple (who had been fostering for seven years). Does that mean that you agree with Rotherham Borough Council’s view that the country of origin of those children made them an inappropriate match with the ‘banned’ couple?
I do take your point, though, about the differing categories of folk moving between countries. I’m just not sure that those kids I spoke to would care much about that.
And there you go again. If you can’t separate out objective views of the real world from the subjective world that exists only in your head, we’re not going to get very far here.
Please indulge me, @lando-cakes, by letting me know which bits only exist in my head.
Is it the bit about Rotherham Borough Council? Or the bit about Gillian Duffy? Or the bit about New Labour’s attitude to its core voters? Or maybe the bit about 12 random kids taking a negative position on immigration?
I’m all ears.
All of the above, I think. In each case there are facts: I don’t think that anyone would argue that there was a gaffe made by Gordon brown in relation to his discussion with Mrs Duffy. And then there is your subjective extrapolation: it is explained by Brown’s “disdain for the electorate”.
Can you really not see the distinction between these things? Unfortunate if so.
Yes, you’re probably right @lando-cakes.
That thing about Rotherham Borough Council was all in my head; that’s why it wasn’t on the news and nobody else wrote or talked about it.
And those kids saying that they would deport all immigrants? It doesn’t mean a thing.
And now you’re doing it with my post!
This is pretty tedious @lando-cakes, but I’ll try and explain what I think has happened over the last few posts:
1. You accused me of being unable to differentiate between an ‘objective’ and a ‘subjective’ reality which exists ‘only in my head’.
2. I asked you which bits exist ‘only in my head’ and list four items.
3. You replied saying ‘all of them’ and commented, quite reasonably (although I don’t agree with your analysis), on two that are related.
4. Irked by the fact that you didn’t address the other two items that exist ‘only in my head’ (one of which is a matter of public record, the other being a piece of anecdotal evidence which I interpret as being of some significance), I composed a facetious reply designed to flush out a reasoned response. By ‘reasoned’, I mean ‘designed to address what has actually been said’ and perhaps explain what it is you think I have incorrectly extrapolated from a) the ‘Rotherham’ story and b) the ’12 anti-immigration kids’ story.
5. You stick with what I would regard as dissembling tactics.
If you’re going to say that someone has imagined stuff or has incorrectly extrapolated from the available evidence, you really ought to explain why you think that is the case. And just to be clear: I’m talking now about Rotherham Borough Council and about the 12 kids in that class I talked about in the opening post. I’d be happy to hear your opinion, if you’d care to address those two outstanding points.
Better. Kinda. 1-3 are good. You veer off a bit after that. Worse, you indulge in what looks a little like a sleight of mouth. I pointed out an example of where I thought you had drifted from objectivity to subjectivity. Nothing wrong with that, per se – we all do it, all the time. However it’s important to recognise when you’re doing it and to bear in mind that it’s only the world as it looks to you. Do you?
That doesn’t mean that you’ve imagined things, in the usual sense of the word. As I suspect you know.
Your anecdote about young people and their sometimes hair-raising views is not surprising. Had you spoken with a random 12 children from my own central Scotland school in the 80s, you would have heard strongly pro-IRA views. Likewise you would have got eye-watering anti-catholic/pro-loyalist views from many a school in the wild west (and indeed from the then-leader of the SNP). All of them were, in every sense, ignorant. As I’m sure I was too at that age. That’s not to say it doesn’t matter at all but let’s not read too much into it.
On immigration, the sensible place to start is by distinguishing the main types of migrant: EU citizens, non-EU migrants, economic migrants,refugees.
To what extent do you think that each of those is a problem?
I made it perfectly clear in my opening post that I don’t have a ‘problem’ with immigration, other than to suggest that we should be talking about the sensible management of numbers; I also acknowledged that I had no idea what those numbers might be. The concept of assimilation was brought up in the general discussion and I believe that this is also a fitting subject for public debate. Perhaps you’re trying too hard to read something more significant into the text.
I take your point about anecdotal evidence, although just as one can read too much into such evidence, it is also possible to read too little into it.
I see that you are still unable, or unwilling, to comment on the goings-on at Rotherham Borough Council. Let’s simplify the question: Do you consider the events at Rotherham to have been significant or insignificant?
Excellent work, Raymond, very differentiated. As I live in Germany and the impressions of immigration maelstrom have been ever-present for months, I won’t add more words than this. Criticism is an unwelcome attack on the liberal culture here so most people make the best of it, but clearly it’s not going to end well.
Agree 100 per cent with Disappointment Bob.
Likewise.
Excellent piece Raymond.
One depressing thing about the current situation is that odious, xenophobic parties, like the Sweden Democrats, are making political capital of the refugee crisis and saying that they were right all along.
And I should add big congrats to Raymond. That’s as fine a piece of political analysis as I’ve ever seen on this blog. The stuff about Rotherham is especially powerful.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that immigrants should learn the language of their new territory of domicile. The issue is whether (and, if so, how) they should be required to do so. That’s where things get tricky.
Terrific OP.
Do you think Mr Saucecraft should learn Thai? I’m not 100% convinced. I think I wouldn’t mind retiring to Thailand one day, but I can’t see me coping with the language. If the Thais themselves don’t require or expect it, should it be “obligatory”?
How do you know he hasn’t already learned enough to get by?
I think he might have mentioned not speaking it once. (But I might have dreamt that, one lonely but erotically charged night.)
I don’t know either but I believe his wife is Thai, so I expect some assimilation has taken place.
So that’s what the kids are calling it these days.
Fnar, fnar etc
I think that in an ideal world, you’d learn Thai.
However, I absolutely don’t see any sensible way of making it obligatory. Christ, you have enough trouble with English half the time ; -)
Stop calling me Christ. It’s flattering but misleading. I’m just a very naughty boy.
When I lived in France I wanted to learn the language, which at that point was bad schoolboy standard, and really put in the hours so it was fairly fluent after a year. In France they will do zip to translate anything – they expectation is you should learn French and if you can’t claim/apply for/do this and that it is your problem. Some years later I did some work at a local authority where they spend a considerable sum of (scarce) money translating everything into 4 languages and also on a super expensive phone service for translation services. This simply wouldn’t happen in France. It might seem harsh but I agree with the French. Also the experience is apparently that if people don’t make reasonable steps learn the language within 6 months they never will, as they find coping strategies. Tough love, essentially, required.
Totally agree. Four months in Switzerland bludgeoned my O Level French into something close to fluency. If you can’t hack it in the local lingo you should fuck off. End of.
I believe he teaches Thai kids English a couple of days a week, so unless he just shouts at them he presumably has a smattering*.
*Disgusting Nørwegian dish made of rotten herring.
Why not? Even within certain multilingual countries familiarity with the local dominant language is a requirement for public-sector work. Teachers who are Spanish citizens, for example, will get nowhere if they apply for a state-school job in Barcelona without being proficient in Catalan – which none are, for obvious reasons, unless they happen to be Catalans themselves.
If a region can make itself a linguistic closed shop with impunity, why can’t a country?
#spanishpractices
Problem is, over a certain age, learning a language (like learning an instrument) becomes far more difficult. That part of your brain is simply not as efficient (or something). So should oldies be prohibited from relocating to the sun? I know plenty who are thinking of doing so.
No, not at all, because sunnigrants (© Me, 2015) are generally welcomed by the indigenous communities that receive them, because they tend to boost flagging local economies rather than drain them further. Many sunnigrants are retired, so they don’t compete with locals for jobs, while those that do want to work will either remain within the English bubble (pool guys, Sky-dish installers, property-leasing agents, and so on) or do jobs that locals simply don’t have the skills for, because they are not native English speakers (EFL teachers, translators).
The area where I live has a small but tight-knit community of British sunnigrants, with a few Germans and Dutch too. Very few of of the Brits are fluent in Spanish – OK, hardly any of them are – but most can speak and understand enough to get by – do the shopping, call a plumber to fix a burst pipe, say “morning” and “see you later” to the neighbours, that sort of thing. They aren’t fully assimilated by any means, but nobody really expects them to be. I see far more people in the UK embarrassed by Brits abroad and their insular habits than I’ve ever seen Spanish people complaining about them.
In short sunnigrants shouldn’t be confused with economic migrants, because their roles in the countries they relocate to are different, and how they are received by the locals differs accordingly.
Very good points, Archie. And true what you say about Brits abroad. Italians are far more wary and critical of their compatriots abroad than they are of Brit tourists. I wonder if that’s true of most nations?
There are exceptions, Archie. The brother-in-law is a fashion photographer who competes on an international stage. But after a decade domiciled in Spain his Spanish is mierda.
Because we’re talking about about an across-the-board requirement for local language, which is far more complicated than a requirement pertaining to certain specific job roles.
Is Denmark considered to be a racist country because of its treatment of nationals of other countries who want to settle there? If it is considered racist, it’s not notoriously so. Yet look at the rules for obtaining a residence permit there.
Applications are assessed according to three yardsticks: “educational level”, “language skills” and something called “adaptability”. You need a total of a 100 points to pass through this filter. The maximum score you can get for educational level is 80, but you need to have a PhD to get that, and if you don’t have at least a bachelor’s degree you get no points at all. To get points for “adaptability” – the maximum is only 15 – you need to have lived and studied or worked previously in another EU country. That leaves language skills, for which you can earn a maximum of 40 points. You need an accredited certificate of proficiency in Danish, Swedish or German to get any points at all.
So let’s do the math. In practice, unless they are university graduates with adequate language skills, it’s impossible for non-EU citizens to reside in Denmark legally. And it’s impossible to tot up the required 100 points without points for language skills – even if you’ve got a doctorate and have worked previously in the UK (you’d only manage 95 points in that case).
Oh, and anyone who manages to pass through to the other side of this filter and is granted a green card can’t bring any family members with them until they’ve (a) got a job; (b) that job’s been registered with the authorities, and (c) they’ve received their first salary. If they lose their job within a probationary period, they’re kicked out of the country.
Why do you think this issue is “tricky”, Bingo? The Danes have rigged their points system in such a way that nobody who doesn’t speak their (or a related) language has a hope in hell of being allowed in. Is such a system unreasonable or racist?
[Source here: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/greencard-scheme/ ]
I can’t speak to the Danish system, since I know absolutely nothing about it.
What I will say is that I know at least one person who lives in Denmark and speaks none of the three languages you’ve listed above. He’s there for work, highly skilled and educated, and no one seems to have a problem with his presence. I’m sure he’ll pick up one of the languages in due course. This is why it’s “tricky” to implement a blanket prohibition on immigrants who don’t speak the native tongue; sometimes you may actually need some of the buggers.
Beyond that, I have absolutely zero idea why your post repeatedly brings racism into the discussion. It’s certainly not an accusation I’ve made, nor would make – hence my statement that the OP is “terrific”.
Just because of your use of “tricky” – nothing else. It suggested the need to tread with care around a delicate subject, and, given the OP, I was assuming that the risk of being accused of racism when suggesting caps on numbers was what you had in mind. If it wasn’t, then apologies.
Is the person you mention an EU citizen? If so, then obviously not of what I cited applies.
Another thing I’ve noticed from that (government) Danish site is their cap on asylum seekers. They limit the number of those admitted as such to 500 a year. Even allowing for the difference in population size – about a tenth of UKs – that’s five times less than the numbers currently being admitted to the UK and fifteen times less than the figures 10-20 years ago.
Can you imagine anyone other than UKIP suggesting, in the current climate, that it would be reasonable to slash the number of asylum seekers admitted into the country to only 10% of the current figures? I can’t. Why is Britain so sensitive about this issue? As you say, certain levels of migration are necessary to cover workforce requirements, but why – as Raymond’s (yep, terrific) also asks – is it taboo to suggest that the country’s needs should determine who gets in and who doesn’t?
Ah, I see! No, not “cuturally tricky”, more “logistically tricky”.
I think the reason this subject is something of a taboo is because we have a less than proud recent history when it comes to welcoming our immigrants, and we’re painfully aware of it.
British resistance to immigration in the 50s, 60s and 70s WAS generally rooted in racism (as far as I understand it – I wasn’t alive to see it), it was hard to uproot, it certainly didn’t promote integration, and it’s left a taint which means any anti-immigration rhetoric is viewed as the peak of a very slippery slope.
I offer the above as a potential explanation of, rather than an argument in support of. Personally, I think it’s an emotional tic we need to move beyond.
That said, I do sometimes wonder if the people shouting “racism!” aren’t exactly the same small, finger-wagging minority of loudmouths whose social media presence so greatly outweighs their actual number and whose greatest, wettest dream is to actually catch another human being racist/sexist/homophobic. It’s certainly not an accusation I see being chucked around much in my day to day life when this topic comes up.
I agree that the issue is very important, and I agree that the state of the debate is risible. To be honest though, I think the original post by Raymond is rather unhelpful.
I don’t have the time or energy to go through it paragraph by paragraph, but can’t resist a couple of observations.
1. “we continue to use the emotive term ‘refugee’ when, under European law, someone cannot be classed as a refugee if they have crossed several ‘safe’ borders after having fled their own country. Many of the folk we are being urged to accept with open arms can, by no meaningful legal definition, be described as ‘refugees’. Accordingly, one must assume that they are economic migrants.”
Refugee is a very clearly defined term. The definition is in the 1951 Convention that the UK helped negotiate and is a party to. It has nothing to do with European law. The UK joined the convention 40 years before the EU even existed, in its capacity as a sovereign state. The issue of crossing safe borders also has nothing to do with the definition of a refugee. That is a conflation of the definition of a refugee with the European procedures describing how to meet the legal obligation that all parties to the Convention have in modern Europe, where border controls have been relaxed.
A refugee is a person who is outside the country of his nationality because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to that country or seek its protection.
There is an obligation to assist refugees, but the Convention is not a suicide pact. Sweden has received roughly 200,000 people seeking asylum. However, the government has now changed the rules because the number has begun to be politically and economically destabilizing for the country. It is for each country to decide how to meet its obligations, and European countries have reached radically different conclusions on what they should do.
This is unfortunate, because if the issue was managed on a European level, the numbers that have arrived so far would actually not be particularly problematic.
2. “When the Amsterdam treaty of 1999 formally incorporated the Schengen agreement into European law, commentators who pointed out the obvious (i.e. that opening Europe’s doors to potentially millions of poor Africans and Eastern Europeans could have catastrophic consequences) were routinely dismissed”
Schengen has nothing at all to do with “opening the door to African migrants”, and it has nothing to do with the migration of Europeans to the UK. Schengen facilitates the movement of people between participating states by relaxing border controls. The UK is not a participating state.
No African country participates in Schengen. The level of non-EU migration into an EU member state is an entirely national matter, the EU has nothing to say about it at all.
The right to live and work in another EU member state is contained in the Lisbon Treaty, but the UK does not participate in Schengen. Ireland and the UK opted out of that provision of the Treaty. The right to live and work in another EU member state is part of the treaty, and it is intended to promote labour mobility within a single market.
3. Migration (which is a different issue from the treatment of refugees) is necessary across the industialized world.
Because the birth rate is flat and people are living longer there is already a deficit in the working age population (people aged 16-65) and by about 2030 that deficit will be very large. In other words, too few people will be paying taxes to sustain an aging population. Migration is the only realistic way to close that gap. Bulgaria, Romania and Poland are 3 countries where the labour force imbalance is going to be particularly severe. In the next decade it is quite likely that a lot of people who moved to the UK looking for work will go back, and any unemployed UK youth might want to look at the option of using the right to work created by the EU, since those countries are likely to have labour shortages. You can probably have a secure job, a nice house, better weather and nicer sausages, or you could live with your parents until you are 45.
UK net migration is at a record level at the moment (in the last year about 630,000 people came to live in the UK and about 300,000 emigrated). The increase began in 2012. About half the arrivals are from the EU, the other half are from outside the EU.
There is a debate about the economic impact of migration that I am not competent to assess really. There are undoubtedly unemployed immigrants, but the OECD data suggest the UK does rather well on that score, with far fewer immigrants unemployed as a share of the total number than almost all other countries. There are undoubtedly sectors of the workforce that depend on immigration. The Institute of Directors is pretty blunt in saying that successive governments have failed to deliver an education system which equips young British with the skills needed by UK employers, and parts of the NHS are only sustainable through recruitment in other countries. I don’t know if there is a shared net assessment of the economic impact. That would be interesting.
Thanks, Jed for clearing some matters up (at least for me) . You’ve got my vote!
It’s good that Jed correct some misconceptions in the OP. There’s also the problem that the party that expresses the most concern on this issue has shown itself to be comprised of a fair number of bigots who inconveniently have had a tendency to show their true colours on Twitter and elsewhere, despite Farage’s attempts to supress the reality of his party’s real beliefs. This makes it hard to accept that their anti-immigration stance is not actually for the wrong reasons and they are not in fact taking advantage of what may be more genuine concerns among those who vote for them.
As for major political parties not touching this, well of course the Tories do but partly for political expediency to avoid losing votes to UKIP, whereas in reality Osbornes economic plans assume and require a continuation of current immigration levels. So their approach is somewhat disingenous.
The UKIP problem is also the problem the government has in Sweden. It’s willingness to take refugees plus the immigration that has already taken place has boosted the popularity of the admittedly more far-right than UKIP, Swedish Democrats. Should they therefore appease that proportion of the electorate in order to diminish the SD party, going against humanitarian considerations and probable economic benefits? It’s a tricky one.
I do also think some people who aren’t doing so well will inevitably look to blame immigrants for their troubles. That isn’t a fair and reasonable response but it’s understandable of course. There will be pressures on public services and tensions regarding cultural differences but past experience with various groups of refugees who came to the UK show that this worked itself out for the good of the country over time. But yeah, the raising of the question of what is a reasonable number to take at any given point is fair enough. There have also been problems of integration. In Sweden learning the language is a requirement and lessons are compulsory. I think that’s good. I don’t think housing all these people in one part of town (as is the case where I live) is desirable. That creates a ghetto effect and a sense of them and us , have and have nots, which led to the riots in Stockholm. Concerns should be aired but bigots do jump on the band wagon.
I don’t think one should focus soley on unemployed migrants. As you say, the numbers in this category are relatively small, but that masks other issues. Firstly, in some parts of the country there are not insignificant numbers of people working in what are effectively zombie businesses. Secondly, we have the seemingly intractable issue whereby employers cannot recruit local people and consequently recruit people from the EU to come and do relatively lowly paid and at best semi-skilled work. In the worst case scenario UK based people continue to be economically inactive whilst further employees are imported who, whilst working, are also receiving tax credits and other in-work benefits. Whatever the cause the outcome is a pretty expensive way ( in terms of the national economy) of ensuring there are enough people to work in ,say, a sandwich factory.
Don’t want to sound apocalyptical, but this issue is not going to get solved anytime soon. In fact, there are many reasons why the global population is going to get a lot more mobile this century. And bombing Syria is certainly not going to decrease the short term influx to Europe.
That is what I think too.
The idea that we can have free movement of money, free movement of goods, free movement of information and ideas in digital space, but all the people have to stay exactly where they are is very unconvincing.