Is New Labour the New BNP?

[InsaneApache]

Just to flesh it out for our overseas members.

Margeret Hodge.


Established British families should be given social housing even if they need it less than new immigrants, a government minister said yesterday.

Margaret Hodge said that indigenous families’ “legitimate sense of entitlement” should be taken into account in deciding who was housed.

Ms Hodge, an Industry Minister, has called before for the Government to do more to counter the resentments created by immigration.

Established British families should be given social housing even if they need it less than new immigrants, a government minister said yesterday.

Margaret Hodge said that indigenous families’ “legitimate sense of entitlement” should be taken into account in deciding who was housed.

Ms Hodge, an Industry Minister, has called before for the Government to do more to counter the resentments created by immigration.

Yesterday she suggested that national insurance contributions could be used as part of a points system of housing allocation.

She said the Government currently “prioritised the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement that others feel they have to resources in the community”.

She added: “So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded privately-rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.”

Hazel Blears, Labour’s chair-woman and a candidate for deputy leader, agreed that ministers had to do more to convince people that the system was equitable. “I think that people in this country have a real sense of fairness. They are prepared to do their bit but they want to know the system actually works for them. So I do think we need to tackle these tough issues.”

However, Nancy Kelly, of the Refugee Council, a campaigning group, said that Ms Hodge was aping the BNP. “The way to counter some of the views that are put forward by the far-right parties is not by trying to follow their lead.”

Ms Kelly said that asylum-seekers were not entitled to council housing and arrivals from new EU states had restricted access to benefits. “People who are recognised as refugees are entitled to council housing but on exactly the same basis a UK national, on the basis of need,” she said.

Ms Hodge, an immigrant herself – she was born in Egypt to Jewish refugee parents – said that she had seen many voters in her Barking constituency turn to the BNP because of concerns over housing allocations.

She said a transparent points system, giving more weight to length of residence, citizenship and national insurance contributions, could be a better way of allocating housing.

Writing in The Observer, she said that there was widespread concern about the changing face of Britain, and people needed to be reassured. “We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants. We must address these difficult questions.”

Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman, said that Ms Hodge’s comments acknowledged the Government’s “long-term failure” to control immigration.

Andrew Stunell, the Liberal Democrat local government spokesman, said that the Government was continuing to sell council houses although there were 1½ million families on the council housing waiting list.

Ruth Kelly.


Councils should encourage immigrants to learn English instead of routinely translating documents into foreign languages, Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, said yesterday. Ms Kelly said that translation had been used too frequently and could become a “crutch” that discouraged integration. The practice enabled new immigrants to avoid learning English when they first arrived, meaning that they never did, she said.

Councils should encourage immigrants to learn English instead of routinely translating documents into foreign languages, Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, said yesterday. Ms Kelly said that translation had been used too frequently and could become a “crutch” that discouraged integration. The practice enabled new immigrants to avoid learning English when they first arrived, meaning that they never did, she said.

Ms Kelly said that there were cases – such as in a casualty ward – in which translation was necessary, but that learning and using the English language was key to helping migrants to integrate.

The minister will receive a report this week from the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, which was set up by her department. The commission focused on concerns that segregated communities have acted as a spawning ground for extremism.

Ms Kelly told the BBC that the commission would issue guidance to local authorities, leading them away from “routine” translation. It would then be used only in appropriate situations, such as emergency services. She said: “I think speaking the language is absolutely key. Something the commission looked at specifically is whether we should be translating from English into different languages as a matter of routine. They are going to put out guidance . . . where local authorities can ask really hard questions about whether or not we are providing a crutch and supporting people in their difference, or whether translation is being used in the appropriate circumstances.”

She added: “I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought to the consequences. So, for example, it’s quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan or elsewhere in the world and find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue, and therefore not have the incentive to learn the language.”

Other ideas discussed by the commission include some compulsory national or community service. Ms Kelly praised voluntary community services but said that there were “real practical issues” with making it compulsory.

Ms Kelly spoke as Hazel Blears, the Labour party chairman, was accused of stereotyping immigrants after suggesting that the public associated them with antisocial behaviour. Ms Blears, a candidate for the deputy leadership of the party, expressed concern that people in her Salford constituency were “worried” about changes in the community.

“We have got areas in Salford where private landlords are letting properties with 10 and 12 people in there,” she said. “Now, the community doesn’t object to the people – they object to the exploitation and the fact that that leads to people being on the street drinking, antisocial behaviour.

“They object if they are undercutting wages and not getting the national minimum wage and they are not abiding by health and safety, so you have got to enforce the law.”

Her comments, in an interview with The Independent on Sunday, prompted David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, to blame her for public concerns. “It is wholly irresponsible for Ministers of the Crown to stereotype any group,” he said. “If anybody is responsible for the concerns about immigration – on housing, education or indeed community relations – it is a Government that, while Hazel Blears was a Home Office Minister, allowed 600,000 immigrants to enter the country in one year.”

Hazel Blears.


Hazel Blears, the Labour party chairman, was accused of stereotyping immigrants after suggesting that the public associated them with antisocial behaviour. Ms Blears, a candidate for the deputy leadership of the party, expressed concern that people in her Salford constituency were “worried” about changes in the community

Hazel Blears, the Labour party chairman, was accused of stereotyping immigrants after suggesting that the public associated them with antisocial behaviour. Ms Blears, a candidate for the deputy leadership of the party, expressed concern that people in her Salford constituency were “worried” about changes in the community.

“We have got areas in Salford where private landlords are letting properties with 10 and 12 people in there,” she said. “Now, the community doesn’t object to the people – they object to the exploitation and the fact that that leads to people being on the street drinking, antisocial behaviour.

“They object if they are undercutting wages and not getting the national minimum wage and they are not abiding by health and safety, so you have got to enforce the law.”

Her comments, in an interview with The Independent on Sunday, prompted David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, to blame her for public concerns. “It is wholly irresponsible for Ministers of the Crown to stereotype any group,” he said. “If anybody is responsible for the concerns about immigration – on housing, education or indeed community relations – it is a Government that, while Hazel Blears was a Home Office Minister, allowed 600,000 immigrants to enter the country in one year.”

Bit of a lurch to the right isn't it. If they carry on like this, not only will they be right of the Tories but up there with the fascists.

To think I was hoping that there might be a smidgin of common sense after the criminal Blair had gone. :no:

[doc_bean]

Well the first point is obviously wrong if it concern Brittish citizens (legalized immigrants). The other two I don't necessarily disagree with, the first feels rather like common sense, you need the immigrants to integrate, not to alter society to the desires of immigrants, the second is the unfortunate truth that many people find 'foreign looking' people scary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to agree with Doc, immigration is currently happening too fast, if something isn't done to soften the impact the end result will inevitably be violence.

[English assassin]

I have to agree with Doc, immigration is currently happening too fast, if something isn't done to soften the impact the end result will inevitably be violence.

Yeah, that's what Enoch Powell said 30 years ago.

We still seem to be waiting...

[JR-]

the disaffected left who are poorer have always drifted to the BNP in the last 20 or 30 years, despite the stereotype that says: Conservative = Rightwing = Fascist .'. Conservative = BNP.

Labour is however exactly right to say that the Government of Great Britain has an obligation to look after the welfare of its citizens in advance of all foriegn nationals. perhaps human rights legislation says otherwise, in which case it is just another reason for the UK to bin human rights legislation.

Labour is also absolutely right that immigrants should learn english as a priority, and possibly a pre-condition of remaining in the country. how does it serve the interest of British subjects that her majesty's gov't spends billions on translation services for immigrants?

I have a lot of sympathy with the Labour view that immigrants have a duty to maintain good public order. When i am in someone else's country, aware that i stand out as a foriegner, i take care not act in a manner that will be considered offensive to the locals. it is good manners. it is also good sense, because i have no connection to the locals, so they will have less compunction about giving me a thorough schoeing for acting like an arse in their back yard. it also prevents my poor conduct from bringing my country into disrepute, a problem the english are well familiar with as i am sure everyone is aware.

[rory_20_uk]

People in England speaking English... I can almost hear the tramp of Jackboots... :dizzy2:

And so people 5 mins in the country have equal rights to scarce, subsidised housing as those that have been here for years...

OK, a move to the right, but to compare with the BNP is possibly slightly editorial.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

but is it a move to the right?

what makes it a move to the right?

the BNP bleeds its supporters from the left remember, so i am not so sure the usual; left = idealistic saints, right = hitler, analogy works.

[Strike For The South]

Im with Rory. God forbid people who move to England learn english. I also think citzens should be entilted to better things becuase they are citzens. However if the brits are talking about segragating the browns from the whites citzens. Thats wrong. I do think immagration should be slowed or halted though. I mean in 50 years England will seem like a distant memory as well France and Germany and even Texas. I think people have a right to protect there culture and want to preserve it. That doesnt mean being mean or violent to people it just means not letting them in the first place.

[AntiochusIII]

Many of the first generation immigrants in the USA -- the older ones at least -- have limited to virtually no capacity for speaking English. They also have tendencies to "stick together" in terms of social circles and even economic favors.

Their children are as American in every sense of word as Jefferson's great-great-grandwhatever.

The problem is not solved by being obstinate and not translating official documents to foreign languages in some kind of symbolic statement of "You Must Or Else," but by a less hostile environment that -- most importantly -- prevents the ghettoizing of immigrant communities and lowers the barriers between (ethnic?) groups.

Denying housing to immigrants, or at least prioritizing "real British" families over them on the basis of seniority is counter-intuitive to that, and to me quite frankly smacks of anti-immigrant tendencies; at least, it could be read as such in the already touchy British society. Need, above all, should be the government's primary concern in deciding who receives support. Right now, to me, seniority makes no sense. May be someone can explain the sense in it to me?

Also, on the point of "protecting [your] culture," to me, that's just a ridiculous point. You want to protect your culture? Befriend the newcomers, bring them to the pubs (or if they don't like alcohol, try the French's coffee shops), set up festivals, sing The Beatles' songs, give them the taste of fish 'n chips. Proposed measures like these make them feel antagonized, like they're the enemies, the nuisances; not wanted and therefore don't want the friendship either. And uphold your just laws without making exceptions: the woman who holds the balanced scale is blindfolded for a reason.

[JR-]

The tide is turning on the multi-culturalism at last, thank god, so the consensus is now that you will be welcomed as long as you attempt to fit into Britain, because the previous policy whereby Britain attempted to fit (every different) you is now recognised as a disaster.

no one is talking about denying social housing to immigrants, what we are saying is a countries first duty is to the welfare of its citizens, not foreign nationals, that does not mean however you have a license to treat the latter group like p00p.

the collapse of culture is a real problem in certain areas of inner cities where immigration has concentrated huge numbers of foreign nationals to the point where they nearly out-number the locals. it is not a problem in my area, and i have never felt that >I< had a problem with too much immigration, but there are plenty who do, and many of those are legitimate.

[edited]

[doc_bean]

The problem is not solved by being obstinate and not translating official documents to foreign languages in some kind of symbolic statement of "You Must Or Else," but by a less hostile environment that -- most importantly -- prevents the ghettoizing of immigrant communities and lowers the barriers between (ethnic?) groups.


Perhaps I feel differently about it because I barely hear my own language if i walk around the city of leuven on weekends.
There's also the fact that a lot of second generation immigrants can't cope with our education system since they never learned to speak our language before kindergarten and start off with a disadvantage, which often leads to a resentment of school, or which makes teachers think they're not so smart. Since we're a 'knowledge' economy, this effectively turns immigrants into second class citizens, which is not good for anyone.

[AntiochusIII]

The tide is turning on the multi-culturalism at last, thank god, so the consensus is now that you will be welcomed as long as you attempt to fit into Britain, because the previous policy whereby Britain attempted to fit (every different) you is now recognised as a disaster.Whatever you Europeans have as the definition for multi-culturalism, in my definition it is almost a universally positive thing. It's like genetic diversity, the more the better.

So what is this evil multi-culturalism you speak of? I get some rough sketches from the many posts by the org's European posters, something about misguided privileges being wrongly considered as accommodation and all that (which to me is not even close to "multi-culturalism") -- but never the full idea.

no one is talking about denying social housing to immigrants, what we are saying is a countries first duty is to the welfare of its citizens, not foreign nationals, that does not mean however you have a license to treat the latter group like p00p.Even foreign nationals who intend to become citizens?

Like I said, on both a moral and practical basis, Need should come before the exclusive citizenship club membership. This is not voting rights, but housing for the poor. If you can't take them and treat them fair you don't take them in the first place.

Then again, I've never really bought any "nationalist" (for lack of a better term...or just my inability to express whatever I mean) myself...

the collapse of culture is a real problem in certain areas of inner cities where immigration has concentrated huge numbers of foreign nationals to the point where they nearly out-number the locals. it is not a problem in my area, and i have never felt that >I< had a problem with too much immigration, but there are plenty who do, and many of those are legitimate.Collapse of culture? That doesn't even make sense.

In any case immigrants outnumbering the locals is not inherently a problem unless the immigrant group abuse that Democratic superiority (random term :P). One could prevent that situation by a proper system of checks and balances in the government anyway.

Unless you're asserting that cultural changes that come with demographic changes are inherently wrong.

Like I said, bringing those Pakistanis to the pubs and teaching them why Monty Python is the best geeky thing ever is far more productive than setting borderline anti-immigrant policies that benefit citizens only because they're there before.

n.b. before i get accused of being a closet racist; i have a polish girlfriend and was out for a beer with a load of polish friends last night.I'm not very keen on calling people racists, and I don't believe you're one anyway. But you are aware that that particular argument is the oldest apologetic trick in the book for every closet racist out there, right?

Not that you're a racist for adopting that argument, mind you. I'm just sayin' the tactic itself is altogether tainted -- whether the assertion is truthful or not.

[InsaneApache]

And uphold your just laws without making exceptions: the woman who holds the balanced scale is blindfolded for a reason.

Not in the UK. Our version of justice is not blindfolded. Something to do with not only justice being done, but it must be seen to be done.

[doc_bean]

Whatever you Europeans have as the definition for multi-culturalism, in my definition it is almost a universally positive thing. It's like genetic diversity, the more the better.

So what is this evil multi-culturalism you speak of? I get some rough sketches from the many posts by the org's European posters, something about misguided privileges being wrongly considered as accommodation and all that (which to me is not even close to "multi-culturalism") -- but never the full idea.
Even foreign nationals who intend to become citizens?


Well there are several issues related to immigration, i'll try to give a brief overview, note most immigrants are people from North Africa:


1. Immigrants as second class citizens

Immigration (re-)started here with guest worker programs, where we wen to recruit immigrants in foreign countries to work for us, or occasionally alongside us. needless to say this made them second class citizens at first. After a while the guest worker programs died out, but many immigrants (second and third generation) still do 'the dirty work'.

There is a big difference in level of education the average immigrant child receives and the average 'local' child gets. In the old days this was at least partially due to 'the system' which was biased against them. These days that bias is debatable, the difference now seems mostly due to financial and cultural differences. Four years of higher education is quite an expense, even if it's practically free here, you still lose money from not working. Add to that that there are very few examples of higher educated immigrants.

This keeps the culture of 'second class' citizens going, and there's very little that can be done about it, even with hand outs.

EDIT: this of course, also means that immigrants tend to be relatively poor, and that crime is prelevant amongst youngsters.

2. The crazy left

Fragony should really tell you about these people...

Essentially, they're the people who think 'a difficult childhood' is a good excuse to get acquitted for rape or murder. They tend to think every immigrant (whatever generation) has had a difficult childhood. Hence they don't feel 'immigrants' should be threated like other people.
They're the PC police making it impossible to have a decent immigration policy based on equality. Luckily, this kind of thinking seems to be dying out.

EDIT: I'd like to add that these people actually had quite a bit of political power in Europe a while ago.

3. Social security and holes in the system

In Europe most countries have some sort of social security system which helps the poor out. A lot of immigrants are poor. This leads to three things:
1. The 'locals' feel the immigrants are taking all the money they worked so hard for
2. Immigrants often get so much money from social security that they're better off not working (often this comes from exploiting holes in the system, legally or illegally)
3. Immigrants bring over family, who are then entitled to the same kind of benefits, they bring over family etc. etc . (might be a mostly belgian issue though)

Essentially, this situation is quite comparable to the US, just take any random republicans rant against universal health care or social security and think that the poor are mostly immigrants (whether this is true or not might be debatable, it's public perception anyway) and we are a society that actually has these things. The rethoric is quit similar.

4. Islam

Most immigrants here come from muslim countries. Most immigrants where ever they from tend to miss home and try to preserve their culture in their foreign country, sometimes more extreme, or more deliberate than they would have done in their own country. In this case, Islam is very important to them. Now, western society has been mostly christian and doesn't always 'get' the difference between christianity and Islam. Frankly, no country really knows how to deal with it.

There are two important issues with Islam:
1. Radical Islam: second and third generation immigrants often go looking for their roots, which often makes them suceptible to radicals. A lot of terrorists are western bred for a reason. Add to that that until 9/11 no one really payed attention to what was said in the Mosques, what really was going on was that Imams who got kicked out of Islamic countries for preaching hate or being to extreme had now come to Europe and where preaching the same message of hate here.
We believe in the strict separation of church and state and did'nt/don't know how to handle that.

2. Overstated cultural differences and religious symbols. The headscarf issue is a good example, it seems to be a big deal all over Europe, should headscarves be allowed everywhere ? Current 'bans' in Europe are no more extreme than the 'ban' in Turkey which has been around for quite a while. Yet a lot of Muslims seem to take offence here. once again, i feel this is related to 'overcompensating' their culture because they are so far away from their 'homeland'.
Add to that the extreme left which feels we should adapt to everything they want (seriously, we'd all be wearing headscarves if it were up to them) and the debate becomes quite irrational.

---
EDIT: comparing this situation with the US, I'd say, think of the race issues (with black people), add that they have a different religion, add that they speak a different language, remove all cultural icons (sports, entertainment) of this group, add that they still have a culture of their own and a 'homeland', and (since not everything has to worse) remove the slavery issue.

[JR-]

I'm not very keen on calling people racists, and I don't believe you're one anyway. But you are aware that that particular argument is the oldest apologetic trick in the book for every closet racist out there, right?

Not that you're a racist for adopting that argument, mind you. I'm just sayin' the tactic itself is altogether tainted -- whether the assertion is truthful or not.
having thought about it i have to agree, the statement doesn't add any weight because it is seen to have been misused.

[econ21]

Most immigrants here come from muslim countries.

Are you sure? In the UK, they are far outnumbered by immigrants from "white" countries - mainly EU I guess, but a fair number of Yanks, Aussies, South Africans etc.

Are you from Belgium? I'd be surprised if you have less EU immigrants than the UK (proportionately). Or more immigrants from muslim countries, for that matter.

[doc_bean]

Are you sure? In the UK, they are far outnumbered by immigrants from "white" countries - mainly EU I guess, but a fair number of Yanks, Aussies, South Africans etc.

Are you from Belgium? I'd be surprised if you have less EU immigrants than the UK (proportionately). Or more immigrants from muslim countries, for that matter.

Okay, most immigrants we have problems with. There's still a big wave of immigration from Russia, former soviet countries and the Balkan countries going on, but aside from organized crime I've heard few people complaining about them. The issue mainly seems to be about muslim immigrants, at least for now.

EDIT: couldn't find decent statistics since it's so easy to become a Belgian. Apparently Morocco is the biggest 'immigrant supplier', followed by Italy and Turkey, then France and mostly European countries. We have approximately 1.5 million 'foreigners' living here (people not born a Belgian) on a population of approximately 10 million.
With such a large percentage of people living here who weren't born here, having a decent immigration policy is a necessity imho.

[econ21]

Okay, most immigrants we have problems with. There's still a big wave of immigration from Russia, former soviet countries and the Balkan countries going on, but aside from organized crime I've heard few people complaining about them. The issue mainly seems to be about muslim immigrants, at least for now.

Well then I think "the issue" is very confused.

Questions over social housing, foreign language and criminality (the three issues mentioned by the New Labour politicians) should not be discussed as if the problem was specific to Muslim immigrants. That might be how some natives perceive the problem, but it is not what any objective statistics will tell you.

In the UK, "issues" with Muslims in particular are probably best discussed without reference to immigration (and indeed housing, language and probably crime). In the UK, many (maybe half or more) Muslims are second and third generation so when it comes to worries about Islamic terrorism, it is quite unhelpful to describe them as immigrants.

I rather fear "Muslim" now plays a similar role in UK (and maybe Euro) immigration debates to what the word "black" played when Enoch Powell was stirring up the issue. It speaks to prejudices rather than facts.

[rory_20_uk]

To emigrate to a country, IMO you have to want to be part of that country. If you're there for a job then you're an economic migrant.

So, the former group should know what they are joining: at very least the language, but also the society. If you don't like it, stay away.

The latter are here for jobs, end of story. Fine. But as such they are not citizens - they are here to work. If they don't like the deal, then don't come.

People of any nationality that arrive, fail to learn the language and the culture should be discouraged from arriving in the first instance. Like that Kurdish family that killed her daughter as she went out with someone from the wrong Kurdish village!!! (all peoples are now in the UK).

The lack of languages for all IMO is sensible. The "or else" is "or else, don't come". Very simple.

I personally feel that the fact people are Muslim is a smokescreen. Yes, now a greater immigration is occurring with people who don't fit in like the Caribbeans did and in most part Europeans and most asians. Now, the new lot aren't happy with the schools, the language and far from adopting a feeling of belonging are firmly and in some cases militantly attached far more to the place they chose to leave.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Well then I think "the issue" is very confused.

Questions over social housing, foreign language and criminality (the three issues mentioned by the New Labour politicians) should not be discussed as if the problem was specific to Muslim immigrants. That might be how some natives perceive the problem, but it is not what any objective statistics will tell you.

In the UK, "issues" with Muslims in particular are probably best discussed without reference to immigration (and indeed housing, language and probably crime). In the UK, many (maybe half or more) Muslims are second and third generation so when it comes to worries about Islamic terrorism, it is quite unhelpful to describe them as immigrants.

I rather fear "Muslim" now plays a similar role in UK (and maybe Euro) immigration debates to what the word "black" played when Enoch Powell was stirring up the issue. It speaks to prejudices rather than facts.
Muslims are more readily identified as Asian rather than Muslim in the UK, and have been taunted as such - the term "paki" long predates any issues with Bin Laden. The development of a global identity that they could identify with, and the additional excuse it gave both racists to barrack them with, and them to over-react in aid of, was probably the last step in something that had been brewing up anyway. The underlying problem is much the same as the black problem - unease with a section of society identifiable by their looks, and youngsters finding a radical counter-culture to find cause with. We're trying the same sort of solution, which I predict will meet with the same sort of success, but it'll probably take roughly the same time-span. Nothing much to worry about, in other words, despite what Frag and others may suggest.

I don't materially fear right-wing pronouncements like these, as they never amount to anything substantial, but they really don't contribute to any improvement in mood. It's probably just another "hang 'em high" cry to get them the support of the Daily Mail crowd, but it's distasteful all the same.

[rory_20_uk]

Whereas terms such as "whiteboy", "pom", "limey", "le rost boeuf" are all terms of endearment...

I don't feel derided if called any of the above or "Brit", which is the equivalent of "Paki".

And others...; Frog, Hun, Kraut etc etc.

Then more recently there's "Chav" and "white trash".

There's loads of them for almost every minority you can think of based on national, religious and ethnic lines!

So why any ones that infringe Pakistanis are oh so bad?

~:smoking:

[JR-]

It's probably just another "hang 'em high" cry to get them the support of the Daily Mail crowd, but it's distasteful all the same.
no, it is about a government getting its priorities right.

n.b. broadly agreed with Rory's previous two posts.

[Pannonian]

Whereas terms such as "whiteboy", "pom", "limey", "le rost boeuf" are all terms of endearment...

I don't feel derided if called any of the above or "Brit", which is the equivalent of "Paki".

And others...; Frog, Hun, Kraut etc etc.

Then more recently there's "Chav" and "white trash".

There's loads of them for almost every minority you can think of based on national, religious and ethnic lines!

So why any ones that infringe Pakistanis are oh so bad?

~:smoking:
I never said it was particularly bad, relative to all the other racial taunts, I only said the underlying reasons for the problem were already there. I then said the addition of Bin Laden to the mix and the trans-national identity he offered for young would-be radicals tipped it over into what it is now. If you're going to refute my point, refute my whole point, not the part.

[doc_bean]

Well then I think "the issue" is very confused.

Questions over social housing, foreign language and criminality (the three issues mentioned by the New Labour politicians) should not be discussed as if the problem was specific to Muslim immigrants. That might be how some natives perceive the problem, but it is not what any objective statistics will tell you.

No, I was merely trying to explain the problems with immigration in Europe to Antiochus, a lot of the 'problems' are due to perception and public opinion. You can't deny that.



In the UK, "issues" with Muslims in particular are probably best discussed without reference to immigration (and indeed housing, language and probably crime). In the UK, many (maybe half or more) Muslims are second and third generation so when it comes to worries about Islamic terrorism, it is quite unhelpful to describe them as immigrants.

Part of the problem is that the public still sees them as immigrants (and they see themselves as something else as 'pure' natives too.), and a lot of them aren't really integrated into 'common' society. That *is* a big issue with immigration now, the problems don't vanish a generation later. Giving the problems a different name isn't going to make them go away. They are integration issues.



I rather fear "Muslim" now plays a similar role in UK (and maybe Euro) immigration debates to what the word "black" played when Enoch Powell was stirring up the issue. It speaks to prejudices rather than facts.

That I won't deny, it doesn't solve the problem though.
As for facts, immigrants are generally poorer, even in the second or third generation and not as highly educated as 'locals', statistics do back this up (didn't find any on the second issue, but then I just need to look around to know that). Most immigrant Turks (later generation) still hang on to their 'second' nationality, even if it requires payment or military service, and about half the muslim marriage are to people from their 'country of origin' (a recent study has shown that). There *are* real issues, not just preconceptions.

Non-muslim immigrants seem to adapt faster and better, although that might be just the way it seems (there are less of them anyway, or they aren't here for economical reasons).

[JR-]

just a note:

it tends to be muslims and blacks that underachieve.

chinese and hindu-indian groups do very well for themselves, probably better on average than whiteys.

[English assassin]

Whereas terms such as "whiteboy", "pom", "limey", "le rost boeuf" are all terms of endearment...

I don't feel derided if called any of the above or "Brit", which is the equivalent of "Paki".

And others...; Frog, Hun, Kraut etc etc.

Then more recently there's "Chav" and "white trash".

There's loads of them for almost every minority you can think of based on national, religious and ethnic lines!

So why any ones that infringe Pakistanis are oh so bad?

~:smoking:

Well the short answer would be that it is inaccurate, since to be pakistani is to have a nationality, whereas people of pakistani origin in the UK are usually British.

More importantly though, it doesn't depend on the term, but the relationship between the person using the word and the person referred to. Even if he actually intends to offend me, I would say an Australian calling me a Pom is not using an offensive term, because Australians do not have a history of excluding Brits from jobs etc. Likewise I could call him an Ozzie [product of a single parent family].

I would have to be MUCH more careful to refer to an Irishman as, say, a Fenian, in fact, basically, I wouldn't. But one irishman could call aother a fenian withiout it being offensive (so long as the Irishmen in question are not Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness that is)

Its not the term its the relationship that matters. Louis the Fat will be along in a bit to deconstruct this further if need be.

[rory_20_uk]

I have a friend who feels he is Pakistani is more than a nationality. It is also his culture and his ethnic background. He groups himself as such e.g. "us Pakis".

For a term to be relative to a group irrespective of context is discrimination. Why can others tell me what language I use - unless there are terms that they too can not use in case I get all upset.

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

Why can others tell me what language I use - unless there are terms that they too can not use in case I get all upset.

Why would it work like that Rory? Turn it around, and you are allowed to call people any offensive term you like, just because you've got a thick skin?

[econ21]

No, I was merely trying to explain the problems with immigration in Europe to Antiochus, a lot of the 'problems' are due to perception and public opinion. You can't deny that.

True, but when deciding a solution to the problem, it matters whether there is an objective basis for it. There were lots of problems due to perception and public opinion about black immigrants to the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, but the solution was not to get tough on the immigrants, it was to change the attitudes of the natives (which have indeed changed, by and large).


Part of the problem is that the public still sees them as immigrants (and they see themselves as something else as 'pure' natives too.), and a lot of them aren't really integrated into 'common' society. That *is* a big issue with immigration now, the problems don't vanish a generation later. Giving the problems a different name isn't going to make them go away. They are integration issues.

But if you are talking about second generation kids of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin in the UK, all three issues raised in the original post are irrelevant. They should have the same rights as X generation whites, they can speak English fine and they are not disproportionately involved in crime.

There may be sensitive issues to do with Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia, but they are absolutely not helped by conflating them with immigration issues.


That I won't deny, it doesn't solve the problem though.
As for facts, immigrants are generally poorer, even in the second or third generation and not as highly educated as 'locals', statistics do back this up (didn't find any on the second issue, but then I just need to look around to know that).

In the UK, immigrants are a pretty mixed bunch. They are actually more likely to have degree level education or higher than native workers. But they are also more likely to be unemployed. I suspect people have stereotypes about immigrants - they think of the Somali asylum seeker and overlook the foreign whizz kid earning big bucks in the City of London.

The immigration debate needs more light, less heat.


Most immigrant Turks (later generation) still hang on to their 'second' nationality, even if it requires payment or military service, and about half the muslim marriage are to people from their 'country of origin' (a recent study has shown that). There *are* real issues, not just preconceptions.

I am not sure the last two - dual nationality and marriage patterns - are real problems. Where's the harm? Maybe the continent has more of "guest worker" tradition than the UK (our immigrants tend to stay and eventually become solely UK citizens). But often that is the country trying to stop the immigrants settle rather than the immigrants choosing not to. As to marriage, I really would not like politicians to get involved in telling us who we should date.

[doc_bean]

True, but when deciding a solution to the problem, it matters whether there is an objective basis for it. There were lots of problems due to perception and public opinion about black immigrants to the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, but the solution was not to get tough on the immigrants, it was to change the attitudes of the natives (which have indeed changed, by and large).


I offered no solution, just shed some light on the problem.


But if you are talking about second generation kids of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin in the UK, all three issues raised in the original post are irrelevant. They should have the same rights as X generation whites, they can speak English fine and they are not disproportionately involved in crime.

Hell, from the moment they are nationalized they should get the same rights, and even before that they should get some rights, I'm not disputing that.



There may be sensitive issues to do with Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia, but they are absolutely not helped by conflating them with immigration issues.

Depends on how narrowly you want to define immigration issues. Again, I'm trying to explain the situation in Europe, not how we should fix it.




In the UK, immigrants are a pretty mixed bunch. They are actually more likely to have degree level education or higher than native workers. But they are also more likely to be unemployed. I suspect people have stereotypes about immigrants - they think of the Somali asylum seeker and overlook the foreign whizz kid earning big bucks in the City of London.

Well just because there are issues with immigration doesn't mean they have to apply to all immigrants. Immigration issues is a broad term and of you want to find solutions you have to look at all the individual problems, and how they connect or don't.



The immigration debate needs more light, less heat.

I hope you're not referring to me as bringing 'heat' to the debate. I agree with you hear, immigration and all related issues have to be looked at objectively and rationally.




I am not sure the last two - dual nationality and marriage patterns - are real problems.

They're more signs of a non-integrated culture than actual problems.


Where's the harm?

With the marriage thing: fake marriages and family reunion laws. Our legal systems sucks at those.


Maybe the continent has more of "guest worker" tradition than the UK (our immigrants tend to stay and eventually become solely UK citizens). But often that is the country trying to stop the immigrants settle rather than the immigrants choosing not to.

I never said we weren't to blame for at least some of the problem. In my 'second class citizen' point I explicitely said we were even.



As to marriage, I really would not like politicians to get involved in telling us who we should date.

Of course not, but right now you can get married, stay together for two years which makes the spouse a legal citizen. Divorce, meanwhile she can bring over her parents and siblings (family reunion laws) we all get our nationality, everybody can marry again, etc.
We don't need to forbid people from marrying who they want, we just have to evaluate the status of the spouse after divorce. We need some sort of 'green card' status.

[AntiochusIII]

Well there are several issues related to immigration, i'll try to give a brief overview, note most immigrants are people from North Africa:

*long post*Thank you. :bow:

Since I'm brain dead right now (damn early morning graduation and late night internet surfing :dizzy2: ) I'll just watch the thread until I "sober up" and not make any serious arguments.

The issues you demonstrated are indeed hard, complex, and no easy solutions issues, I agree; it also appears incredibly familiar from the US perspective, from which comparisons can be drawn as far back as the anti-Irish tendencies in the 1800's at least*. So I suppose a solution can be figured out with time. econ21 sums up my opinion so far.

*The Irish were hated by the "natives" for sticking together and mass voting in support of the political machines that lend their hands to them (Tammany being the most infamous.) They also worked in the dirtiest works and for some time weren't particularly fluent in the native language I believe. The Irish drunkard stereotype in the USA has its origin here. Even the Republican party has nativist/anti-Irish roots in part.

A century later and Irish-Americans are as Americans as there can ever be Americans. The change must be somewhere I guess.

Of course not, but right now you can get married, stay together for two years which makes the spouse a legal citizen. Divorce, meanwhile she can bring over her parents and siblings (family reunion laws) we all get our nationality, everybody can marry again, etc.
We don't need to forbid people from marrying who they want, we just have to evaluate the status of the spouse after divorce. We need some sort of 'green card' status.People do that in the US too. May be because we have a lot of space (despite the impression the anti-(illegal)immigration movement might give) nobody mind it much.

You guys don't have the green card or its equivalent? Strange. In the US the green card basically just designates you as "resident alien" -- a foreign national inhabiting in the state, usually (always?) with the intention of becoming citizens later -- which is my legal status here for now, entitled to almost all the same rights as US citizens except for voting rights and that they can deport me if I commit crimes...or put me in jail if they think I'm terrorist, I suppose, what's with that Patriot Act thing and all.

[Slyspy]

If you mean is New Labour just as populist in their choice of policy then I would say yes, in many respects. Populism = votes.

Then, when you realise that the policies are are not workable or that you simply cannot get them to function as promised, you water them down or drop them altogether. Unfulfilled promises = voter apathy.

Then you can blame the state of our democracy on the small extremist parties, rather than yourselves.

This is the essential difference between Labour and the BNP - the latter are a symptom of the nation's disillusionment with politics and politicians. The former are a cause of that disillusionment.

[econ21]

After dancing around the issue with Doc_Bean, I think I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with InsaneApache in his opening attack on three politicians from my party of choice.


The housing issue is the worst. Best rebuttal in the thread:


If you can't take them and treat them fair you don't take them in the first place.

But also doesn't Margaret Hodge's example shoot her proposal in the foot?


“So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded privately-rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.”

Am I the only one reading that example to draw from it exactly the opposite conclusion Hodge does? You have kids suffering from asthma living in damp, unhealthy accommodation. But you'd rather give the housing to some whites to avoid them living with their grandparents (oh, the horror...)? :wall: Margaret Hodge is mad.


On Ruth Kelly and the translation issue, having just struggled to fill in a French tax form, the immigrants have my sympathy. You have significant numbers of immigrants with the same mother tongue, but inadequate English, who want to know their rights. Why not tell them? Avoids some suffering from failing to claim their rights due to poor English and is probably more socially efficient to translate it properly once, than force the immigrants to translate it X times privately and probably badly. The idea that people will learn English just to read a DHSS leaflet seems straight from the Margaret Hodge school of persuasive ideas.


On Hazel Blears, I am not sure she is saying anything. Some of her consitituents don't like immigrants. Yes, that really needed saying.



If you mean is New Labour just as populist in their choice of policy then I would say yes, in many respects. Populism = votes.

We'll see. The Tories tried immigrant bashing. It did not seem to play that well with the voters. They've softened their rhetoric under Cameron - I think he is far too canny and post-Thatcherite to be caught making comparable statements. Labour playing that card sounds even less promising - I think voters can spot a fake a mile off and the motley trio of Hodge/Kelly/Blears sound even less plausible immigrant bashers than Hague (too clever)/Howard (too ethnic)/Duncan-Smith (too nice but dim).

[Crazed Rabbit]

How much housing is provided by the government in Britain to the public? Is it completely free?

I would tend to think that accepting immigrants who then are put immediately on welfare is foolish.

Crazed Rabbit

[econ21]

How much housing is provided by the government in Britain to the public? Is it completely free?

Google tells me that 19% of households in the 2001 census were in social housing (council housing, housing association or registered social landlord).

I think the provision and financing are separate. There are Council houses, run by local governments, that charge rents. I suspect they are below market rents, as there is excess demand for that kind of housing.

Then there are housing benefits set at the national level that could conceivably pay for all the housing costs of a homeless or incomeless person.


I would tend to think that accepting immigrants who then are put immediately on welfare is foolish.

By and large, I doubt the UK does that. For example, in the case of housing, the housing charity Shelter's website says:

"Most people from abroad (including virtually all asylum seekers) do not qualify for council housing. "

i.e. You have to be a permanent resident or fall into some exceptional category (e.g. refugee).

We have a work permit system which means a lot of foreigners can only get in if they have jobs lined up. I am not sure what the welfare rules are if the job falls through, but I doubt they are entitled to most benefits.

[rory_20_uk]

The housing isn't free, but as you say, if the persons are on welfare the government is merely shuffling money round departments.

This family with 5 children has come over here. Looking at the details they've either god extremely bad jobs or none at all, or are in a completely unsuitable area where property prices are high.

And now they're providing the country with nothing / little. They not only get the housing, welfare, but also schooling and free healthcare.

If western countries wish to help the rest of the world, merely bringing those that get here everything they and their large / sick family requires is a very inefficient way of doing it. It is likely that they would get no healthcare at home either due to the cost or there being none available.

Adopting a process similar to Australia would be the best compromise.

~:smoking:

[econ21]

This family with 5 children has come over here. Looking at the details they've either god extremely bad jobs or none at all, or are in a completely unsuitable area where property prices are high.

Which family do you mean? I thought Hodge was talking about a hypothetical case? I am not sure it is very helpful to discuss such a case unless we know the specifics. For example, if Shelter is right, if they are from abroad they must be permanent residents or some special case (e.g. refugees) be entitled to council housing.


If western countries wish to help the rest of the world, merely bringing those that get here everything they and their large / sick family requires is a very inefficient way of doing it.

I am not sure we are doing this on any scale. For example, the work permit system requires the employer to make a case that the job cannot be filled by a local. We do help with refugees, but probably do less than many poor countries (which border the failed states) and I suspect refugees are a very small fraction of all immigrants to the UK.

For what it is worth, I think helping refugees is probably one of the most efficient things a country could do to help with the fallout from a failing state. It transforms the refugees' lives in a way that aid or other interventions usually fail to do, and probably has very small cost in the long run (as the refugees or their descendants will eventually get jobs and pay their way - like Margaret Hodge, Michael Howard, Michael Portillo etc).

[JR-]

this article (short) describes the problem in the UK very well:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/14/nrural314.xml

[Tribesman]

this article (short) describes the problem in the UK very well:

Noooooooo....it isn't the eastern europeans ...its gotta be the muslims .

Anyhow as a side note , the two footnote stories on that link...learn English and all that jazz ...isn't it funny that the head of the commision who did the study that is the subject of the main article has a mother who after decades living in the UK , raising a family who are well integrated and having a son who has risen to high position ...doesn't speak english :inquisitive:
Perhaps this language thing and integration are somewhat over-rated:laugh4: