7 ms·

Next up, "Down with immigrants!" and "They took my job!" - very ugly tide of anti-immigration sentiment rising in the UK, largely because migrants are prepared

Next up, "Down with immigrants!" and "They took my job!" - very ugly tide of anti-immigration sentiment rising in the UK, largely because migrants are prepared to work, and native brits are not, as they feel entitled to a record contract and a pony.

RobertoG 11y ago
People feel entitled to what they have and don't want to lost it. You don't need to be an expert in psychology to realize that. If you have to compete with people that are more desperate that you, you are not going to like that. This is true for Brits and for Indians. But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Downward pressure on wages is good for some people but not most people. Of course the immigrants have a right to the good things of life also, and I don't have a solution, but don't make these issues more simpler than they are.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "Of course the immigrants have a right to the good things of life also" Maybe we should be fixing their societies? Because letting 0,1% of people in third-world countries come and enjoy good things does nothing for their society in a long run, while it can do considerable harm (or good, for sure!) for the receiving society.
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    Well yes. If we can do that, I totally agree. But, is that politically possible? I would vote for serious resource investment in a plan for finishing the world poverty but I suspect it's not in the program of the political parties. We prefer to organize military operations ¿!??, like the current European one against the "mafias" that "exploit" the Libyan illegal immigrants, instead of facing the roots of the problem.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    letting 0,1% of people in third-world countries come and enjoy good things does nothing for their society in a long run Sure it does. It alleviates the problem of the (often) explosive population growth, it brings in billions of dollars in remittances, and it allows future returnees to come with education and work experience which is, if not better, at least different from what the origin country provides. There's a nice example in this week's TAL episode, regarding Kaiser Kuo, the American-born son of Chinese immigrants who "brought rock and roll to China" (by being one of the founders of Tang Dynasty). I think it's clear that the immigration of his parents was essential for his accomplishments.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Taking away 0,1% of people sure doesn't solve the problem of population growth, it's statistically insignificant. Your other points stand, but only if donor society is in relatively good shape. Indian emigrants may help India but I doubt Somalian or Libyan emigrants help countries they fled.
      - ido 11y ago
        Why don't you move to Somalia or Libya and try your best to help them? The pure accident of chance that someone was born in one country and you were born in another does not change your or their obligation to either country. We are only beholden to our own actions, not those of our ancestors or people who carry the same passport as us.
        guard-of-terra 11y ago
        "We are only beholden to our own actions" That's now how the world works now, and the only way to get what you declare is fixing all the countries and uniting Earth.
        ido 11y ago
        You are welcome to pursue fixing the world. Doesn't change my opinion that an Indian/Somali/whatever has the same right to a life of comfort as you, since they didn't choose to be born where they did and neither did you.
  - MagicWishMonkey 11y ago
    Yea someone should totally press that magic button to fix all of the things wrong with Indian society. That's a realistic way to look at things.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- shiven 11y ago
  ...but don't make these issues more simpler than they are. It makes more sense if you take a Darwinian viewpoint. Survival of the fittest and all that. In the US this happened a couple of hundred years ago as the native population got wiped out by European immigrants (or invaders). In case of the UK, as an Indian, I consider it fair comeuppance for the two centuries that Brits enslaved my country! And, by the way, I'll have some fish-n-chips with that NHS plan, thankyouverymuch.
  - berntb 11y ago
    An Indian eating fish and chips?! A couple of good friends of mine were depressed, because their kid preferred Western food. I told them to relax. "If she ends up like a native Swede, consider what food we native Swedes really love -- Indian! You can't lose. :-)"
  - jkyle 11y ago
    > Survival of the fittest and all that Darwin never made this claim, nor is it part of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't select for the 'fittest', it selects for the 'fit enough'. It's a minimum threshold, not a maximizing algorithm. Secondly, the native population of the Americas was mostly killed off by Smallpox. Though military superiority played a role, second to the pox was load bearing animals such as horses. Interestingly enough, husbandry of large livestock like horses is where diseases like the pox come from. . . and Eurasia is where all of the world's largest domesticated animals come from. So, Eurasians were able to slowly and gradually build resistance to these livestock oriented diseases. Short story: Why did all the native americans die off? Pure random chance. Not that Europeans are guilt free, they did some horrible, morally reprehensible shit. They just, even at their height, couldn't hold a candle to unadulterated, random cruelty of mother nature. That being said, there is some sweet, sweet irony when the nations that soaked up the entire world's wealth through theft, murder, and subjugation then used it to build empires on the backs of slaves complain about cheap labor taking their stuff. So enjoy the fish & chips and NHS!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
- logicchains 11y ago
  >But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Lazier than assuming that because by chance you were born in a particular country you're somehow entitled to get paid more per unit work than people born in other countries?
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > by chance you were born in a particular country It's not chance that I was born in a country with world-class freedoms, infrastructure, and and wealth. Previous generations of Americans made decisions, many good and many bad, that resulted in the current state of America. I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. To put it another way, people make sacrifices now to benefit future generations. I'd argue that it's lazy to ignore the influence of history on current affairs.
    - logicchains 11y ago
      >I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. For the record I wasn't implying that the wealth of nations is due to chance. I just meant roll of the dice in that, if there are N babies being born in a given moment, and K of those births are in a well-off country, then a given baby has a K/N chance of being born in a well-off country. Which country it's born in is not the result of any decisions on the baby's part, although I suppose as you point out it could be a result of decisions made by its parents. >I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. According to Forbes[1], 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and if one assumes those companies are a net benefit to America then immigration isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. 1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Yes, this is the same reason why folks opposed the end of Jim Crow - who wants to face economic competition from black people more desperate than you? I guess it's also lazy to make a moral argument against Jim Crow?
  - innguest 11y ago
    I'll remind everyone that it was Democrats who passed the Jim Crow laws. Those laws were passed because racist, leftist people didn't want to compete (i.e. they were against the free market). That's what you get when leftists legislate.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      The actual human beings who passed the Jim Crow laws weren't "leftists", at least, not if you judge by: * Articulated leftist principles, as written in, say, the Communist Manifesto, AND * The fact that these people mostly switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and gave us the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan that basically became modern "conservatism".
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        It's a bit silly to cite Nixon as a non-leftist, at least as a counterpoint to innguest claiming left wing andi-free market types are pro-segregation. Nixon was a Republican mainly because he was anti-soviet. His domestic policies included wage and price controls, ending the gold standard, creating the EPA, federalizing medicaid and proposing an Obamacare-like health law. Nixon seems to support innguest's (unnecessarily partisan) point - opposition to civil rights does seem to require opposition to free markets.
        eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        If we are going by the political map in usage at the time when Nixon ran and governed, then he was a right-winger. That today's political spectrum is far to the right of Nixon is not a fact about Nixon at all, but instead a fact about history after Nixon.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
"because migrants are prepared to work, and native brits are not" Is it suddently OK to say such things? Denigrating country native population because they don't agree with you? Native brits survived for thousand years so perhaps they can do so now without you worrying. (Not a brit, but in my country this ugly tool gets applied all the time)
- mkaziz 11y ago
  Those evil invading Anglo-Saxons immigrated to the lower half of Britannia and now rule the entire island. Why, they even have the gall to name part of it Angle-land!
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Which clearly shows us the dangers of uncontrolled immigration.
- 0xAA 11y ago
  > Native brits survived for thousand years so perhaps they can do so now without you worrying. LOL Ever heard of colonies?
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Colonial empire was a comparatively brief period of history, and there are hints that maintaining colonies was a net loss economically. Of course, from the perspective of power (and bringing nice perks for the elite) it was a different story.
    - jkyle 11y ago
      I'd like to see the numbers showing Spain lost money by acquiring all the gold and silver it could squeeze out of the Americas.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
mrtree 11y ago
I am an emigrant and even I find it unfair to local population. Basically you are getting the 1% best prepared of India or other countries. Of course locals can't compete.
peteretep 11y ago
> anti-immigration sentiment rising in the UK No, it's always been there.
- branchless 11y ago
  This is correct IMHO. Nu Labour made a big mistake in banning "hate speech". Being authoritarian scum Nu Labour thought you can't persuade working people not to be racist (as Nu Labour hate the working class). So they banned it instead. Now we have more economic problems and people are starting to defy the ban to complain about immigrants with the rise of UKIP. In the UK we will see a big spike in racism because instead of persuading people racism is wrong they simply suppressed it. Big mistake.
  - innguest 11y ago
    The Left (the people concerned with racism, who don't understand racism is counter-productive and no one would choose it in the free-market) is not concerned with persuading anyone of anything. Remember the USSR? Did they persuade 100 million people? No, they killed them. Killing is an extreme form of suppression. The UK isn't there yet, but it's getting there: "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" -- David Cameron He's saying "I've had enough tolerating law-abiding citizens that disagree with Leftism". You know what comes after that.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      > The UK isn't there yet, but it's getting there Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
      - innguest 11y ago
        So one way you can interpret that is to think "oh yeah he's saying 'it's getting there!' with the wag of the finger as if to say it's moving towards a more communist approach". Which seems fair to me, given Cameron's quote. The other way to interpret that is to think "oh wow, this internet person thinks that the UK is about to turn into something exactly like the USSR". Which one do you think applies? Don't answer me, I don't care, answer yourself and ask what does that say about you.
Spooky23 11y ago
It's really the same argument that public schools make about private schools. We basically discard a third or more of our population, and import the cream of the crop from India. You combine that with natural ethnic affiliations and social connections and you have a smart and powerful minority. Honestly, it's the same phenomenon as my Irish family had 40 years ago in municipal government. We had cops, firemen, tradesmen. If something needed to be done, you asked my grandfather and it happened. The difference is that those relatives had great high school educations (through the catholic church) in blue collar-ish jobs, while the Indian phenomenon is high end engineering.
ontheroxon 11y ago
Or perhaps any anti-immigration sentiment is a result of other factors, such as the rise of unwanted religious extremism, or support for and the acceptance by some groups of Sharia law.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  In which case no one should have any problem with peaceful Hindu nerds migrating to the UK, right?
carrotleads 11y ago
This is true even in India.. You can go to most South Indian States and the construction workers come from Bihar and Eastern states of India.. The locals are not willing to work at salary levels the Biharis are willing to work..
- branchless 11y ago
  Because of wage levels in the host country relative to land prices in their country of origin.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
branchless 11y ago
Saying Brits are not prepared to work is not correct. Many migrants are coming in temporarily and are saving for a home back where they came from. For them UK wages represent a fair deal per hour relative to land prices in their country of origin. If you live in the UK land prices have detached from wages. Really my only motivation for working hard in the UK was to gain the qualifications to emigrate. The UK has big problems due to a collapsing economy propped up by land prices which it is using to print money. This then has knock-on consequences such as social tensions.
- brador 11y ago
  Where did you emigrate to?
  - branchless 11y ago
    Quebec - would never have gone to Vancouver. They can stay there and be slaves to the bankers whilst telling themselves they made it big in a $1m shack, even though if they move they have to buy another $1m shack and pay a fortune in fees. Land value tax now please, and no income tax.
- akhatri_aus 11y ago
  How come these problems with land prices are only in the UK? It's not like in Canada, Australia, or even India where land prices will go down and become more affordable or increase proportionately to income? There's a very well known land price problem in Melbourne, Vancouver, Sydney. I think the newspapers in the UK have done a great job of exploiting everyone's grievances with house prices. Some countries actually dream of having house price increases, I might want to point that out. It is a way to create wealth and increase standards of living very effectively. >Print money This phrase seems to imply they literally print money and everyone seems to pile on. Surely you know at the end of QE they will be removing the money from the system in the same way they added it in. QE ended in the UK ages ago.
  - branchless 11y ago
    Australia has a huge amount of young people who are very pissed off with prices. As does Vancouver. Your last point amazes me. QE won't be unwound. Secondly when banks loan on land they create the money and this increases M4. 2/3rds of bank lending in the UK is against property.
Eye_of_Mordor 11y ago
Irony being that some of these "native brits" would be descended from Indian/Pakistani immigrants.
- mauricemir 11y ago
  Even more ironic is that these 2/3rd gen Brits are not to keen on the newer Eastern European immigrants. I remember being a bit shocked by one of my school mates (on of the Ugandan Asians expelled by Amin) saying that he could understand voting for the BNP.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Yet more ironic is as yet unnaturalised migrants railing against immigrants - was a few days ago chatting to a Russian lass in London who was complaining about "Eastern Europeans" coming and taking "our jobs". I just find the whole concept of nationality bizarre.
    - innguest 11y ago
      > I just find the whole concept of nationality bizarre. Then let go of it and call it what it is - cages for the tax cattle.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

RobertoG 11y ago

People feel entitled to what they have and don't want to lost it. You don't need to be an expert in psychology to realize that. If you have to compete with people that are more desperate that you, you are not going to like that. This is true for Brits and for Indians. But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Downward pressure on wages is good for some people but not most people. Of course the immigrants have a right to the good things of life also, and I don't have a solution, but don't make these issues more simpler than they are.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"Of course the immigrants have a right to the good things of life also" Maybe we should be fixing their societies? Because letting 0,1% of people in third-world countries come and enjoy good things does nothing for their society in a long run, while it can do considerable harm (or good, for sure!) for the receiving society.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  Well yes. If we can do that, I totally agree. But, is that politically possible? I would vote for serious resource investment in a plan for finishing the world poverty but I suspect it's not in the program of the political parties. We prefer to organize military operations ¿!??, like the current European one against the "mafias" that "exploit" the Libyan illegal immigrants, instead of facing the roots of the problem.
- icebraining 11y ago
  letting 0,1% of people in third-world countries come and enjoy good things does nothing for their society in a long run Sure it does. It alleviates the problem of the (often) explosive population growth, it brings in billions of dollars in remittances, and it allows future returnees to come with education and work experience which is, if not better, at least different from what the origin country provides. There's a nice example in this week's TAL episode, regarding Kaiser Kuo, the American-born son of Chinese immigrants who "brought rock and roll to China" (by being one of the founders of Tang Dynasty). I think it's clear that the immigration of his parents was essential for his accomplishments.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Taking away 0,1% of people sure doesn't solve the problem of population growth, it's statistically insignificant. Your other points stand, but only if donor society is in relatively good shape. Indian emigrants may help India but I doubt Somalian or Libyan emigrants help countries they fled.
    - ido 11y ago
      Why don't you move to Somalia or Libya and try your best to help them? The pure accident of chance that someone was born in one country and you were born in another does not change your or their obligation to either country. We are only beholden to our own actions, not those of our ancestors or people who carry the same passport as us.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        "We are only beholden to our own actions" That's now how the world works now, and the only way to get what you declare is fixing all the countries and uniting Earth.
        ido 11y ago
        You are welcome to pursue fixing the world. Doesn't change my opinion that an Indian/Somali/whatever has the same right to a life of comfort as you, since they didn't choose to be born where they did and neither did you.
- MagicWishMonkey 11y ago
  Yea someone should totally press that magic button to fix all of the things wrong with Indian society. That's a realistic way to look at things.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
shiven 11y ago
...but don't make these issues more simpler than they are. It makes more sense if you take a Darwinian viewpoint. Survival of the fittest and all that. In the US this happened a couple of hundred years ago as the native population got wiped out by European immigrants (or invaders). In case of the UK, as an Indian, I consider it fair comeuppance for the two centuries that Brits enslaved my country! And, by the way, I'll have some fish-n-chips with that NHS plan, thankyouverymuch.
- berntb 11y ago
  An Indian eating fish and chips?! A couple of good friends of mine were depressed, because their kid preferred Western food. I told them to relax. "If she ends up like a native Swede, consider what food we native Swedes really love -- Indian! You can't lose. :-)"
- jkyle 11y ago
  > Survival of the fittest and all that Darwin never made this claim, nor is it part of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't select for the 'fittest', it selects for the 'fit enough'. It's a minimum threshold, not a maximizing algorithm. Secondly, the native population of the Americas was mostly killed off by Smallpox. Though military superiority played a role, second to the pox was load bearing animals such as horses. Interestingly enough, husbandry of large livestock like horses is where diseases like the pox come from. . . and Eurasia is where all of the world's largest domesticated animals come from. So, Eurasians were able to slowly and gradually build resistance to these livestock oriented diseases. Short story: Why did all the native americans die off? Pure random chance. Not that Europeans are guilt free, they did some horrible, morally reprehensible shit. They just, even at their height, couldn't hold a candle to unadulterated, random cruelty of mother nature. That being said, there is some sweet, sweet irony when the nations that soaked up the entire world's wealth through theft, murder, and subjugation then used it to build empires on the backs of slaves complain about cheap labor taking their stuff. So enjoy the fish & chips and NHS!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
logicchains 11y ago
>But I suppose it's easy (but lazy) to make a moral play of this. Lazier than assuming that because by chance you were born in a particular country you're somehow entitled to get paid more per unit work than people born in other countries?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > by chance you were born in a particular country It's not chance that I was born in a country with world-class freedoms, infrastructure, and and wealth. Previous generations of Americans made decisions, many good and many bad, that resulted in the current state of America. I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. To put it another way, people make sacrifices now to benefit future generations. I'd argue that it's lazy to ignore the influence of history on current affairs.
  - logicchains 11y ago
    >I also think Americans should be exceptionally generous (I think they could do a log better), but to believe that everyone just rolled the dice so many decades ago and current Americans just happened to end up on top is to have a real nihilistic approach to history, governance, and culture. For the record I wasn't implying that the wealth of nations is due to chance. I just meant roll of the dice in that, if there are N babies being born in a given moment, and K of those births are in a well-off country, then a given baby has a K/N chance of being born in a well-off country. Which country it's born in is not the result of any decisions on the baby's part, although I suppose as you point out it could be a result of decisions made by its parents. >I would argue that it's mostly fair for Americans to expect that their children, friends, and neighbors reap the benefits of their ingenuity and sacrifice. According to Forbes[1], 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and if one assumes those companies are a net benefit to America then immigration isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. 1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Yes, this is the same reason why folks opposed the end of Jim Crow - who wants to face economic competition from black people more desperate than you? I guess it's also lazy to make a moral argument against Jim Crow?
- innguest 11y ago
  I'll remind everyone that it was Democrats who passed the Jim Crow laws. Those laws were passed because racist, leftist people didn't want to compete (i.e. they were against the free market). That's what you get when leftists legislate.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    The actual human beings who passed the Jim Crow laws weren't "leftists", at least, not if you judge by: * Articulated leftist principles, as written in, say, the Communist Manifesto, AND * The fact that these people mostly switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and gave us the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan that basically became modern "conservatism".
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      It's a bit silly to cite Nixon as a non-leftist, at least as a counterpoint to innguest claiming left wing andi-free market types are pro-segregation. Nixon was a Republican mainly because he was anti-soviet. His domestic policies included wage and price controls, ending the gold standard, creating the EPA, federalizing medicaid and proposing an Obamacare-like health law. Nixon seems to support innguest's (unnecessarily partisan) point - opposition to civil rights does seem to require opposition to free markets.
      - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        If we are going by the political map in usage at the time when Nixon ran and governed, then he was a right-winger. That today's political spectrum is far to the right of Nixon is not a fact about Nixon at all, but instead a fact about history after Nixon.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

"because migrants are prepared to work, and native brits are not" Is it suddently OK to say such things? Denigrating country native population because they don't agree with you? Native brits survived for thousand years so perhaps they can do so now without you worrying. (Not a brit, but in my country this ugly tool gets applied all the time)

mkaziz 11y ago
Those evil invading Anglo-Saxons immigrated to the lower half of Britannia and now rule the entire island. Why, they even have the gall to name part of it Angle-land!
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Which clearly shows us the dangers of uncontrolled immigration.
0xAA 11y ago
> Native brits survived for thousand years so perhaps they can do so now without you worrying. LOL Ever heard of colonies?
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Colonial empire was a comparatively brief period of history, and there are hints that maintaining colonies was a net loss economically. Of course, from the perspective of power (and bringing nice perks for the elite) it was a different story.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    I'd like to see the numbers showing Spain lost money by acquiring all the gold and silver it could squeeze out of the Americas.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago

mrtree 11y ago

I am an emigrant and even I find it unfair to local population. Basically you are getting the 1% best prepared of India or other countries. Of course locals can't compete.

peteretep 11y ago

> anti-immigration sentiment rising in the UK No, it's always been there.

branchless 11y ago
This is correct IMHO. Nu Labour made a big mistake in banning "hate speech". Being authoritarian scum Nu Labour thought you can't persuade working people not to be racist (as Nu Labour hate the working class). So they banned it instead. Now we have more economic problems and people are starting to defy the ban to complain about immigrants with the rise of UKIP. In the UK we will see a big spike in racism because instead of persuading people racism is wrong they simply suppressed it. Big mistake.
- innguest 11y ago
  The Left (the people concerned with racism, who don't understand racism is counter-productive and no one would choose it in the free-market) is not concerned with persuading anyone of anything. Remember the USSR? Did they persuade 100 million people? No, they killed them. Killing is an extreme form of suppression. The UK isn't there yet, but it's getting there: "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" -- David Cameron He's saying "I've had enough tolerating law-abiding citizens that disagree with Leftism". You know what comes after that.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > The UK isn't there yet, but it's getting there Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
    - innguest 11y ago
      So one way you can interpret that is to think "oh yeah he's saying 'it's getting there!' with the wag of the finger as if to say it's moving towards a more communist approach". Which seems fair to me, given Cameron's quote. The other way to interpret that is to think "oh wow, this internet person thinks that the UK is about to turn into something exactly like the USSR". Which one do you think applies? Don't answer me, I don't care, answer yourself and ask what does that say about you.

Spooky23 11y ago

It's really the same argument that public schools make about private schools. We basically discard a third or more of our population, and import the cream of the crop from India. You combine that with natural ethnic affiliations and social connections and you have a smart and powerful minority. Honestly, it's the same phenomenon as my Irish family had 40 years ago in municipal government. We had cops, firemen, tradesmen. If something needed to be done, you asked my grandfather and it happened. The difference is that those relatives had great high school educations (through the catholic church) in blue collar-ish jobs, while the Indian phenomenon is high end engineering.

ontheroxon 11y ago

Or perhaps any anti-immigration sentiment is a result of other factors, such as the rise of unwanted religious extremism, or support for and the acceptance by some groups of Sharia law.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
In which case no one should have any problem with peaceful Hindu nerds migrating to the UK, right?

carrotleads 11y ago

This is true even in India.. You can go to most South Indian States and the construction workers come from Bihar and Eastern states of India.. The locals are not willing to work at salary levels the Biharis are willing to work..

branchless 11y ago
Because of wage levels in the host country relative to land prices in their country of origin.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

branchless 11y ago

Saying Brits are not prepared to work is not correct. Many migrants are coming in temporarily and are saving for a home back where they came from. For them UK wages represent a fair deal per hour relative to land prices in their country of origin. If you live in the UK land prices have detached from wages. Really my only motivation for working hard in the UK was to gain the qualifications to emigrate. The UK has big problems due to a collapsing economy propped up by land prices which it is using to print money. This then has knock-on consequences such as social tensions.

brador 11y ago
Where did you emigrate to?
- branchless 11y ago
  Quebec - would never have gone to Vancouver. They can stay there and be slaves to the bankers whilst telling themselves they made it big in a $1m shack, even though if they move they have to buy another $1m shack and pay a fortune in fees. Land value tax now please, and no income tax.
akhatri_aus 11y ago
How come these problems with land prices are only in the UK? It's not like in Canada, Australia, or even India where land prices will go down and become more affordable or increase proportionately to income? There's a very well known land price problem in Melbourne, Vancouver, Sydney. I think the newspapers in the UK have done a great job of exploiting everyone's grievances with house prices. Some countries actually dream of having house price increases, I might want to point that out. It is a way to create wealth and increase standards of living very effectively. >Print money This phrase seems to imply they literally print money and everyone seems to pile on. Surely you know at the end of QE they will be removing the money from the system in the same way they added it in. QE ended in the UK ages ago.
- branchless 11y ago
  Australia has a huge amount of young people who are very pissed off with prices. As does Vancouver. Your last point amazes me. QE won't be unwound. Secondly when banks loan on land they create the money and this increases M4. 2/3rds of bank lending in the UK is against property.

Eye_of_Mordor 11y ago

Irony being that some of these "native brits" would be descended from Indian/Pakistani immigrants.

mauricemir 11y ago
Even more ironic is that these 2/3rd gen Brits are not to keen on the newer Eastern European immigrants. I remember being a bit shocked by one of my school mates (on of the Ugandan Asians expelled by Amin) saying that he could understand voting for the BNP.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Yet more ironic is as yet unnaturalised migrants railing against immigrants - was a few days ago chatting to a Russian lass in London who was complaining about "Eastern Europeans" coming and taking "our jobs". I just find the whole concept of nationality bizarre.
  - innguest 11y ago
    > I just find the whole concept of nationality bizarre. Then let go of it and call it what it is - cages for the tax cattle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]