The curious dilemma of Immigration

  1. You’re missing some questions here. How much will house prices and rents rise when immigration is above the level of house building? How much are wages depressed because of the extra workers in the jobs market? How will health care and police be affected an increase of people?

Given that criminal opportunists are more likely to emigrate to wealthy countries, how much of this becomes a problem? This sounds like a Trump speech but it stands to reason, immigrants are ambitious, criminals are ambitious, therefore criminals are more likely to emigrate than the unambitious.

People that live in deprived neighbourhoods complain that incoming immigrants have more anti-social and/or illegal behaviours. This is a concern for indigenous people within these communities. In turn I have heard many very decent immigrants complain about anti-social violent behaviour from indigenous people. How do we keep both sets of people content and tollerent of one another?

  1. In reality this has always happened, it’s just typically it’s been people of European toned persuasion. Now the planet is smaller. I’m perfectly content that my 3 children are mixed race.

  2. Lack of integration and intolerant believes of incoming culture is the real problem from a left wing perspective. If anything integration has become worse and far right Islamic views have hardened. The far right argument is that Muslims are ‘out breeding us’ and eventually we’ll become an Islamic State. What we really need is a renaissance within the Muslim community to counter act this.

  3. It entirely depends on how nationalistic the culture and how it affects their economy.

  4. It’s obviously people wanting a better standard of living and opportunity. They aren’t coming here for the weather.


Thanks for the reply. I’ll give what you said a proper response tomorrow.


I think if you fuck up another country through bombs and wars, taking in their refugees is fair game. Notice I said refugees and not immigrants. Refugees also with no permanence but a view to returning them home, because that’s what everyone wants.

With regard to immigrants, they were in high demand after WWII, and many south asians and carribbeans came to help rebuild the country with their labour. That generation is now reaching retiring age, and the ones lucky enough to have made some money, well many of them are going back to enjoy their retirement in their countries of origin (anecdotal evidence tbf)

I agree that cultural mixing to such a high extent should be discouraged, but the only way to do that is by making sure immigrants’ countries of origin have good opportunities for them because no matter what the cultural differences re. women etc., everyone just wants a better life for themselves and the people they care about.

I don’t think there can be complete reconcilliation between the majority and minority, and complete integration achieved without one surrendering their values. Usually its the minority that does this (see America) but in Europe it’s not that simple. I think most people still are, but a minority within the minority lash out to this and go further extreme than even their previous generations from the origin countries.

I’m rambling but my thoughts are, to cure immigration and reduce immigration, you have to properly get these countries back on their feet. Now I mean aid, and proper aid (not rapey aid like in Haiti, not ‘give the dictator more money for a new house’ aid but proper aid.)

Maybe use resources to encourage revolutions for democracy (but where the people actually want them, and with better intentions than usual. It can be done -> see Kosovo) - I recognise this is way more complex than I’ve just said, but a good start would be for the countries worried about immigration to stop bombing the fuck out of the countries immigrants are coming from e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, YEMEN.

But alas it’s a pipe dream. As long as you have fat cats at the top like BP and other insidious organisations, they will continue to exploit both the immigrants/refugees and the natives of their countries because currently they’re having their cake and eating it too, with natural resources in the origin countries and cheap labour movement in the settled countries (as doctors, engineers, architects start cleaning toilets etc. just to get by).


The vast majority of people coming Pakistan aren’t been bombed, they’re coming for a better standard of life and opportunity. Same as Nigeria no one is bombing there. People from less prosperous regions naturally want to move to a region with more opportunity. The UK doesn’t have enough GDP to counter act the difference in earnings with ‘aid’. And if we did what do you want your tax rate to be? Because you’d be vastly worse off as a result.


Pakistani and Nigerian economic migrants are probably the worse examples you could cite. I wouldn’t say the British left a great basis for them to succeed and nation build properly

Alot of the issues both those nations struggle with today can easily be traced back to terrible management and various illegal interventions by their British colonizers.


They would be welcomed and probably encouraged, Chile like most the southern cone was heavily influenced by Europeans and has a very positive reaction to anything European.


How so? It seems the major issues with both these countries is their corruption, nepotism, tribalism and religious extremism. Nigeria for example is a wealthy country but the distribution of wealth, ie gap between rich and poor, throughout it’s citizens is obscene.


Ok Nigeria is a very interesting case study.

You question why tribalism is rife? There was no concept of a “Nigeria” historically or culturally before the British drew a line around the river Niger and decided to set the boundary and in which the people inside would be the people who surround the River Niger area hence the term Nigerians.

Nigeria is an completely artificial construct. It seems folly to group multiple different distinct tribal peoples, who have different customs, values, religions, geographical factors, history and expect social cohesion. This set up was never conducive to proper nation building. It’s no surprise Nigeria has been plagued with ethni, tribal and religious violence

Of course when a particular tribal people (igbos) tried to exercise self determination and form thier own nation called Biafra. It was the British who sided with the federal government in the form of finance and weapons to help subjugate and trigger a genocide of Igbo people.

Why did they intervene? To protect the commercial interests of BP Oil who were heavily invovled in the region and to reduce the damage done to thier reputation as an former Empire.

Wealth inequality was the natural circumstance of the condition Nigeria was left in. In 1960 the litteracy rate was under 20% so you can imagine the percentage of skilled industrial workers or university educated individuals was also similarly low. The wealth was always going to be concentrated by a select few. What infrastructure was left to ensure fairness and equal distribution?

Corruption, elitism and nepotism is commonplace in all democracies but is even more apparent in developing countries, why is this?

Democracy is something that HAS to be the end goal of an organic progression. When you impose a democratic structure and systems on a group of peoples that has not experienced organic progression, that democracy will be more susceptible to abuse. You have to be exposed various concepts in the national consciousness and in every citizen for a democracy to thrive.

This is why I feel Nigeria’s salvation will be western educated children of immigrants who arr imbued with the best elements of western democracy.


Excellent post and this point in particular is one I always try to drum home.


Doubt these children will ever go back to Nigeria for Nigeria to benefit out of it.


I know at least 5 people who were born and educated in London and after graduating, worked a couple of years before moving back home and all of them (well 4 of them as I’m not sure what happened to the other) are doing well for themselves.


Oh that’s nice to hear.


Well I was asking about whether there should be an upper limit for immigration, but I guess from your response you assume their should be. I think housing is mostly down to poor government handling of housing going back to Thatcher, but I don’t doubt the strain it puts on social housing demands, rents, and house availability. People need somewhere to live and we don’t have enough houses, so it’s quite simple I think.

Probably not more anti social behaviour than native peoples, but that doesn’t mean we should gladly import bad behaviour, or given that it might be hard to predetermine that, refuse to see it for fear of the racism charge. Rotherham and Oxford incidents spring to mind, and I know that in one of my local areas, the gang violence is perpetrated by the Somali boys - that’s their name.

Britain doesn’t particularly have a history of large immigration, certainly not pre-war. Certainly no history of anything on the scale of now, or what it is likely to become.

I think it’s a mixed bag. I work in large Bangladeshi Muslim community and it’s friendly, nice, feels British enough, and I hear from the children in my school things echoed both intolerant and incredibly tolerant. But it’s tricky because there is no way to really know the answers to this. Seeming nice and polite doesn’t necessarily mean anything - polls have shown that 50% of Muslims think homosexuality is unacceptable, 80% said they support Sharia Law, and London was shown to be almost twice as intolerant as the British countryside on the issue of whether gay people are acceptable or not, which totally shocked me, presumably down to immigration of Muslims. I think we have a very low bar for what is expected from Muslims, like it would be unthinkable in any other domain for a woman to be segregated as they are in mosques. Will these tendencies die out in future generations, will Islam secularize, do people say they believe stuff because they should but not really - basically fuck knows. This is all only a big concern if the numbers keep going up with no end ever posited.

I don’t know. Thailand is totally fucked as a result of their conveyor belt tourism. They recently considered banning tourism entirely, I think. From my experience the Thai’s are ridiculously tolerant and open.

I meant what is the motive for us, actually.

Agreed. I mean totally agreed. The one caveat being that we’ve interfered historically pretty much in every country on earth, so we can’t take endlessly. Refugees yes, we must fulfil our quotas, but general immigration it’s problematic. To what extent does our guilt of empire and government mean we should potentially wreck our own country or at least change it beyond recognition, which is clearly not going to be liked by much of the population (who aren’t guilty) and who may, eventually, turn bloody fascist over it.

We do. In a big way. Which is kinda why I feel talking it and taking it seriously is a good thing, or else the narrative is the sole preserve of twats. Nice people are needed to critique immigration or else there is no hope of humane, actual solutions.


war on meatballs


I do think we all need to except globalisation, but that doesn’t mean losing our identity. I’m all for immigration, but I do think it needs some control. But I feel the bigger issue is not providing citizens with the best opportunity to be very productive and positive members of society. If that happens, you could justify greater control on immigration. But this country has many shortage areas that aren’t being filled by its citizen. How about embracing the children. More support to nurseries and families. Make changes to education that are actually positive instead bouncing back and forth between the same things that never really improve anything. Take mental health seriously. So much can be done to ensure that more children from all backgrounds can positively contribute to society. Then you wouldn’t need immigration at once.

Immigration can be very positive. Canada is looking to attract immigrants as their population is ageing and they need younger people to fill positions.

In regards to tolerance and integration. I don’t think an immigrant needs to completely identify with their new culture, but they do need to respect it. Whilst the country should be tolerant of the difference immigrants bring, countries shouldn’t have to integrate the immigrants beliefs. Being an immigrant myself (American living in the UK and previously in Ireland), I respect the differences, even ones that are frustrating. But the difference aren’t as drastic as others. I do get so frustrated when immigrants demand a change to fit their beliefs. If you want laws that reflect your beliefs, you are free to go home. I love learning about other cultures and respect that traditions and beliefs are different. I don’t agree with everything, but I sure wouldn’t expect a country to change the way they work for me that would only benefit me and others with a similar background.

There are things I dislike in the UK system, especially in education. But I rather this than moving back the US. It also means I’ve ensure that I can send my son to a montessori primary school and then a secondary school that embraces a breadth of knowledge and more independent learning. Or, we may move to the Netherlands (Dutch spouse) where we prefer the role children have in society there and their education system.

Asylum seekers are completely different topic. IMO, most of the countries they go to are the countries that have helped to fuck up their countries. It’s the least we can do.

I’ll leave it there.


This is just sad,and kinda funny as well.