Keir Starmer

[Delaney]

In both cases immigrant populations tend to coalesce providing those without language and other skills cultural and emotional support. 2nd and 3rd generations start to integrate - language, culture, move location, personal relationships etc.

This is not true under mass immigration, the opposite happens. People do not need to integrate, learn the native language, customs, they do not respect the laws (hence the prevalence of religious and ethnic courts).
As each generation comes along, they become more fanatic towards adhering to their cultural/ethnic/racial identity.

There is a phenomenon you will find with immigrants where the 1st gen will be more pliable (if in the right conditions), to cultural change. Their children however start to become more interested in their ethnic identity and seek out others of the same, as they are encouraged to feel ‘different’ to the native ppl.
Hence why 2nd 3rd generation afro Caribbean authors write articles about how the countryside is racist. This is because they don’t feel like they belong, instead of integration, we have balkanisation. Especially amongst communities that encourage this as a matter of culture.
Children of immigrants start to double down on their identity, feeling lost and looking for a tribal connection, so they create an odd hybrid of their traditional ethnic one.
A perfect example of this is the fake Jamaican/cockney accent young black men created in the 90’s. They create it to separate themselves from the native accent, to create their own identity, one based neither here, nor there but in opposition to, the things around them, they do not connect with.
In some ways immigration is actually very cruel and difficult for those of 1st gen onwards. They spend their lives obsessing over identity and never really feeling as though they belong.

The unfortunate truth is, the more immigration you have, the less integration you get.
The core of each community starts to outnumber the integrated fringes. It creates its own gravity.

I think immigration can be good and is part of how humans have always existed in the world.
Mass immigration is the opposite, it’s destructive and leads to chaos and violence.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There is in fact a huge difference between fear and 'concern' based on actual fact and not to recognise and acknowledge this exhibits a complete lack of appreciation of the subject and their argument is driven by emotion rather than hard facts.

As an example I quoted the facts that London's demographic has changed dramatically in the past five or so decades from 87% of London's population identifying as 'white' British in 1971 to just 36.8% today/2021. In anybody's world that is a huge decline in specific demographic make up.

Of course we have 2nd and even 3rd generation ethnic groups making up those who identify as London's non-white population who arrived here in the 60s and later which will naturally change the demographics as they themselves contribute to the birthrate but I can't see those ethnic origin 2nd and 3rd non-white generation numbers accounting for the huge fall in the white British population numbers of London.
Migration from other parts of the world gravitating to the UK's capital city is the only obvious answer and has resulted in glaring changes to London's demographics and is reflected in some other cities/areas particularly across England

London because of its population size and elsewhere in England because of their numbers plays a very important part in the results in the outcome of general elections and if white voters are in a minority in certain wards ethnicity could well determine and influence the political results for the entire UK so to be concerned I'd say is quite normal, particularly to those who don't wish to see the UK's traditions and culture diluted further.

Other facts for your consumption: In 2011, 80.5% of the UK's population identified as 'white British', in 2021 that figure had reduced to 74.4 and given that the over 65 age group had increased over that same period then by using extrapolation which I agree contains hidden assumptions, there will come a point where the white British demographic inevitably would be in a minority unless other factors change.
Calculated out with dynamics remaining constant it equates to 53 years time when white British population will begin to be in a minority, assuming the progression is linear.
To put it in perspective if biologists studying species identified such trends in one group in the animal kingdom then that would be of serious concern to them.

The UK is somewhat unusual compared to its European neighbours in that borders are clearly defined by water, not sometimes arbitrary lines drawn on a map or the outcome of conflict. This may be a partial explanation for the attachment to concepts of "Britishness".

Whether the concept of country (defined by borders and a single government) has real relevance given the ease and speed with which one can transition between them is debateable. The outcome of this chain of thought is a federal Europe, not an EU with individual member states.

I have no problem with immigration generally. Benefits may include a healthy diversity of cultures, cuisine, skills etc. It adds to the energy and creativity needed by any society to make real progress.

Despite the benefits, immigration control is essential. An open door policy would inevitably lead to a degradation of the quality of life in the UK until reduced to point where even the most deprived would no longer wish to come. Not something I wish upon my children or grandchildren.

That 18% of the population of Bristol (my local city) (London 40%) were born outside the UK does not cause me a problem. The challenge is to help them swiftly integrate and avoid concentration of different groups in "ghettos". By the 3rd generation they will be increasingly fully integrated.

The birth rate amongst immigrant communities tends to be higher than for white British. The expectation is that as populations integrate reproduction rates will fall to match "normal" levels. Modelling based on current statistics is unlikely to give a reliable result.

 

[Jacob]

....

Typical miserable right-wing fantasy/fearful narrative.

They spend their lives

some time perhaps. Mostly just getting on with it

obsessing over identity and never really feeling as though they belong.

Because of inherent UK racism and black skins. White immigrants become indistinguishable.
It's changing and normalising fairly rapidly for the better, some positive discrimination and more dark skins being seen everywhere.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

This is simply not true under mass immigration, the opposite happens. People do not need to integrate, learn the native language, customs, they do not respect the laws (hence the prevalence of religious and ethnic courts).
As each generation comes along, they become more fanatic towards adhering to their cultural/ethnic/racial identity.

There is a phenomenon you will find with immigrants where the 1st gen will be more pliable (if in the right conditions), to cultural change. Their children however start to become more interested in their ethnic identity and seek out others of the same, as they are encouraged to feel ‘different’ to the native ppl.
Hence why 2nd 3rd generation afro Caribbean authors write articles about how the countryside is racist. This is because they don’t feel like they belong, instead of integration, we have balkanisation. Especially amongst communities that encourage this as a matter of culture.
Children of immigrants start to double down on their identity, feeling lost and looking for a tribal connection, so they create an odd hybrid of their tradition ethnic one. In some ways very extreme and in some ways part native to their birth land. This is how you get 2/3rd gen terrorists.
In some ways immigration is actually very cruel and difficult for those of 1st gen onwards. They spend their lives obsessing over identity and never really feeling as though they belong.

The unfortunate truth is, the more immigration you have, the less integration you get and the more those who did or were integrated, get sucked back into an identity that they could have potentially disconnected from.

The core and mass of each community far outnumbers the fringes that have integrated.

Seems to be unmitigated rubbish - unless you are able to identify some credible evidence to back your assertions.

A link to Migration Observatory report which seeks to identify the English speaking talents of immigrants based on the 2021 census.

In summary - 52% of immigrants spoke English as their main language, 38% claimed to speak English with reasonable proficiency and (by exclusion) around 10% had limited skills.

It further goes on to report that English language skills seem to improve with time spent in the UK - 8% of those who moved to the UK over 20 years ago could not speak English well or at all, compared to 17% of those who had arrived within the previous two years.

Even accepting the answers are not validated, and that Migration Observatory may have an agenda, this seems fairly conclusive.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It further goes on to report that English language skills seem to improve with time spent in the UK?
No $#it, Sherlock!

 

[RobinBHM]

Unless handled correctly this will cost jobs because you cannot expect full rights on day one if you have not proved yourself to the employer. There needs to be a probationary period where you transition from a potential employee to one with a contract. Many places I worked would only take on contractors on three or six month terms and this would be the probabtionary period, ie do you fit in and can you deliver our expectations.

There is a probationary period.

And it’s not set in stone as yet, Labour are working with businesses and unions

 

[spanner48]

If they're in international water it's moot, but even if you're currently in a boat in the national waters of a nation that doesn't give you the right to land (without permission).

Amazingly, that applies as much in the UK as in France. But no-one seems to have noticed . . .

 

[spanner48]

You would hope so as 85% of the population is white.

Well said Phil. This iks a typical RobinBHM misuse of statistics

 

[spanner48]

See what I mean about fear? Q.E.D. Excellent example of a fearful right-winger spooking himself! Thanks for that @spanner48 !!
Here's a leading right-wing politician trying to spook his electorate:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...hetoric-as-harris-promises-bipartisan-council

When you have gained one tenth the experience that I have had of the societies from which most of the boat people come, you may gain the right to comment.

In thje meamntime, a period of silence would be appropriate

 

[spanner48]

Seems to be unmitigated rubbish - unless you are able to identify some credible evidence to back your assertions.

A link to Migration Observatory report which seeks to identify the English speaking talents of immigrants based on the 2021 census.

In summary - 52% of immigrants spoke English as their main language, 38% claimed to speak English with reasonable proficiency and (by exclusion) around 10% had limited skills.

It further goes on to report that English language skills seem to improve with time spent in the UK - 8% of those who moved to the UK over 20 years ago could not speak English well or at all, compared to 17% of those who had arrived within the previous two years.

Even accepting the answers are not validated, and that Migration Observatory may have an agenda, this seems fairly conclusive.

So: 20 years after settling in Britain, one in 12 have not bothered to learn the language.

And, of those who do arrive not speaking English, barely half learn it during that time period.