I grew up in such a ‘working class’ area, my family were the only non-white people in the area. With the experiences I’ve had, I do believe that some people who express outrage at the “asylum seekers” problem are racist, because I’ve witnessed it.
Now, because I’m at university, studying for my PhD, with a white boyfriend, am I now a “know nothing middle class lefty”?
Are some people using the asylum debate as a cover for racism? Yup.
Is saying that there may be a problem automatically a racist position? Nope.
Is calling everyone who mentions any problem a racist a helpful position? Nope. (I’m not accusing you of this - but there are some people who do this)
Does pretending that people are voting BNP for reasons other than agreeing with what they are saying help? Nope
Would asking the otherwise decent people who are driven to vote BNP why they are doing this help? I think so.
Does going to university make you a know-nothing lefty? Well it didn’t do it to me. Although it did enable me to spot 'em a mile off.
That’s good. I’m impressed.
Well, owl, my intention was not simply to sling the word around willy nilly but discuss exactly which such concerns were legitimate and which were rooted in simple “us and them” prejudice.
Class sizes grow. Doctor’s appointments require booking further ahead as each GP is oversubscribed. Council housing becomes scarce. These are legitimate concerns, requiring extra funding.
But legitimate problems from who these extra people are? I can think of very few, eg. given teacher has to provide far more basic English lessons than in, say, a rural school, thus unfairly holding back the native children.
Many of the concerns, I venture, are illegitimate and stem directly from racism. When an OP mentions “an old fashioned city of old fashioned values”, I suggest that the same level of concern simply would not exist if a large influx of white people were to occur.
The first step in handling the immigration related problems, whether real or perceived, is being able to have an open dialogue about them. Without having to resort to name calling, as racist or Nazi, etc. I’d at least think that should be possible at a place like this. (Of course last time I wrote this I was called a Nazi – but let’s not go there again)
NightUK thinks there is a problem, a lot of other people think there’s a problem, why can’t this be discussed rationally? Ignoring or suppressing such doubts and fears will only help to exacerbate the problem.
Well I think you’re wrong, as I think have already been pointed out as regarding former Irish immigrants. I can’t imagine why you’re so quick to jump on the race wagon, when there are so many other factors that can be involved; religion, culture, education, etc. etc.
Again, this is slightly wishful thinking. It is reasonable to expect a child from a warzone to have experienced some trauma in their life which will have an impact on thier development, and this is a drain on resources to deal with. Ditto a lack of English.
This is compounded by middle class flight from these schools, removing resources, and lowering the political importance of the issue.
The levels of TB in bits of london now are as high as they were in the 20s. That is a problem. Hoping it will go away is not a solution.
These are far from insurmountable problems, but they are real problems that need to be acknowledged.
The problems of which you speak, owl are entierly legitimate. I advocate increased central government funding, from increased income tax, targetted specifically at these problems in order that local council tax payers are not unfairly burdened.
I agree that wishing people were not racist is wishful thinking.
This may or may not be a solution to the problem as it presently stands (IMHO it isn’t).
However the way to sort out the problem in the longer term is as follows (again IMO):
Re-write the immigration laws so that there is a legitimate way into the country for people from poor countries who have something to contribute.
Deal with the people who claim asylum swiftly -and deport those who fail the tests swiftly.
These two measures will get rid of the “bogus” arguement.
and while we’re at it:
enforce the transit rules - eg if you have come via france to the UK to claim asylum - send them back to France - it’s perfectly safe.
Once accepted - swiftly - give training etc to enable them to work productively - stop forcing them into the black economy.
That’s that problem sorted out then. Next - world peace.
Indeed, owl. If NightUK or others like him agree with your proposals, knowing full well that this is intended to encourage more immigration, then I would be wholely convinced that he was no racist.
Winston, my use of the word “racist” pertains to prejudice for all of those reasons you stated. Thus anti-Irish or anti-Muslim prejudice falls under the umbrella. If you must, substitute the word “prejudice”.
Well I think you’re setting up an unfair scenario, wherein it’s hardly possible to disagree with your point of view without falling under some label of racist or other extremely derogative designation. But perhaps I don’t understand you correctly, so I’m going to ask you a theoretical question. Is it, according to you, possible to be against more immigration without being a racist.
Maybe its best if we try to stick to the debate itself and avoid characterising others as racist, know nothing middle class leftys etc? All you’re doing is adding more noise to the signal. Plus think of how this looks to our American friends. 
I came across an interesting site while searching on the internet about this. It was quite interesting, i’d suggest that NightUK especially has a look at it.
ONe of the most interestings things on there was the results opf the MORI poll which showed that the average UK person thought the UK has 23% of the worlds refugees and asylum seekers. The actual figure is less than 2%. Evidence of how successfully the Daily Mail and the like has inflated the importance of this issue in peoples minds.
Owlstretchingtime : I like your ideas. Unfortunately, that still leaves a lot of legitimate refugees (i’d hazard a guess and say even a majority of asylum seekers) with leave to remain in the UK, and (usually) a hostile local population.
I think the public needs to be educated - at the moment the only information on refugees that the average Joe Bloggs gets is from the tabloids who sensationise the issue, and play on their fears to sell papers. People need to hear the opposing argument - the vast benefits immigrants have brought to the UK, the experiences of the average asylum seeker fleeing from Zimbabwe say etc. I think we need some sort of public information campaign just so that people don’t blindly hear and accept one side of the story.
Yes. For example, if your arguments are strictly economic, contending that immigration makes the country financially poorer (for whatever reason), then prejudice need not rear its ugly head.
However, if there is any reference to exactly who the immigrants are, or mention of any of their specific characteristics, then unless those characteristics are worldwide then the subtext of prejudice most definitely exists: The “them” and “us”. They harass our women in nightclubs (er, no, “we” harass “our” women in nightclubs just as much). I don’t want one of them marrying my daughter. Their kind should stick to their own.
There is no such biological concept as a “kind” or a “race”, nor any such biological state as “pure” or “unmixed”. Anyone who opposes “mixing” of different people based on language, culture, religion or biological indicators advocates arbitrarily setting now as the time to shut the stable door, since all of these things have been being mixed since the dawn of man.
Incidentally, as an economic argument, it stinks.
Equally unhelpfull is the bien pensant’s attempt to pretend that it isn’t a problem and to stigmatise those who believe otherwise as racists.
This means that people simply don’t believe the figures. (FWIW neither do I).
So it seems you’re dismissing my argument because i’m a bien pensant. I would love to disagree with this, but i don’t know what one is. Could you enlighten me?
It seems the name calling here as been nudged up a notch. Instead of calling people racists we are now accusing others of calling people racists. Whats next? Please let me know where in my post i accused anyone of being racist. I was merely saying that most people are only exposed to one side of the argument when it comes to asylum seekers. I don’t think this is a good thing.
I am also not trying to pretend that this isn’t a problem, i’m trying to say it isn’t as big a problem as most people think. Look at the link i showed. The tabloids are implying that asylum seekers are potential terrorists, commit a lot of crime, get given a house, mobile phone etc. This simply isn’t true.
I can understand if people who have been directly impacted by asylum seekers hold hostile views towards them. I probably would in the same situation. The majority of people though haven’t been directly impacted. The problem of asylum seekers has been blown out of proportion.
I’m not really sure why i’m trying to debate with you when your previous responce has been to name call and label me as someone who stigmatises others. Your only actual argument was that you disbelieve the figures. Which figures exactly then don’t you believe? You’ll have to be a bit more specific.
First, most everybody operates with some kind of ceiling as to how many immigrants should be accepted. Some have it higher, some lower. For clarification are you saying that you are in fact in favour of completely abolishing all checks on immigration? And that others not having that somewhat rare opinion are coming from a racist foundation? Else on which basis do you suggest selecting which are to enter and which to bar? If you are not in favour of opening the door completely, what’s to hinder you from selecting those immigrants with the characteristics that you think would be best suited for Britain? Further, are there no characteristics that are so vile so disgusting and awful that you would prefer them to stay out of Britain? I’d think all other generations of Britons, where they had a choice, have had some preferences as to this (I’ve no doubt they’d have preferred to be entirely without the yearly visits by my charming ancestors for instance). Why have you foregone any say whatsoever on this matter? And why is it you think it morally superior; personally I think no stand is as immoral as the one determined to take no stand at all.
Regarding economy. It’s a difficult thing to calculate, but I’d say on the whole you’re correct. But certainly some immigrants are a bigger boon than others. However, immigrants (that be Asylum Seekers, etc.) in Britan, to my knowledge, are not mainly accepted on basis of merit (as the US, Canada, Australia, etc.) If you want to maximize the economic gain of immigration to Britain, you’d have to install similar schemes as those countries. That would however ban the majority of those immigrants currently entering Britain. Do you think that’s a morally superior choice, for to me, isolated, it looks somewhat shaggy? Say I advocate taking in immigrants with higher education (obviously good for the economy), wouldn’t than be prejudice against less educated immigrants? What if I advocate taking in immigrants that, experience has it, integrate faster and easier and find job faster (thereby helping the economy more). Would that be prejudice?
This doesn’t come off as a very arrogant attitude to you (last I read it, it was Alderban that wrote it)? People are dumb, you are smart, they need to be educated. Educate the public to your point of view and they shall come around. It hasn’t occurred to you (or you London_calling for that matter. NightUK confess to second thoughts, do you have any? If yes, please elaborate, if not – I’m not very impressed) that perhaps the public is educated and perhaps it’s you that needs education? If it’s as you say the general attitude, numbers alone speaks for it.
Read the whole thread old boy…
I was not referring to you in any way.
what I was saying is that there is a real problem in that a section of the media overstate the problem and whip up anti-asylum hysteria. However it is equally unhelpful for the leftish media (which includes the BBC) to pretend that there is absolutely no problem.
I don’t think we actually disagree here.
No: The non-prejudicial economic argument would not stink if we are talking about no limits at all. This is not to do with who the immigrants are, but to do with real, legitimate problems like housing, education and healthcare which I have already admitted are problems in some areas with sudden, large immigrant populations.
Of course, since I do not advocate a completely open door (yet, ie., not until every other country in the developed world agrees to), there must be checks. However, I would like such a procedure to be fairly random in order to limit the scope for prejudice in the selection process. It is entirely reasonable to bar entry to known drug traffickers or paedophiles, for example.
As for favouring well-educated and economy-enhancing applicants, well, we venture further into my own personal preference, but I would sooner see that person helping his or her own country develop than Britain draining the Third World’s brains (to the Third World’s detriment).
You will find that I agree with owl on essentially any of the practical measures set forth to alleviate the problems which immigration can cause. However, in disagreement with him, I believe it is not unhelpful to point out those problems which stem directly from the racism of the locals and, for want of a better phrase, calling a spade a spade. Whether this is mere good-thinking (bien pensant) orthodoxy or a genuine “shock tactic” to get people to realise the origins of their hatred and attack the underfunding rather than the immigrants is debatable.
They are not mainly accepted on basis of merit by the US, either.
Earlier in this thread, someone said that they hoped the asylum debate would not turn ugly.
My perception is that in the UK, it already has.
The asylum issue is providing a cover for genuine racists to pontificate with impunity (“well, I’m not really a racist because some asylum seekers are white/gypsy/Eastern European etc”) and sucking in many others who perhaps would not usually subscribe to hardline racist views.
Almost every day, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express publish alarmist front-page stories about asylum seekers, painting a picture of a country being “flooded” by aliens who are then given preferential access to welfare handouts/jobs/houses/medical care. If you read local papers, listen to conversations in supermarkets, buses, the net, etc it seems that this picture is now widely accepted and very difficult to shift. One of the most persistent ideas is that the UK takes in more refugees than any other European country - the truth is we take far fewer than Germany and about the same as the Netherlands (a much smaller country):
http://www.irr.org.uk/statistics/refugees.html
Nobody appears to spot the contradictions in anti-refugee rhetoric - asylum seekers are both welfare-scroungers and job-snatchers, aggressive street-beggars who are also, mysteriously, living in “luxury hotels” and/or taking the best housing. Asylum seekers have become the classical outsider-scapegoats, convenient recipients for all kinds of free-floating resentments, cultural fears, terrorist fears, economic anxieties and so on, and have the added advantage of being unable to defend themselves. This is fertile ground for the far-Right and I believe the BNP is exploiting it. Meanwhile, the idea that refugees may actually be fleeing torture, war, persecution and extreme economic hardship fall on deaf ears because, IMO, people here simply can’t imagine having these problems.
No, I wouldn’t advocate uncontrolled immigration, and yes, people wishing to settle here should accept that British culture involves respect for democracy, free-speech and religious tolerance (as opposed to some of the more absurd warm-beer/royalty/cricket definitions of Britishness), but I think there is a groundswell of outsider-hatred in the UK at the moment, and we need to wake up to it before it’s too late.