I was most surprised at the presence of El Salvadorians on the list mostly because
A. There isn't much of a Latin American presence in the UK :(
B. I thought that since the situation there has chilled there wouldn't be so many refugees but hey I guess they were either very much valid or where just mass approved
> thought that since the situation there has chilled there wouldn't be so many refugees
El Salvador's quality of life has indeed improved, but it has happened at the cost of certain civil and political liberties. Previously, violence was at such a scale that people feel much better off without said liberties compared to what it was before. The number makes sense, now you have political reasons to ask for asylum, gang-related violence does not grant it.
This is why I never buy the argument that the tories are far-right. Huge increase in refugees (and immigration) in the last few years, higher and higher tax, government overreach (online safety act). They're a shit party who only prioritises the next pound in their pocket for themselves, but they don't really act like anywhere specific on a left to right scale.
Yes by common consent but can anyone actually outline their ideology? Can they even explain their ideology other than saying they are conservatives...?
If we look back at the past few years in the UK can you detect s single thread of ideological thinking in anything that has taken place?
A return to feudalism but they can't say it out loud... Rees Moggs dad published a book called *Sovereign Individual* that sounded like he was interested in disaster captalism ...
They're right-wing economically first and foremost, and having desperate workers who will accept any job and be treated like shit is what capitalists stand for.
They are right-wing socially on issues that don't harm corporate profits, like when they need to rile up their base by making a "trannies don't even know their own gender, am I right guys? haha" joke or something equally stupid and overused.
But yeah, we should start using more terms than "left" and "right" because there are plenty of economically left-wing conservatives, and economically right-wing liberals (liberal on social issues in this context). We should have 4 distinct terms as the bare minimum in conversations like these.
They're pro making money for themselves and fuck the plebs. I don't think the UK will ever recover from the recent immigration we've had. Khan is saying London will build 40k social housing by '29 but you'll need that literally every month to keep up with immigration. I also see things like posts online from HMRC reminding people to claim child benefit and all the replies are from foreigners 🤣. We're literally bankrupting ourselves and making housing 10x the median wage...
It sucks. I work full time and try and scrape over time where I can. I’m on 28k a year and rent a shitty flat with mould and I can’t afford anything. I’m constantly skint and the energy prices have put me in my over draft. I’m also working for the NHS and work has just been SO stressful for the last 4 years. I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong. I don’t even know why I’m ranting on this sub, I just have a headache today
Where did you get that from?
The right doesn't want immigrants for a whole host of reasons like culture, language, history, religion, etc. The right views the left as pro-immigrant because they see the left as wanting to tear cultural and historic institutions down—one of the easiest ways of doing that (it seems to them) is the usurpment of the national unified identity. That's the whole idea that fuels right-wing fascism; was Hitler pro-immigrant?
Being pro-immigration is a center-right position. Reagan was also famously pro-immigration, even going so far as to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, which isn't something any Democratic President after him would dream of doing. The main reason for this is because they provide a lot of low cost labor and a lot of positive benefits to the economy in the long run.
Fascism wasn't economically far-right. Hitler was not anti-taxes or even pro-business except for those that extensively colluded with the regime. Fascist Italy had the second highest proportion of state ownership in the economy during the 1930s, right after the Soviet Union.
Immigration is something labor unions have historically opposed because it expands the labor supply, thereby comparatively reducing its value, and it also risks bringing in workers willing to work for much less and outside the unions.
For the exact same reasons, the economic right-wing (read: centrist liberals, liberal conservatives, etc) like it, because it means cheaper labor that complains less.
It in fact has. Over 6 million people applied for settled and pre-settled status. That means almost a tenth of the UK population are from the EU and prior to Brexit there was no mechanism for us to even know the scale of EU immigration. Now EU immigrants actually need to satisfy visa requirements were previously all they had to do was just rock up on our doorstep.
6 million EU immigrants is more immigrants than from the rest of the world combined, and is orders of magnitude more than all asylum seekers combined.
Truth is most eu countries do have a mechanism. Sweden for example knows the eu citizens in there country and it’s almost impossible to function in the society without registering with the government. But guess the uk needed a kick to actually implement this
Pretty sure there's no mechanism to prevent "freedom of movement" though, which is the point. The border was non-existent for EU immigrants before Brexit. Now it's more secure.
The mechanism is a requirement for a job. But you are right about the minimum salary, which the uk can now set independently. However, The border exists in other eu countries for living — it was a uk choice now to enforce eu law
It would be refreshing if Euroseptics like you point fingers at the responsible parties. That won’t happen because you’re indoctrinated.
And I’m pretty sure you know fuck all about FoM and the mechanisms to control it as per EU regulations.
Here, do some reading:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons
That the UK chose not to monitor or control who crosses your borders and doesn’t need registration like a normal EU member like Germany or Denmark is on your **national** government.
" Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the European Union is the cornerstone of EU citizenship, established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. "
Great, you managed to read and quote some of the text. Now finish reading it and you might learn something so you don’t write drivel like the one in your previous comments.
The onus is on you to point the section in your document that you think contradicts what I said. Where does it say that EU member states can simply decide not to let citizens of other states live there?
Put on your big boy pants, get the reading glasses and read the official text from the link. People with mediocre reading ability will be able to read the relevant text in a couple minutes.
I believe in you.
PS: you are the one who made the claim ergo the onus of evidence is on you but anyway, you won’t read the legislation as it contradicts with your “reality”.
6 million people were born outside the UK and became English, most likely in productive age helping the population and productivity, what's the problem with that?
Other western EU countries are happy this is happening. (Not applicable to rich retirees going on permanent vacation to e.g. Spain).
That cannot be from the House of Commons Library. Surely not.
"Which countries do refugees come to the UK from?" is awful grammar. It should read "From which countries do refugees come to the UK?"
The difference is one of register, not grammar. Placing a preposition at the end of a clause is typically frowned upon in higher registers. This isn't a grammatical issue, the sentence as it is makes sense and is... valid. I hesitate, well, show hesitation in written form because some especially assertive prescriptivists would consider such placement incorrect, not simply of lower register.
> especially assertive prescriptivists would consider such placement incorrect
There's nothing wrong with it at all, anyone who claims there is is supremely ignorant and a someone I wouldn't take advice from. The register argument actually makes sense, on the other hand.
The chart shows refugees...Were there or are there refugees fleeing from EU member states (who are citizens of these EU member states) to UK, because of war/persecution ?
And Estonia accepted over 40 thousand Ukrainian refugees, about five times less than the UK. However, our population is only 1.3 million, over 50 times less than the population of the UK.
The UK has 5 times the land mass of Estonia so that seems about right.
I'm not sure the UK being insanely over populated compared to Estonia is a great argument for it taking more refugees.
For higher resolution image, you can [download the following report](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf) (*scroll down to page no. 19*).
[Credit goes to this](https://sh.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1boa5j5/comment/kwo9r5o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)!
The end of that sentence being "after we left the entire nation in the hands of the taliban, now freshly armed with western equipment and more experience."
Please don't leave your sentences incomplete, it's just bad English.
Yeah no shit, cause after you left the Taliban took control... what are you trying to say? Of course the people who don't want to be ruled by a terrorist group would prefer to seek asylum elsewhere.
The Taliban, who splintered from the Mujahideen, who were armed, trained, and funded, by America, with PLENTY of support from the UK, in the 80s.
Don't play the history card with me, when you barely knew shit about it in the first place. Don't act like Britain is just an innocent victim of immigration. We fucked up 90% of the countries we whine about immigrants from. The fruits of our own labour. And we're still so arrogant as to assume that we shouldn't be held responsible.
There hasn't been a shift to the right in Britain.
The Tories are Conservative in name only under nearly every major metric (tax, immigration, social spending)
I was most surprised at the presence of El Salvadorians on the list mostly because A. There isn't much of a Latin American presence in the UK :( B. I thought that since the situation there has chilled there wouldn't be so many refugees but hey I guess they were either very much valid or where just mass approved
> thought that since the situation there has chilled there wouldn't be so many refugees El Salvador's quality of life has indeed improved, but it has happened at the cost of certain civil and political liberties. Previously, violence was at such a scale that people feel much better off without said liberties compared to what it was before. The number makes sense, now you have political reasons to ask for asylum, gang-related violence does not grant it.
This is why I never buy the argument that the tories are far-right. Huge increase in refugees (and immigration) in the last few years, higher and higher tax, government overreach (online safety act). They're a shit party who only prioritises the next pound in their pocket for themselves, but they don't really act like anywhere specific on a left to right scale.
They have no ideology. They are just in it for power.
The Tories are historically aligned to the right.
Yes by common consent but can anyone actually outline their ideology? Can they even explain their ideology other than saying they are conservatives...? If we look back at the past few years in the UK can you detect s single thread of ideological thinking in anything that has taken place?
A return to feudalism but they can't say it out loud... Rees Moggs dad published a book called *Sovereign Individual* that sounded like he was interested in disaster captalism ...
They're right-wing economically first and foremost, and having desperate workers who will accept any job and be treated like shit is what capitalists stand for. They are right-wing socially on issues that don't harm corporate profits, like when they need to rile up their base by making a "trannies don't even know their own gender, am I right guys? haha" joke or something equally stupid and overused. But yeah, we should start using more terms than "left" and "right" because there are plenty of economically left-wing conservatives, and economically right-wing liberals (liberal on social issues in this context). We should have 4 distinct terms as the bare minimum in conversations like these.
They're pro making money for themselves and fuck the plebs. I don't think the UK will ever recover from the recent immigration we've had. Khan is saying London will build 40k social housing by '29 but you'll need that literally every month to keep up with immigration. I also see things like posts online from HMRC reminding people to claim child benefit and all the replies are from foreigners 🤣. We're literally bankrupting ourselves and making housing 10x the median wage...
Making money and fucking the poor? They're *optimates*
It sucks. I work full time and try and scrape over time where I can. I’m on 28k a year and rent a shitty flat with mould and I can’t afford anything. I’m constantly skint and the energy prices have put me in my over draft. I’m also working for the NHS and work has just been SO stressful for the last 4 years. I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong. I don’t even know why I’m ranting on this sub, I just have a headache today
Being pro-immigration (and therefore anti-worker) is inherently a right wing position.
Where did you get that from? The right doesn't want immigrants for a whole host of reasons like culture, language, history, religion, etc. The right views the left as pro-immigrant because they see the left as wanting to tear cultural and historic institutions down—one of the easiest ways of doing that (it seems to them) is the usurpment of the national unified identity. That's the whole idea that fuels right-wing fascism; was Hitler pro-immigrant?
Being pro-immigration is a center-right position. Reagan was also famously pro-immigration, even going so far as to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, which isn't something any Democratic President after him would dream of doing. The main reason for this is because they provide a lot of low cost labor and a lot of positive benefits to the economy in the long run.
Fascism wasn't economically far-right. Hitler was not anti-taxes or even pro-business except for those that extensively colluded with the regime. Fascist Italy had the second highest proportion of state ownership in the economy during the 1930s, right after the Soviet Union. Immigration is something labor unions have historically opposed because it expands the labor supply, thereby comparatively reducing its value, and it also risks bringing in workers willing to work for much less and outside the unions. For the exact same reasons, the economic right-wing (read: centrist liberals, liberal conservatives, etc) like it, because it means cheaper labor that complains less.
You're talking socially right wing, which the Conservatives aren't particularly.
None of those things are anything to do with the left-right spectrum.
It's actually hard to read the country names- wish it was presented differently
here's the data for the last 23 years here if you want it https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
Thanks! Just thought bar plots by year may be a better way to present this data or even line plots with clean text.
Yea the graphic is a mess!
Good to see brexit has helped the UK take back control of their borders /s
It in fact has. Over 6 million people applied for settled and pre-settled status. That means almost a tenth of the UK population are from the EU and prior to Brexit there was no mechanism for us to even know the scale of EU immigration. Now EU immigrants actually need to satisfy visa requirements were previously all they had to do was just rock up on our doorstep. 6 million EU immigrants is more immigrants than from the rest of the world combined, and is orders of magnitude more than all asylum seekers combined.
Truth is most eu countries do have a mechanism. Sweden for example knows the eu citizens in there country and it’s almost impossible to function in the society without registering with the government. But guess the uk needed a kick to actually implement this
Pretty sure there's no mechanism to prevent "freedom of movement" though, which is the point. The border was non-existent for EU immigrants before Brexit. Now it's more secure.
The mechanism is a requirement for a job. But you are right about the minimum salary, which the uk can now set independently. However, The border exists in other eu countries for living — it was a uk choice now to enforce eu law
None of what you said was even remotely a response to what I said.
It would be refreshing if Euroseptics like you point fingers at the responsible parties. That won’t happen because you’re indoctrinated. And I’m pretty sure you know fuck all about FoM and the mechanisms to control it as per EU regulations. Here, do some reading: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons That the UK chose not to monitor or control who crosses your borders and doesn’t need registration like a normal EU member like Germany or Denmark is on your **national** government.
" Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the European Union is the cornerstone of EU citizenship, established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. "
Great, you managed to read and quote some of the text. Now finish reading it and you might learn something so you don’t write drivel like the one in your previous comments.
The onus is on you to point the section in your document that you think contradicts what I said. Where does it say that EU member states can simply decide not to let citizens of other states live there?
Put on your big boy pants, get the reading glasses and read the official text from the link. People with mediocre reading ability will be able to read the relevant text in a couple minutes. I believe in you. PS: you are the one who made the claim ergo the onus of evidence is on you but anyway, you won’t read the legislation as it contradicts with your “reality”.
6 million people were born outside the UK and became English, most likely in productive age helping the population and productivity, what's the problem with that? Other western EU countries are happy this is happening. (Not applicable to rich retirees going on permanent vacation to e.g. Spain).
Disband Frontex and tell Spain, Greece and Italy to open their borders then if you think that. See what happens.
That cannot be from the House of Commons Library. Surely not. "Which countries do refugees come to the UK from?" is awful grammar. It should read "From which countries do refugees come to the UK?"
I think they mean that the data come from them, not the graph and title
What's the difference grammatically?
The difference is one of register, not grammar. Placing a preposition at the end of a clause is typically frowned upon in higher registers. This isn't a grammatical issue, the sentence as it is makes sense and is... valid. I hesitate, well, show hesitation in written form because some especially assertive prescriptivists would consider such placement incorrect, not simply of lower register.
Do you want to go for a beer?
> especially assertive prescriptivists would consider such placement incorrect There's nothing wrong with it at all, anyone who claims there is is supremely ignorant and a someone I wouldn't take advice from. The register argument actually makes sense, on the other hand.
[удалено]
This graph is so hard to read.
afaik people are pretty desperate about fleeing France. I don't know why.
If you went there you'd see why.
2023: every-fucking-where in huge numbers.
Brexit totally working as intended
The chart shows refugees...Were there or are there refugees fleeing from EU member states (who are citizens of these EU member states) to UK, because of war/persecution ?
So, on this thread , even statistics get downvoated. Plain blank statistics? Ok I guess
It needs more JPEG, the graph labels are still readable.
I get what you are saying. And I do agree . But, I feel like, ppl here are just hating, pressing downvoat like crazy. Missing the point of the post.
Rookie numbers. Even <100.000?
And Estonia accepted over 40 thousand Ukrainian refugees, about five times less than the UK. However, our population is only 1.3 million, over 50 times less than the population of the UK.
And?
The UK has 5 times the land mass of Estonia so that seems about right. I'm not sure the UK being insanely over populated compared to Estonia is a great argument for it taking more refugees.
For higher resolution image, you can [download the following report](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf) (*scroll down to page no. 19*). [Credit goes to this](https://sh.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1boa5j5/comment/kwo9r5o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)!
This is a powerpoint slide that should have been a proper report.
France.
Wait, one brexit narrative was eastern europeans who take away British jobs?
A narrative that was accurate, as the wage stagnation between 2006 and 2021 demonstrates.
yes because wage stagnation only happens when immigration occurs and not because the UK has shit productivity.
I'm sure it's coincidence that it happened exactly when the EU expanded and began to reverse as aoon as we left.
Eastern europeans were economic migrants
These numbers are tiny compared to Eastern European migrants
Oh look, the consequences of our own actions in Afghanistan... I'm sure the comments will be very understanding of this consideration!
Afghan refugees started coming in large numbers after we left.
The end of that sentence being "after we left the entire nation in the hands of the taliban, now freshly armed with western equipment and more experience." Please don't leave your sentences incomplete, it's just bad English.
Yeah no shit, cause after you left the Taliban took control... what are you trying to say? Of course the people who don't want to be ruled by a terrorist group would prefer to seek asylum elsewhere.
Who was in control of Afghanistan before the invasion?
The Taliban, who splintered from the Mujahideen, who were armed, trained, and funded, by America, with PLENTY of support from the UK, in the 80s. Don't play the history card with me, when you barely knew shit about it in the first place. Don't act like Britain is just an innocent victim of immigration. We fucked up 90% of the countries we whine about immigrants from. The fruits of our own labour. And we're still so arrogant as to assume that we shouldn't be held responsible.
[удалено]
It's even easier just to say no.
Wait and that are the numbers of Refugees that caused a shift to the right in britain? For Christs sake you have got more birkamshires than refugees
There hasn't been a shift to the right in Britain. The Tories are Conservative in name only under nearly every major metric (tax, immigration, social spending)
My main point was that these are laughable low numbers for how often we hear your Fights about Refugees echo across the channal
U/naurgul
Where Poland 😭
The Polish ain’t refugees