Unwanted Immigration To The Island By Non British?

[Owen]

*ponder* .. so, as I was born in Malta, should I presume that makes me an "unwanted immigrant" ?

 

 

--------------------

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Blog: http://www.u-g-h.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[VinnieK]

I appreciate, and generally agree with, the points made. It is, however, entirely my fault for not making my interpretation of 'integration' as clear as I should have done.

 

... As the finance sector brings an ever greater awareness of our island to various parts of the world, the test of our ability to welcome newcomers, regardless of their backgrounds, may only just be beginning.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Lonan3. Although I don't want it to seem like my post was aimed specifically at you, as it was more prompted by the general rise of 'cultural assimilation' as a concern in discussions (both on the Island and elsewhere) about immigration policy.

[Albert Tatlock]

(indeed, Albert Tatlock's comparison with UK/Commonwealth immigration is shortsighted in view of its intention: In the UK such questions and preferable treatment did occur prior to the growing movement for integration with Europe, precisely because the shared institutions and political structures that existed across the Commonwealth were deemed a useful measure of the potential of immigrants from those countries to integrate).

I was simply making the point that Silky should not discriminate between immigrants. I thought the original post was racist.

 

Later I highlighted that Amadeus is an example of someone who has economically and culturally integrated. I didn't say that economic integration was unnecessary - it is a cornerstone of immigration in most countries.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.

___

The failure to address cultural integration from the start in the UK is the difference between a 'multi-cultural-society' and a 'multi-cultural-integrated-society', which has resulted in tension and in some case riots in the UK. It has also seemingly put many people in the UK firmly on one side of the fence, and has dominated the media and general elections in the UK for the past ten years.

 

I don't think it matters where immigrants come from as long as they economically integrate - AND culturally integrate, and by culturally integrate I mean e.g. don't just all live in Onchan, don't just work amongst themselves, don't just socialise with themselves and don't set up little towns or areas that look like home in 'Manchestercorkistanolovakiaumbongoland' or wherever. There are certain groups starting to do that on the island at present (some of whom I have worked with) for family, social, language or economic reasons but nevertheless it is starting to happen - and which IMHO only a sensible immigration (and settlement) policy can, and should, discourage now to avoid future problems. To me, one measure of the disintegration of culture is the number of 'groups' that form.

 

When people get here they should realise that many people on the island do not wish to see all of the legislation and the way of life that has been brought in over the past 20 years in the UK - brought in here. Many people are not happy with the UK and nearly 1000 a year are moving here each year - and what these people say about the UK and the island and their reasons for moving here are just some of the economic and cultural differences that people here want maintained. IMHO this can only done via a responsible immigration policy based on a sound economic development policy and a regular assessment of how (and who) is changing our culture and values.

[hboy]

Discuss....

 

Ah. Racist comments on immigration to the IOM. Kick the non-British out? .... You must be English then! Most white supremacists I have met are certainly not Manx.

 

Twenty years ago the Manx were saying the same about the English, now the English settlers here welcomed by the Manx are saying it about the Blacks, Asians and other "non British".

 

Pots and kettles spring to mind (and neither should accuse the other of being black).

[Doric]

etc.

etc.

 

Albert, that is all very well, but you really are getting too intelectule and sensible these days. You were more fun when you started off on the forums and you were so much more AlbertTatlockesque

 

But yes, I agrea with lots of what you said ^^ up there somewhere.

[Albert Tatlock]

etc.

etc.

 

Albert, that is all very well, but you really are getting too intelectule and sensible these days. You were more fun when you started off on the forums and you were so much more AlbertTatlockesque

 

But yes, I agrea with lots of what you said ^^ up there somewhere.

OK I admit it - but only on things/people trying to change the island into an English county.

[Declan]

How can anyone answer this question -

 

What do you think?

 

Yes

No

 

Of course I think, otherwise there wouldn't be any point asking me a question!

 

Perhaps the intended question is "Unwanted Immigration To The Island By Non-British? What do you think? Yes or no?"

 

But then how can you answer that. Either it means -

 

"Do you think there is unwanted immigration from non-Britishers", which doesn't mean anything much, since clearly there are some Non-British immigrants I would prefer lived elsewhere (Amadeus for example) but then there are plenty of British immigrants I sooner weren't here, and for that matter quite a few Manx people I wish would fuck off.

 

OR

 

"Are you in favour of unwanted immigration by Non-British", which can only be answered one way. Because how can you be in favour of something you don't want.

[VinnieK]

I didn't say that economic integration was unnecessary - it is a cornerstone of immigration in most countries.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I didn't - I never once implied that you said that economic integration was unnecessary.

 

The fact is that a preferrence towards migrants from Commonwealth countries did exist in the UK at one time (especially towards the descendents of British settlers accross the Commonwealth), and that this was justified by the argument that these immigrants would be more likely to integrate well and support their new host culture than immigrants from other countries. Although you may disagree with the criteria or argument used in these examples, they work to the same aim and are based on the same principles that you yourself regularly champion (i.e. cultural integration and preservation). That's what I meant by shortsighted.

 

The failure to address cultural integration from the start in the UK is the difference between a 'multi-cultural-society' and a 'multi-cultural-integrated-society', which has resulted in tension and in some case riots in the UK. It has also seemingly put many people in the UK firmly on one side of the fence, and has dominated the media and general elections in the UK for the past ten years.

 

Whereas an overt 'integrationalist' approach in France and elsewhere has resulted in the same kind of riots and resentment amongst immigrant communities, similarly polarising viewpoints and indeed giving the National Front (who, it is worth mentioning, are significantly more powerful in France than their British counterparts are in the UK) an excuse to peddle racist filth and stir up tensions by defining in absolute terms what classifies a person as "Integrated", allowing them to portray immigrants as 'undermining' French culture.

 

Again, most of these communities are relatively young. As time passes it is reasonable to suppose that (as has happened amongst mature immigrant communities elsewhere) the future generations of these communities will eventually integrate themselves more and more with their host culture, and disperse as they seek out greater opportunities (as happened with the Asian and Irish communities of 19th Century America, to no detriment of the host nations culture, for instance), provided they are given the opportunity to do so.

 

...this can only done via a responsible immigration policy based on a sound economic development policy and a regular assessment of how (and who) is changing our culture and values.

 

Again with this idea of regular assessment of how/who is changing our culture and values. How does this assessment work? Specifically, how do you propose that this 'responsible' (presuming that the responsible appelation is more than a mere rhetorical device) immigration policy quantifies change in 'culture' and 'value'? and how do we qualitatively determine the 'blame' in this case? How do we distinguish between the natural evolution of culture, and undesirable change?

 

Not only is this proposal so flawed in its superficiality as to be largely unworkable in application, but it threatens to turn the Island into some bastion of paranoid nationalism where the 'influence' of immigrants has to be periodically monitored (using god knows what criteria), and where entire groups of people are collectively and individually judged against an entirely arbitrary measure of culture.

[Chinahand]

I am very firmly in favour of keeping imigration policy as open as possible. I've been fortunate enough to work in various countries around the world and if circumstances had been different could have easily settled in something like 4 different countries, even now I hanker after visiting a couple more to see what they are like. If I can have these opportunities I don't see why I should refuse them to others. People can temporarily come, if they feel they fit in stay, or return to there original home.

 

Immigrants change countries, no doubt about it, but I don't think that change is a bad thing.

 

Thinking about VinnieK's post I think he's come down a little hard against Albert's view that there is a need for a regular assessment of how immigration is affecting the country. I've reworded Albert's phrase only a little and I'm totally prepared to defend it. I think government's shouldn't leave problems to fester. If the UK had moved to ensure better integration in schools 10 or so years ago the problems now festering in certain cities would have been nipped in the bud. This assessment wouldn't be some nationalistic test of whether people are eating chips and watching corrie, rather an assessment of whether there are now different needs as a result of a community either succeeding or failing to florish. This assessment would be a normal part of social policy, but it would directly face the issues imigraton creates; face the problems and act to solve them. I firmly believe, and the figures show it, that immigrants are definitely a net gain for the economy. Hence by encouraging them the state will have more resources to ensure the problems created by integration are addressed.

 

The current problem is that this hasn't been done and problems have been left so that the far right can exploit them. Allow migrants to be proud of their struggle in coming to a new country, acknowledge their contribution and act to ensure problems created don't get out of hand.

[VinnieK]

Chinahand, I agree with you that problems shouldn't be allowed to fester, and it is the duty of any government to make sure that needs are met regarding specific communities, whether immigrant or not. But this obligation (which should surely be met under the natural obligation of any govenment to provide the opportunity for all its subjects to flourish anyway) bares little resemblance to Albert's statement:

 

this can only done via a responsible immigration policy based on a sound economic development policy and a regular assessment of how (and who) is changing our culture and values

(my italics).

 

It is of course for the benefit of both society at large and immigrant communities that immigrants are given the necessary opportunities to fully be a part of that society, and to both reap the benefits of and contribute to their new home as much as anyone else. But this is not what was suggested, no matter how you care to rewrite it. What has been proposed here is an immigration policy based on how and which immigrants are changing values and cultutre (presumably for the worst). What you endorse in your post (and which indeed I support) is an essentially constructive fostering of immigrant communities, guided by assesment and identification of needs. What Albert suggests (and which I take issue with) is an entirely defensive stance that enshrines some necessarily artificial concept of culture by basing future immigration policy on the assessment of how 'our' culture and values are being changed by immigrants. This latter scenario allows the possibility that even a potentially very productive member of society could be discriminated against on the basis that they are identified as being a member of a group that, in the view of whoever would decide these things, already weilds too great a changing influence upon the domestic 'culture'.

[Gladys]

Possibly the largest, and most repercussive, immigration in our history is also held up as an essential part of our 'unique' heritage making the Manx what we are today. Can't have been all that pleasant at the time, but the Vikings are very much part of Mann, so I am in favour of immigration from all groups on the grounds of promoting a developing and evolving culture.

 

However, I do believe that there should be some form of population control (not based on ethnicity) to ensure that the social infrastructure can support those living on the Island.

[silky]

I started this poll because I was interested in people's opinions regarding the subject. I would also like to add that at no point have I actually expressed my own opinion if you actually read the poll topic etc it says "discuss..."

 

As a matter of fact I actually voted "No" as in I do not believe there is a problem at this point in time with unwanted immigration to the Island although I have heard many people say recently that they think there is for various reasons.

 

Oh, and for the record I am anything but racist!!

[LoneWolf]

I started this poll because I was interested in people's opinions regarding the subject. I would also like to add that at no point have I actually expressed my own opinion if you actually read the poll topic etc it says "discuss..."

 

As a matter of fact I actually voted "No" as in I do not believe there is a problem at this point in time with unwanted immigration to the Island although I have heard many people say recently that they think there is for various reasons.

 

Oh, and for the record I am anything but racist!!

 

Im not really certain what you mean by unwanted immigration. Unwanted by whom ?

Im reasonably certain the Friday night gang in the Whitehouse would consider all immigration unwanted.

Others may consider black or asian immigrants unwanted.

Others might welcome new blood to the Island.

Maybe you need to be a bit more specific as to what you are asking.

[Declan]

So the question is "Do you believe that immigration by non-Britons is unwanted?"

 

ok I can vote on that.

[LoneWolf]

So the question is "Do you believe that immigration by non-Britons is unwanted?"

 

ok I can vote on that.

 

Hmmm ... I believe immigration by non Britons is unwanted by the Whitehouse Friday night regulars.

I do not believe immigration by non Britons is unwanted by the East European family who live nearby.

 

I do believe the question is a loaded one !!