Hmm, I'm choosing to use the definition in "The migrant population in the UK: fiscal effects" paper from the home office, I don't think there's any need for them to be permanent, obviously you wouldn't include people on a holiday, but...
The reason I ask is an Economist article, with answers to the same question broken down by what newspaper the respondent reads (in a MORI poll). Daily Star, Sun, Mirror and Daily Express readers all guessed over 20%; Guardian, Times and Independent around 10%; and FT readers a little over 5%. The latter papers don't have a very high readership, giving an average guess of over 20% - i.e. most people were overestimating by a factor of more than 2. Perhaps they'd make less of a fuss if they bothered checking their facts once in a while, but they'd probably choose different papers then...
By what definition of "immigrant"? I'd be amazed if it were that high. A quick Google suggests that this covers all foreign born nationals currently residing in the UK. This would encompass a large proportion of temporary migrants such as the ubiquitous Aussie and NZ gappers/travellers. Depending on definitions, I believe these would normally be referred to as *migrants* rather than *immigrants*.
When I gave my answer, I was thinking in terms of those who have acquired British nationality, but were not originally British nationals. The PDF above puts this proportion at 47% of migrants, putting the total number somewhere round 4% of the population, in line with my expectations.
Some of those migrants will be planning to stay more-or-less permanently or will end up doing so, though - with or without taking out citizenship. In particular there's little reason (besides voting in national elections) for citizens of other EU states to ever take up citizenship even when settled permanently.
Many of the standard objections to immigrants could be considered to also apply to their descendants (possibly at a diminishing rate), so the percentage that's actually relevant to their thinking may be higher than 10%.
I suspect that 'concern' over immigration stems from a spectrum of reasons ranging from out-and-out racism to concern over pressure on resources. In the latter case Americans etc would be just as much of a problem, proportionately.
Indeed. I'm a fourth generation immigrant in most branches of my family; sixth generation immigrant in the remainder; many of my immigrating ancestors were asylum seekers. The British government passed an act limiting the flow of immigrants (Aliens Act, 1905) just after the last of my great-grandparents had got into the country, so you can see why I tend to get annoyed at the way the issue is dealt with the media here. But in my case, I am wholly acculturated (though not in the slightest assimilated); though my great-grandparents were working class, their descendants have made real contributions to their adoptive country: my grandparents (second-generation) included a lecturer, my father (third-generation) is a dentist, and I myself work as part of one of the leading teams in my field in the world.
I'm not ranting at you here; just using your comment as a hook to make this point...
It could be a location thing. I bet if you looked at the demographics of where people read which paper, and then looked at what percentage of people living "in places like that" are immagrants, it might be that their guesses make more sense if they're based on what they're seeing in daily life.
Certainly it'd be worth looking at estimate against local figure. ISTR recently reading an article that said that 'concern' about immigrants tend to be higher in places where there were fewer immigrants, but I can't remember where it was and it didn't have any figures associated with it.
Here's the report on the poll. (http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/migration.shtml) Among other things: "The North East for example,is almost wholly white, and without huge numbers of asylum seekers, but is notably more negative about multiculturalism and asylum than many other regions. This is consistent with other research MORI has undertaken on immigration."
Not a criticism at all, but I think I ought to add, having heard some "interesting" comments about people in the north recently...
That article should beware of statistical generalisations. Having personally had to interact with a lot of south-eastern and London racists (ah, family reunions...) it's worth pointing out that a region is a very, very broad area. Even in London, which according to the report is some kind of multicultural paradise, you'll find places that are effectively no-go areas if you're black or asian. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is just one prominent example.
There are BNP candidates in Thurrock, Barking & Dagenham and in Broxbourne. The Broxbourne one seems to also suggest that racism isn't only a working-class problem as well. At least I don't remember it being a working-class area...
A tangential query, but what would you/the regulations/anyone else consider my father? Born in the UK to two foreign-born parents (one Italian national until marriage, one British-by-dint-of-father's-birth), he left the UK at under three months old and didn't return until the age of 12, at which point he spoke no English and culturally was not British in the slightest. For practical purposes he's sometimes been counted an immigrant e.g. at school; by nationality of course he's undeniably British, although Italy didn't see it that way (and attempted to make him serve his National Service anyway). Did he emigrate as an infant and immigrate as a child, immigrate as a child, something else?
But that's just it. My grandmother did lose her right to Italian citizenship when she married my British-passport-holding (if not British-by-upbringing) grandfather - rules have changed since, but that was definitely the situation at the end of WWII. Italy refused to treat her as a citizen for various financial purposes after her marriage, despite landholdings and income (and some residency) there. So my father was born in Britain to two British passport holders. What claim could Italy have upon him?
Either way, would you consider him 'an immigrant' or not? ;-)
Of course for all the "it's not racist" bluster, we have to remember that it's mostly not immigrants or even asylum seekers that the right are complaining about when they talk about immigrants and asylum seekers, it's largely the children of immigrants.
The same article mentioned that on a previous occasion when the Tories went for an anti-immigrant campaign, one result was the meltdown of the National Front. (OTOH another result was a Tory government.)
Like my housemate, who has *very* trenchant views about the current emphasis on immigration. As he put it (drunkenly) last night: "They mean there's too many black people don't they? Why don't they just come out and say it? Oh, they might get told off for that."
It makes me wonder if he's been getting hassle recently for being brown. (He's half-Trinidadian Indian). His sister has mentioned a couple of times that whenever people start going on about immigration and asylum seekers "all brown people start getting trouble."
I've answered the question with the "well, going back enough generations..." thought. Which isn't what you mean, but it's always worth bearing in mind for such discussions.
Yes, but that would be being silly and, after all these people are only campaigning to have people of, ooh, up to a few generations born and bred here sent, er, someplace else, and that can't be stupid can it? Oh, wait...
Interesting that picking a high percentage and being likely to object to immigrants seems to be correlated. I suspect I was probably thinking at least partly of immediate descendants of immigrants to come up with a high figure, but I certainly am not in the "they should go home/not be allowed to come in the first place" camp.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 09:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 09:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:15 pm (UTC)A bit under 10%.
The reason I ask is an Economist article, with answers to the same question broken down by what newspaper the respondent reads (in a MORI poll). Daily Star, Sun, Mirror and Daily Express readers all guessed over 20%; Guardian, Times and Independent around 10%; and FT readers a little over 5%. The latter papers don't have a very high readership, giving an average guess of over 20% - i.e. most people were overestimating by a factor of more than 2. Perhaps they'd make less of a fuss if they bothered checking their facts once in a while, but they'd probably choose different papers then...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 11:10 pm (UTC)http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/occ82migrantuk.pdf
When I gave my answer, I was thinking in terms of those who have acquired British nationality, but were not originally British nationals. The PDF above puts this proportion at 47% of migrants, putting the total number somewhere round 4% of the population, in line with my expectations.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 01:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 02:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 10:03 pm (UTC)I'm not ranting at you here; just using your comment as a hook to make this point...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 08:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 09:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 09:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 02:42 pm (UTC)That article should beware of statistical generalisations. Having personally had to interact with a lot of south-eastern and London racists (ah, family reunions...) it's worth pointing out that a region is a very, very broad area. Even in London, which according to the report is some kind of multicultural paradise, you'll find places that are effectively no-go areas if you're black or asian. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is just one prominent example.
There are BNP candidates in Thurrock, Barking & Dagenham and in Broxbourne. The Broxbourne one seems to also suggest that racism isn't only a working-class problem as well. At least I don't remember it being a working-class area...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 11:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 07:59 am (UTC)I don't think that it's clear from what you've said that he is both British and not Italian.
Gaining British citizenship does not make one lose other citizenships by default.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 03:08 pm (UTC)Either way, would you consider him 'an immigrant' or not? ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-27 06:43 am (UTC)Not.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 12:17 pm (UTC)And where do people who have an automatic right to live and work in the UK, but who aren't British fit in?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-22 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 03:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 09:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 11:19 am (UTC)It makes me wonder if he's been getting hassle recently for being brown. (He's half-Trinidadian Indian). His sister has mentioned a couple of times that whenever people start going on about immigration and asylum seekers "all brown people start getting trouble."
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 11:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 08:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 09:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 09:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 12:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 02:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 08:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 10:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-23 06:39 pm (UTC)