Jump to content

Talk:Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A question of terminology

[edit]

Asylum Seeker is nearly always used in a, at best, negative and, at worst, outright pejorative sense. The correct term is refugee (for which there is a WP entry). Refugees in turn should be distinguished from economic migrants. Let's head lazy tabloid thinking off at the pass, eh?

I've changed the heading Refugees ('Asylum seekers') to Refugees and asylum seekers. First because asylum seekers and refugees are not the same thing at all, and second becuase the quote marks make it seem like asylum seeker is a slang term or something
An asylum seeker is anyone who is applying for refugee status, and will inevitably include people who do not qualify (and will become a failed asylum seeker). A refugee on the other hand is a person whose asylum claim has been accepted - ie they have been found to be fleeing persecution. It is important to keep the distinction between these two groups, which the tabloids frequently use interchangeably! MyNameIsClare talk 13:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Has anybody got any information about the picts and pictish? I know a bit but havent really got the time to write an article. Also there needs to be a mention of Manx. The North east of ireland,isle of man, and lowlands have a lot of important history, particularly in relation to language.

Also maybe some information regarding the higland clearences?Ukbn2 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Controversy

[edit]

I've removed a statement in the introductory paragrapg about immigration causing controversy. If people wish to make such a statement, then it better put in a specific section with evidence. --NeilTarrant 20:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does the Brexit vote count as evidence? Ttulinsky 20:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)

United Kingdom?

[edit]

Surely this should be the Islands of Great Britain and Ireland. As the UK a faily modern invention?

Not really. Although the beakers and celts made it to Ireland afaik the Romans didn't, neither did the Anglo Saxons (although they certainly raided it), the vikings raided Ireland though didn't establish any kind of control there, neither did the normans and by the time we get to the huguenots we're well on the way to Britain becoming the UK. The article is currently heavily weighted in the direction of history rather than modern day, because I certainly don't know anything about immigration as a contemporary topic and I get the impression that neither do other editors currently inolved in this cotw. But with a full compliment the balance should be fairly even between the two. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dublin is a viking city, the extent of roman contact with island is still a bit of a mystery I beleive. The UK does include part of Ireland ATM.--Jirate 01:28, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I think the main thrust of my point is that the article when finished is supposed to convey modern immigration to the UK as well as historically. It doesn't at the moment because nobody has contributed anything towards the law section yet. Otherwise for what you're suggesting you'd require two separate articles, one of the history, and one for contemporary immigration, which kind of cancels out the collaboration of the week. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Effects of Immigration on British Culture

[edit]

This is a bit of a 'stream of conciousness' post!

  • 20thC eating habits - Chinese - Curries etc. Note most (as in 90%) UK curry houses are actually Bangladeshi run, not Indian per se.
  • tolerence - UK more integrated than many european counties - possible explanations?
  • The Arts - Chris Ofili (sp?) Anish Kapoor (sp?) etc.
  • French Huguenot Silkworkers

Martin TB 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look in Culture of the United Kingdom if you get stuck. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Population of racial minorities

[edit]

The article might want to provide information on the size and growth of racial minorities. How large is the Asian population, Afro-Carib population, etc.? How fast are they growing? How does this compare to the general population?

Stuff moved from Briton

[edit]

The Briton article had a lot of material also covered here, and in far poorer form with no references, so it has been removed. About the only thing worth saving was some information about Celt/Anglo-Saxon genetic evidence, which I've just inserted. References:

Long history of immigration, or of invasion?

[edit]

Is it really accurate to say, as the article currently begins, "The United Kingdom has had a long history of immigration, from the Beaker people of the 3rd millennium BC, to the waves of invasions by the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons and Normans"? Are these instances of immigration, or is it reasonable to make a distinction between immigration and invasion? To say nothing of the fact that this train of thought seems discordant with the additions an anon made to the second paragraph today. - Nat Krause 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I feel that second paragraph needs to be made more npov: scientists come up with this stuff fairly regularly and I'd insist on more than just one reference befrore integrating that sort of thing into the article. Saying that invasion is a form of immigration, because the invading (settling) forces bring with them new cultures, styles etc that alter the fabric of the native society. If we ignore the invading forces altogether we end up with a short article that leaps from the Beaker people to the Hugenots to 20th century colonial settlement. I think invasions are important to keep in the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the second paragraph should express a more neutral point of view, I do not agree that multiple sources are required for a point of view to be expressed. I do not think this is a requirement of the verifiability policy. In order to get a more neutral perspective any alternative points of view should be expressed in addition to the current POV, and of course these should also be referenced. Alun 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Celtic invasion didnt happen. Probably this was just a culture change.

Post war economy boom?

[edit]

Did Britian's economy really "boom in the post war period"? I don't get it, I've always viewed the History of Britian following WW2 as going down hill for the latter years of the decade, remember the government was almost bankrupt? still on rations into the fifties, Is that an "economic boom"? Surely this wasn't a "boom" in the American postwar sense of the word.

Um, wasn't it Harold Macmillan in the 50s who said most of our people have never had it so good? Alun 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question on spelling

[edit]

The use of US-English spelling formation in a UK related article is not only highly innapropriate, offensive, and incorect by anyone not from the USA, but also in violation of wikipedia recommendations. To every native and 2nd language speaker of English on the Globe not from the USA, this article is spelt wrong. Wikipedia recommends that articles pertaining to all Commonwealth countries use International Commonwealth standard English, and only US related articles use US formations. Articles written about non Anglo-related topics are up for grabs, but it is also polite to use Commonwealth standard as this is what a person from taht area would be taught if he or she were to take an English course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.225.5 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it is Wikipedia standard to use British spelling for articles about Britain. It is also standard procedure to post new comments on the bottom of talk pages, and to sign them. Go ahead and change this article's spelling. -Willmcw 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NHS,council housing, massive development in industries = boom?Ukbn2 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Immigration

[edit]

Removed the following text as it requires a source and evidence. Note that US Citizens do not figure highly in removal or refusal figures so what evidence supports the following assertion?

Contrary to expectations, the largest group of illegal immigrants were found to be American nationals who had entered the UK on tourist visas and had overstayed.

above unsigned comment made 8 April 06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.183.28 (talk • contribs)

I've heard that statement made about Americans before, and also Australians. It may well be true, but I can't find a reliable reference to support it. Interestingly the largest group of illegal immigrants in Australia are from Britain [1]. Cordless Larry 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future repatriation?

[edit]

I think this section should be removed. This article is about immigration, what has this neo-NAZI policy got to do with immigration, it would be emmigration surely? It is also something that will never happen as no serious political party has any such policy, so it would be Potential for repatriation or something like that. It seems an odd section, very short sort of joined on to the end of the article. I am baffled as to why it is there at all, are we going to express the policies of all crazed extremists? I'll remove it soon if no one objects. Alun 15:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a neo-nazi policy, however:
1) It is a suggestion made by some people in the UK (whether it would happen or not) and so needs to be reported about.
2) It is to do with immigration, as its proponents argue that it is a reation to immigration.
So, what ever our feelings on it, it should be included on this page for ensyclopedic accuracy, although, it should be made clear it is only an opinion (as is the total open border policy). Dave 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is it important enough to be included? The neutral point of view policy talks of significant minority opinion, it isn't really a significant minority. This party is tiny and I'm not sure that it plays an appreciable role in any serious discussion about immigration. Alun 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's been changed and now reads Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. Alun 15:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, it is a very minority view but, the BNP are big enough to have their own page and so, surly this warrents just a mention. Dave 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well they already have a mention in the Impact of immigration on society and culture section, the Future repatriation section is devoted only to a BNP policy (no other party mentions this). They are not big enough to warrant their own section. The article at present gives the BNP far more coverage than they deserve, there is no mention, for example, of Howard's concentration on immigration at the last general election,(Howard denies 'racist' policies) but the Tories always get over 30% of the national vote, what do the BNP get? The article as it stands makes the UK sound like a country obsessed with race and immigration. There is also mention of the 1981 riots in Brixton as race riots, but as I remember it the riots were about poverty and social exclusion, there were people of different races rioting together, not against each other. Unemployment had skyrocketed from about a million in 1979 to three million in two years because of Thatcher's moronic economic policies, and it was the resultant unemployment that caused the social unrest. Unless much of this section is properly verified I think it should be removed. Alun 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I, after a bit of thought, I agree with you, and think that the section should be removed. Dave 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite sources

[edit]

Copied from my talk page, for Ukbn2. OK, find your source, it needs to be verifiable, you can follow the link to find out more, but it means that it should be from a published source that other people can check, like a book or newspaper article or website. It should also be from a reliable source, so not ramblings on a chatroom or someone's personal website, but something that people would generally consider reliable. You need to cite your source, like in the references section (see here for more info). Then, after the section you want to reference write this <ref>what you write here will appear in the references section</ref>. There's more info about footnotes here. Hope this is of help. Alun 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of article suggestion

[edit]

I think the scope of this article is too large. I would suggest two articles, one containing information on Immigration to the United Kingdom, this would include only migration dating from the introduction of migration law, and focus on modern immigration. The other article could concentrate on migration up to say 1875. This could focus on the debate over how much evidence there is for Celtic migration or Anglo-Saxon migration, and things like the settlement of the Danelaw. The academic debate surrounding cultural diffusion and mass migration could be dealt with here. For example there seems to be more and more opinion in the academic world that the postulated Germanic invasions during the Sub-Roman period may not have occured at all, and the amount of immigration may have been quite small, see Sub-Roman Britain#The_Anglo-Saxon_migration. It also occurs to me that the UK didn't exist untill the Acts of Union in 1707, so much of immigration refered to in this article was really to Great Britain before the UK existed. What's the general consensus on this? Alun 17:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest splitting the page at the 1914 Aliens Restriction Act, as this was the first time any real restriction was placed on immigration. Dave 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds like a good plan. Let's see what other people think. Alun 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the original suggestion as the history of legislation reaches back to 1793 [2] Weggie 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if it gets split just after the Huguenots section and before the Historical immigration (1875 to the modern day) section. I would suggest some mention of the 1793 legislation in the introduction to the Immigration to the United Kingdom article to emphasise that it is about immigration in the modern sense, with laws etc. Let's wait a week or so longer to see if anyone has any objections before proceeding. Alun 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of the EU

[edit]

This section needs a reference, broadcast media cannot be used as a source as they are not verifiable, we need a published source.


Please see the appropriate policy page here. Alun 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) In the first twelve months of the expanded EU 133,000 immigrants to the UK were registered under this system.[reply]

I have removed this section based on the above, it is not verifiable.

Since then - 'Britain's Polish workforce has boomed in the two years since Poland joined the European Union. It's estimated that nearly 350,000 Poles have come to the UK since 2004 - but why?' This was the main line (and substantiated) of the programme broadcast by BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 14th May 2006, with the tag line 'This week's 'In Business', Peter Day speaks with members of this new army of workers, and asks them what they find attractive about Britain, and what they want to achieve whilst they're here. Alun 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an out-dated concept - we are "broadcasting" in front of things that look like televisions. electronic media IS verifiable if it is recorded.Ukbn2 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not verifiable unless it is accessible, any book or newspaper can be checked, but a broadcast from last week cannot readily be checked. Is the radio programme available for download from the BBC website? I know that they do maintain some archives. You should take a look at the reliable sources guideline, it only mentions published sources. But I agree, if broadcast media are readily accessible, and so can be verified, then I don't see why they shouldn't be used for verification. Alun 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some bias creeping in?

[edit]

It may be my immagination, but I have noticed some rather intollerant and biased edits recently in this article. Maybe it's just my immagination but this is certainly not the place to express political and/or neo-fascist opinions. It is also not a forum for promoting the BNP, a tiny minority party that IMHO is so small that it doesn't even warrant a mention based on the neutrality policy. Far more relevant for example is the failiure of the Tories under Michael Howard in 2005, who did have an extreme policy on immigration (he was assisted by Lynton Crosby who had helped John Howard win in Australia by using racism/immigration as an issue). The Tories increased their proportion of the vote by less than 1% between 2001 and 2005. I am somewhat concerned about this trend and am wondering if we should make some sort of request to get the page protected somehow. Alun 09:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the fact that some people want to politicise this page, but, compared with most pages, the amount of vandalism is very small. Instead of protecting, which would be an option if there was a more consistant flow of vandals, all we can do is revert the edits which we percieve to detract from the article. Having said that, we can't fall into the trap of embedding our own biases into it (but I don't think that has been happening). Dave 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, we need neutrality and verifiability, I'm all for articles being unbiased, but some of the edits recently have served no other purpose than to promote exclusively extremist POVs, and have attempted to shift the balance of the article in favour of a less tollerant POV. It is not the purpose of this article to articulate the policies of a single party, let alone one with such miniscule support as the BNP. As I have said before, if we want to have a section on the importance of immigration as a British political issue, it would be more accurate to discuss it in terms of how it failed to significantly increase Tory party support between 2001 and 2005, which makes it a non-issue really. I think the British press (which are IMHO mainly very right wing in the UK, with a few notable exceptions) has become somewhat hysterical over this issue in the recent past, which has raised the profile of the neo-nazi BNP recently, it's probably little more than a blip, when the press move on to their next bete noir it will be forgotten. I am worried that without constant vigilance some of the edits might become permanent, though I do have this page on my watch list. I point out the edits today by User:Harrysheldon [3] that I reverted and our previous discussion about Future repatriation[4], this section stayed in the article for some time. There have also been some unverified edits regarding failed asylum seekers. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I am concerned that the article may be drawing the attention of people with an agenda, and could become the target of a conserted campaign of racist edits. I think the more enlightened editors of the article need to be a a bit extra vigilent in the near future. Alun 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you may have a point about biased edits from one side of the argument, I believe that the above contributors too have their own biases in favour of immigration. Saying immigration is a "non issue" (yet it still appears highly in peoples' concerns in YouGov or when asked whether there should be more immigration, the majority are against)), mentioning "neo nazis" and mentioning hysterical tabloids and "racism" would indicate you are perhaps biased yourselves. NPOV works both ways. GimpyFauxHippy (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Government announced that the same rules would not apply to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria when those countries acceded to the EU in 2007. Instead, restrictions were put in place to limit migration to students, the self-employed, highly skilled migrants and food and agricultural workers." Why should the British governement put restrictions on highly skilled migrants? There is definetly a mistake in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.228.104 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of immigration on society and culture-music

[edit]

particularly in the traditions of sound systems and celebrity DJs.

Does anybody have a better way of rephrasing this? It almost sounds like a David Brent comment.

Im not aware of any Jamaican made sound systems.

What about?

"particularly in the influence of British music"

Ukbn2 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does look odd. How about particularly with regard to music and celebrity DJs? Alun 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some points relating to music.Ukbn2 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006, with the majority of chart music obviously written by and influenced by black artists." - This is an opinion, and at the moment, in 2006, I would argue that this comment is wrong. --Screeming Monkey 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Removal

[edit]

Removed paragraphs with unsourced material as per wiki guidelines: The Week is unverifiable as there are several publications of this name. Also, got flamed when I tried to tidy up which was nice since its not my material. Will replace with a sourced piece in a couple of days if no feedback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)

According to an article in The Week, 27th May 2006, there are 204,895 Poles registered for work in the UK and pay tax. The amount of unregistered Poles working in the shadow economy is probably as large. The Poles are relatively dispersed throughout Britain but do have some concentrations making up a sixth of the population in Jersey and Crewe.

A sixth?? Sorry, but I live here, and the Polish population of Crewe is 6%, about 3,000, not a sixth (16.666%). Also I'm a bit doubtful about the assertion concerning Jersey, since even we Brits don't have freedom of movement to set up home there - the States would have something to say about it. -- Arwel (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the immigrants are well educated people in the 20-35 year age group.[citation needed] Eastern Europeans have migrated for mainly economic reasons. Most Poles do low paid work in areas such as catering, agriculture, construction and the stereotypical Polish Plumber.[citation needed] Eighty percent earn £6 per hour, equivalent to the British Minimum Wage.[citation needed] According to The Week this is four times what they would earn in Poland.[citation needed] About 4000 Polish doctors have been recruited for Britain's hard pressed National Health Service although there have been concerns about their relatively poor English language skills.[citation needed]

The benefits to Britain from this influx of cheap labour are assessed as being an extra 0.2% of GDP growth and interest rates 0.5% lower according to the Ernst & Young Item Club.[citation needed]

If you are refering to me, then it was not my intention to flame you, sorry if I caused offence, not my intention at all. I was just requesting proper verification from the person who made the edit. I agree about removing the material untill we can get verification. Alun 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

terminology

[edit]

There is a terminology dispute ongoing which primarily involves U.S. participants, but might benefit from the involvement of people knowledgable about immigration politics in other countries. Usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed that there are legal inaccuracies. However, an undocumented immigrant under UK immigration law is an illegal immigrant. --Panzer71 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially Anti-British statement

[edit]

"Other high-profile areas such as entertainment and sport are also very inclusive. Many leading broadcasters and scientists are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In music, the impact of black culture has been extensive. British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006."

This paragraph sounds like an anti-British-culture statement because it states that ethnic British music has done absolutely nothing since the 1950s. This is an outright lie, when one doesn't consider that so much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. The phenomena on the "British Invasion" in the U.S. and Canada come to mind and names like The Rolling Stones or Billy Idol surely can't be forgotten.

I will remove the last sentence.. but has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence? The only one I can think of is the Spice Girls, but there was only 1 black member and there was certainly no African beats or influences portrayed in their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Andem (talk • contribs)


It's not an anti-British statement. The problem with British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006. is that it is an unsupported point of view, points of view should only be expressed if there is a supporting citation and if the other different points of view are also included (as long as they exist and can be supported by citations). Ideally we need a source that supports this statement, and then another that supports your pov. That way we give both points of view, and anyone that reads the article can draw their own conclusions. Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ethnic British music ......much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. This comment of yours doesn't make sense to me. Just because it comes from the UK doesn't make it ethnically British. I don't think any pop music can be considered ethnically-British, isn't nearly all popular music derived from the Blues and Jazz of the thirties, fourties and fifties, and aren't these ultimately African-American styles of music? I think the best one can say is that British folk music (maybe people like Jethro Tull) are derived from ethnic-British music.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence The article didn't state an African presence, it stated an impact from Black culture. You seem to be (possibly deliberately) ignoring musical styles like Ska and Reggae, are you disputing the West Indian origin of these styles? Or are you possibly forgetting that there are bands like UB40 and Madness etc. out there.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK work permit

[edit]

I have added the UK work permit page, generally as I have one and found it tough to find information on the governments site that made sense and clearly outlined what was required. Actually I had trouble getting info from immgration service companies, they wanted money first than I would get answers.

The Immigration to the United Kingodm page mentions the work permit scheme but has no in depth information on the requirements etc for a UK work permit.

The company that I finally is the same company I have gotten the content for my page (permission was granted by their marketing manager). They were the only ones who spelt out the entire system to me and my HR manager, and were helpful without money.

There is a page for HSMP, so thought the same for work permits would be good as well.

The information will change as soon as the government has updated its agenda for the new tier 1/tier 2 visa scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillfire (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Uk work permit and Highly Skilled Migrant Programme pages should be merged into this article, in a shortened form. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I don't think we need an article that is essentially providing immigration advice - as worthy as that is, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. I think we should follow the lead of Immigration to Australia and include brief information on the different schemes on the 'Immigration to...' page. Cordless Larry 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the page

[edit]

I think we need to remove information from this article that does not pertain to the UK. We need articles called Migrations to Great Britain (pre 1066) and Migrations to Great Britain (1066-1706) and Immigration to the United Kingdom. How can neolithic people have been migrating to the UK? The UK is a political entity, it didn't exist untill 300 years ago. Besides there's no real consensus of when or how or if there has been any significant migration to Great Britain since the paleolithic expansion. I think we need articles for the ancient migrations that deal with archaeology, written history genetic evidence etc and place the debates in their correct contexts. This article could then concentrate on immigration law and more contemporary ideas about immigration, which after all have very little similarity to those of ancient migrations. It would also free the pages for English people, Welsh people and Scottish people to be more about the people and the culture, and less about origins, because origins could be covered in the migration articles. Any thoughts? Alun 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this makes sense to me. It's also covertly biased to include all the ancient migrations on this page because it suggests that since there always has been migration we needn't get too worked up about it. Although that's a strong argument, it is made deceptively. I would favour one article for pre-1707 and one for post-1707. Andeggs 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished a re-edit of the contemporary migration section and feel this would work well on a standalone page. Will go ahead and split in two when i have time. Andeggs 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1922 material has now been moved to Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922). Thanks Andeggs 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of immigration on society and culture

[edit]

I think this whole section should be scrapped. It seems to me to be far too rambling (and unverified) for Wikipedia. We probably do need a section on the Geographical settling patterns of migrants - but how can centuries of immigration ranging from African slaves to IT workers be summed up in "impact on society..."? Will heavily cut in the next few days if no-one objects. Andeggs 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The country name....

[edit]

Since when was it called the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It never was. Certainly not in 1922. Sorry, it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. White43 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish immigration

[edit]

I think a mention should be made of Polish forced immigration in the immediate post war period of members of the Polish Armed Forces in the West. I'm speculating and it would need a source to confirm it but this probably also had an effect on the numbers of recent Polish migrants as it is much easier to emigrate to a country which already has a nucleus of fellow nationals as they can provide an informal network of support. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is worth a mention. I remember seeing the Polish-born figures from the 1951 census and there were over 162,000 then, making the Polish-born one of the largest foreign-born groups. This population had declined a lot by the 2001 census (because of deaths, onward migration to the US, return migration to Poland, etc.), but was still significant. This is a good source, as is Keith Sword's Formation of the Polish Community in Great Britain, 1939-1950, if you can find it. Cordless Larry 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing discussion because the Labour Party immigration scandal article has been deleted. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Labour Party immigration scandal should be merged into this page - the subject in question doesn't merit a unique article. Please see discussion here.--Pondle (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but don't give it too much weight in this article. It's basically a single event which doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia entry. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When you google "Labour Party immigration scandal" it refers to immigration policy or lack of policy as a scandal, not the specific conspiracy theory in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is not notable and its subject will not have "significant lasting and historical interest and impact". Furthermore, it is, as other users have pointed out on its talkpage, riddled with POV and political bias as shown by its "sources" from the Torygraph and Daily Mail. Merging that article into the present well-balanced and referenced text would be a slap in the face for the editors which have worked on this piece. Scrap this merger proposal, let's move to AfD. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be averse to an AfD. As I said, if it's merged here, it only deserves a very brief mention. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not mean that content from the other article is added to this article, but rather that the issues in the other article are dealt with here. Since there is nothing of any value in the other article then nothing would be added to this article. We now have two conflicting articles presenting different views of immigration policy when we should have one. (Basically a vote to merge the other article means that it is deleted while an AfD would keep the article.) The Four Deuces (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, far-left/Labour attempt at a cover-up job. The article is referenced reliably from mainstream media resources. There is still some more to add to the article, including Alan Johnson's apology over immigration the other day and the response. The Shadow Cabinet are initiating an official inquiring—wait until that is completed before trying to merge. No valid rationale for attempt to merge or cover up/hide, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, per my comments on the article talk page. A long way from meeting WP:N criteria. Deserves only the very briefest of mentions, and if editors object even to that, they are probably right. --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I've put the POV fork page up for deletion, here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please suspend this merger proposal pending the outcome of the AfD? I'm minded to withdraw my opposition here if the outcome is keep. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neather article

[edit]

I added a brief sentence based on Andrew Neather's article. I was careful to add only the narrowest and best supported claim from that article. My previous involvement comes from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party immigration scandal debate. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managed migration update

[edit]

The "Managed migration" section may need further updating for the change to the points-based immigration system and the UK Border Agency. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calais: what's the attraction?

[edit]

why is Britain apparently more attractive to irregular immigrants than mainland Europe ? Is it that wages or benefits are more generous ( I doubt it)or perhaps detection is less likely ( no ID cards?) ? I never notice any mention of this phenomenon, particularly the bizarre situation in Calais, in either mainstream media or here either. Given that terrible hostel fire a few years ago, and what I understand to be the B&B policy of local councils, UK doesn't sound like a particularly attractive place to be "undocumented". But is it better than conditions in eg France or germany etc..? Grateful any response to CC me at my own Talk page, please Feroshki (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that part of the answer is that the "Calais phenomenon" is simply a more visible manifestation of irregular migration than other aspects of it. For example, when in the Schengen area, irregular migrants can move from country to country without having to pass through border controls. By contrast, if they try to move to the UK it is more difficult and hence attention is drawn to their attempts. The same goes for people attempting to get into Europe in the first place: people crossing the Mediterranean are more visible than those crossing from France to Germany, for instance. Other than that, if the UK is actually a more popular destination (I actually think that other countries such as Greece and Spain may have larger irregular populations), then I would suggest that it's to do with the low unemployment rate that existed for the last decade or more in the UK. This may have now changed with the recession. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. This is an issue rarely discussed in the UK press, but one which comes up often in France which has to deal with the consequences of large numbers of migrants using Calais as a transit point for the "eldorado" which the UK is perceived to be for them. This article explains that many would-be migrants speak some English, have relations in the UK and believe that they have more of a chance of being allowed to remain in the UK rather than France. There's also the fact that France has far more stringent controls on migrants, both at the borders as well as within the country. Furthermore, to get almost anything in France (a job, bank account, housing etc) an individual will be required to provide a number of ID documents. In the UK, the only controls are on the borders and there are little to no paperwork requirements. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this crap

[edit]

These Immigration articles seem to focused on the British isles like there was no immigration from the isles to Europe, or other European countries immigrating to neighboring countries in Europe, NONSENCE, these are pathetic articles, what happened to neutrality why aren't their articles like British immigration to Europe, or German migration to France, it's all pointed at the British isles which is unfair.109.154.8.185 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are equivalent articles to this one for a number of other European countries, including Immigration to Germany and Immigration to Spain. There is also a specific article on British migration to Spain, although we could probably do with more of these type of articles given the significant British populations in several other European countries. You could always help out by starting such an article! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration data source from guardian.co.uk

[edit]

I found the following source of information about UK immigration from a blog on the guardian.co.uk web site:

the data is compiled under this google spreadsheet: here though the post's author doesn't cite his sources.

Bouktin (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weasel placement

[edit]

the total immigration and emigration number is put under the eu section. even despite knowing the real numbers this led me to believe for a while that this was eu numbers, higher than i thought. somebody who is unaware of the actual facts may not look long enough to realise the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.26 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and now  Done. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since World War 2

[edit]

This would be better than the current cut-off which seems arbitrary until I asked someone on a related talk page and they said it was because of the Irish independence. The article is already mainly about post-war immigration so why don't we just change the name to reflect this. The cut off would be much more sensible this way especially seeing as the 1922 is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article and neither is Irish Independence plus isn't it bad to have an arbitrary year in the title Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be a better title than currently but it's not as good as the one I proposed at the start of my rambling. Eopsid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1922 was chosen because the present configuration of the UK dates from then. It also ties in with the timeline in Historical immigration to Great Britain. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have said that if I made my proposed move Historical immigration to Great Britain would be changed to reflect it and plus your first sentence is just another way of saying after Irish Independence which is what I already said. Eopsid (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1922 is nonetheless a more logical start date than 1945. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case naming the article Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be better than the current one because after 1922 is more arbitrary than after Irish Independence and it was originally called 1922 to mean after Irish Independence. Eopsid (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic as Irish independence is not a straightforward issue and, in any event, it was really the Anglo-Irish Treaty which led to GB and NI. Also, the proposed title would give too much prominence to Irish independence, whereas this is only relevant as a historical starting point. There could however be an argument for using 1948 as a starting point for "modern" immigration which is synonymous with the Windrush and the British Nationality Act 1948. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to just use a date because that is arbitrary. A specific event as the cut-off point like Irish Independence or World War 2 would in my view be preferential. Eopsid (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

[edit]

The current title seems rather wordy and highlights an event that is not dealt with by the article. (The question of the free movement of the Irish to the UK might once have been an issue but is not even considered. Ireland doesn't even appear in the EU table.) So we either go back to the original title and explain in the header that only modern immigration is being considered, or use a modifier such as "modern" or "recent". I'm not fully convinced either way, but the word "recent" seems to beg the question, and "modern" can be explained by keeping the header note in place. So I propose the use of the term "Modern". Chris55 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but perhaps you should use the page move template:{{subst:Requested move|NewName |reason= Why}}. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That template is for requested moves considered "controversial or potentially controversial". Does this come under that heading? The previous section suggests that not many are even interested. And I'm not requesting a move, simply proposing it. (A request seems to me to be asking someone else to do something.) Chris55 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could just go ahead and do it. The advantage with the template is that it provides a bulwark against other editors moving it again at their whim. See the discussion above where although I opposed the September 2013 move, the editor ignored my concerns and did it anyway. Immigration to the UK is a controversial topic. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well he moved it from "since 1922" to "since Irish independence", despite proposing "since World War 2". I'm cheered you're not opposing the move, but I'll let it wait for a day or so to see if other people have ideas. Chris55 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris55 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

[edit]

This article's present structure is rather odd and I've tagged it as requiring restructuring. The "British Empire and the Commonwealth" is largely focused on post-WWII immigration, but then there is a second on post-war immigration later in the article, which also covers immigration from the Commonwealth. I think we need to decide whether the article should be organised into sections based on time periods, or based on the source regions of migration. My preference would be for the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Large Increases in 1997 and 2004 Seem Downplayed

[edit]

I'm an American reading this article without knowing much about UK immigration, except that it was a big issue in the recent Brexit vote. When reading the section "Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" it became clear that there had been a large increase in immigration, but it was not clearly stated that it occurred. Instead there are statements about forces that caused immigration and attempts to limit it. The graphs in "UK Migration from 1970.svg" make it clear there were big jumps in 1997 and 2004.

But the text there just the statement

Non-European immigration rose significantly during the period from 1997

in the fourth paragraph of "Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" without any number or percentage for approximately a 200% jump, judging from the graphs.

The section "European Union" meanders around, discussing

The of the Four Freedoms of the European Union,... substantial Maltese and Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriot communities ... There are restrictions on the benefits ...

Finally in the third paragraph:

Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that, between May 2004 and September 2009, 1.5 million workers migrated from the new EU member states to the UK

This does give numbers but softens them with the phrase "Research suggests", gives but no percentage again, for a 50-100% jump, again softens the increase with the statement (not a "suggestion") that many have returned home, then at the bottom of the paragraph admits many will probably come back.

This may simply be a case assuming that most [UK] readers know there was a large increase in immigration, and not bothering to state it, and going immediately to the resulting controversy. But the article should state the important facts before talking about the causes and reactions to them, and moreover it seems to be obscuring the fact of big increases in immigration. Ttulinsky 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

[edit]
Foreign born population of the United Kingdom 2004-2018
ONS Population by Country of Birth and Nationality statistics via The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford [1]

Stacked graphs are well known to be subject to misinterpretation, especially when the topic has political or emotional associations. It seems to me that a side-by-side presentation would be more illuminating, as I have shown here. The big problem with it, I recognise, is that the total is not easily visible. Is there a way to have the best of both worlds? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, a side-by-side represenation is less illuminating as it fails to provide a total. Concerning "the order of subsets", If "Figure 1" is observed in the source, the graph uses the same order as the source data. Hence if the University of Oxford doesn't have a problem with data being displayed in that order, it should be good enough for enwp editors and audience alike. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Migrants in the UK: An Overview". Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. Retrieved 2020-07-24.

Modern? immigration

[edit]

Just wondering what is modern immigration?

What makes it modern? For instance for immigration to the United Kingdom after the second war and until the entry into Europe?

It was eventually modern in the 1980s or 1990s. Is this still the case?

Why not to use another word than modern?

2021

[edit]

In 2021, almost 30.000 immigrants have crossed the English Channel. The Second Johnson ministry had claimed the Brexit would makew it easier to keep them out of the UK.

Versprechen nicht gehalten (means promise not kept)

In November 2021, 27 migrants died last week when their smuggling boat sank en route to Britain EU plane to monitor migrants on Channel shores after deaths (AP 28. November 2021) - that brought some attention to that migration.

--Präziser (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population Density

[edit]

It might be instructive and useful to split out the 4 Nations of the UK in the population density comparison with EU countries. Not to replace the UK wide figure but to list the nations as well. Doing so would reveal that England is super dense, as much as the Netherlands, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are much closer to most european countries in terms of population density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population lists the stats in population by square km, which I think if you multiply by 2.59 converts to population by square miles. The 2011 figure of 406.55 population per sq km for England therefore is 1053 population per square mile, just slightly more than the Netherlands.

Furthermore listing regions in comparison with other EU countries is even more dramatic with London coming in at 5199.71/km2 = 13,467/sq mile.

new PM Rishi Sunak

[edit]

35 % coming by boat to the UK are Albabians. Many of them claim to be 'victims of modern slavery', which is an official reason for asylum since 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/14/uk-coastguard-responds-to-small-boat-incident-in-channel-search-and-rescue

PM Sunak is obviously trying to make a turn. I am no native speaker and hope that a 'native' (ore some) will update the lemma. 178.203.108.170 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New section post-EU

[edit]

Hi, personally I feel this article now needs a new section to cover post brexit. any thoughts on this? Firestar47 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning-up

[edit]

I'm just going to spend some time cleaning up the article since it's a bit cluttered and large. Some re-ordering and rewriting will go a long way. ShowTimeCyclo (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1248040569"