"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[ahinton]

Being opposed to immigration seems to involve establishing a fairly arbitrary cutoff point where all the successive waves of immigration into a place, over a period of millennia, are deemed to have been "enough", and all the richness of culture and identity in that place which has been the result of all those waves of immigration is deemed to have to be frozen as it is, or, more usually, frozen at a largely fictitious point a few years before the present. This attitude seems to me irrational and indeed counterproductive, and a distraction from issues that really need solving.

I agree. OK, I've not lived in my native Scotland for most of my life and don't plan to return there but were I to find too many Scots and not enough people from elsewhere I'd be put off going back by that alone.

I can accept an argument that any country can only be expected to sustain a maximum of x number of people in accordance with its size and its economy but, as you say, immigration cut-off points are invariably arbitrary rather than arising from due consideration of the numbers that a country can reasonably support.

In the immigration arguments, statistics are so often bandied about that wilfully mislead by avoiding due reference to the benefit of immigrants to a country's economy; if one result of immigration was the depletion of a country's economy because most immigrants drew benefits rather than paying taxes, I could understand such an argument but all assessments that I've seen tend to support there being a net economic benefit in UK from immigration. It's not all about the money, though; the "richness of culture and identity" to which you refer is also vital.

Who in any case decides and on what grounds when "enough is enough" and why, when enough is considered to be enough, does the primary focus fall upon immigrants?

[Beef Oven!]

Being opposed to immigration seems to involve establishing a fairly arbitrary cutoff point where all the successive waves of immigration into a place, over a period of millennia, are deemed to have been "enough", and all the richness of culture and identity in that place which has been the result of all those waves of immigration is deemed to have to be frozen as it is, or, more usually, frozen at a largely fictitious point a few years before the present. This attitude seems to me irrational and indeed counterproductive, and a distraction from issues that really need solving.

"Being opposed to immigration" isn't what the discussion is about and is easily exposed as irrational. Seeking to manage the quantity, pace and type of immigration is a different kettle of fish. I really don't understand why the latter and 'real issues that need solving' needs to be kettled into a binary option and presented as a distraction.

[Beef Oven!]

I agree. OK, I've not lived in my native Scotland for most of my life and don't plan to return there but were I to find too many Scots and not enough people from elsewhere I'd be put off going back by that alone.

I can accept an argument that any country can only be expected to sustain a maximum of x number of people in accordance with its size and its economy but, as you say, immigration cut-off points are invariably arbitrary rather than arising from due consideration of the numbers that a country can reasonably support.

In the immigration arguments, statistics are so often bandied about that wilfully mislead by avoiding due reference to the benefit of immigrants to a country's economy; if one result of immigration was the depletion of a country's economy because most immigrants drew benefits rather than paying taxes, I could understand such an argument but all assessments that I've seen tend to support there being a net economic benefit in UK from immigration. It's not all about the money, though; the "richness of culture and identity" to which you refer is also vital.

Who in any case decides and on what grounds when "enough is enough" and why, when enough is considered to be enough, does the primary focus fall upon immigrants?

If we take arbitrary to mean not based on a reason, but a whim or caprice, then seeking to manage immigration isn't arbitrary. Clear reasons are given. Phrases like "enough is enough" smacks of Daily Mail headlines and is not what most people, including myself think, when it comes to this issue.

[ahinton]

If we take arbitrary to mean not based on a reason, but a whim or caprice, then seeking to manage immigration isn't arbitrary. Clear reasons are given.

I don't understand. It would indeed be "arbitrary" if "not based on a reason, but a whim or caprice". If, on the other hand "clear reasons are given", it would not be arbitrary but that would not of itself necessarily justify those "reasons", whatever they might be; what "reasons" have you in mind in this instance?

Phrases like "enough is enough" smacks of Daily Mail headlines and is not what most people, including myself think, when it comes to this issue.

I agree, although I have heard this kind of thing often enough by those who are especially keen substantially to reduce immigration, which is why I mentioned it; I'm pleased that you don't subscribe to this kind of "thinking".

That said, immigration is often talked about by those who aren't keen on it in one direction only, conveniently ignoring how they'd feel if they wanted or needed to move to another country only to discover negative attitudes towards them as immigrants.

[french frank]

Seeking to manage the quantity, pace and type of immigration is a different kettle of fish.

In some people's eyes, it appears that the 'type of immigration' to be regulated is the somewhat lower volume from nearby countries rather than the higher volume from more distant countries. Is this to maximise 'diversity' in the UK population?

[Beef Oven!]

In some people's eyes, it appears that the 'type of immigration' to be regulated is the somewhat lower volume from nearby countries rather than the higher volume from more distant countries. Is this to maximise 'diversity' in the UK population?

I'm thinking of the perceived need for oversees workers and the required skill-mix therefrom.

And thinking of the NHS as an example, the skills/competencies (eg English language) are more likely to come outside the EU.

[french frank]

And thinking of the NHS as an example, the skills/competencies (eg English language) are more likely to come outside the EU.

I don't think I agree with that point of view …

On another matter. A thoughtful view on the conduct of the recent Irish referendum - including the information (of which I, at least, was unaware, that the No campaign employed some of the same people and tactics used by the Leave campaign, among others). Why was 'conservative' Ireland immune, when other democracies fell for them? Is this how democracy should be conducted?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/29/brexit-ireland-referendum-experiment-trusting-people?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=276491&subid=24728850&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[greenilex]

We probably have to accept that outsiders will always be viewed with a certain amount of resentment/suspicion/jealousy.

In youth, we are competing sexually as well as in skills and for resources such as housing and medicine.

If neighbouring gangs/families compete, how much more different cultures?

But a successful education could mitigate some of the worst impulses by supplying other viewpoints.

[Bryn]

I don't think I agree with that point of view …

Quite. The open top tours from which I am about to retire carry 9 languages other than English for the recorded commentary. Most EU languages are omitted, principally due to the widespread fluent grasp of English throughout the EU.

[Richard Barrett]

We probably have to accept that outsiders will always be viewed with a certain amount of resentment/suspicion/jealousy.

Really? In the past people probably thought they had to accept that things like the divine right of kings, or the existence of slavery, would always be around. If competition always had the upper hand in interactions between people we would still be cowering from each other in caves.

[Beef Oven!]

Quite. The open top tours from which I am about to retire carry 9 languages other than English for the recorded commentary. Most EU languages are omitted, principally due to the widespread fluent grasp of English throughout the EU.

I think that tourists and health workers don't make a good comparison.

One of the advantages of recruiting from places like the Caribbean, South Asia, The Philippines etc is that English is either the first and/or official language. But really, we shouldn't be poaching healthcare professionals as the solution to our workforce gaps, we should be increasing the number of nursing and doctor training places. Last year for example, there were 40,000 more applications for nurse training than there were places for. Ridiculous given the national lack of nurses and midwives.

[ahinton]

I think that tourists and health workers don't make a good comparison.

One of the advantages of recruiting from places like the Caribbean, South Asia, The Philippines etc is that English is either the first and/or official language. But really, we shouldn't be poaching healthcare professionals as the solution to our workforce gaps, we should be increasing the number of nursing and doctor training places. Last year for example, there were 40,000 more applications for nurse training than there were places for. Ridiculous given the national lack of nurses and midwives.

But to what do you attribute this problem (for problem it surely is)?

By the way, you seem not yet to have responded to the Swedish question...

[Serial_Apologist]

Really? In the past people probably thought they had to accept that things like the divine right of kings, or the existence of slavery, would always be around. If competition always had the upper hand in interactions between people we would still be cowering from each other in caves.

Mind you, capitalism does, as has been said many times, thrive on mutual distrust as the basis of healthy competition in a marketplace primarily governed by commercial secrecy. Possibly the reason we're not all still cowering from each other in caves is that various lasting ruling class strategies have been introduced to reduce any excessive effects that would bring about permanent community dislocation, or just keep it to the "lowest orders": eg religion or normative peer group pressuring to promote internalised policing, since to try and minimise disorder the mistrust is better self-directed than projected outwards.

[jean]

But really, we shouldn't be poaching healthcare professionals as the solution to our workforce gaps...

This is a good point.

But what about the people from Eastern Europe who've been coming to pick our fruit? It's not lack of training that makes us disinclined to do it ourselves.

[Richard Barrett]

Mind you, capitalism does, as has been said many times, thrive on mutual distrust as the basis of healthy competition in a marketplace primarily governed by commercial secrecy. Possibly the reason we're not all still cowering from each other in caves is that various lasting ruling class strategies have been introduced to reduce any excessive effects that would bring about permanent community dislocation, or just keep it to the "lowest orders": eg religion or normative peer group pressuring to promote internalised policing, since to try and minimise disorder the mistrust is better self-directed than projected outwards.

Yes but that hasn't always been the case. I think I've mentioned before that in the earliest societies that could be called "urban", back in the Neolithic age, excavations haven't shown any significant differences in size between the dwellings in a city of between 5 000 and 10 000 inhabitants, which would seem to indicate a lack of class divisions. And of course the amount of cooperation necessary for the inevitable division of labour in keeping a place like that going must have outweighed the countervailing competitive "instincts". In other words, class society had an origin in time, for some reason, which might indicate that it could also have an end. Of course, a classless society under capitalism is a contradiction in terms.