Is it racist to have an immigration policy?
By bananamanuk
@bananamanuk (835)
February 12, 2007 2:32pm CST
Firstly, I am not racist, and as someone that studied populations I am acutely aware that there is a strong need for migration. However my question is based on the fact that every time people in power talk about immigration, there is a real danger of them being branded racists and I simply do not subscribe to that notion. Instead I believe that an immigration policy is sensible.
In the UK we have no quotas/ no limits on the number of people that can enter the UK in any given year. Following on from the baby boom years when families were encouraged, and larger scale migration from former colonial countries, this means that the population of the UK continues to expand. Does it not seem reasonable therefore to suggest that if the size of the country is physically limited, i.e the land mass cannot increase, then there is only so much land available for development and therefore the country can only sustain a certain number of people?
House prices in the UK are prohibitive, that is to say that people like me, just cannot save enough money fast enough to even look at getting on the housing ladder. House building cannot keep pace with demand, more people requiring housing means that prices rise through economic forces.
Then there are things like the public services and healthcare. Ever increasing demand is created by an increasing population. Now, this is not to say that migration is the sole cause, that would be a ludicrous assertion, the fact is the UK has an ageing population which means people are living longer, therefore they are using services, retaining houses etc for longer. Of course this is a great thing, but add uncontrolled migration to that and the problems are increased.
There are numerous other things I could say, but I fear I have already rambled on enough. I am genuinely interested in what other people feel. Does your country limit the number of migrants each year, like Canada and Australia do. Is it successful? Is it a good thing? Is it seen as racist?
I would just like to reiterate that I am in no way racist, that I agree with and support migration and immigration from all countries into the UK, my argument is that there should be some kind of annual limit though.
Look forward to your comments
1 person likes this
6 responses
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
12 Feb 07
An immigration policy can be racist or not. It makes sense to adopt a non racist immigration policy. An immigration policy of some kind is simply good common sense and essential.
The USA natives (American Indians) had no immigration policy and look what happened to them!
1 person likes this
@bananamanuk (835)
•
13 Feb 07
Thank you both for your replies. So far it seems that people are in agreement that having some sort of policy is better than nothing at all. As with so much in life, it is about weighing up a balance, no immigration and population movement is bad, too much is bad, e.g large scale emmigration from Poland with EU expansion, means that skill shortages remain in the native country.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
12 Feb 07
Yes i think i agree with you in every way. haha i don't think i can say anything else. It's not racist, I would hate so much for the UK to lose it's reputation of being tollerent and open to all. But there are obvious downfalls to this. The uk is a tiny island, with an obsession with preservation. That's not a bad thing at all, but it goes to show we can't have everything, something has to give. I would hate to deny anyone to the country but that may have to be the solution, and surely everyone will understand that. As considerate as we are we can't ignore the strain on the NHS, schools and housing. at the moment the average house price in my area is at £366,150! first time buyers are expected to get a mortgage for over 100,000. it makes me want to cry
1 person likes this
@bananamanuk (835)
•
13 Feb 07
Hello 4ftfingers, thanks very much for your comments. I think your points about the social consequences of not having a population policy are important. I thought about this whole debate again after I logged off last night and thought that another strain is in community relations. I think you see where there are large scale immigrant populations that everything is not harmonious. Bradford springs to mind. I agree that the British are very tolerant and accepting and accommodating, I agree that many immgigrants play a vital part in our community, but I do believe we should control absolute numbers.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
13 Feb 07
yes definately. the whole idea was to have complete intergration rather than seperate communities. like you say that is evident in bradford, and also southall, london, where over 90% of the population are asian and i beleive it is the only place in england where the train station's sign is in both englsih and punjab. i also hear that there are new community of russians emerging, where it's far more profitable to sell russian food and newspapers etc.
i don't like to generalise but i've seen on tv a number of non-white britons say that they concider their religion first before being a briton. i wonder if this mean that they will look out for people of their own religion first, and rather be among them? i think that might compromise our ideals of a non discriminative country. but that's not necissarily their fault, if they have nothing to 'feel british' about. and everyone is free to their religion. its a sensitive subject but i think the media need to give a voice to a larger demographic.
and that's another big problem. media sells well with controversy and unrest so although they can't be seen to be racist, to them immigration is another thing to get people riled up about. they are one of the biggest reasons for seperate communities and will probably never allow us to live together comfortably.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
13 Feb 07
No, it is not racist to have an immigration policy. I think every nation should have some form of controlled immigration policy for the good of its people. Because humans are naturally very territorial in nature, long-term immigration is indeed not a good thing.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
13 Feb 07
Bananamanuk, I also respect your opinion, but however, will agree to disagree in this case. I know, from historical facts, that immigration has never been a good thing, regardless of the era one chooses to examine the issue from! Because humans like wildlife animals are very territorial, long-term immigration is just not a good thing!
Did you know that a good number of the problems we are facing today around the world result from immigration and its side effects? People just need to learn to remain in their own homelands and try to resolve their own national problems in hope for a better lifestyle! You see, whenever the nationals are struggling and the foreigners/immigrants are thriving (regardless of what the foreigners/immigrants do or did for a living), the nationals will always contend that they are struggling because the foreigners/immigrants are getting what they should have! People should get into the habit of staying away from other's homeland, and only visit when they can afford to visit -
The Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, Israel/Palestine, Western nations v. Middle Easterners, most African civil wars, etc. are all the result of uncontrolled immigration. In conclusion, "refrain thy feet from thy neighbor's house, least he gets tired of thee and hates thee." Oh, the above quote is advice from the Bible.
@bananamanuk (835)
•
13 Feb 07
Thank you for your comment Netsbridge. I respectfully disagree with your comment that long-term immigration is not a good thing. I believe migration IS a good thing, but it is something that has to be controlled, for the sake of common sense to ensure social cohesion.
@bananamanuk (835)
•
14 Feb 07
Thank you for your comment Netsbridge I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but everyone is entitled to an opinion which is what makes this place a good debating tool. Thanks for adding to my discussion.
@SageMother (2277)
• United States
12 Feb 07
It isn't racist at all, but those illegals from Mexico want to shame people into letting them stay so they used that buzzword to make people feel defensive and unjustified.
The immigration laws can be contructed to select against certain racial groups, that is true, but being a flat out illegal alien means that the immigration law is being broken. It is a legal issue at that point, not one of discrimination based on race. Changes in the immigration law, or simple enforcement of the existing law, will effect all illegals blindly.
1 person likes this
@bananamanuk (835)
•
13 Feb 07
Thanks for your comment sagemother. One little thing I wanted to pick out of your discussion was the use of the word 'alien' I've always found that quite a shocking term, but I know that it is widely used in the USA. Language is a very strange thing. You make a good point that it is possible for laws to be drafted that attack one group or another, but that a flat rule is the most common sense, fair and just way to proceed. Thanks again.
@luzamper (1357)
• Philippines
15 Feb 07
I think every government has its own immigration policy and that determines whether it's racist or not. It is also the right of each government to limit the number of those who are allowed to migrate. As anyone else, the government has the right to protect itself. Migration is not as yet a problem in the Philippines although we now see many Chinese who came in illegally, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc. Filipinos can be found anywhere and there are now many in Europe, some illegal.
@CaptAlbertWhisker (32507)
• Calgary, Alberta
21 Nov 15
These are the immigrants countries should accept:
1.Someone with the skills needed by the country
2.Someone who can give their loyalty to their new country
3.Someone who is not fanatical to their religion
4.Someone who is willing to learn the language
5.Someone who can assimilate with the new society
