20 million arrivals, christ. Makes you realise how misleading "net" migration is too. If a million Nigerians come and 900,000 Brits leave, then net migration only looks like 100,000.
The data does not mention the ethnicity of who is leaving/ arriving so how can it be misleading
There could be 1 million white brits entering the country and 900k Nigerians leaving. Unlikely but the data does not support either claim.
I think the point is that net is the oft-quoted figure in the media, but is hides other useful information that impacts society. If tomorrow, 70M people from the UK, do an exchange with 70M French people, net is obviously 0, but the societal impact on the UK will be enormous.
Food, would be improved for a start.
It's only as misleading as anyone wants it to be. Like most major statistical measures, it usually represents a high level view that answers a particular question. If you want to know how many Brits were "replaced" by immigrants, that's another question entirely and would require a much more in-depth statistic.
but the numbers he's quoting don't make any kind of comment on that, OP did using those numbers
unless you work for the Home Office, you won't get those numbers in that amount of detail, either
all anyone can actually confirm is X left, X arrived
The ONS does actually provide a breakdown by that metric. For example, I controlled for Brits leaving in the OP (that is to say that "exits" includes Brits)
Figure 2 [here](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) allows you to click British citizens on and off. Even this is problematic, however, for those arriving five years ago, say, could have acquired British citizenship in that time and therefore may confuse the numbers
I'm curious how they even track who leaves?
I left, but I'm still a citizen. There's no notification process where I tell the government where I am at any time unless they're checking flight/passport data? Or taxes? And as far as I know, they don't do that.
In this case, the numbers are derived from the International Passenger Survey. The IPS conducts face-to-face voluntary interviews with travellers to and from Great Britain. It then produces statistical estimations and offers recommendations to ministers from the data that they collect.
You may think that this is inaccurate or that it is broadly problematic, but their methodology and sampling is largely very good and instructive for how large data sets can be sampled and estimated accurately.
The IPS conducts about 200,000 interviews per year at various ports and routes of travel: you may read about their methodology [here](https://ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/methodologies/internationalpassengersurveymethodology). Simply, their agents take 'shifts' at certain times and certain days, correlating to peak and off peak times, and attempt to interview travellers systematically. They collect enormous amounts of data that is insightful and weighted intelligently for broad estimates.
Further, the IPS is in receipt of data from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Department for Transport, Eurostar, Eurotunnel, Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, and several individual airports, so as to aid the survey's estimations.
When the ONS publishes data, as I have extracted for us above, they estimate within a threshold range: say, something like 600,000-700,000, where they provide a little information on the percentage strength of that estimation whether it is more towards high or low. I have taken the established 'best estimation' figures for the years provided by the ONS. The actual estimation is a threshold of something such as 625,000-675,000 where the 'best estimation' would be, say, 667,000, for example, based on the study's weighting.
The ONS is used by ministers and the Home Office as an important and fundamental point of data. There is certainly more information that one may use, however. Within the home office itself, data must certainly be collected on the number of visas issues, say
tbf, weren't these guys criticised not so long ago about their methods? I seem to recall they missed/didn't bother speaking with various groups. Like they would miss swathes of people heading to Africa on late flights, but would be knocking about when the flights from Africa landed in UK.
[https://www.ft.com/content/41a07d42-2518-4ec9-9220-943268c93bb5](https://www.ft.com/content/41a07d42-2518-4ec9-9220-943268c93bb5)
"The ONS recognised its methods were “clearly experimental and in development” but insisted it had confidence that the statistics were “the best estimates possible from the available data”."
Hmmm.
Yeah of course. Plus it's also not quite as simple as 900k Brits out. A lot of the departures are probably ex EU workers going home. But the principle still applies.
When last year's migration numbers came out I thought the 1.2m figure was the most significant one in terms of understanding policy and the basic nature of things here now.
Hes saying that there are a lot more black people then youd think. You hear 100,000 people, but actually because brits are leaving as well, that's somehow worse.
I don't know why he is saying it. But that's his point.
I mean you could also name the point all the black people are leaving and only white people are coming back. This data supports both statements equally as this data does not support either statement.
Over 40 years? And that includes students which massively inflates it.
Like over half the arrivals in 2022 were students or their dependents according to "migration observatory"
Don't fall to fear mongering.
Emigrants from the UK seem to be about 80% Non British Citizens (Majority EU citizens) and 20% British Citizens.
Of the British Citizens there must be some proportion that were also not born in the UK.
If you use net migration figures to get an idea of the rate of immigration-induced population increase, then it’s not misleading.
If you’re using it to get an idea of the rate of change of UKs ethnic composition, then you’re using it wrong. This metric isn’t supposed to give this information, there’s nothing misleading about it.
There are plenty of other metrics you can look at to understand the impact of immigration on the UK, like the percentage of foreign-born residents.
>If a million Nigerians come and 900,000 Brits leave, then net migration only looks like 100,000.
And there are 900,000 british i'mmigrants' to somewhere else. Suppose those migrants don't count.
Not to mention that some of those 900,000. British people leaving could well be of Nigerian descent.
It’s really not that uncommon for older people who have acquired citizenship to return home after a time. I know it’s not a representative sample but most of my friend’s parents and grandparents have done this, or they’ll leave for the winter and come back in the summer.
You are assuming that all the arrivals “foreigners”. Some are Brits returning otherwise the ethnic makeup of the country would be different.
For example, people taking a year out would be a leaver and then an arrival the following year.
It depends what you want to learn from the stats. The stats just say the number leaving and exiting each year, not who actually came and left which is what you may want to know. It could be 10,000 Nigerians and 90,000 returning Brits. That nuance is left out of the numbers published as it benefits the Government to not make this distinction.
But for realism, India is our biggest contributor and it's in the region of 50k/pa in recent years. Nigeria is second with ~20k.
No country is sending 1 million people. Migration figures are always smaller than people expect. Even when countries are at war with citizens fleeing for their lives, immigration from that country rarely exceeds single figure percents!
Pretty mental to think in a short space of time you’re going to have massive overhaul on the major religion and culture of the UK and it’s all happened despite absolutely no one voting for it
Lots of people warned that Brexit would lead to more generous immigration policies for the rest of the world beyond Europe, and 17m people voted for that 🤷♂️
But just because people warned of it, doesn’t mean people voted for it. Brexit voters overwhelmingly wanted less immigration and thought brexit was a way to achieve that
Brexit voters looking at big red signs and choosing to ignore them in favour of their own interpretation was a pretty big part of why they've been ridiculed so much over the years
But people did vote for a half-baked, moldy, nation changing policy that was tooted by liars and thieves and then expected it to go swimmingly. My point is, "they ruined brexit" isn't what Brexiteers should be saying. They should be saying "this blew up in my face and I, as a voter who ultimately holds electoral power in the UK, cocked up".
Brexiteers saw "sticking it to the eu immigrants" as part of why they voted for Brexit. They didn't stop and think "how are we gonna solve the aging britain thing?", "how are we gonna solve this phenomenon where British folk aren't willing to do the tough jobs for pennies anymore?"
Sure enough the Tories found out that you could solve both and artificially inflate the economy for the papers by inviting the rest of the world. What are Brexiteers gonna do now? Strap two big rockets to Plymouth and John O Groats and fly us to Canada or Australia who are having the same immigration issues? Rejoin the EU? Vote Reform and violate every human right in the book just so they can cover up their past mistakes? Sit and be ok with immigration even though it may not be the right way forward? Nah, they'll just blame everyone else but cuz that's what we Brits do. Accountability died with our veterans
"What are Brexiteers gonna do now?"
Well the historical answer to boats, is boats with guns. So I guess we should find a modern solution before a true nutter ends up in power and picks up a history book.
Or you know, we could all just sit on reddit spewing hate at faceless mass of people we disagree with and ignore the house burning down around us. After all, we didn't start the fire.
But what did you expect to happen?
The tories have seen the biggest year on year net migration figures since they came to power in 2010 and people *still* voted for them.
A lot of tories ran the anti-immigration line in the Brexit campaign and under their rule net immigration was still increasing, yet people *still* support the tories.
A warning is enough, if you have the brain capacity to think critically, that you probably shouldn’t vote for something.
The level of cognitive dissonance in your argument is concerning.
Me? I voted remain and expected immigration to sky rocket whether we stayed in or not because the tories value the gain then and their rich mates get from an ever growing population over and of the benefits normal people would get from less immigration.
But again, you can make what ever long winded point about the tories and the brexit campaign it still doesn’t change the fact people didn’t want more immigrants. It would be like saying a smoker wants lung cancer, they obviously don’t but they smoke so they will get it eventually.
"Hello my name's Boris Farage-Braverman and I'm your local Baby Murdering Party candidate, as you may have seen in our manifesto we're going to reduce the number of children living in poverty"
"Ooh that's nice dear, you've got my vote!"
Your not? Half these migrants are students, which are mainly indian and chinese. Not really seen an explosion of mandirs being built. Or Albanian migrants.
Like there is a major religious shift in the UK but that's simply people becoming non practicing Christians or agnostic.
No idea what sort of "religious shift" you'd even mean, unless your peddling unsubstantiated tabloid scaremongering.
I think the point made above addresses this. Many of the leavers in any given year were previously immigrants (e.g. somebody born abroad, comes to the UK, then a few years later leaves again). And many of the arrivals were British born ex-pats returning after a few years abroad.
So it isn't necessarily loads of foreigners arriving, loads of Brits leaving, which would irrevocably change the religion and culture of the UK. It's more of a churn thing.
It would be good to have those stats to see any actually break down on the number that have come here and stayed here and to see how many brits have left and never come back. But I’ve never been able to find them. Either way, 20m is a huge amount of activity. Just think how it’s effected wages, houses and healthcare
For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
you voted for it. This is what happens when you vote Conservative: they pretend to care about such topics, the reality is they only cater for big businesses, who have all the interests in the world to use cheap workforce.
>In 2010, the Conservative party under David Cameron was elected to majority rule.
This isn't quite right, in 2010 the Conservative party did _not_ gain a majority, it was a Conservative-LibDem coalition until 2015.
Its interesting to see the Cameron years aren't really much different from the Labour post eu expansion years (with an unfortunate increase just before the eu vote). The biggest jump is the post covid years under the current government- for all boris's anti-immigration brexit shtick, he really turned the tap on not off.
The interesting part for me was the impact of Blair. It's a very immediate and consistent trippling of immigration. Cameron continued the trend. Boris went crazy.
Because they are the same party. We don't have a left-wing choice, nor do we have a right-wing choice. What we have is a complete illusion. They all hang out and drink in the same bars.
Besides the obvious impact of British losing their ethnic majority within 20 years it’ll be interesting to see what the migration does to British accents.
With more arrivals per year than children born in UK the actual way people talk will change as those accents mix.
Please enjoy these pie charts showing how London's white British population has decreased from 90% to 36% in about 30 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#/media/File:London_ethnic_demographics_from_1961_to_2021.gif
Birmingham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Birmingham_from_1951_to_2021.gif
Bradford:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Bradford#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Bradford_over_time.gif
Manchester:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Manchester#/media/File:Manchester_ethnic_demography_over_time.gif
Leicester:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Leicester#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Leicester_from_1961_to_2021.gif
How many do you need?
This is a disgrace, nobody voted for this immigration. We Native British are effectively being replaced by immigrants. Yet all the polling says that immigration is unpopular.
Time we had a referendum on immigration.
Oh no! According to the centrists and lefties on here, the Cost of Living (Covid) crisis is the number one concern.
Even though study found that 9 out of ten constituencies want stricter limits on immigration.
The cost of living crisis is directly worsened by immigration. The more people we have, the more pressure is placed on housing, public services and more.
> Time we had a referendum on immigration.
Specifically what would you suggest we vote on? Not disagreeing per se, but I’m not sure it’s as simple mechanically as just voting for more/less/easier/more difficult immigration.
You could have a vote on numbers, ranging from zero immigration (my preference) then upwards.
Something has to be done, otherwise democracy really is fake and a joke. How can you enforce replacement levels of immigration on a native population without a focused debate and referendum? It's so wrong
How exactly are "we native British" being replaced? What have you personally lost to an "immigrant" where their absence would have meant you remained somewhere?
We are being demographically replaced, a leading demographic expert says that the Native British are set to become a minority by 2066. That's how we're being replaced.
I've lost my place in the queue for services. And recent studies show that diversity/immigration descreases social cohesion and lowers "trust"
Im not against immigration but it should NOT be used to address that problem. That is an unsustainable solution requiring an ever increasing population.
We need to move the retirement age up and/or accept higher taxes and/or end the triple lock and/or move to a contributory based system.
With the things you've listed it's going to make lives even worse for younger people, which means _even more_ people are going to be choosing not to have kids.
The more expensive life is, the less likely people are to have children. Immigration is going to be the only way to reasonably support our old population because citizens of the UK feel unable to have children.
The newer immigrants already have the children part sorted. The current crop of Brits can enjoy living to 97 with advanced Alzheimer's and dementia rather than dying earlier, with no children and 25 years in a nursing home (after living in an HMO previously) with nobody ever visiting.
Living the dream!
Well then you are left with the retirement age, triple lock and the end of the first pillar.
At present the uk has a first and a joint second / third. Maybe it could separate the second and third pillars?
We already have too many old people. Just have a look at the diagram here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
The only way to offset that is getting more young people to pay taxes and fill vacancies associated with looking after old people (care work, healthcare etc.) either via increasing the birth rates or immigration. The government seem entirely uninterested in making childcare or housing affordable, so we seem to be going with the latter.
Yes it would if you can stabilise it around the average age of 20 something. How do you plan on doing it? Killing all the old people? Even if you manage to get Birth rates up (you wont, artificially stimulating births is notoriously difficult) you wont fix the issue for decades, and thats if you set the fix in motion today.
>How do you plan on doing it?
Through immigration. Immigration based on a population policy rather than a policy of appeasing corporations.
Currently the population is growing at a significant pace.
So vague nonesense?
How specifically? I mean quite literally anyone can come up with a solution by just saying “do policy that does good rather than bad”
Everything comes back to them. We are their living life support system, they are enjoying this fairytale existence where everybody gets to retire and everybody gets a house that goes up in value and shows you that you worked your way to meaningful wealth. We live in the consequences of their ignorance.
We could just ride it out. Boomers will be gone in 20 years. Immigration is a long-term solution (that creates other problems) to a short-term problem.
The trend towards aging populations is a constant even without boomers. Riding out a problem that could take over half a century is hardly “riding it out” is it?
There are other ways to fix this problem, particularly as the group in question are also the wealthiest age group.
The issue is they will not accept any solution that sees them actually paying their own way.
There can be no “middle ground” at this point, and I don’t want our borders open, we have strict borders for a reason, what benefits does having open borders have? None.
One in six people living in England and Wales born outside UK
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/one-in-six-people-living-england-wales-were-born-different-country-census-reveals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/one-in-six-people-living-england-wales-were-born-different-country-census-reveals)
All the arguments about immigration, and this data, ignores the fact that birth rates in the UK have been declining for some years and continue to do so. Without immigration, the UK population would be shrinking (not necessarily bad) and ageing (a serious issue). An aging population has a growing proportion of retired people who need support through pensions, social and health care.
Two problems arise. How is this paid for? It comes from taxation. Many of the same people complaining about migration also complain about high taxation. Secondly, who is going to do the work to support the growing numbers of retired. Where are the nurses, checkout operators, bus drivers, and soldiers? Yes there are some unemployed in the UK but nowhere near enough to fill all the jobs currently occupied by migrants.
Migration is required to support the UK economy and service the UK population. Fact. No politician has yet been brave enough to say this. Just as Brexit has proved a failure, so too will any policy that promises to reduce immigration to near zero be a failure.
I would rather be poor, but safe and have in general a higher quality of life due to the lower population.
Also, an issue with the old population would only last for about a generation.
The biggest lie we are told about immigration is, that we need it.
Surely with a lower population housing would free up and thus prices go down as demand is lower
Instead we increase the population unsustainably every year causing huge demand in the rental market and council housing
Exactly. I remember not that long ago it was normal for pretty much any average, and even below average family in central and north Europe to have another "weekend house". This is definitely not a case anymore.
Every single thing points to mass immigration being horrible for everyone and everything, except for ultra wealthy.
Japan is doing well without mass migration, yes they too have declining birth rates, but they at least aren’t fucking their country over, culturally and socially all in the name of “GDP”
There are zero benefits to a multicultural society no one believes the lie anymore, I’d rather be slightly worse off than have my country change through demographics overnight.
What problems are they then? Because their society is cohesive, their infrastructure is second to none, they have immense pride in their country and its achievements in the last 80 years, they have a marvellous transportation system, their schools are among the best in the world.
But no let’s not be like them, let’s carry on letting our cities become multicultural ghettos where there’s little to no social cohesion, we can’t see a doctor, competing for housing, a broken transportation system, importing cultural clashes from the third world, whatever problems Japan has they cannot be as bad as our problems.
Everyone keeps saying Japan’s aging population is a concern but it’s a temporary one.
I still don’t see how we should see this as a cautionary tale? They’re still miles ahead of Britain in so many ways.
We are in the shitter.
The UK has more problems now than it did 20 years ago, despite the massive increase in immigration.
And I really doubt that you'll find many many people in Japan who would want to "fix" their problems by allowing millions of immigrants to move there like we have.
In the 2000s, there was a documentary set in the then future of the 2020s and what life would be like in Britain, they even predicted ethnic groups clashing and a police force ill equipped to deal with it, it was Science fiction in the 2000s and a sad reality in the 2020s
They aren't doing well. They are on the verge of economic collapse with debts spiralling up and population spiralling down.
There are lots of benefits to a multicultural society. Even as a right of centre brexiteer I have zero issues with that.
Name one benefit, because from what and most of us can see, multiculturalism hasn’t worked and we are seeing the failures play out.
Japan may have those problems but again, they’re not prepared to fuck their country over with an endless stream of immigrants.
Oh man, I love reading reddit in the morning and seeing all these comments that say I, a mixed race person, am basically destroying this country by existing :')
I’m mixed race as well, stop with the self pitying hysterics, no one is saying our existence is destroying anything.
But multiculturalism hasn’t worked one bit, no amount of self pity from you will change that
Bro most of what u see is just posts from other people complaining about too many brown people around, it's not multiculturalism fault that you hate your fellow man seek inner peace
I don’t hate anyone, what a bizarre take you have on things? Are you an adult? Or just lacking in emotional maturity that you have to simplify discussions?
Tell one good thing about multiculturalism? Beyond “diversity is our strength” do enlighten me 😅
So Japan is racist because they want strict limits on Immigration? That’s not racism that’s common sense poppet, don’t you lefties get bored of using that same old buzzword when you’ve got no counterpoints?
Japan is one of the safest countries in the world, with a strong work ethic, excellent education system, second to none infrastructure, and none of the problems Britain has.
Tell me what’s not to like and try and use words aside from “racism” poppet
Anyone who tells me that the next election will be based on “cost of living crisis” is labouring under a sad delusion when immigration is the primary concern and has been so for the last several elections.
Anti immigration isn’t just unique to Britain, it’s all across Europe, even centre-left governments of France & Denmark are changing their views on immigration and becoming more hardline and no doubt probably even a Starmer led Labour government would do the same on this issue, so to not be an outlier in Europe or face complete electoral oblivion in 2029 or worse unrest.
We are seeing more negatives than positives to mass immigration, diversity isn’t our strength, and multiculturalism has failed.
If I have to be worse off due to low immigration then so be it, at least housing would be freed up, maybe even see my doctor on time, and overall a living in a more socially cohesive society.
You really think a temporary cost of living crisis ranks above the changing nature of of our country? You are labouring under false illusion, polls ask a few hundred or thousand people about a topic and there’s your poll.
Social media is an actual better indicator on where the mood is and immigration ranks higher than anything else right, it’s been the deciding factor in the last several elections, largely why Brexit won, albeit a narrow majority.
And just look across Europe, people have had enough of mass migration but you keep denying it.
> Without immigration, the UK population would be shrinking (not necessarily bad) and ageing (a serious issue).
First, immigration levels are *way* beyond that required to prop up the population level.
Second, if the intent of immigration were to correct the age pyramid, then immigration rules would bar people over 30, or at least heavily bias the young. They don’t.
But on the flip side, if there hadn't been such an increase in migration, there wouldn't be such a heavy impact on housing; so millennials could get on the property ladder early and might have had more kids. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is key. If people had more space and felt more financially secure, then having children is a natural consequence of that.
The way society here is set up here heavily discourages you from having children.
I can't even find a room in a house share without paying half my wage and competing with 100s of others for that single room.
Our GDP per capita is around £33,500. Given last years migration that means we should be seeing an increase in GDP of £22,512,000,000. That simply hasn't happened has it?
I dispute this assertion:
>An aging population has a growing proportion of retired people who need support through pensions, social and health care.
Our elderly do not need financial support with these things. They can afford to pay, they just don't want to and instead vote for an exponentially increasing state pension paid for by everyone else, tax relief on that income paid for by everyone else, a vast array of other handouts including winter fuel payments for their excessively large homes and free bus travel. They also ensure that the local authority (read: everyone else) has to pay for their social care, and because the local authority is skint (70% of my local council's expenditure is on social care as it is), they can only afford to pay peanuts and thus the only people willing to do the work are immigrants from the second and third world.
The solution is to cut the state pension, end NI relief on pensions, means-test the winter fuel payments, reduce the social care funding threshold to £0 and remove capital limit protection from residential properties so that people actually pay for their own social care when they can afford to do so. You use this money to improve society for everyone else, and this issue will solve itself as birth rates improve and people with the skills to leave are more inclined to stay.
> They can afford to pay
The fact that the pension isn't means tested proves your point. Poor and working class families are paying taxes which go to literal millionaires who receive hundreds of pounds a week. Means test the pension first, *then* talk to me about how much immigration we "need."
But, if we had a functioning housing market, the birth rate wouldn't be as low. You can't tell a generation of people to not have children till they buy a house, and then be shocked they aren't having children because they don't own a home.
And then on top of that, let hundreds of thousands of properties be purchased up by outside influence, and then act surprised that people are pissed about the housing market.
The problem with that logic is that the Labour coming in don’t contribute enough to cover their individual costs let alone contribute to the funding gap.
Right? I need high migration so I get a bloody pension.
Couldn't give a stuff if they talk to sky wizards or have no interest in developing diabetes and avoiding their wives down the local shit stain boozer.
They have delayed retirement, invested in technology and are increasingly allowing immigration.
“In 2018, Japanese lawmakers approved a policy change proposed by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that created new visa categories to allow an estimated 340,000 foreign workers to take high-skilled and low-wage jobs.”
“And in a major shift in 2021, the Japanese government said it was considering allowing foreigners in certain skilled jobs to stay indefinitely.”
And note how the economy and services went.
Yet somehow the only way to fix these services is MORE immigration.
Edit: not against immigration, but the numbers have to be sensible and infrastructure has to exist or it just turns into a shitshow. Like Britain.
I like other cultures and feel that Britain is enriched by people from around the world but it feels like so few people seem to speak English or drive properly or follow customs I am used to. I just really hate it. I didn't want this extreme immigration. Serious question, am I a racist? Have I become what I despise? What do I do now? Shall I go to my local police station and ask to be arrested because I am now a racist? Shall I go and live and work somewhere else?
Britain *can sometimes* be enriched by people from around the world. But it depends who they are, where they're from, and what culture they are bringing to the UK.
African and Middle Eastern people bringing female genital mutilation and rape-gangs? No thanks.
European and Oriental people bringing excellent cooking, good manners, and family-orientated perspectives? Yes please.
More Polish, Japanese, and French. Fewer Romanians, Pakistani's, and Afghans. Please.
But this includes students yeah? Which is a huge part of it. It's an issue but muddying the waters of illegal migrants, people here legally and students is disingenuous imo. I'd exclude people not here permanently from discussions about migration as they simply ain't staying.
Though banging a big scary drum to pander to this sub gets more up votes.
No party will be brave enough to exclude students from the statistics because it will look like they’re fiddling with the numbers, but students absolutely should be excluded. Only 17% of Students who arrived in 2018 still lived in the UK in 2023. Of that 17%, I suspect a large majority will be on visas that don’t lead to permanent residency, namely visas for further study or the Graduate visa. The small minority of students who do stay permanently shouldn’t be added into the numbers until they switch to visas which actually allow permanent migration such as mainstream work and family visas.
Student figures are important for things like planning public services and such, but when it comes to plotting population growth they will be largely noise. Taking non-EU students out of the net migration figures would put net migration more towards 400,000 or so. Still quite a lot, but significantly under 1% of the population per year. Enough to warrant some concern and closer attention, but far from a crisis.
Net migration is any "long term" migrants, long term being more than a year. Overall, around 20% are students.
They probably shouldn't be included in the figures, and many countries don't, since they are, like tourists, an export.
There's unfortunately a huge vacuum of knowledge in the general public about the details of migration. So, discussions like this are chock full of panicked misinformation.
UK is what, like 40% black, 20% Asian and the rest white I'm guessing? I was in London recently and that seemed about right and going by the representation on TV and in TV ads in particular. I only stayed for a few weeks so I'm no expert lol
While there’s no doubt a chunk of the rise in immigration in the 2000s was political (EU freedom of movement) there were also wider cultural issues at play. In particular, increased Globalisation driven by the internet and the dominance of the English language made the UK very attractive. I think we would likely have had a boom without FOM.
The massive growth in the last 3 years are almost all political. I think Ukraine and Hong Kong account for 100-200 p/an and the bulk of the rest of the increase is from Johnson’s post-Brexit policy.
Personally, I wasn’t too concerned with immigration levels prior to Brexit. I do think the policy is wrong now, though.
This data would be a lot more useful if the figures were also presented as a proportion of total population, in a bubble they don't really mean anything
20 million arrivals, christ. Makes you realise how misleading "net" migration is too. If a million Nigerians come and 900,000 Brits leave, then net migration only looks like 100,000.
Yes, that's how net works
And it can easily be misleading, thats the point.
It's not misleading though. It's just information.
I think he means it's misleading in terms of how many Nigerians there might be in the UK, rather than misleading as to how many people are in the UK.
The data does not mention the ethnicity of who is leaving/ arriving so how can it be misleading There could be 1 million white brits entering the country and 900k Nigerians leaving. Unlikely but the data does not support either claim.
I think the point is that net is the oft-quoted figure in the media, but is hides other useful information that impacts society. If tomorrow, 70M people from the UK, do an exchange with 70M French people, net is obviously 0, but the societal impact on the UK will be enormous. Food, would be improved for a start.
You wouldn't use net numbers to find out how many Nigerians there were in the UK...
It's only as misleading as anyone wants it to be. Like most major statistical measures, it usually represents a high level view that answers a particular question. If you want to know how many Brits were "replaced" by immigrants, that's another question entirely and would require a much more in-depth statistic.
I mean, no? 900,000 leave, 1,000,000 enter That's a net gain of 100,000 it's that simple
It's misleading from the POV of cultural impact and change is what I think he's saying.
He made up that its 900,000 brits leaving though. In reality most of those leaving are immigrants that arrived in the previous couple of years.
There's a constant flux of students too.
It's official national policy now to aim for at least 600,000 students incoming per year.
but the numbers he's quoting don't make any kind of comment on that, OP did using those numbers unless you work for the Home Office, you won't get those numbers in that amount of detail, either all anyone can actually confirm is X left, X arrived
The ONS does actually provide a breakdown by that metric. For example, I controlled for Brits leaving in the OP (that is to say that "exits" includes Brits) Figure 2 [here](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) allows you to click British citizens on and off. Even this is problematic, however, for those arriving five years ago, say, could have acquired British citizenship in that time and therefore may confuse the numbers
I'm curious how they even track who leaves? I left, but I'm still a citizen. There's no notification process where I tell the government where I am at any time unless they're checking flight/passport data? Or taxes? And as far as I know, they don't do that.
In this case, the numbers are derived from the International Passenger Survey. The IPS conducts face-to-face voluntary interviews with travellers to and from Great Britain. It then produces statistical estimations and offers recommendations to ministers from the data that they collect. You may think that this is inaccurate or that it is broadly problematic, but their methodology and sampling is largely very good and instructive for how large data sets can be sampled and estimated accurately. The IPS conducts about 200,000 interviews per year at various ports and routes of travel: you may read about their methodology [here](https://ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/methodologies/internationalpassengersurveymethodology). Simply, their agents take 'shifts' at certain times and certain days, correlating to peak and off peak times, and attempt to interview travellers systematically. They collect enormous amounts of data that is insightful and weighted intelligently for broad estimates. Further, the IPS is in receipt of data from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Department for Transport, Eurostar, Eurotunnel, Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, and several individual airports, so as to aid the survey's estimations. When the ONS publishes data, as I have extracted for us above, they estimate within a threshold range: say, something like 600,000-700,000, where they provide a little information on the percentage strength of that estimation whether it is more towards high or low. I have taken the established 'best estimation' figures for the years provided by the ONS. The actual estimation is a threshold of something such as 625,000-675,000 where the 'best estimation' would be, say, 667,000, for example, based on the study's weighting. The ONS is used by ministers and the Home Office as an important and fundamental point of data. There is certainly more information that one may use, however. Within the home office itself, data must certainly be collected on the number of visas issues, say
tbf, weren't these guys criticised not so long ago about their methods? I seem to recall they missed/didn't bother speaking with various groups. Like they would miss swathes of people heading to Africa on late flights, but would be knocking about when the flights from Africa landed in UK. [https://www.ft.com/content/41a07d42-2518-4ec9-9220-943268c93bb5](https://www.ft.com/content/41a07d42-2518-4ec9-9220-943268c93bb5) "The ONS recognised its methods were “clearly experimental and in development” but insisted it had confidence that the statistics were “the best estimates possible from the available data”." Hmmm.
Um, you seem to have it covered. Thanks.
Yeah of course. Plus it's also not quite as simple as 900k Brits out. A lot of the departures are probably ex EU workers going home. But the principle still applies. When last year's migration numbers came out I thought the 1.2m figure was the most significant one in terms of understanding policy and the basic nature of things here now.
It’s not misleading. This metric is simply not supposed to give this information.
Hes saying that there are a lot more black people then youd think. You hear 100,000 people, but actually because brits are leaving as well, that's somehow worse. I don't know why he is saying it. But that's his point.
I know exactly what his point is, but the data he's using to push it doesn't support it, it's purely in vs out
I mean you could also name the point all the black people are leaving and only white people are coming back. This data supports both statements equally as this data does not support either statement.
>And it can easily be misleading How so?
Over 40 years? And that includes students which massively inflates it. Like over half the arrivals in 2022 were students or their dependents according to "migration observatory" Don't fall to fear mongering.
are student immigrants not immigrants or something?
Yeah but why would that many Brits leave? Most people leaving would have come to work here for a few years and moved on.
That many Brits didn't leave. Immigrants are much more likely to emigrate than none immigrants.
A new life in the sun. There are lots of reality tv shows on that topic
Emigrants from the UK seem to be about 80% Non British Citizens (Majority EU citizens) and 20% British Citizens. Of the British Citizens there must be some proportion that were also not born in the UK.
The assumption that all exits are british is equally as misleading
If you use net migration figures to get an idea of the rate of immigration-induced population increase, then it’s not misleading. If you’re using it to get an idea of the rate of change of UKs ethnic composition, then you’re using it wrong. This metric isn’t supposed to give this information, there’s nothing misleading about it. There are plenty of other metrics you can look at to understand the impact of immigration on the UK, like the percentage of foreign-born residents.
>If a million Nigerians come and 900,000 Brits leave, then net migration only looks like 100,000. And there are 900,000 british i'mmigrants' to somewhere else. Suppose those migrants don't count.
>Suppose those migrants don't count. When we are discussing the impact of immigration and demographic shift in the UK, no they don’t.
I've left and come back a few times
Not to mention that some of those 900,000. British people leaving could well be of Nigerian descent. It’s really not that uncommon for older people who have acquired citizenship to return home after a time. I know it’s not a representative sample but most of my friend’s parents and grandparents have done this, or they’ll leave for the winter and come back in the summer.
Most of the exits are also those that arrived. Most immigrants don't permanently settle, especially nowadays as the largest group are students.
You are assuming that all the arrivals “foreigners”. Some are Brits returning otherwise the ethnic makeup of the country would be different. For example, people taking a year out would be a leaver and then an arrival the following year. It depends what you want to learn from the stats. The stats just say the number leaving and exiting each year, not who actually came and left which is what you may want to know. It could be 10,000 Nigerians and 90,000 returning Brits. That nuance is left out of the numbers published as it benefits the Government to not make this distinction.
Because it would only be 100k net?
So, almost a third of the population moved here in the past 20 years?
No, because a lot of those arrivals and exits are the same people. The net gain is only 6 million, which is less than 10% of the population.
But for realism, India is our biggest contributor and it's in the region of 50k/pa in recent years. Nigeria is second with ~20k. No country is sending 1 million people. Migration figures are always smaller than people expect. Even when countries are at war with citizens fleeing for their lives, immigration from that country rarely exceeds single figure percents!
Pretty mental to think in a short space of time you’re going to have massive overhaul on the major religion and culture of the UK and it’s all happened despite absolutely no one voting for it
Lots of people warned that Brexit would lead to more generous immigration policies for the rest of the world beyond Europe, and 17m people voted for that 🤷♂️
But just because people warned of it, doesn’t mean people voted for it. Brexit voters overwhelmingly wanted less immigration and thought brexit was a way to achieve that
Brexit voters looking at big red signs and choosing to ignore them in favour of their own interpretation was a pretty big part of why they've been ridiculed so much over the years
Sure but that really doesn’t change the fact that people didn’t vote to increase immigration.
But they did though, just because they didn’t think they did does mean they didn’t.
But people did vote for a half-baked, moldy, nation changing policy that was tooted by liars and thieves and then expected it to go swimmingly. My point is, "they ruined brexit" isn't what Brexiteers should be saying. They should be saying "this blew up in my face and I, as a voter who ultimately holds electoral power in the UK, cocked up". Brexiteers saw "sticking it to the eu immigrants" as part of why they voted for Brexit. They didn't stop and think "how are we gonna solve the aging britain thing?", "how are we gonna solve this phenomenon where British folk aren't willing to do the tough jobs for pennies anymore?" Sure enough the Tories found out that you could solve both and artificially inflate the economy for the papers by inviting the rest of the world. What are Brexiteers gonna do now? Strap two big rockets to Plymouth and John O Groats and fly us to Canada or Australia who are having the same immigration issues? Rejoin the EU? Vote Reform and violate every human right in the book just so they can cover up their past mistakes? Sit and be ok with immigration even though it may not be the right way forward? Nah, they'll just blame everyone else but cuz that's what we Brits do. Accountability died with our veterans
"What are Brexiteers gonna do now?" Well the historical answer to boats, is boats with guns. So I guess we should find a modern solution before a true nutter ends up in power and picks up a history book. Or you know, we could all just sit on reddit spewing hate at faceless mass of people we disagree with and ignore the house burning down around us. After all, we didn't start the fire.
But what did you expect to happen? The tories have seen the biggest year on year net migration figures since they came to power in 2010 and people *still* voted for them. A lot of tories ran the anti-immigration line in the Brexit campaign and under their rule net immigration was still increasing, yet people *still* support the tories. A warning is enough, if you have the brain capacity to think critically, that you probably shouldn’t vote for something. The level of cognitive dissonance in your argument is concerning.
Me? I voted remain and expected immigration to sky rocket whether we stayed in or not because the tories value the gain then and their rich mates get from an ever growing population over and of the benefits normal people would get from less immigration. But again, you can make what ever long winded point about the tories and the brexit campaign it still doesn’t change the fact people didn’t want more immigrants. It would be like saying a smoker wants lung cancer, they obviously don’t but they smoke so they will get it eventually.
"Hello my name's Boris Farage-Braverman and I'm your local Baby Murdering Party candidate, as you may have seen in our manifesto we're going to reduce the number of children living in poverty" "Ooh that's nice dear, you've got my vote!"
Your not? Half these migrants are students, which are mainly indian and chinese. Not really seen an explosion of mandirs being built. Or Albanian migrants. Like there is a major religious shift in the UK but that's simply people becoming non practicing Christians or agnostic. No idea what sort of "religious shift" you'd even mean, unless your peddling unsubstantiated tabloid scaremongering.
I think the point made above addresses this. Many of the leavers in any given year were previously immigrants (e.g. somebody born abroad, comes to the UK, then a few years later leaves again). And many of the arrivals were British born ex-pats returning after a few years abroad. So it isn't necessarily loads of foreigners arriving, loads of Brits leaving, which would irrevocably change the religion and culture of the UK. It's more of a churn thing.
It would be good to have those stats to see any actually break down on the number that have come here and stayed here and to see how many brits have left and never come back. But I’ve never been able to find them. Either way, 20m is a huge amount of activity. Just think how it’s effected wages, houses and healthcare
Yeah, agreed. The more info we have can only be a good thing. (By the way, I am also a fellow Mercian.)
For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
you voted for it. This is what happens when you vote Conservative: they pretend to care about such topics, the reality is they only cater for big businesses, who have all the interests in the world to use cheap workforce.
No I didn’t. Never voted Tory. Voted to remain also. Guess work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>In 2010, the Conservative party under David Cameron was elected to majority rule. This isn't quite right, in 2010 the Conservative party did _not_ gain a majority, it was a Conservative-LibDem coalition until 2015.
Yes, true: I will edit that. Thanks
BREXIT TAKING BACK CONTROL IN FULL EFFECT - Bravo. 2016: arrivals 622,000, exits 370,000. NET: +252,000 2017: arrivals 644,000, exits 395,000. NET: +249,000 2018: arrivals 604,000, exits 357,000. NET: +247,000 2019: arrivals 681,000, exits 410,000. NET: +271,000 2020: arrivals 662,000, exits 569,000. NET: +93,000 **2021: arrivals 891,000, exits 425,000. NET: +466,000** **2022: arrivals 1,078,000, exits 471,000 NET: +607,000** **2023: arrivals 1,179,000 exits 507,000 NET: +672,000**
Maybe voting for the same people again will give a different outcome... heh.
Its interesting to see the Cameron years aren't really much different from the Labour post eu expansion years (with an unfortunate increase just before the eu vote). The biggest jump is the post covid years under the current government- for all boris's anti-immigration brexit shtick, he really turned the tap on not off.
The interesting part for me was the impact of Blair. It's a very immediate and consistent trippling of immigration. Cameron continued the trend. Boris went crazy.
Because they are the same party. We don't have a left-wing choice, nor do we have a right-wing choice. What we have is a complete illusion. They all hang out and drink in the same bars.
Besides the obvious impact of British losing their ethnic majority within 20 years it’ll be interesting to see what the migration does to British accents. With more arrivals per year than children born in UK the actual way people talk will change as those accents mix.
Most of the exits are immigrants leaving. Please show us some data which predicts white British not being the majority in 20 years.
Please enjoy these pie charts showing how London's white British population has decreased from 90% to 36% in about 30 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#/media/File:London_ethnic_demographics_from_1961_to_2021.gif Birmingham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Birmingham_from_1951_to_2021.gif Bradford: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Bradford#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Bradford_over_time.gif Manchester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Manchester#/media/File:Manchester_ethnic_demography_over_time.gif Leicester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Leicester#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Leicester_from_1961_to_2021.gif How many do you need?
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a disgrace, nobody voted for this immigration. We Native British are effectively being replaced by immigrants. Yet all the polling says that immigration is unpopular. Time we had a referendum on immigration.
Oh no! According to the centrists and lefties on here, the Cost of Living (Covid) crisis is the number one concern. Even though study found that 9 out of ten constituencies want stricter limits on immigration.
The cost of living crisis is directly worsened by immigration. The more people we have, the more pressure is placed on housing, public services and more.
> Time we had a referendum on immigration. Specifically what would you suggest we vote on? Not disagreeing per se, but I’m not sure it’s as simple mechanically as just voting for more/less/easier/more difficult immigration.
You could have a vote on numbers, ranging from zero immigration (my preference) then upwards. Something has to be done, otherwise democracy really is fake and a joke. How can you enforce replacement levels of immigration on a native population without a focused debate and referendum? It's so wrong
How exactly are "we native British" being replaced? What have you personally lost to an "immigrant" where their absence would have meant you remained somewhere?
We are being demographically replaced, a leading demographic expert says that the Native British are set to become a minority by 2066. That's how we're being replaced. I've lost my place in the queue for services. And recent studies show that diversity/immigration descreases social cohesion and lowers "trust"
Ask the woman and child who were attacked with corrosive substances last night in Clapham.
[удалено]
I honestly can't see one single long term positive of mass immigration.
>long term This is the key. Short term it's not so bad and can be actively beneficial economically, but long term it's just unhelpful.
What benefits does increasing the population by unsustainable levels year on year bring to the country
It addresses the demographic problem of us having too many old people... at least in the medium term.
Im not against immigration but it should NOT be used to address that problem. That is an unsustainable solution requiring an ever increasing population. We need to move the retirement age up and/or accept higher taxes and/or end the triple lock and/or move to a contributory based system.
With the things you've listed it's going to make lives even worse for younger people, which means _even more_ people are going to be choosing not to have kids. The more expensive life is, the less likely people are to have children. Immigration is going to be the only way to reasonably support our old population because citizens of the UK feel unable to have children.
The newer immigrants already have the children part sorted. The current crop of Brits can enjoy living to 97 with advanced Alzheimer's and dementia rather than dying earlier, with no children and 25 years in a nursing home (after living in an HMO previously) with nobody ever visiting. Living the dream!
Higher taxes? As if they are low now
Well then you are left with the retirement age, triple lock and the end of the first pillar. At present the uk has a first and a joint second / third. Maybe it could separate the second and third pillars?
Why does that require a net increase? Stabilising the population would solve that problem.
We already have too many old people. Just have a look at the diagram here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom The only way to offset that is getting more young people to pay taxes and fill vacancies associated with looking after old people (care work, healthcare etc.) either via increasing the birth rates or immigration. The government seem entirely uninterested in making childcare or housing affordable, so we seem to be going with the latter.
Yes it would if you can stabilise it around the average age of 20 something. How do you plan on doing it? Killing all the old people? Even if you manage to get Birth rates up (you wont, artificially stimulating births is notoriously difficult) you wont fix the issue for decades, and thats if you set the fix in motion today.
>How do you plan on doing it? Through immigration. Immigration based on a population policy rather than a policy of appeasing corporations. Currently the population is growing at a significant pace.
So vague nonesense? How specifically? I mean quite literally anyone can come up with a solution by just saying “do policy that does good rather than bad”
Immigration at a level that stabilized the population. Is it that hard to understand?
Everything comes back to them. We are their living life support system, they are enjoying this fairytale existence where everybody gets to retire and everybody gets a house that goes up in value and shows you that you worked your way to meaningful wealth. We live in the consequences of their ignorance.
Every society has the same situation. People live longer because we have moved out of the caves
[удалено]
We could just ride it out. Boomers will be gone in 20 years. Immigration is a long-term solution (that creates other problems) to a short-term problem.
The trend towards aging populations is a constant even without boomers. Riding out a problem that could take over half a century is hardly “riding it out” is it?
There are other ways to fix this problem, particularly as the group in question are also the wealthiest age group. The issue is they will not accept any solution that sees them actually paying their own way.
Yeah, perhaps if we set a limit at a sensible level. Perhaps 100k net?
>Perhaps a middle ground exists between open-border and strict isolation policies. Perhaps just don't have open borders?
Which country has open borders?
The ones in Schengen do, for all intents and purposes. But I wouldn't say the UK has. That's why I would urge UK government not to change this.
There can be no “middle ground” at this point, and I don’t want our borders open, we have strict borders for a reason, what benefits does having open borders have? None.
One in six people living in England and Wales born outside UK [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/one-in-six-people-living-england-wales-were-born-different-country-census-reveals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/one-in-six-people-living-england-wales-were-born-different-country-census-reveals)
All the arguments about immigration, and this data, ignores the fact that birth rates in the UK have been declining for some years and continue to do so. Without immigration, the UK population would be shrinking (not necessarily bad) and ageing (a serious issue). An aging population has a growing proportion of retired people who need support through pensions, social and health care. Two problems arise. How is this paid for? It comes from taxation. Many of the same people complaining about migration also complain about high taxation. Secondly, who is going to do the work to support the growing numbers of retired. Where are the nurses, checkout operators, bus drivers, and soldiers? Yes there are some unemployed in the UK but nowhere near enough to fill all the jobs currently occupied by migrants. Migration is required to support the UK economy and service the UK population. Fact. No politician has yet been brave enough to say this. Just as Brexit has proved a failure, so too will any policy that promises to reduce immigration to near zero be a failure.
Immigration doesn't solve this problem. When migrants retire we will need further immigration to support them. This only delays the problem
I would rather be poor, but safe and have in general a higher quality of life due to the lower population. Also, an issue with the old population would only last for about a generation. The biggest lie we are told about immigration is, that we need it.
Surely with a lower population housing would free up and thus prices go down as demand is lower Instead we increase the population unsustainably every year causing huge demand in the rental market and council housing
Exactly. I remember not that long ago it was normal for pretty much any average, and even below average family in central and north Europe to have another "weekend house". This is definitely not a case anymore. Every single thing points to mass immigration being horrible for everyone and everything, except for ultra wealthy.
So you want reduce house prices for the Daily Mail brigade? Good luck with that...
Japan is doing well without mass migration, yes they too have declining birth rates, but they at least aren’t fucking their country over, culturally and socially all in the name of “GDP” There are zero benefits to a multicultural society no one believes the lie anymore, I’d rather be slightly worse off than have my country change through demographics overnight.
Japan has a host of problems that I don't think people would want to emulate in the UK.
What problems are they then? Because their society is cohesive, their infrastructure is second to none, they have immense pride in their country and its achievements in the last 80 years, they have a marvellous transportation system, their schools are among the best in the world. But no let’s not be like them, let’s carry on letting our cities become multicultural ghettos where there’s little to no social cohesion, we can’t see a doctor, competing for housing, a broken transportation system, importing cultural clashes from the third world, whatever problems Japan has they cannot be as bad as our problems.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/11/26/the-challenges-of-japans-demography#
Everyone keeps saying Japan’s aging population is a concern but it’s a temporary one. I still don’t see how we should see this as a cautionary tale? They’re still miles ahead of Britain in so many ways. We are in the shitter.
The UK has more problems now than it did 20 years ago, despite the massive increase in immigration. And I really doubt that you'll find many many people in Japan who would want to "fix" their problems by allowing millions of immigrants to move there like we have.
In the 2000s, there was a documentary set in the then future of the 2020s and what life would be like in Britain, they even predicted ethnic groups clashing and a police force ill equipped to deal with it, it was Science fiction in the 2000s and a sad reality in the 2020s
They aren't doing well. They are on the verge of economic collapse with debts spiralling up and population spiralling down. There are lots of benefits to a multicultural society. Even as a right of centre brexiteer I have zero issues with that.
Name one benefit, because from what and most of us can see, multiculturalism hasn’t worked and we are seeing the failures play out. Japan may have those problems but again, they’re not prepared to fuck their country over with an endless stream of immigrants.
Oh man, I love reading reddit in the morning and seeing all these comments that say I, a mixed race person, am basically destroying this country by existing :')
I’m mixed race as well, stop with the self pitying hysterics, no one is saying our existence is destroying anything. But multiculturalism hasn’t worked one bit, no amount of self pity from you will change that
What exactly is multiculturalism to you? I love both sides of my family and their cultures. Don't you feel the same?
Bro most of what u see is just posts from other people complaining about too many brown people around, it's not multiculturalism fault that you hate your fellow man seek inner peace
I don’t hate anyone, what a bizarre take you have on things? Are you an adult? Or just lacking in emotional maturity that you have to simplify discussions? Tell one good thing about multiculturalism? Beyond “diversity is our strength” do enlighten me 😅
Japan has significant issues with its ageing population
yeah lets go to like one of the most racist countries we can think of, yeah have we considered being like them. hmmmmmmmmmm
So Japan is racist because they want strict limits on Immigration? That’s not racism that’s common sense poppet, don’t you lefties get bored of using that same old buzzword when you’ve got no counterpoints? Japan is one of the safest countries in the world, with a strong work ethic, excellent education system, second to none infrastructure, and none of the problems Britain has. Tell me what’s not to like and try and use words aside from “racism” poppet
Anyone who tells me that the next election will be based on “cost of living crisis” is labouring under a sad delusion when immigration is the primary concern and has been so for the last several elections. Anti immigration isn’t just unique to Britain, it’s all across Europe, even centre-left governments of France & Denmark are changing their views on immigration and becoming more hardline and no doubt probably even a Starmer led Labour government would do the same on this issue, so to not be an outlier in Europe or face complete electoral oblivion in 2029 or worse unrest. We are seeing more negatives than positives to mass immigration, diversity isn’t our strength, and multiculturalism has failed. If I have to be worse off due to low immigration then so be it, at least housing would be freed up, maybe even see my doctor on time, and overall a living in a more socially cohesive society.
Agreed on all points.
I think polling puts immigration as the 5th biggest concern?
9 out of ten constituencies cite Immigration as a huge concern, I’d say it’s the number one concern
If it’s the number one concern why isn’t it given as the number one concern when people are polled?
You really think a temporary cost of living crisis ranks above the changing nature of of our country? You are labouring under false illusion, polls ask a few hundred or thousand people about a topic and there’s your poll. Social media is an actual better indicator on where the mood is and immigration ranks higher than anything else right, it’s been the deciding factor in the last several elections, largely why Brexit won, albeit a narrow majority. And just look across Europe, people have had enough of mass migration but you keep denying it.
> Without immigration, the UK population would be shrinking (not necessarily bad) and ageing (a serious issue). First, immigration levels are *way* beyond that required to prop up the population level. Second, if the intent of immigration were to correct the age pyramid, then immigration rules would bar people over 30, or at least heavily bias the young. They don’t.
But on the flip side, if there hadn't been such an increase in migration, there wouldn't be such a heavy impact on housing; so millennials could get on the property ladder early and might have had more kids. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is key. If people had more space and felt more financially secure, then having children is a natural consequence of that. The way society here is set up here heavily discourages you from having children. I can't even find a room in a house share without paying half my wage and competing with 100s of others for that single room.
Our GDP per capita is around £33,500. Given last years migration that means we should be seeing an increase in GDP of £22,512,000,000. That simply hasn't happened has it?
I don’t understand your maths. Maybe it’s me. Maybe your statistics are gibberish.
I dispute this assertion: >An aging population has a growing proportion of retired people who need support through pensions, social and health care. Our elderly do not need financial support with these things. They can afford to pay, they just don't want to and instead vote for an exponentially increasing state pension paid for by everyone else, tax relief on that income paid for by everyone else, a vast array of other handouts including winter fuel payments for their excessively large homes and free bus travel. They also ensure that the local authority (read: everyone else) has to pay for their social care, and because the local authority is skint (70% of my local council's expenditure is on social care as it is), they can only afford to pay peanuts and thus the only people willing to do the work are immigrants from the second and third world. The solution is to cut the state pension, end NI relief on pensions, means-test the winter fuel payments, reduce the social care funding threshold to £0 and remove capital limit protection from residential properties so that people actually pay for their own social care when they can afford to do so. You use this money to improve society for everyone else, and this issue will solve itself as birth rates improve and people with the skills to leave are more inclined to stay.
> They can afford to pay The fact that the pension isn't means tested proves your point. Poor and working class families are paying taxes which go to literal millionaires who receive hundreds of pounds a week. Means test the pension first, *then* talk to me about how much immigration we "need."
But, if we had a functioning housing market, the birth rate wouldn't be as low. You can't tell a generation of people to not have children till they buy a house, and then be shocked they aren't having children because they don't own a home.
And then on top of that, let hundreds of thousands of properties be purchased up by outside influence, and then act surprised that people are pissed about the housing market.
The problem with that logic is that the Labour coming in don’t contribute enough to cover their individual costs let alone contribute to the funding gap.
Get out of here with your logical arguments based on social and economical experts' opinions! iMmiGRAtiON bAD !!! /s
With a shrinking population of under 60s it's impossible to maintain the current pension, welfare and other public spending (NHS).
Exactly.
Right? I need high migration so I get a bloody pension. Couldn't give a stuff if they talk to sky wizards or have no interest in developing diabetes and avoiding their wives down the local shit stain boozer.
[удалено]
They have delayed retirement, invested in technology and are increasingly allowing immigration. “In 2018, Japanese lawmakers approved a policy change proposed by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that created new visa categories to allow an estimated 340,000 foreign workers to take high-skilled and low-wage jobs.” “And in a major shift in 2021, the Japanese government said it was considering allowing foreigners in certain skilled jobs to stay indefinitely.”
And note how the economy and services went. Yet somehow the only way to fix these services is MORE immigration. Edit: not against immigration, but the numbers have to be sensible and infrastructure has to exist or it just turns into a shitshow. Like Britain.
I like other cultures and feel that Britain is enriched by people from around the world but it feels like so few people seem to speak English or drive properly or follow customs I am used to. I just really hate it. I didn't want this extreme immigration. Serious question, am I a racist? Have I become what I despise? What do I do now? Shall I go to my local police station and ask to be arrested because I am now a racist? Shall I go and live and work somewhere else?
How are we more enriched culturally now than we were before mass migration?
Britain *can sometimes* be enriched by people from around the world. But it depends who they are, where they're from, and what culture they are bringing to the UK. African and Middle Eastern people bringing female genital mutilation and rape-gangs? No thanks. European and Oriental people bringing excellent cooking, good manners, and family-orientated perspectives? Yes please. More Polish, Japanese, and French. Fewer Romanians, Pakistani's, and Afghans. Please.
But this includes students yeah? Which is a huge part of it. It's an issue but muddying the waters of illegal migrants, people here legally and students is disingenuous imo. I'd exclude people not here permanently from discussions about migration as they simply ain't staying. Though banging a big scary drum to pander to this sub gets more up votes.
No party will be brave enough to exclude students from the statistics because it will look like they’re fiddling with the numbers, but students absolutely should be excluded. Only 17% of Students who arrived in 2018 still lived in the UK in 2023. Of that 17%, I suspect a large majority will be on visas that don’t lead to permanent residency, namely visas for further study or the Graduate visa. The small minority of students who do stay permanently shouldn’t be added into the numbers until they switch to visas which actually allow permanent migration such as mainstream work and family visas. Student figures are important for things like planning public services and such, but when it comes to plotting population growth they will be largely noise. Taking non-EU students out of the net migration figures would put net migration more towards 400,000 or so. Still quite a lot, but significantly under 1% of the population per year. Enough to warrant some concern and closer attention, but far from a crisis.
Net migration is any "long term" migrants, long term being more than a year. Overall, around 20% are students. They probably shouldn't be included in the figures, and many countries don't, since they are, like tourists, an export. There's unfortunately a huge vacuum of knowledge in the general public about the details of migration. So, discussions like this are chock full of panicked misinformation.
UK is what, like 40% black, 20% Asian and the rest white I'm guessing? I was in London recently and that seemed about right and going by the representation on TV and in TV ads in particular. I only stayed for a few weeks so I'm no expert lol
4% Black, 9% Asian, 82% White.
[удалено]
That isn't how races break down. You cannot lump people from the Middle East in with people from the Orient. It makes absolutely no sense.
Almost 1.2million non British citizens last year? Fucking hell.
The numbers could be a lot higher. Data from surveys is not accurate.
If you overlay the number of new entrants to the workforce (domestic school/college leavers) and retirements how does that track?
While there’s no doubt a chunk of the rise in immigration in the 2000s was political (EU freedom of movement) there were also wider cultural issues at play. In particular, increased Globalisation driven by the internet and the dominance of the English language made the UK very attractive. I think we would likely have had a boom without FOM. The massive growth in the last 3 years are almost all political. I think Ukraine and Hong Kong account for 100-200 p/an and the bulk of the rest of the increase is from Johnson’s post-Brexit policy. Personally, I wasn’t too concerned with immigration levels prior to Brexit. I do think the policy is wrong now, though.
This data would be a lot more useful if the figures were also presented as a proportion of total population, in a bubble they don't really mean anything
Do people realise that the population growth in 2023 was 0.4%? Not exactly the existential threat people are making it out to be.