BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Whilst I tend to agree that creating ghettos is bad and does little for integration (the same applies to Brits emigrating to the Costa del Sol) if the argument for immigrants wanting to reach the UK rather than staying in France / Germany etc. is due to some form of tie then presumably that also applies to where they locate on reaching the UK. If you have family in London you probably don't want to be living in Fort William. It is also probably hard to integrate when you are the only family you see that is non-white so you get a bit of a Catch-22.rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.0 -
-
No, a mistake soz. Hazard of quick-posting at work...pangolin said:
Is the double negative intentional? You think they would struggle?ddraver said:
I'd hazard a guess that very very few people who have walked across half the world are not going to struggle with a language class...pangolin said:
What do you do at the end of the time if they haven't learned it and their home country is a warzone?rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not? I'm OK with making refugees learn the lingo if they want to live here.kingstongraham said:We're not talking about refugees any more then?
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.0 -
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.0 -
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.0 -
Having done emigrating I can say that going to another country and sticking with your own is a bad idea. I had a much better time once I had a circle of Canadien friends than all my colleagues who stuck with the ex-pats.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.0 -
I don't think there are any issues in New Malden or any where else in London. You are fairly close to victim blaming in your reasoning.rick_chasey said:
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
In the end, I think a lot of areas have embraced their multi-cultural set up.
And most people do learn the local language, so it really isn't an issue. It's just a strawman used by people who oppose immigration.
Finally, where there really seems to be a disconnect is whether you need to speak the local language to get citizenship (very common) or speak the local language to live there (very uncommon).
0 -
-
Yes, and I am clearly saying it is terrible idea.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
0 -
So what is your solution to the problems lots of locals feel about lack of integration and the other social problems that often stem from that?TheBigBean said:
Yes, and I am clearly saying it is terrible idea.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
How do you try to limit the cost of immigration whilst retaining the advantages?0 -
I think you do already.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
But you can't logically apply that to refugees.0 -
I admire your optimism that parts of the indigenous population don’t have issues with the “takeover” of New Malden.TheBigBean said:
I don't think there are any issues in New Malden or any where else in London. You are fairly close to victim blaming in your reasoning.rick_chasey said:
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
In the end, I think a lot of areas have embraced their multi-cultural set up.
And most people do learn the local language, so it really isn't an issue. It's just a strawman used by people who oppose immigration.
Finally, where there really seems to be a disconnect is whether you need to speak the local language to get citizenship (very common) or speak the local language to live there (very uncommon).
Interestingly to this debate they really don’t integrate as most are ex-pats so for instance want to keep their kids in the Korean education system, also very easy for wives to build a social life0 -
-
Iused to work with a British born Chinese (BBC) and his parents had been in the country over 40 years and before retiring had run a fish n chip shop. He only spoke to them in chinese and had to take time off work to do things like accompany them to the doctors. He reckoned they knew enough English to run the chippy, about 40 words.rick_chasey said:I will turn it around.
How do you integrate without learning the local language?
With 3 kids and grandkids they seem pretty integrated.0 -
Why does anyone need to integrate?rick_chasey said:I will turn it around.
How do you integrate without learning the local language?0 -
Not sure there is a full time Korean school. Most of the kids are bilingual. Also, I've never been to any of the Korean run places and found that they can't speak English.surrey_commuter said:
I admire your optimism that parts of the indigenous population don’t have issues with the “takeover” of New Malden.TheBigBean said:
I don't think there are any issues in New Malden or any where else in London. You are fairly close to victim blaming in your reasoning.rick_chasey said:
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
In the end, I think a lot of areas have embraced their multi-cultural set up.
And most people do learn the local language, so it really isn't an issue. It's just a strawman used by people who oppose immigration.
Finally, where there really seems to be a disconnect is whether you need to speak the local language to get citizenship (very common) or speak the local language to live there (very uncommon).
Interestingly to this debate they really don’t integrate as most are ex-pats so for instance want to keep their kids in the Korean education system, also very easy for wives to build a social life
In any case, do you think that Samsung should be prevented from a major investment in the UK, because the spouse of a key person with a work visa doesn't speak good enough English?0 -
To avoid the locals rejecting you, in part.TheBigBean said:
Why does anyone need to integrate?rick_chasey said:I will turn it around.
How do you integrate without learning the local language?
Being part of society is a really important part of being human. It means you're less likely to do anti-social things, resent society etc etc.
There hasn't been the same proportional level like there has been in Netherlands and Belgium for example, but there are some places (notoriously molenbeek) where there are a material proportion of people who live there who never interact with anyone who was brought up in the area (beyond their own children). That creates resentment on both sides.
Seriously, why do you think people might be anti-immigration?0 -
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
0 -
To the extent this is true, educate the locals that people are free to live their lives as they choose, and this is a fundamental part of a liberal society.rick_chasey said:
So what is your solution to the problems lots of locals feel about lack of integration and the other social problems that often stem from that?TheBigBean said:
Yes, and I am clearly saying it is terrible idea.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
The example people usually give here is the NHS, but I suspect the problem is really not that big. Also, most immigrants without indefinite leave to remain are paying an NHS surcharge.rick_chasey said:
How do you try to limit the cost of immigration whilst retaining the advantages?
Do you think it is a failing of the EU that freedom of movement didn't come with compulsory language classes? At least in that case, you could probably have enforced it.0 -
You keep stretching the logic right there.TheBigBean said:
Not sure there is a full time Korean school. Most of the kids are bilingual. Also, I've never been to any of the Korean run places and found that they can't speak English.surrey_commuter said:
I admire your optimism that parts of the indigenous population don’t have issues with the “takeover” of New Malden.TheBigBean said:
I don't think there are any issues in New Malden or any where else in London. You are fairly close to victim blaming in your reasoning.rick_chasey said:
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
In the end, I think a lot of areas have embraced their multi-cultural set up.
And most people do learn the local language, so it really isn't an issue. It's just a strawman used by people who oppose immigration.
Finally, where there really seems to be a disconnect is whether you need to speak the local language to get citizenship (very common) or speak the local language to live there (very uncommon).
Interestingly to this debate they really don’t integrate as most are ex-pats so for instance want to keep their kids in the Korean education system, also very easy for wives to build a social life
In any case, do you think that Samsung should be prevented from a major investment in the UK, because the spouse of a key person with a work visa doesn't speak good enough English?0 -
If France has chosen to not police its borders within the EU I am not sure how that is the UKs problem.kingstongraham said:
You're the one who wants the fourth or fifth country to take all the responsibility.john80 said:
I would hazard a guess that most of them travelled overland across a number of other safe countries prior to get to France. Maybe take this one up with the EU master project.kingstongraham said:
How did they get to France?john80 said:
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...0 -
You think many of them started in an EU country?john80 said:
If France has chosen to not police its borders within the EU I am not sure how that is the UKs problem.kingstongraham said:
You're the one who wants the fourth or fifth country to take all the responsibility.john80 said:
I would hazard a guess that most of them travelled overland across a number of other safe countries prior to get to France. Maybe take this one up with the EU master project.kingstongraham said:
How did they get to France?john80 said:
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
0 -
Given everyone of the 14000 came from a safe country in France essentially everyone of those individuals is circumventing the legitimate immigration rules. For sure London could accommodate many times this but it should not be the aim. Should an Indian doctor be put at the back of the queue because he follows a process. The asylum system is being massively abused and instead of it being a choice born of necessity it is now a personal choice like shopping for a holiday destination.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?0 -
Are you sure that is not just a reason a lot give as even they know that "they look / sound different to us" will be seen as unacceptable?rick_chasey said:
So what is your solution to the problems lots of locals feel about lack of integration and the other social problems that often stem from that?TheBigBean said:
Yes, and I am clearly saying it is terrible idea.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
How do you try to limit the cost of immigration whilst retaining the advantages?0 -
Like a white water rafting adventure holiday?john80 said:
Given everyone of the 14000 came from a safe country in France essentially everyone of those individuals is circumventing the legitimate immigration rules. For sure London could accommodate many times this but it should not be the aim. Should an Indian doctor be put at the back of the queue because he follows a process. The asylum system is being massively abused and instead of it being a choice born of necessity it is now a personal choice like shopping for a holiday destination.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?0 -
Basically you want to build a wall of eastern and Southern European countries who will absorb where refugees typically come from and take advantage of Britain's island status?john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...0 -
There's an element of that.Pross said:
Are you sure that is not just a reason a lot give as even they know that "they look / sound different to us" will be seen as unacceptable?rick_chasey said:
So what is your solution to the problems lots of locals feel about lack of integration and the other social problems that often stem from that?TheBigBean said:
Yes, and I am clearly saying it is terrible idea.rick_chasey said:I'm being fairly clear that I think you should learn it to live there.
How do you try to limit the cost of immigration whilst retaining the advantages?
Part of it is informed when I get given the "hate EU immigrants" chat, which granted isn't all that often, but when it is I am seen as an exception "oh I don't mean people like you". I think part of it is a racial thing, but a lot of it isn't and it is an integration thing.
I think most people agree that proximity and interaction with people from different cultures reduces prejudices, but proximity without the interaction breeds resentment. It's not rocket science.1 -
I was making a point about why they would want to group together, so making life easier for ex-pat families.TheBigBean said:
Not sure there is a full time Korean school. Most of the kids are bilingual. Also, I've never been to any of the Korean run places and found that they can't speak English.surrey_commuter said:
I admire your optimism that parts of the indigenous population don’t have issues with the “takeover” of New Malden.TheBigBean said:
I don't think there are any issues in New Malden or any where else in London. You are fairly close to victim blaming in your reasoning.rick_chasey said:
So my theory is a lot of locals are mega anti immigration because of a genuine lack of integration between immigrant communities and the local communities.TheBigBean said:
Yes, exactly. Your need for them to learn languages and be spread all around the country rather than predominately live in one area. I just don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:
What problem?TheBigBean said:
No I don't because I don't see the problem.rick_chasey said:Yeah of course. If you have family then it makes sense to move in with them.
You get what I mean.
I think it is quite nice when you go to New Malden that many of the shops have bothered to have a sign made in Hangul, or that Waitrose pitches up at Korean festivals.
If a North Korean refugee makes it to the UK, I think your idea of telling them to go live in Cumbria is really terrible.
I think it causes lots of problems in the host country.
It's important to mitigate the costs of immigration and maximise the benefits. I think the obligation to learn the language does both.
I have not ever seen an argument that convinces me that making immigrants learn the local language is not mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
In the end, I think a lot of areas have embraced their multi-cultural set up.
And most people do learn the local language, so it really isn't an issue. It's just a strawman used by people who oppose immigration.
Finally, where there really seems to be a disconnect is whether you need to speak the local language to get citizenship (very common) or speak the local language to live there (very uncommon).
Interestingly to this debate they really don’t integrate as most are ex-pats so for instance want to keep their kids in the Korean education system, also very easy for wives to build a social life
In any case, do you think that Samsung should be prevented from a major investment in the UK, because the spouse of a key person with a work visa doesn't speak good enough English?
I have had trades people offer their sympathies for having a Korean neighbour. They seemed surprised when I said I would prefer the whole street to be Korean. Their kids did not go to the local schools so I assumed they had a Korean school so they kept up with the curriculum whilst on a 3 year posting0
