Epiphanies 2023: People Not Like Us
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
I am no angel, and fear to tread on the ground of Epiphanies, but some posts in Hell rather crossed the line...
I refer to the words of Robert Jenrick:
"Excessive uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion that marks out the British people,” Jenrick claimed. “And those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas undermining the cultural cohesiveness that binds diverse groups together and makes our proud multi-ethnic democracy so successful."
This gammon-flavoured garbage comes from a report in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/values-and-lifestyles-of-small-boat-refugees-threaten-social-cohesion-says-jenrick
What struck me most about this were the bits I've italicised, and today I read that Jenrick is supported by no less than our revered Home Secretary, Suella Braverman:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/26/suella-braverman-small-boat-arrivals-have-values-at-odds-with-our-country
So, not only are migrants different to *us*, but they are also far more likely to be criminals.
This, as someone said on the Hell thread, is surely akin to nazi rhetoric, and is open racism at best (IYSWIM).
I am sickened and appalled by the hatred shown by our elected representatives towards people in such dire circumstances. Surely, a multi-ethnic society should be welcoming differing ethnicities?
H&A advice was to put this subject here in Epiphanies, as many people will be directly affected by what is being said on a very emotive subject.
I refer to the words of Robert Jenrick:
"Excessive uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion that marks out the British people,” Jenrick claimed. “And those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas undermining the cultural cohesiveness that binds diverse groups together and makes our proud multi-ethnic democracy so successful."
This gammon-flavoured garbage comes from a report in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/values-and-lifestyles-of-small-boat-refugees-threaten-social-cohesion-says-jenrick
What struck me most about this were the bits I've italicised, and today I read that Jenrick is supported by no less than our revered Home Secretary, Suella Braverman:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/26/suella-braverman-small-boat-arrivals-have-values-at-odds-with-our-country
So, not only are migrants different to *us*, but they are also far more likely to be criminals.
This, as someone said on the Hell thread, is surely akin to nazi rhetoric, and is open racism at best (IYSWIM).
I am sickened and appalled by the hatred shown by our elected representatives towards people in such dire circumstances. Surely, a multi-ethnic society should be welcoming differing ethnicities?
H&A advice was to put this subject here in Epiphanies, as many people will be directly affected by what is being said on a very emotive subject.
Comments
So what Robert and Suella?
I could wish they would shed the faint veneer of inclusion-speak and just say 'We're pure-blooded white Anglo-Saxons* and we don't want anyone who isn't to come here** and we don't much care for the ones here already but can't think of a way to get rid of them***'
*who were incomers but a very long time ago, so it doesn't count, and anyway they were from Germany, which is Aryan
**unless they're very rich of course and/or donate to the Tory Party
***but we're trying - see Windrush.
Playing devil’s advocate a bit, though, I could point out that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all are relatively democratic societies, but are much more restrictive towards immigration, and much more unwilling to let immigrants fully be accepted as members of their societies, than most of the West. The reasons citizens of these places might give for why they are unenthusiastic about immigration would probably sound eerily similar to Tory language about cultural cohesiveness, social harmony, and maintaining tradition. Is this also racism?
I think North America, Western Europe, and Australasia have been so greatly characterized by migration for so long that it is disingenuous to talk about modern immigration patterns to these areas as some kind of new and dangerous disruption (although North America and Australasia have also been characterized by Indigenous Dispossession, and much of North America by the legacy of slavery, and Western Europe may not seem to have been a focus of immigration before the global imperialism of the 19th century, but that is ignoring the refugee flows within Europe from the religious and other wars of the 16th century onward). Still, taking East Asia into account, is argument against immigration in order to preserve social cohesion and traditional culture racist and wrong in every context?
(Resistance to immigration is part of the reason for the shrinking populations and difficulty taking care of the growing elderly population in Japan and South Korea (as well as in undemocratic mainland China), but that doesn’t make those societies’ reasons for resisting immigration invalid).
This 😢😢
Something similar (and just as disingenuous) is what the far-right parties in Northern Europe (Fennoscandia and the Netherlands) often say: that we need to keep foreign cultures out to protect women’s and LGB rights (these parties tend to be anti-trans, often using “feminism” to defend their transphobia). In France, the National Rally (formerly National Front) does not pretend as much to be gay-friendly but it does couch its Islamophobia in the language of purported feminism.
One step closer to the concentration camps...
But even if racism is prevalent in their societies, is it racist for them to be opposed to immigration?
I suppose it could be, depending on which group(s) the opposition was directed towards. I'm not sure if a general blanket opposition to all immigration would be racist, or something else...misanthropic?
It would certainly surprise me if Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman, and Priti Patel started saying “whites only”.
Xenophobic, basically. Though the Ainu people of Japan have been subject to specific prejudice for a long time.
It violates international law. Specifically the 1951 UN Refugee Convention set up to prevent the a repeat of the situation Jews faced fleeing Nazi Germany.
Exactly. Not that violating international law worries this government...
Yes - xenophobic was the word at the tip of my finger! Thanks.
Well, it's a parallel with today, isn't it? I mean, Jews were turned away by many countries. This is still argued about today, e.g., the Swiss are still debating how many they turned away. Of course, the refugees probably didn't share our values.
Well it worked for the Brexit referendum.
Japan cannot afford to oppose immigration too much longer because its population is aging rapidly and its birth rate is not good.
Well done, @BroJames !
Yes.
Yes.
You might have something here.
Following the implosion of the tories at the next GE (yes, yes, I know - be careful what you wish for!), there may well emerge a new and extremely unpleasant *official* party, with Jenrick, Braverman, Farage, and others, as its leaders...
Yes, the irony writes itself.
I almost wish we were led by Donkeys - sagacious, hardworking, intelligent animals, if a trifle wilful now and then.
(BTW, hearing or reading the name Jenrick always reminds me of Pilchards. English Shipmates of A Certain Age will know what I mean:
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254863672)
The only difference is that rather than attributing it to anonymous people they know (Powell) or 'very reasonable concerns' (Thatcher through to May), they are embracing it it wholeheartedly as part of their own guiding ideals.
Reminds me of Frankie Boyle's observation that 'Brexit was voted for by people who wanted to stop immigrants from Pakistan'.
Candace Owen perhaps.
If Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are not good examples, then maybe I should ask more hypothetically - if a non-Western country wanted to preserve its traditional culture and social cohesion by restricting non-refugee immigration (since the treaties governing the rights of refugees are a separate issue), would it be wrong and/or racist for it to do so?
Within Africa, there have been large flows of migrants both within countries and across borders. South Africa has seen many immigrants from other parts of Africa come there for work. There have been some rather ugly examples of xenophobia from parts of the South African black majority towards immigrants from other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. I know South Africa has a complex, to say the least, history of racism and race relations, so let's talk about a fictional country.
What if in the not-too-distant future there was a Sub-Saharan African country that became economically developed and technologically advanced to the point that people want to immigrate there not only from other parts of Africa, but from around the world (this probably will happen within the next century or so). I am tempted to raise the possibility of a "real-world Wakanda" but I don't want people to think I'm being facetious by referring to comic books. What if this country were geographically small with limited natural resources (despite its booming economy) and also had rich and complex local cultures that had managed to survive centuries of imperialism and neo-imperialism on the continent and that its leaders wanted to preserve? If this country took a restrictive attitude towards non-refugee immigration, would that necessarily be morally wrong and/or racist?
Yes, that's her.
Also, Africa as a continent is far more Western than Asia is - as in, it's literally further West. Is your focus on racial demographics, Global North/Global South status, etc?
Australia and New Zealand are in the global south but people usually group them in the Global North. Latin America is usually considered part of the West, but also part of the South, which puts it in a category of its own. Sub-Saharan Africa, at least from what I have heard and read, is considered part of the global South but not strictly Eastern or Western. These are arbitrary classifications that do not really correspond to actual geography, and they are largely imposed on the rest of the world be Europeans or by the literal or cultural descendants of Europeans. So I don't really know how to answer your question.
Since analogy and hypotheticals seem to getting nowhere, I would ask is there any argument for restricting non-refugee immigration, in your country or any other, that is not morally wrong or racist?
Hi Stonespring,
This board seeks an emphasis on reflecting 'own voice' perspectives - so if you want to know whether people in a country or migrating to a country find it racist or think its immigration laws are unjust then you need to seek out their views. Their perspective would be important.
But please could everyone avoid 'devil's advocate' style debating on a sensitive topic like this or making up hypothetical situations where acting against migrating people might somehow be justified.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I moved between countries repeatedly as a child, but I have been fortunate in never having to leave for safety reasons. (Though at one point I could not be with my parents because it was considered too dangerous for us to go out there.)
Good point. To what extent (if any) do Jenrick, Braverman, and the rest, recognise any such distinction?
They seem to want to build a Big, Beautiful Wall, so to speak, to keep anyone and everyone out, despite the patent lunacy of such a position.
Thinking of which, I resort to hidden text, in case of offence, although I am merely (?) paraphrasing an old saying:
This.
Not exactly rocket science, but seemingly beyond the grasp of the spivs and gobshites.
I frequently pass by a couple of *Hand Car Wash* establishments - the sort of place notorious for using slave labour - and I'm torn between patronising one of them (my poor car sadly needs valeting!) and leaving well alone, so as not to be an accessory to the trafficking...
Understood. So I will talk as best as I can from experience and the experience of those I have encountered.
My father came to the US to escape political persecution in his home country. I have not heard one story from the people I know who have come to this country seeking to escape oppression and violence that I would not regard as a valid reason to be granted asylum. My husband is also an immigrant, and it’s a bit absurd how hard it is for someone as skilled as he is to immigrate here permanently when there is a shortage of skilled labor (and labor in general) here (and he had a much easier time than most). On the whole, all the immigrants I have met, whether they came here as refugees, for work, or to join family, are highly appreciative of this country’s freedoms and opportunities, want themselves and their children to work hard to succeed here, and do not want to be a burden on society. I strongly support increased admission of refugees and increased other pathways to legal immigration to the US, especially work visas, and I support a path to citizenship for undocumented people already here.
I guess part of the reason for the questions I asked was that I worry that my pro-immigration stance for here and for other countries I have had a chance to get to know along with their people, like Australia and parts of Western Europe, might not work for other countries with histories and cultures that are very different than that of my own country. Western Europe, North America, and Australia are also themselves all quite different from each other, as shipmates can surely attest! I just personally want to avoid committing cultural imperialism by assuming that what is a just migration policy for my country would also be just in a country with a very different culture and history.
I've often wondered about this, and nobody so far has ever given me a straight answer. The other thing is that "they are eroding our culture and traditions", but nobody seems able to give me an example. Are they failing to take up Morris dancing, perhaps? Treating vegetables with respect instead of brutally boiling them to a paste? Not wearing socks with sandals? Perhaps somebody here could enlighten me.
[Just hanging around at the back looking lost]
I remember working in the South and trying to explain what Whit Walks were. People looked at me as if I had arrived from another planet. And that's just within England.
I think a lot of this springs from an attitude many people have - at bottom, they would prefer to live in 1958. Or rather, the idealised version of 1958 that they have in their heads.
See also, using "gotten" as a word.