RedCelt69 wrote:My dismissal of utilitarianism was more of a philosophical stance than anything but no, there are more important things than the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. Take a look at any anti-utilitarian literature for the reasons why. But basically, utilitarianism and (for that matter) democracy are based on the principle that a lynch mob makes the better judgements. Every aspect of what we, in the "civilised" world describe as "rights" are put in place to protect the weak from the powerful, the few from the many - which is positively anti-democratic. And anti-utilitarian.
Utilitarianism =/= democracy =/= lynch mob mentality.
The reason lies in the difference between what people want and what they think they want. Under a true democracy, lynch mob mentality rules. Under a (idealised, utilitarian) representative democracy, elected representatives are chosen with a moral drive matching the people's. Everyone thinks they want a million pounds, but if you were to give people a million pounds, then some of them would be much less happy than they otherwise would be. The same can be applied to government policies such as immigration.
Well, yes, I jest. But there was also an element of truth in the humour. Our culture and national identity are short-lived (but inherited) traditions which have no real meaning other than "they've been like this for a while... or at least in my lifetime". Being anti-change isn't (in my opinion) a good way of judging what should and should not happen. Things always change. Change is good. Stagnation... not so good. We are a mongrel nation derived from imported people and ideas. I struggle to see why that is suddenly a bad thing.
I agree that a conservative, anti-change policy is detractive, but equally change for change's sake is not good either. We have the power to choose which changes to embrace, and we should use that power wisely. Identity is precious to many people, and one can't simply ignore that fact in the name of change. What is the drive behind Scottish Independence (let's not open that can of worms here) about if not national identity? Equally, one cannot talk about preserving from migration the culture, identity and practices of remote tribal people in the Amazon or New Guinea if we are to deny the same to ourselves.
Cultural and national identity are rather ephemeral, but the changes that occur aren't necessarily appreciated on a short timescale. Consider examples where Britons have migrated abroad and the effects they've had on their host cultures. When we "colonised" the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., we all but obliterated the native cultures through force of numbers. (Technology also helped, but consider how India fared with its much larger native population). These cultures still exist, but these are nations marred by cultural divisions that have come from uncontrolled migration, and migration without sympathy to the local culture. Like you said, the British Empire left its mark in a lot of places.
...immigration of Americans, New Zealanders and Australians... because their cultural influx wouldn't be so destructive because, well, they're quite like us. ... you picked out 3 countries from which a "returning ex-pat" community would be white. ... The British Empire left its mark in a lot of places around the world.
And continuing on this point, I picked these four countries simply because they are the largest sites of emigration from Britain. They are not some kind of definitive list. And of course a "returning ex-pat" community would be white: Britons, as a race, are! But to take your example of Hong Kong, let me introduce an acquaintance of mine. He was born to British parents in Hong Kong, and has Hong Kong identity (whatever the adjective is).
If some kind of limit has to be put on migration into the UK, who should have preference to move back? Should he, with all his family now living in the UK, or should someone with family in China who also happened to be born in Hong Kong? I would say he does, as his family are already here. Let us not confuse this with the very separate example of the Ghurkas, which brings me to your next point.
Well, yes, there are differences which make me uncomfortable (that have already been mentioned) but they are small when the numbers are taken into account. So is the problem (which you went on to broaden) to do with sheer numbers and the capacity to cope with mass immigration?
That's where I would share an element of concern. ... Basically, so long as the local resources aren't jeopardised, migration can be perfectly managed.
I would say yes. The problem is to do with the incapacity of local resources to deal with the sheer numbers of large-scale migration. As long as these are not jeopardised, migration can be managed. Resources can include teaching, healthcare and government administration, but also more intangable things like the willingness of indigenous populations (such as our own) to deal with the increased load put upon them.
The exact resources aside, my point is that migration is such a taboo subject at the moment that no-one is in a position to decide when these resources become strained. Who will decide if this point has come? Some people feel it has come already, and they are making their voice heard through the disturbing growth of very-right-wing parties. If we are to avoid such dangerous polarisation of society, this taboo must be lifted and free debate allowed to take place.
Let's return to the Poles as a reasonable example.
Rather than the open-door policy that was given to us by both the Tories and Labour, ... count them all in and count them all out, so that we actually know the figures rather than a wild guesstimate. ... If the government knew that n Poles were moving to a given town, they could provide that town with the resources to cope. Or, mad idea that it is, provide better-suited locations to the immigrants.
I agree: counting in and counting out is a good idea. Personally, I think this would be helpful and is the only "control" that is necessary for the moment. I also think that your proposed incentive of better locations, rather than caps on numbers, is preferable at this time.
The scale of the recent Polish immigration caused a bit of a hiccup in Britain. My experience has been that it has been a net gain for the country, but not everyone has that experience. I grew up near Inverness, where integration means coming to terms with the differences between Celtic and Rangers (or Cale and County), and where there was one black kid in a school of nearly 700 (though thankfully he was never singled out because of it). Take some statistics from the last few years:
- Approximately 5000 Poles settled in Inverness in the period between 2004 and about 2008, and 3000 in the first 17 months: this in a city with a population of 57,000.
- 55% of Poles in the area are working below their qualifications: partly due to a lack of jobs in the area, partly due to a lack of English language skills.
- Even local Polish groups are saying there aren't enough jobs for them, and that government calls for more foreign workers in the area are "irresponsible".
Would it not have been better if some of these people had been given an incentive to live in an area of the UK that could better cope with these sort of numbers? This influx has bred considerable concern and resentment among many Invernesians. There is a real risk of this turning into all-out hatred, and is purely a function of the speed and magnitude of migration of a single culture into an area which is not used to it.
Similar things have happened during every other previous incursion of this island. Integration is only a problem when you have one group of people hating another group of people. Which, I think we both agree, is a problem. But surely, getting to understand those who are different to us is a much better thing than the alternative?
As a footnote to all of this, Scotland's population has been relatively static ... this country is not full.
It would be much better to get people to understand each other, but that isn't going to happen overnight, and it isn't going to happen if a million people a minute arrive on our shores (or anyone else's for that matter). Integration takes time for both migrants and hosts, sometimes generations - as you point out. If we are to stop hatred and violence as a result of resentment, we need immigration to be controlled in times when the country and the feelings of its populations are strained.
Let's take those previous incursions. The Roman occupation of England, the Scots migration into Pictland, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Danelaw, the Norman Conquest, and all the others down through the ages. Each left its mark indelibly in the country's psyche. Each imposed its own laws, language and morals on an unwilling population. Sometimes it was by force, sometimes it was by sheer power of numbers. What if we were to look at the same scale of migration today?
Consider an extreme future where there are a billion climate change refugees in the world. We are told by the alarmists that this could happen soon. Many of these would be wanting to come to Britain, being a rich country speaking a popular language with slacker immigration laws than, say, the US (@jollytiddlywink take note). At a time when we would be coping with rehousing our own population, how would we cope with 60 million immigrants? Could we support them? What would that do to the country, its people and way of life? Do they have a right to come here? Do we have a right to stop them? Do we have an obligation to help them? Should we concentrate on our own problems?
I chose an extreme example to highlight the potential problems, but the same questions can be asked of migrations which are less-obviously damaging to the host countries. At what point should we say "we are full", or more likely "you are coming in too fast"? We currently have no framework on which to base this decision and act upon it. If it comes to this point, and we are not ready, we risk dangerous levels of violence, and in the worst case, all out civil warfare. If we are to avoid future conflict, we need established law that says, broadly: "if
(x) conditions are met, we can put
(y) controls in place to limit immigration". What
(x) and
(y) are is another debate, but I think it would be foolish to wait until policy must be driven by reactionary necessity rather than considered, timely thought.
...then again, that is only my opinion.